2001-10-24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 24, 2001
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ROBERT MC NALLY
CHARLES ABBATE
NORMAN HIMES
ALLAN BRYANT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2001 TYPE II DAVID AND JANE HOPPER AGENT:
PROFESSIONAL BUILDING SYSTEMS PROPERTY OWNER: DAVID AND JANE
HOPPER ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 35 HANNAFORD ROAD APPLICANT ASKS
THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR RECONSIDERATION OF VARIANCE
REQUEST AND FOR A RE-VOTE. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH
EXISTING STRUCTURE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW SINGLE FAMILY
DWELLING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS TO ALLOW
A 30 FT. TALL HOME. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 9/12/2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 19-1-8 NEW TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-14
LOT SIZE: 0.43 ACRES SECTION: 179-16
STEVE NACUA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JANE HOPPER, PRESENT
MR. HAYES-Welcome back.
MRS. HOPPER-Good evening, gentlemen. This is my 37 wedding anniversary and I’m spending it
th
with you.
MR. NACUA-My name is Steve Nacua. I’m representing Jane Hopper. We’re the designers of their
residence, and my address is 6 Fairview Lane, Hudson Falls. I have some material here that I
understand that you were not privy to, prior to Mrs. Hopper’s attendance here. May I approach you?
MR. HAYES-Absolutely, please do.
MR. NACUA-These are building plans.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll pass these down. I guess, sir, for the Board’s sake, if you could point out
anything that is different than previous applications, it would really be a great help, so we can
understand the differences.
MR. NACUA-Yes. What we did, Jane came back to us and expressed her concerns that some of the
criteria, as far as variances, was not met, and what we did was, if you look at the plans, the original
plans indicated that we had a wraparound deck on three sides of her house, being the right to the left,
and the front side, and to meet the condition of the setback, we eliminated the deck which is closest
to Mr. Harris’ property, and I believe that the site plan will indicate that we do meet the minimum
setback, which is 20 feet.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Yes. Well, I guess, I don’t want to speak for the whole Board, but our primary
concern was the height of the house, from the last two meetings.
MR. NACUA-I understand. Could I give you some historic information from what we did?
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. NACUA-The initial design concept was based on having full view of the lake from Mrs.
Hopper’s property, and thereby being that, that’s why we had such an elaborate front wall on her
house, and when we proceeded with the design, if you look at the elevations, you can see that the
elevations on all three sides of her property, meaning the back, the right and the left side, meet the
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
minimum height criteria, and the front side, which is fronting the lake, has a rather abrupt slope, and
it goes down very abruptly to Pilot Knob Road, and so that’s how we designed the house, based on
all three sides meeting the minimum criteria, and all three sides of the house abut someone’s
property, which meet the minimum criteria, but the side that fronts the lake has no property that this
house can obstruct. So that’s how this project came about, and also the other thing that we added
was we added, prior to the last meeting that Mrs. Hopper came to, we added a retaining wall which
projected three feet out from the foundation wall, assuming that that was sufficient to bring the
grade up to 30 feet, I believe, and I believe that’s two feet higher than the minimum requirement
from the Code.
MR. HAYES-The maximum.
MR. NACUA-The maximum, rather. I’m sorry. So, I guess what we’re saying is, does that three feet
meet the minimum requirement that the Board will allow to raise the grade up, or does it have to be
extended further out?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think, you know, in summary of the last two meetings, I think it’s the feeling of
the Board that the view from the lakeside might be the most important height.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. HAYES-Sure.
MR. BRYANT-To cut to the chase, I think the discussion revolved around the suggestion that if you
change the slope of the roof, that you could reduce the height by two feet and still achieve the same
view. It wouldn’t affect the view. The deck would still be the same height, and I think that’s
primarily why you’re here, to explain to us why that’s not a possibility, because that’s the suggestion
that we had made at the last meeting, what is the problem with that?
MR. NACUA-The problem that we can encounter with lowering the pitch of the roof, there’s two
pitches. There’s a front half and a back half, and I believe the back half meets the minimum
requirement, and I was assuming that the front, the side which is the front of the house was the part
of the house that was at issue. Am I correct?
MR. MC NALLY-The side fronting the lake.
MR. NACUA-Yes. Now, there were two things that were suggested, I believe, was to either raise the
grade, by virtue of bringing fill in, or lowering the roof. Lowering the roof would impact the view
that Mrs. Hopper would have, if you look at the plans, there’s a balcony inside of her, in the house
on the second level.
MR. BRYANT-We’re not saying lowering the roof. We were saying leave the balcony where it is,
and adjust the pitch so that the roof, the front portion of the roof, would come down, to meet the
requirement.
MR. MC NULTY-But what I think he was just saying is it’s also a balcony inside the house. Not the
one on the outside.
MR. NACUA-Inside, not the outside deck. I’m talking inside.
MR. BRYANT-You’re talking about that circular window?
MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s a balcony upstairs that looks out that window.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but that should clear the view anyway. That should.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you change the pitch of the roof, it would still.
MR. BRYANT-If you change the pitch of the roof.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Like this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, how does that affect the balcony?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It doesn’t.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. BRYANT-That’s the point.
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t know. Where’s the sheet the shows the balcony inside? It doesn’t affect
this.
MR. BRYANT-No, but it doesn’t affect this either. Because in reality, by changing this pitch here
slightly, and it can be done because obviously the other roof is at a smaller pitch. It still doesn’t
change the view in any location from a circular balcony or from the external.
MR. NACUA-I’m sorry, sir. I don’t know which pitch you’re, are you talking about the front side
changing the pitch?
MR. HAYES-Yes, that’s what he’s talking about.
MR. NACUA-Thereby raising the outside walls higher?
MR. HAYES-No, changing the pitch of the roof from a.
MR. NACUA-Lowering the roof, lowering the ridge of the roof.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. MC NALLY-Their only concern, I think, was the peak. If you could change the pitch, if it
meant raising the side walls, you would achieve the effect.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you were going to lower your pitch down, like say you were going to drop it
two feet, I don’t know if you’d go to a seven/twelve from a ten/twelve, or an eight/ten.
MR. MC NULTY-Leave that there and just bring the peak down.
MR. NACUA-If we brought this peak down, we would achieve a less than 5/12, which is
recommended that we don’t go below 5/12 (lost words) shed. So that would change the concept of
the house.
MR. BRYANT-We’re not talking about that. I don’t think that we’re talking about that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But you would probably have to drop to a shorter, you know, somewhat
shorter wall.
MR. BRYANT-I think we’re talking about this portion of the roof. This is the portion of the roof
that has the effect of the height differential. This is the back portion of the house.
MR. HAYES-That’s in compliance anyway.
MR. BRYANT-Which is in compliance. Okay. So if you change this pitch, you’re not going below
5/12. You’re going to just change this sufficiently enough to still meet the 28 foot height. That’s not
going to affect this deck or this area.
MR. NACUA-If we, because this is like a, if we drop this here, we’d create a gable here. There by
we’d have to drop these down.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Because these beams go all the way through to the other?
MR. NACUA-These go all the way through to the balcony. So we’d create a great gabled (lost word),
and then what would impact, what would happen there is these beams would drop down because
you’re bending the roof down like this, thereby making this wall smaller. Then we’d have to recreate
this wall. Because this would have to be shrunk down.
MR. BRYANT-I think it’s actually the opposite. If you change the pitch here, you would raise this
slightly, reduce this slightly, and the beams would basically, the beams would basically be higher up,
as opposed to.
MR. NACUA-What you’re telling me, you want, this could be raised up?
MR. BRYANT-This could be raised, and this could be lowered to a different pitch, still to achieve
this gabled effect. I’m not an architect so I can’t tell you what the pitch of the roof, but I’m just
assuming it doesn’t take much to make up that two feet.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. NACUA-It would add great expense for her to raise the wall up, it would add to the design.
MR. BRYANT-It would add great expense for her also if the variance is not approved. So all I’m
saying is the expense is actually minimal. You’re only talking about a couple of feet of wall in
construction. You’re not talking about a major expense. That was our question.
MR. NACUA-I understand what you’re saying.
MR. BRYANT-That was our question, and we wanted to point out the last time that from any of
her locations, this was not going to affect her view whatsoever. She was concerned about the view,
and we wanted her to achieve that and still comply with the Zoning Ordinance.
MRS. HOPPER-If we do what the Board suggests, these beams stay where they are. This front stays
as it is? Correct?
MR. NACUA-Well, these beams would have to be, it would change the elevation of this, as going
higher. So everything would be raised up, because this wall would come up to a 10 foot wall instead
of a nine foot wall, and then this would drop, what would be the minimum, the 28 feet?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Probably a nine/twelve would probably lower you a foot and a half, I’m
guessing.
MRS. HOPPER-What kind of expense is this?
MR. NACUA-I’d have to look at what (lost words).
MR. BRYANT-See, that does not affect the view, the suggestion, really.
MR. NACUA-But the suggestion was to lower this, but not to raise the wall.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t think there’s any objection to raising the wall. That doesn’t have
anything to do with our Board, really. The only thing that we’re concerned about is the overall
height, and if you lower this, and even if you have to raise this and change this pitch, to nine/twelve,
or like Jim says, yes, you add a foot over here on both sides, but you also then comply, and there’s no
discussion.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions from the Board members? Do you have any other
questions, Chuck? I just want to make sure we get it on the record. Does anyone have any further
questions for the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I just want to get something clear in my mind, if you’ll be patience with me,
please. Correct me if I’m wrong. I was under the impression that Mrs. Hopper’s case was predicated
on two points, one, she wanted the deck where it was because unless the deck was where it was
proposed, is proposed, she would then have to view telephone lines, and I understood that, and I
agreed with her, and I have no problems with the deck. So we have now resolved 50% of the
problem. You can have the deck where it’s at. That’s not a problem. The second point that she was
making was that lowering the roof 30 feet to 28 feet was either not possible, and/or would distort
the architectural appeal. Now, please tell me where I’m wrong.
MRS. HOPPER-I guess the best way I can describe it, gentlemen, is, if you walk into a room and the
ceilings are eight feet high, you have one look. If you walk in a room with 10 foot ceilings, it’s
another look. I’ve spent years looking at post and beam homes. This particular house was the
conglomeration of probably 10 years worth or research, work, being in various rooms, various
heights, to achieve the overall look of a retirement home. Granted, if it can be done and it can lower
ceilings, I suppose it’s not a huge deal to everybody here, but it is to me. I like the look of a post and
beam home with high ceilings. I did not think that two foot was an unreasonable thing to ask of this
Board. I understood your conditions and your concerns, and I would be probably in less favor, I
thought, with the Board if there was someone behind me that I would probably obstruct their view
because my house was just two foot higher. There is no one behind me but me. I sit behind me.
The land behind that is forever wild. Nobody’s ever going to be behind my house. So I did not
think that this two foot was a huge concern because I wasn’t affecting anybody, and on both sides I
would not be higher than they are because they would still be higher than this house. So I’m not
trying to equal their level. I’m just trying to get a home that I want to live in.
MR. ABBATE-You know what, I agree with everything you’re saying, but it would seem to me that
logic would dictate that prior to these plans being drawn up by the architect, that the zoning rules
and regulations should have been consulted, and perhaps avoiding all the complications that we have
now.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. NACUA-But excuse me, sir. We did take into consideration the 28 feet. If you look at the side
and the back elevation, if you measure the distance from the ground to the peak of the roof, we are
within the limitation of the 28 feet. It’s just the front side which faces the lake that does not meet the
28 feet because of the slope.
MR. BRYANT-To respond to what Mrs. Hopper was saying, your house is still going to be the same
height. Nothing is going to really change as far as the overall height from the back view. I mean,
there’s really not going to be any difference.
MRS. HOPPER-From inside the great room, sir, there will be a difference.
MR. BRYANT-Well, the side walls are going to be higher.
MR. NACUA-To meet those conditions, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, to meet those conditions, the side wall will be higher. You’re still going to have
the great room.
MRS. HOPPER-Not being a builder, I’ll ask.
MR. NACUA-What it would affect is their view from their interior balcony out, looking out through
their half round windows, because you would lower the roof, thereby leaving the back roof up where
it is, you’ve created a sort of a gable dropping those two beams, well, raising those two beams, but
you’d still have to be creating sort of a gable. So from the interior look, looking out toward the lake,
you’d see sort of a short wall, which is above.
MR. BRYANT-Well, actually, the window itself would not be affected.
MR. NACUA-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So I’m not understanding.
MR. NACUA-But then you are looking out toward the lake, from inside the balcony which you’re
affecting. It would not achieve the architecture that they are trying to get from the interior.
MR. ABBATE-I had one more question, if I may. Were you, sir, aware of the Zoning Ordinances in
the Town of Queensbury, which mandated a maximum of 28 feet, prior to drawing up these plans?
MR. NACUA-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one question, I guess, for Craig. Is there any limit on the height of
retaining walls? In other words, they’ve got a three foot retaining wall planned now, to gain a couple
of the feet that they had originally asked for. Is there anything that would prevent them from putting
in a five foot retaining wall?
MR. BROWN-I don’t believe there is. There’s a section in the soil erosion and control standards
that talks about six foot cuts and fills, but I don’t think that’s going to apply in this case.
MR. MC NULTY-That would be a solution that they could employ. We might not like it, because
then you would still have the big height there, but, should they want to, they could put in a five foot
retaining wall, and then they would meet the 28 foot requirement without changing the house.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, that’s all true, and I think we should accommodate as many folks as
we possibly can and still maintain some of the great integrity in the Town of Queensbury, but the
bottom line is that this difficulty is self created.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. MC NALLY-Just so I understand, on Sheet Eight of your drawings, that shows the floor of the
loft area?
MR. NACUA-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And is that the one that says ¾” T and G Ply Sub-Floor glue to nail? Is that the
level of the height that’s shown on this drawing?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. NACUA-That is the second level, yes.
MR. MC NALLY-And that person standing on that level is supposed to look out over this curved
window and see the lake?
MR. NACUA-Not from that area. It’s because further back, if you see the dotted line, it’s the dotted
pitch?
MR. MC NALLY-I do.
MR. NACUA-That’s in the foreground.
MR. MC NALLY-Yes. I understand that. I’m just trying to figure out where a person would be
standing, looking out the window, and you’re saying that would be the floor that they would be
standing on, that says, nothing higher than that. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Anyone
that wishes to speak in favor of this application, please step forward. Anyone opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-I don’t see anything new.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Let’s talk about it, gentlemen. I’ll start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the first time we voted on this, Roy and I voted that, we talked
that the compromise, going from 35 down to 32, was a reasonable compromise, and that we
approved it, and I think that the fact that you’ve dropped it down to 30, I mean, it’s still two feet of
relief requested here, and I still don’t understand why you haven’t been able to compromise and
maybe change the pitch of the roof slightly. I mean, I think if you went to a 9/12 from the 10/12
pitch, it would get you down to what you needed, but, barring that fact, I’m probably going to vote,
again, to approve what you requested.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I was under the impression that the architect would be here tonight and tell us why
this was not possible, but I think he’s confirmed that, yes, it is possible. Looking at your elevation on
Page Eight, where would you stand to look out that circular window?
MR. NACUA-If you, the gentleman showed you, indicated a Sheet Eight.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, in the dining room area.
MR. NACUA-It’s the second level where you’d be looking out that window, which showed the loft
area.
MR. BRYANT-Where the loft is?
MR. NACUA-Yes, and if you see the dotted, there’s a dotted line in the foreground. The dotted line
implies the pitch of the roof in the foreground, which is toward the lake.
MR. BRYANT-My personal view is that I don’t see any reason why that alteration can’t be made and
we could end this discussion.
MR. HAYES-So that’s a no?
MR. BRYANT-That’s a no.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m struggling between fairness to the applicant, I
really am, and maintaining some of the great integrity of our Zoning Ordinances, and I’m willing just
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
to leave it at that and listen to what my other Board members have to say, and perhaps, based on the
information that they present, will swing my vote one way or another. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I, too, feel some sentiment from the applicant’s position. I would like
to do something to make somebody happy, maybe let them accomplish something that they’ve been
wanting to do for a long time. However, on the other hand, I look at it from the standpoint of my
responsibility here. What is it that the Ordinance is doing to hurt you, other than impair your
personal desire for something that’s just so, dimensionally? I would think that in order for me to
support the application, I would want to see some real substantive impairment to being able to live
adequately, in a residence for some use or another. However, as Chuck said earlier, this is self
created. You designed something that you, personally, want for aesthetic reasons, and the Code is
saying no, and because it’s mainly for aesthetic reasons, rather than something a little more
substantive, I don’t feel that I can vote in favor of your application, as much as I’d like to.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I look at the five factors that we’re required to look at, as the Zoning Board. The
first factor is the benefit to the applicant, and that would clearly weigh in favor of Mrs. Hopper. To
have a deck, both internal and external, that overlooks the lake, with a large expanse of glass on the
lakeside is certainly something that I think most lakefront property owners or people close to the
lake, would like to have. The second factor we look at is the feasible alternatives, and I’ve thought
about this for the last several meetings. This is the third time you’ve been here, and to be perfectly
honest with you, I do think that there are feasible alternatives, in that with a slight modification of
the roof pitch and side walls, I believe that you can achieve the view both from the internal deck and
the external deck, and still have that half moon glass window above those set of French doors on the
external deck level. The third factor is whether the relief is substantial to the Ordinance, and from
my perspective, at least. I know I’ve been very strict with lakefront property. The issues of how
much glass to have on the lakeshore side and how high to have the lakeshore elevation is something
that people are always trying to expand on, and I think that the relief is substantial relative to the
Ordinance, simply because this property is located on an elevated cliff. It’s essentially at the edge of
a cliff on Hannaford Road. So not only do we have a relatively tall building, above the Town’s
maximum height, but it’s also on top of a cliff. So it’s certainly going to be visible. The fourth factor
is the effect on the neighborhood or community, and if you look at the Koenig property, a couple of
doors down, they’ve stripped that front of the house of all the trees and it is at 28 feet, and the
thing’s a monstrosity at the edge of the cliff. So I do think that there are going to be some effects on
the neighborhood or community. Perhaps a neighbor behind you won’t be obstructed, but your
home is going to be very visible from the lakefront or it could be very visible from the lakefront side.
There’d be excessive glass and excessive height, and the last factor is whether the difficulty is self
created, and again, we’re willing to accommodate, at least I am, applicants where I can really make
sense of a reason why they need an extra tall building, and in this case I don’t see the necessity for it.
I do think that the effect can be achieved under the existing Code. So I find it to be a choice of the
applicant, in selecting a home of this height. On balance, I think four of the five factors weigh
against you. So I’m going to have to be against this application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-I’ve kind of looked at the same things that Bob has, but I come to a different
conclusion. It doesn’t strike me that allowing this is going to change the neighborhood. As has been
pointed out, there’s already homes with similar heights and exposure there. As the applicant’s
pointed out, I don’t believe the peak of her proposed house is going to be higher than the adjoining
houses because her property sits in kind of a dip. The one thing that will be different is there’ll be
more front wall or facial exposure, if you will, because there’s going to be more height from ground
level to peak of the roof. I guess I combine that with a couple of factors. I don’t like to fool around
with the architecture that somebody else has designed. As some other members have pointed out,
we’re not architects, and based on the question I asked earlier, it strikes me that if they really wanted
to build this house and meet our Ordinance, they could by putting up a five foot retaining wall in
front. Then they would have 28 feet from ground level to peak of the house. That doesn’t change
the facial exposure to the lake at all. It’s just that five feet of it, now, is stone wall or cement wall or
brick wall or something instead of a wooden house, and I guess when I evaluate the entire thing, if
we could start over on that road and not allow some of the other homes, that would be one thing,
but what we’ve got there now, I think what is proposed is going to be consistent with what is there,
and I know we’ve allowed two feet on variances before on height in certain instances, different
circumstances, but we have allowed height variances. So I’m going to be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, I think it’s a very narrow decision. That’s probably why you’re back
for your third time, and I think the Board has pointed out a number of important concerns.
Obviously, height variances on the lake, they’re more critical than they are in other circumstances
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
because the exposure gets magnified, particularly on top of a cliff. Other members have pointed out
that, obviously, the benefit to you is certainly because you want this house the way you want it, and
that’s understandable, but I think in this particular circumstance, I think Chuck is right. I think,
originally I voted against this application because you were at 35 feet, and kind of wanted to split the
difference, and I’m not in favor of that type of approach, as far as dimensional relief, because I think
it’s a dangerous game and encourages applicants to start high and end up in the middle, which is still
high, but in this particular case, two feet of relief on a 28 foot requirement is less than 10% relief, on
a mathematical basis, and I don’t think that’s a lot. I also agree with Chuck that in this particular
circumstances that, if there were no other houses that were high on that cliff, or look high from that
cliff, we’d be creating something that would certainly stick out and possibly be a detriment to the
neighborhood in that circumstance, but I’m not sure that this one house will do that, at this particular
time. Feasible alternatives I think are a little bit limited based on the topography of the land, the fact
that it diminishes quickly in the front of this house, and I agree with Chuck as well that I would not
want to create a fiction by having you build a five foot retaining wall, which would kind of
conveniently wash away over time, in this particular circumstance. So, having thought about this a
great deal, I think that two feet is minimal relief, less than 10% of relief is minimal relief in my mind,
and I’m not sure, I do believe firmly that your deck view would not be impacted by changing the
height, but I’m not sure about that second level, whether that would create some kind of tunnel
effect by turning that more into a gable than you would like. So I guess I would be in favor of a
motion that has a small amount of relief, and I will leave it at that. I think that granting small
amounts of relief, in a compromised form, is acceptable to me, but, now as I see that, that leaves us
directly divided, three for, three against, and one on the fence. So we will resolve this tonight. I can
assure you of that, for sure, one way or another, but we’ll have to do it through motion form. So,
would anyone like to make a motion, for? Against?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2001 DAVID AND JANE HOPPER,
Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
35 Hanneford Road. The applicant’s proposing the construction of a 2,074 square foot, 30 foot tall,
single family home, and the applicant has revised their original application for relief, so that now they
are requesting two feet of relief from the 28 foot maximum allowable height requirement for the
WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Previously, five feet of relief was requested. In considering this
application, we consider the benefit to the applicant, and obviously the applicant would be permitted
to construct the desired home in the preferred configuration and with the preferred architecture.
Feasible alternatives do include changing the design of the home to lower the roof and meet the
requirement. Considering whether the relief is substantial to the Ordinance, two feet of relief from
the twenty-eight foot requirement I believe could be interpreted as minimal, in that it is less than
10% increase, and, considered along with the next factor, effects on the neighborhood or
community, considering the existing homes in the immediate area, and the topography of this
particular lot, this home is not going to be any higher, in relation to, say lake level, than the adjoining
homes. So, on that basis, I think the relief can be called minimal. Is the difficulty self-created? Yes,
the difficulty is self-created, as this is proposed new construction, and could have been designed
differently, but again, it more or less matches the kind of homes that are in the immediate
neighborhood. So I think that kind of mitigates that a little bit. For those reasons, I move that we
approve this variance.
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-That’s four votes to three against, so at this time I would request a negative motion to
deny the variance.
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2001 DAVID AND JANE HOPPER,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
35 Hanneford Road. The applicant has requested two feet of relief from the twenty-eight foot
maximum allowable height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16. Previously, five foot of
relief was requested. I move that this application be disapproved, because it is my strong opinion
that there is a reasonable solution to this problem, but the applicant simply doesn’t want to address
the reasonable solution, and it gives me the impression that it is either all or nothing, and based upon
that, I recommend this application be disapproved.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes
NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The application is denied.
MR. NACUA-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2001 TYPE II ELIZABETH O’CONNOR LITTLE AGENT:
VAN DUSEN AND STEVES PROPERTY OWNER: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 73
FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE-CAR
GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL
AS THE FLOOR AREA RATIO REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR-1A ZONE. CROSS
REF. SPR 39-2001 OLD TAX MAP NO. 41-1-33.2 NEW TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-14 LOT
SIZE: 0.21 ACRES SECTION: 179-16
MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-2001, Elizabeth O’Connor Little, Meeting Date: October
24, 2001 “Project Location: 73 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 384 sf one car detached garage. Relief Required: Applicant requests 4
feet of relief from the 12 foot rear setback requirements and relief to develop a Floor Area Ratio of
29% where 22% is allowable. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter
267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the
desired garage in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Alternatives may include
centering the garage to a compliant location within the setback requirements. 3. Is this relief
substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 4 feet of relief may be interpreted as minimal to moderate,
relative to the ordinance. (33%) 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Moderate
effects may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self created? The difficulty
may be interpreted as self created, as there appear to be areas available for more compliant
construction. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 68-2001 res. 9/19/01
300 sf deck SPR 39-2001 res. 9/25/01 300 sf deck BP 2001-759 issued 10/9/1 300 sf deck Staff
comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. Although
there appear to be areas available for more compliant construction, the proposed location appears to
work best for the site. Has the formal, written right of way/easement to O’Connor and Barton, to
the north, been modified to describe the actual travel way?….Should this be given consideration
when contemplating construction within the deeded right of way? SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-And we don’t have a County.
MR. HAYES-No County with this application? Okay. Thank you. Mr. O’Connor.
MR. O'CONNOR-Mr. Chairman, gentlemen, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of Little &
O’Connor, and I’m representing Elizabeth O’Connor Little. My apologies that she is not here again
tonight. They are in session tonight. So she has left me here. The application before you I think is a
modest application. It’s an application for a single car garage, 16 foot by 24 foot, and if you grant the
application, it will allow her to have a garage on the property which is now her year round home.
Basically, if you try to find feasible alternatives, I don’t think you will find them on the site. We,
initially, were talking about building an attached garage to the back of the house which would take
care of part of the variance, as to the setback. We would then not need a setback variance, but if we
did that, we would disrupt the existing septic system and have to totally replace it, and they played
with making the garage narrower. They played with doing all kinds of things, and it just didn’t work.
There is no real alternative to the Floor Area Ratio change, and that’s the second part of the variance.
Basically, there is not an enclosed garage on this property. There’s no portion of the house that is
easily converted to a garage. This basically is a two story house without a basement. The first floor,
or probably 70% of the first floor, is livable space. It has a separate kitchen and has been used as a
separate sleeping area and what not, and has a front porch on it. The second floor is, I think, two
bedrooms, a kitchen, living area, and it’s directly over the other. The portion that’s not part of that
living area on the bottom is their utility room. They have a furnace and they house the pump and
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
what not. You’d have to come in and go around the side to get to a part of the bottom area if you
were going to try and convert that into a garage, and because of the change in grade, I don’t think
you’d be able to do it unless you drove all the way around to the front, and then you’ve got a wall
that says that you can’t do it there. So there are really no alternatives, or reasonable, practical
alternatives to the location of the garage, or the difference in Floor Area Ratio that we’re asking
permission for. I don’t think either request is substantial. There really is no effect upon the
neighborhood. There’s no effect upon the community. If you look at the topographical features of
the lot, and the existence of the existing house that’s there, you’re not going to see this garage, I don’t
think, from the lake. There might be a sliver of a point, if you’re going by, between the two houses
that are there. You might see up behind the house. So it’s not going to affect the density of the
development or the appearance of density of development from the lakeside. On the back of the
area where we’re asking for relief from the back side line, it drops off substantially past the property
line, goes down into an undeveloped area. It’s a lot, if you look at the tax map, that’s owned by Mr.
Gardner. I don’t think it’s a lot that’s going to be divided or likely to have any other development on
it than what presently is on there. Their house is way up on the lakeside of the lot, not on this back
part. So I don’t think it has any effect on the community. As to Staff comments, is the relief self
created? Yes, the relief is self created, probably in the sense that when the house was built in the
early 60’s, no garage was built with it, and at that time it really wasn’t a year round house, or wasn’t
utilized as a year round house. The road system coming into the lake wasn’t as good as it is now.
Most of the properties on the lake have turned into year round homes or year round use, since we’ve
had better maintenance of the roads, better surfacing of the roads, better plowing, and change of
circumstances. So, in part it’s self created. In part it’s not self created. We have a lot that was
created prior to zoning, and we have construction that was created prior to zoning, and what we’re
trying to do is adopt to it. As to Staff comments, as to the right of way, I think they’re correct in the
fact that there is no formal right of way or easement modification, if you will, and one of the parties
that he’s referring to there is myself. I am the O’Connor that has the right of way across this
property, but curiously, if you look at a 1969 map, you will see that the right of way never was where,
or the road was never where the right of way was described in the deeds. The right of way was
drawn in very simplistic terms, and I think this began back in 1953, and it said it ran along the
easterly boundary of the Fitzgerald lot and the northerly boundary of the Fitzgerald lot to the
property that was being conveyed, then, to my mother and father. If you looked at it, on a map, this
is the Fitzgerald lot right here. This is now Floyd Rourke’s home. We would be along his back line,
and then along his side line here. This is a gully that’s probably about 30 feet deep. It’s never been
traveled, never been used as a right of way. What’s shown on here is actually what people built
because it was more convenient, it worked out for everybody. It’s been that way since the 1950’s.
This is a map showing it in 1969. I’ve talked to, specifically, Mike Hogan, who is also, if you will, a
beneficiary of the right of way, and if you look at the map that you have, he owns Lot 35. He’s the
only one that really had a question about what are we going to do about the right of way. I said,
some day we’ll get Matt Steves to describe it, and we will probably do some type of modification of
the right of way agreement, but we’ve lived like this since the 50’s. His predecessor was Harold
Hillis. I’m not in a big rush to do it. I’m not in a big rush to spend the money to do it. It hasn’t
interfered with anybody. I looked upon the right of ways, and I tried to get a hold of Craig, kind of
like restrictive covenants. Your approval here tonight doesn’t say that you’re abolishing any right of
way or that you’re giving me any rights over somebody else’s right of way it if exists. That’s up to me
and those people and the private agreements that I have with them. It’s the same thing, the same
issue that you run into when somebody says, well, is this approval going to violate a restrictive
covenant.
MR. HAYES-So you’re saying that’s a civil matter, essentially, then?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, and if you actually look at the drawing that you have in front of you, you will
see where I, on my property, have a substantial building built, right dead center in what we talk about
the right of way, and if you look at Betty’s property, you will see that we are removing a shed, and
I’m not sure when Matt Steves did the survey, actually, there was a second shed on there that was
further to the south. So, if you come around the corner here, if you don’t follow this dirt road, and
you try to follow this arbitrary right angle line, I don’t even know if you’ve got a turning radius.
You’d be taking down some big trees that are there. If you drove in on that point, you remember the
trees that are on the right as well as the trees that are on the left, and that’s not something that we
anticipate doing or whatever. We’ve got a couple of issues that we, among ourselves, have to work
out. One of them is going to be maybe future location of septics up there. Mike Hogan is on a
holding tank out on the point, that we got approved maybe 10 years ago. So, I don’t think the right
of way should be an issue of your consideration. If you have a question on it, I’d be glad to address
it further, but basically I think those are the points that I would make, in support of the application
for the variance.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Does anyone have any questions for the applicant?
MR. HIMES-Yes. One, sir. The garage is rectangular. Will you access the garage from the end, so
to speak, of the?
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HIMES-Okay. So you come around the corner and go in that way. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-We’ve talked about the door. The door will be on the south end of the garage,
and it will be contrary to what might be normal. It’ll be over toward the roadway. The passenger
door, if she puts a passenger door on the same end will be on the back side, because she’ll want to
make the least turn that she has to make into that.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. The height of the garage, 16 feet wide, 24 feet long, I assume the height is
going to be okay, and there are some utility wires that go kind of diagonally across the roof. That’s
not our.
MR. O'CONNOR-We may have to get those moved.
MR. HIMES-Okay. So that’s something you’re looking at.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. HIMES-That’s all I had.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone that is here to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed? Any
correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I’ll poll the Board members. This time I’ll start with Allan.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I don’t know. I know you don’t like to hear that, Mr. Chairman, but I don’t
think the setback is a problem. There’s a ditch back there. There’s nothing there. I don’t foresee
that as a problem. The Floor Area Ratio, normally we’ve been more strict on that, but in this
particular situation, you’re already over the Floor Area Ratio before you build the garage.
MR. O'CONNOR-I believe we are.
MR. BRYANT-So, in reality, I’m on the fence, and I’d like to hear what the other Board member
have to say.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Counselor, I’ve held this application to a higher standard. There were four
major considerations that I was looking at. One was the fact that yes it is a year round home, and
number two, there is no basement. Number Three, I was concerned with the right of way, but you
have satisfactorily answered that question, and Number Four, I was listening to whether there were
any objections, and there were none, and, based upon these four considerations and the higher
standard I’ve held the application to, I would have no problem with approving the application.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Norman?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Yes, I feel the same. Chuck has mentioned, in connection with the Floor
Area Ratio and the rest, in terms of the way the lot levels off, any kind of impact because of this
additional impermeable or what have you that results from that is going to go probably to the back,
away from the lake. So that would have been the only thing that I would have had an objection to.
I’m in favor of the application. Thank you. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I’m in favor of the application, too. It’s clear the benefit to the applicant is that
they’d be able to use a garage in a year round residence that was once a vacation home only. There
are alternatives of putting the garage in the area between the house and where you’ve proposed, but
to be honest with you, I think it’s set where it’s supposed to be, and to put it in that area is just going
to break it up that much more and interfere with the right of way. I don’t think the relief is
substantial relative to the Ordinance. Four feet is minimal, particularly when you take into account
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
the fact that there is gulch behind there that no one in their right mind will ever build on. So it’s not
going to affect anyone, and the effect on the neighborhood or community is minimal. This is, in
effect, a family compound. When I was there, between the house and where they’re going to put it is
basically one big parking, driving area, with some green space. So there’s a lot of room to move.
There’s a lot of room to have a right of way. I don’t really see a problem there, and it’s the
O’Connor family compound, with the exception of a couple of neighbors. If they don’t have a
problem with it, I don’t think I do, and I don’t think the difficulty is self-created. The fact of the
mater is these are small lots, small houses, and it was built without a garage many moons ago. So I‘d
be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I essentially agree with what’s been said. In another circumstance, another lot
configuration, I’d have a problem with Floor Area Ratio, but in this case, I guess I look at it, there’s
going to be a car parked there whether it’s got a roof over it or not, and I don’t think it’s going to
have a real effect on the lot, and, as has been said, I think probably the location selected for the
garage is probably the best choice for that particular lot, and it obviously is not going to affect
anybody behind it, with the gully that’s there. So I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in favor of it. I don’t see that there’s any real affects on
the lake, and as you said, as you pointed out also, there’s no, you’re not going to see this from the
lake at all, and I think as everyone else has said, it’s a minimal garage. It’s not a giant garage out by
there. So I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I essentially agree. The benefit to the applicant in this particular
circumstance, to me, seems important. I mean, I think we’ve all said, in the past that in our area a
garage is certainly necessary, and a one car garage is a minimal garage. So, I don’t think that we’re
being asked to do a great deal, or approve an oversized garage. I think the feasible alternatives in this
case have been explored, and I think the proposal, as Staff notes correctly point out, that this seems
to work best for the site, proposed placement of the garage. As far as the relief, compared to the
Ordinance, I think that has more to do with, the Floor Area Ratio, in particular, has more to do with
the pre-existing lot, and the fact that there’s already some gravel areas that are interpreted as
impermeable, I know, but I don’t think there’s going to be any problem there, and I agree with the
rest of the Board members. I don’t think that there’s any real impact on the neighborhood or
community. The garage is on the back of the property. It probably will not be viewable from the
lake at all, and if so, only very moderately so. I don’t think there’s any real negative implications,
aesthetically, to this application. So I would be in favor. Having said there, is there someone out
there who would like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2001 ELIZABETH O’CONNOR
LITTLE, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
73 Fitzgerald Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 384 square foot, one car, detached
garage. Relief required, four feet of relief from the twelve-foot rear setback requirements, and a relief
to develop the Floor Area Ratio of 29% where 22 is allowable. The benefit to the applicant would be
she would be able to construct the desired garage in the preferred location. Feasible alternatives,
there are alternatives, but all seriously in poor utility than what we have in the application here. Is the
relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? Four feet of relief is a minimal amount, possibly
moderate, but in an area of the lot where it has really no impact on any neighbors, and in connection
with the effects on the neighborhood and community, there is also minimal or no negative impact at
all. The aspect of the Floor Area Ratio, the garage is being sited on the rear end the lot, which, on
the other side of a right of way that seems to me slopes away, so that any effects from runoff caused
by this structure is not going to impact the lake at all. I move that we approve this application as
submitted.
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you very much, gentlemen.
MR. HAYES-Good night.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2001 TYPE II TIMOTHY SEELYE AGENT: N/A
PROPERTY OWNER: TIMOTHY SEELYE ZONE: SR-1A LOCATION: 27
MARTELL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 440 SQ. FT.
GARAGE ADDITION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE
SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR GARAGES. OLD TAX MAP NO. 54-5-6.46
NEW TAX MAP NO. 290.14-1-17 LOT SIZE: 1.26 ACRES SECTION 179-I7, 179-19
TIM SEELYE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-2001, Timothy Seelye, Meeting Date: October 24, 2001
“Project Location: 27 Martell Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 440 sf garage addition. Relief Required: Applicant requests 112 square feet of
relief from the 900 square foot maximum allowable garage size requirement per the definition; § 179-
7. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267of Town Law: 1.
Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired garage in the
preferred configuration. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include compliant
construction. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 112 sf of relief from the
900 sf maximum requirement may be interpreted as moderate, relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects
on the neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None
applicable. Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this
action. The proposal calls for an oversized 2 car garage. It does not appear as though a strict
application of the requirements would deprive the applicant from a reasonable use of the property.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-And there is no Warren County.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, my apologies. The relief should be 212, not 112. My math is, my
typing is wrong, not the math. If you look at the site development data, it calls for a total of 1112 for
floor area.
MR. HAYES-Instead of 1012.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Does everyone have that change?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, 212.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Good enough.
MR. ABBATE-He’s requesting 212 square feet of relief. Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Please state your name for the record.
MR. SEELYE-Good evening. Tim Seelye, 27 Martell Road, Queensbury, New York.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to your application, or clarify?
MR. SEELYE-I don’t believe so, no.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant, then?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, if you don’t mind. Good evening, Mr. Seelye.
MR. SEELYE-Good evening.
MR. ABBATE-Help me out. You’re requesting an oversized two car garage.
MR. SEELYE-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And that encompasses, as we just discovered, 212 square feet of relief. Would you
please explain to me why?
MR. SEELYE-Well, with the size lot we have, and the large driveway we have, we’ve got an
abundance of yard equipment, snow blower, lawn tractor, lawn mower, so on. Snowmobiles for the
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
kids, skis, we’ve run out of room on the two car garage, to put it mildly. As far as, we could probably
put a shed up, but aesthetically I would rather do the addition, and we’ve done it in such a way that it
will still look like a two car garage, and that’s my reasoning.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. SEELYE-You’re welcome.
MR. HIMES-In the answers to the questions in your application here, you’ve got, referring to the
two car garage style, and then you’re referring to seasonal furniture and summer car.
MR. SEELYE-Correct.
MR. HIMES-So is that your second car or third car?
MR. SEELYE-Third car.
MR. HIMES-Third car.
MR. SEELYE-Correct.
MR. HIMES-So you’ve got two doors.
MR. SEELYE-Two doors. It’s a very small car.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. SEELYE-And bringing that out four feet will give us room to get it in there.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If there is none, then I will open the
public hearing. Anyone that is hear to speak in favor of the application, please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROGER BOOR
MR. BOOR-My name Roger Boor, 83 Sunnyside East. I think Tim has summed it up pretty much
correctly. I know about three or four years ago I came before this Board and also sought an addition
to my garage, pretty much for the same reason. Living in the North Country, and on properties as
big as his and mine, you find that it is necessary to house more equipment than you would probably
like to, and also as he stated, I think aesthetically, and as far as the neighborhood quality is
concerned, I think what he’s proposing would be much better than a shed or just parking this stuff
under a tarp, and so for alternatives, I really don’t see anything that would be as good as what he’s
proposing. That’s all I have to say.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-How big is your garage?
MR. BOOR-My garage is, I’m considerably bigger than his. I added probably 600 square feet to
mine. I probably have 1500 square feet of garage.
MR. BRYANT-Fifteen hundred square feet of garage?
MR. BOOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And my question was, are you a neighbor?
MR. BOOR-No.
MR. ABBATE-You’re not?
MR. BOOR-No.
MR. ABBATE-Where do you reside?
MR. BOOR-I reside at 83 Sunnyside East. That’s a 10 acre parcel.
MR. ABBATE-So his construction wouldn’t impact you one way or another?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. BOOR-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So you’re just here as a friend supporting him?
MR. BOOR-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s fair enough. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions? Is there anyone else here in favor of the application? Anyone
opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Then I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Let’s talk about it, gentlemen. I guess it’s time to start with Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Again, Mr. Seelye, how are you? You’re requesting 212 square feet of relief, correct?
MR. SEELYE-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-And the total square foot would be 440 square foot.
MR. SEELYE-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Not 1500 square feet.
MR. SEELYE-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I listened to what you have to say, and what you have to say makes sense. I
understand that, because I have a problem with storing my snow blower and etc., etc., and I cannot,
offhand, think of any questions that would cause me not to approve the application. However, I
yield to my other Board members. Perhaps they can come up with something that I haven’t picked
up.
MR. HAYES-So is that a yes, no, or maybe?
MR. ABBATE-That’s a yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Norman?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I tend to be in favor of the application. Again, I think that it does
exceed what the Code calls for, a slight amount, and it’s appearance, I believe, is nice. What you’ve
got planned here looks good. You don’t have any neighbors screaming and hollering about it, and it
brings everything together, such as you’ve said, and so I feel this is something that is of benefit to all
concerned, even though it does exceed the Code, but I would be sympathetic to your application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-We’ve struggled with garages over and over and over again, and this seems to be a
requirement of 900 square feet, and people need more storage space than that. It’s very common to
have three cars, and you’d want to have all of them in, or a boat and two cars, or something like that,
and I know that, where we have had lots large enough to accommodate an oversized garage, I think
this Board has always been willing, as long as it doesn’t affect the community and the neighborhood,
to really say, fine, it’s okay. I think that’s the case here. There may be feasible alternatives, but given
the size of the lot, I’d be in favor of it, and I also think that the applicant has made an appreciable
effort to try to not disguise it with kind of a stealth garage, two doors, really three, and I don’t find
that the relief is substantial. It’ll keep everything out of site and out of mind., those extra
snowmobiles and things like that, and I think I’d be in favor of it very much so.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to be the negative on this, on a matter of principal, and I expect to
be the minority. As has already been indicated, we have tended to approve garages based on the fact
that we tend to feel that people need more storage and a small two car garage isn’t big enough, and I
think, in effect, what we’re starting to do is change the Zoning Ordinance, and I think the proper
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
response is to change the Zoning Ordinance, not continue to offer variances every time somebody
has more toys to house than what they have room for. So on that basis, I’m going to be opposed. I
will agree that the solution you’ve proposed is probably far better than stuff left in the yard or
another shed stuck on the back, in the back yard.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I feel that this project probably is more than reasonable because, you know,
we’re looking at the existing square footage of about 1960 square feet, and you’re going to add 440 to
it. So you’re still going to be a tiny amount, compared to the size of the lot that’s there, and I would
be in agreement with what you said, as far as putting things away instead of having them scattered
and covered elsewhere on the property. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I think I’m going to have to agree with what Mr. McNulty has said. I think that 212
feet is, and not having my calculator, it’s about 25% or somewhere in that vicinity. So I think it is,
you know, substantial, and I think I’d be opposed to the application.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I think I essentially agree with, you know, with the rest of the
Board member in this case. The plans, as they’re depicted to me, as has been pointed out, it’s easier
for me to grant relief in a circumstance where the applicant has done some of the work to mitigate
the relief. The fact that there’s not three garage doors and there’s only two, I think it does lower the
impact on the neighborhood or community, or even, on a precedent basis, I think this is a
compromise that I could go for, in that way. I think the relief is moderate compared to the
Ordinance. Two hundred and twelve feet, it’s a fair amount of relief, but it’s not excessive. It’s not
something that would trouble me over the long term, and I think, as far as the benefit to the
applicant, as we’ve already talked about once tonight, we live in the Northeast, and these mowers as
Mr. Boor pointed out, these are a reality, in our area that we live in, snow removal equipment and the
like, and I think at times there is the need for some additional space. So, all those things considered,
I would be in favor of the application. So, would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2001 TIMOTHY SEELYE,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
27 Martell Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 440 square foot garage addition. This is
212 square feet of relief from the normal 900 square foot maximum allowable garage size
requirement set forth in the Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, Section 179-7. I move the
approval of this variance for the following reasons. First, the applicant would be permitted to
construct a garage of the desired size in the preferred configuration, in order to put away and store
items of personal property and vehicles that otherwise would be set out or covered up on his
property. While there may be feasible alternatives, I do not believe the relief is substantial to the
Ordinance. This is a parcel of approximately 150 feet by 375 feet. It’s a large parcel. This proposed
addition is in keeping with the size of the house and in keeping with the size of the house on the lot.
I don’t see that it would have any effect on the neighborhood or community. The applicant has
made, as the Chairman has noted, an effort to try to mitigate the impact of an oversized garage on his
parcel and on his neighbor’s. While the difficulty may be self-created, certainly the balance of the
factors weigh in favor of Mr. Seelye, and for these reasons I move the approval.
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. MC NALLY-You’ve got your garage.
MR. SEELYE-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2001 BARRY E. EGGLESTON AGENT: N/A PROPERTY
OWNER: BARRY E. EGGLESTON ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 67 COUNTRY
CLUB ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A SECTION OF STOCKADE
FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE FENCE ORDINANCE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 10/10/01 OLD
TAX MAP NO. 61-1-5 NEW TAX MAP NO. 296.15-1-5 LOT SIZE: 1.29 ACRES
SECTION 179-74, 179-20
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
BARRY EGGLESTON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-2001, Barry E. Eggleston, Meeting Date: October 24, 2001
“Project Location: 67 Country Club Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed a section of stockade fence in a front yard. Relief Required: Applicant requests 29
feet of relief for that portion of the stockade fence that exists in the front yard, per § 179-74. Please
see definition of Yard, front per § 179-7. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to
Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be permitted to
maintain the fence in its current location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may
include removal of the fence and replacement with an allowable type. 3. Is the relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance?: The requested relief may be interpreted as moderate. 4. Effects on
the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self
created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 95-321 c/o issued 8/30/95
240 sf deck Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
fence ordinance prohibits stockade fences in front yards. Front yards are those lands which lie
between the right of way of the adjacent highway and the front line of the building projected to the
sidelines of the lot. The fence line, as it exists today, appears to have been constructed along with a
minor landscaping project on the property. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-And we have a Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
October 10, 2001 Project Name: Eggleston, Barry E. Owner: Barry E. Eggleston ID Number:
QBY-AV-78-2001 County Project#: Oct01-18 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed a section of stockade fence in the side
yard and seeks relief from the requirements of the fence ordinance. Site Location: 67 Country Club
Rd. Tax Map Number(s): 296.15-1-4 Staff Notes: Staff has reviewed the application for the fence
and finds no impact on county resources or facilities. County Planning Board Recommendation: No
County Impact” Signed Thomas E. Haley, Warren County Planning Board 10/12/01.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is that it?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Eggleston, is there anything you’d like to add to your application or clarify for us?
MR. EGGLESTON-No.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions of the applicant?
MR. ABBATE-If I may, Mr. Chairman?
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. ABBATE-Good evening, Mr. Eggleston. Were you aware of the fact that ordinances prohibit
stockade fences, prior to you erecting this?
MR. EGGLESTON-I am now.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, but that’s not what I asked you.
MR. EGGLESTON-Not at the time, no.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. At the time you erected the fence, you were not aware of this?
MR. EGGLESTON-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. In effect, what you have requested is an approval after the fact. Is this
correct?
MR. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, okay. Now I notice that there’s no objections, and I notice a letter from a
neighbor, and let me say this, Mr. Eggleston. My comments are not indicative of how I’m going to
vote. I’m just a little disturbed. I see no neighbors have objected to this, and I looked at your
photographs, and, you know what, that’s a nice looking fence. I wouldn’t mind having one like that
myself, except that, you know, I know that ordinances prohibit stockade fences, and he wouldn’t go
along with it. So I’m a little concerned. Ignorance of the law, it’s an old cliché, is really no excuse.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
We all have obligations to check into rules and regulations prior to our actions, and if we don’t, then
we’re going to be held responsible for our actions, particularly if we determine, or it is determined by
some pregnable court or board that it was wrong. So you’re going to have to share some sort of
responsibility for this, and I have to think hard about this, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. HIMES-Yes. The fence, I guess is primarily for privacy. You’ve got down here on your
reasons, for privacy and to extend the flower garden. I’m trying to visualize, from a privacy
standpoint, you’ve got that, but I don’t think you have anything on the other three sides of your, you
know, the front or the.
MR. EGGLESTON-Well, when they sold the property on the north side of us, they tore down the
house. They tore down the garage, and they cut every tree that was on the property. So that north
side, everything is exposed.
MR. MC NALLY-Who purchased that property?
MR. EGGLESTON-Ed Tyler, Edward Tyler, from Whitehall.
MR. MC NALLY-And that was just recently, because the ground’s all torn up.
MR. EGGLESTON-Yes, that’s why we put the fence up.
MR. HIMES-But that actually removed, that put the population further from you, didn’t it? The fact
that that.
MR. EGGLESTON-But it also exposed the side yard and the back yard.
MR. HIMES-Yes, okay. Yes, I understand. I’m just making a point that there might have been
somebody right close to you. Now there isn’t, but thank you.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. You had mentioned in your comments about the deer population, but you
don’t have any fences anyplace else in the area. How does that protect?
MR. EGGLESTON-I’ve put in metal conduit, and I’ve strung mesh deer netting around the
perennial garden.
MR. BRYANT-And that prohibits the deer from coming on the property?
MR. EGGLESTON-No, but it prevents them from destroying as much of the garden as I can.
MR. MC NALLY-Can I ask you, sir, did you install this fence yourself?
MR. EGGLESTON-My brother and I did.
MR. MC NALLY-You did?
MR. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. MC NALLY-So it’s not like a company came and put it in there.
MR. EGGLESTON-No. We put it in one Saturday.
MR. MC NALLY-And when did you put it up? It was relatively recently.
MR. EGGLESTON-Yes. Right after they destroyed the trees.
MR. MC NALLY-This spring?
MR. EGGLESTON-Yes. It was during August.
MR. HAYES-Is there any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. MC NALLY-This fence is how tall, about?
MR. EGGLESTON-It’s about six feet.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. MC NALLY-Six foot. Did you ever consider, perhaps, a shorter fence in front of your yard?
Wouldn’t that work?
MR. EGGLESTON-You mean cutting it down to four feet?
MR. MC NALLY-Yes. I’m just trying to get an idea if you considered it or if maybe that might be
something that would work.
MR. EGGLESTON-If necessary, we will.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Then I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of the application? Please come forward.
Please give us your name, too, when you arrive.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
ROBERT PURDY
MR. PURDY-Yes. I’m Robert Purdy. I live at 75 Country Club Road. I’m three houses north of
Barry, and I think the fence is an asset to the community there. I think it’s very attractive. He’s set it
back far enough from the road so it doesn’t obstruct any view from any of the other property owners
coming in and out. So that’s the way I feel about it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, thank you.
MR. PURDY-He put a lot of hard work into it, and a lot of money, and like I say, I think it’s very
attractive.
MR. HAYES-All right. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the
application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-We have two pieces of correspondence. One’s from a Mr. Richard Purdy at 71
Country Club Road, it says “I’m Mr. Eggleston’s neighbor north of him at 71 Country Club Road. I
think his new fence is very nice and enhances the looks of the neighborhood. It doesn’t block the
view of the road and it gives Mr. Eggleston some privacy that he desires. Mr. Richard Purdy 71
Country Club Road Queensbury, NY 12804” And then we have a letter from W. Edward Tyler,
who lists his address as 12182 State Route 22 Whitehall, New York 12887 “To Whom It May
Concern: I own the property located at 69 County Club Road, Queensbury, New York (Tax Map
#296.15-1-4). I border Lillian M. and Barry Eggleston who live at 67 Country Club Road. The
Egglestons recently put up a very nice vinyl, stockade fence between us. I feel the fence enhances
the neighborhood. I do not find it offensive and it does not in any way block my view so that I can’t
enter or exit my property safely. I feel the Egglestons should be allowed to leave the fence where it
stands. Respectfully, W. Edward Tyler”
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is that it on the correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. HAYES-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Let’s talk about it, gentlemen. First is Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Acknowledging the fact that the fence has already been constructed, that
has been discussed, one thing that, in the zoning code, this paragraph all by itself, and it says, no
stockade type fence shall be allowed in any front yard, period. No qualifications. It makes it a little
difficult for me, or maybe some of the rest of us, to think, well, now, how can we just say well, yes,
we’ll put up a stockade fence. I mean, for what reasons? And I might say that that’s just the front
yard, and your fence is already quite a distance back from the road, you know. Maybe you could
bring it back to a little further where it would be out of the area that’s described in the Code as the
front yard, and then, evidently you could have such a fence, but I think that there are, whether you
do that or not, I would not be in favor of this application as it stands right now. That’s about it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-My impression, from what little Mr. Eggleston has said, is that he’s an upright and
honest man, and I take him at his word that it was an honest mistake in not knowing what the Code
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
was about. I was also impressed with the fact that he’s got a nice garden. I enjoy gardening. So I
can sympathize with him very much. The feasible alternatives, though, would include, if you needed
to screen a view, a selection of shrubs and trees and bushes that perhaps might replace some of those
things that were taken down, or the alternative, replacement of the fence with something of a more
appropriate size within the zoning code. Whether relief is substantial relative to the Ordinance is
something that I have to agree with Staff, that they interpret it as moderate. I’m always struck that if
you do a good job and make something nice, should we let you have it or should we not let you have
it, and this is a nice fence. It’s an attractive fence. It’s an attractive garden. It’s an attractive
landscaping, but I know that we’ve had many applicants come before us asking for stockade fences in
the front of their yard, and I think, you know, formally, across this Town, at least when they’ve
asked, sometimes they put it in without asking, and we only find out when a neighbor complains, but
when that happens, we’ve not been very favorably disposed toward approval of something like this,
and I think I come down to aesthetics. The side of the yard, that it sticks out in front of the house.
It’s quite apparent as you walk up the road, however nice looking it is (lost word), and I don’t see any
substantial effects upon the neighborhood or community, but I do see the difficulty as self created is
a tough one for me, and I think that I’m weighing against it, and I would like to hear what the other
Board members have to say.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I guess a question, first, just struck me. You said the fence is about six feet high,
and one of the requirements is a fence in the front yard can’t be more than four feet. So he needs
double relief, really, if he’s to get it. He’s going to need relief for the stockade fence in the front yard,
and relief for a fence that’s greater than four feet in height.
MR. BROWN-Sure, that’s correct, if you choose to grant relief.
MR. MC NULTY-If we choose to grant the relief. I’ll agree with everybody. It’s a nice looking
fence, and I think it’s a nice job there. The problem comes with the fact that it’s a stockade style
fence, and it exceeds what the Ordinance calls for for height in the front yard, and absent compelling
reason for that particular height and that particular style of fence, I think I’ve got to be opposed. I
think there’s some alternatives, picket style fence or something else that might create a similar look,
but not violate the Ordinance. So, I’m going to be opposed.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I live up the road, and I kind of watched the transmortification of the
lot next door, tearing down the trailer and that nice big huge maple tree that was there, and all those
things, but at the same time, as you started to build the fence and I kind of watched it go up section
by section, I kept wondering if it was going to go all the way out to the road, but of course it didn’t,
but at the same time, it does exceed what the height parameters are, and I think that we have to keep
in mind that, driving down Country Club Road, it’s the only fence you see on the road there, and
that’s the one thing that struck me more than anything, and I think that if you went with something a
little bit smaller or took out two sections in the front, maybe. I’m not sure if that would be enough
to modify it. It does kind of walk down the hill there. So as far as blocking the view, I don’t think it
really hurts anybody’s view of the road going in and out and the driveways and things like that either,
but I just, I kind of still have a hard time understanding why it’s there, why it had to be so big. So
I’m sitting on the fence on that, too.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I think, as a Board, we have a tendency to look at an application where the
construction has already happened or started with a different view than one that hasn’t started. I
understand what most of the Board members have said about the height of the fence and the style of
the fence in that particular location, and I agree with them somewhat, but I’ve got to say, as far as the
effects of the neighborhood are concerned I think the landscaping is very nice. The fencing
enhances the landscaping. I think the front of the house is back far enough, and the fence is back far
enough from the road. I think those regulations relating to fence height are specifically there so that
you have clear visibility of the road when you come in and out of a driveway, and I don’t think that
that fence really effects your, because I pulled into the driveway, and I didn’t see any effect. I was
able to get back on the road. So, from that standpoint, understanding what all of the other Board
members have said, I think in this particular case, because of the enhancement, I would be in favor
of the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Eggleston, I’m well aware that my opening remarks
were rather harsh, and I indicated to you that that may not be indicative of the way I’m going to vote.
There are two Board members who are on the fence at this particular time, and I’m going to do
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
everything I can, with the talent that I have, to try to persuade them to go with me. First of all, I
believe that you are an honest man. Second, I believe that you had no intentions of doing anything
of a malicious nature. You had no intent to deceive this Board. You had no intent to deceive the
Town and I have always believed that none of us are infallible, and secondly I always believed that
perhaps somewhere along the line, we all may be in the position to view, perhaps, a decision based
upon a humanitarian appeal, and based on that, sir, I’m going to support your application for
approval.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Well, I think I agree with the rest of the Board members that the
fence itself is fairly attractive, and it’s well done, as is the rest of your property there, and I think that
makes everyone a little more into the balancing mode here, as they’re getting to their comments. As
I look at the fence, this was presented before you had constructed it, would I approve a stockade
fence that far out to the road, I honestly can say I don’t think that I would. I think that we have to
be concerned with protecting the Code, but also with precedents we set. On the other side, I think
part of the, at least my apprehensions and the reasons that I haven’t supported stockade fences in
front yards in the past was we’re kind of, when you get the wrap effect and you get like the Fort
Apache look, I call it, and it doesn’t look good, and it presents a barrier, and it kind of breaks up the
continuity of the other homes in the area, but I don’t think that this fence does that. It’s linear. It
runs down the parallel portion of the property and doesn’t meet up with the house and create this
barrier that looks like a fortification of some kind, which some stockade fences do. I also, I want to
ask the question to Craig, in that the top foot of this fence is like latticework, and I’m not sure that
that part of the fence would be considered stockade.
MR. BROWN-That’s correct. I’ve reviewed some measurements here, Mr. Frank took. Actually, the
fence is a six foot fence. The first four and a half are stockade, and the other foot and a half are kind
of a lattice style. Do those measurements seem correct to you?
MR. FRANK-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay, and in my mind, that does mitigate, to some degree, again, the fence, because
you can see through that portion of it. I guess I would come down on the compromising position.
How long are the sections of this fence? How long are they?
MR. EGGLESTON-Six feet.
MR. HAYES-They’re six feet. I guess, if you would take, I would be in favor of some compromise
where you would remove two, maybe three sections of that fence, and remove them to the rear,
which would be granting you still 10 or 12 feet of relief, in this particular case, on a four and a half
foot fence, and in my mind, that would represent very minimal relief, and it would also represent a
compromise that the neighbors seem to be fine with the fence as it is, but we have a job to protect
the Code, but I’m only speaking for myself. I think if we granted 10 or 12 feet, I would be in favor
of a motion to that effect, but again, it’s based on the rest of the Board, and as Chuck pointed out,
whatever motion is made, we need to not grant or grant relief on a half a foot of the fence, and also
the part of it that exceeds the front extension of the house. So, having said that, is there anyone out
there that would like to make a motion?
MR. MC NALLY-I’d comment, that’s a good suggestion, a compromise. That would get rid of some
of my concern that it’s projecting as far out to the front of the house as it currently is. Again, it’s not
something it’s not something, I guess, we could impose on you, sir, but we would ask if you would
consider it.
MR. EGGLESTON-How many sections?
MR. MC NALLY-Taking two.
MR. HAYES-That would go from 29 feet to 17 feet of relief, if he took two sections out, essentially,
but it’s got to be a.
MR. EGGLESTON-Agreed, two sections.
MR. MC NALLY-Does that sound reasonable? I could live with that.
MR. HAYES-How does everybody else feel about that, or should we just make a motion and see
where it goes?
MR. ABBATE-I could live with that as well, Bob.
MR. HIMES-That’s what I said at the beginning, that to bring it back all the way to the side, but I’d
go along with some compromise.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. HAYES-Does someone want to make a motion, then, that we can vote on?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2001 BARRY E. EGGLESTON,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
67 Country Club Road. The applicant has constructed a section of stockade fence in the front yard,
and the applicant is requesting 29 feet of relief for that portion of the stockade fence that exists in
front of the house, per Section 179-74. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be
permitted to maintain the fence in its current location, and what we would ask is that we would
remove two sections. So the applicant relief would drop from 29 down to 17, or whatever the length
of those first two sections would be. The alternatives would be that we remove the entire fence, but
two sections back would kind of remove a lot of it out of the front yard towards the road, which
would mitigate it to some extent. Is the relief substantial relative to the Ordinance? The relief would
probably be interpreted as moderate still, since it’s still projecting out into the front, but it’s a
reasonable compromise. Effects on the neighborhood or community, to keep the whole fence there
would be moderate effects, and I think this would kind of minimize the effects of it to a degree, and
it’s a compromise, and is this difficulty self-created? The fence was built, not having knowledge of
the fact that stockade fences weren’t allowed, but as Craig pointed out, it’s not really a true stockade
fence. It has that mesh up on the top part of it. The height should be a maximum of four, so we
would be granting relief for two feet, for a six foot fence, and for a portion of that fence to be
stockade, and that the applicant has agreed to remove the two sections of fence.
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
MR. MC NALLY-Is there relief for the lattice portion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think you count it, do you?
MR. BROWN-Yes. Any fence in the front yard can be a maximum of four feet, regardless of the
style. So essentially what it sounds like you want to grant is two feet of relief for a six foot fence, and
then relief for a portion of that to be stockade, that’s in the front yard, because stockade is strictly
prohibited. So, I think that’s the direction you’re headed in.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. BROWN-And just a question. Is this a condition of the approval that the fence be removed, or
has that been offered, that he’s going to remove?
MR. HAYES-Well, I think we’re only approving 17 feet of relief.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I think, did you offer to remove the?
MR. EGGLESTON-No, I understood what they were saying.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I just wanted to be clear.
MR. HAYES-Anything closer than 17 feet, i.e. those two sections, will be out of compliance.
MR. BROWN-Okay. I just wanted to be clear.
MR. MC NALLY-The record should reflect, Mr. Eggleston, that you agree to remove those two
sections.
MR. EGGLESTON-Yes.
MR. HAYES-So stipulated then, okay.
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNally, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-There. Just take down those two sections and put them on the back and you’ll be
okay.
MR. EGGLESTON-Okay. Thank you, sir.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thanks.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 80-2001 TYPE II JENNIFER AND GARY RANDALL AGENT:
STEVEN N. MILES – MILES CUSTOM HOMES PROPERTY OWNER: JENNIFER
AND GRAY RANDALL ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 3 ROBERTS COURT –
SOUTHERN EXPOSURE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE
FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
OF THE SFR-1A ZONE. OLD TAX MAP NO. 150-1-6.63 NEW TAX MAP NO. 308.18-2-
69 LOT SIZE: 0.46 ACRES SECTION 179-20
STEVE MILES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GARY RANDALL, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 80-2001, Jennifer and Gary Randall, Meeting Date: October
24, 2001 “Project Location: 3 Roberts Court Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a single family dwelling. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6 feet of
relief from the 20 foot minimum setback requirement of the SFR-1A zone, § 179-20. Criteria for
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired home in the preferred location. 2.
Feasible alternatives: The alternate floor plan design depicted in BP 2001-648 may be a feasible
alternative. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 6 feet of relief from the 20
foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate, relative to the Ordinance. (30%) 4. Effects on
the neighborhood or community: Moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self
created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-648 issued 9/11/01
3322 sf Single Family Dwelling Staff comments: Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated
as a result of this action. The proposed construction appears to be the original intent of BP2001-
648. Plans have been modified and the permit issued for compliant construction. No approvals
have been issued for the additional construction proposed. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Fire away.
MR. MILES-I’m Steve Miles of Miles Custom Homes. We originally designed this home based on
the understanding the setbacks were different from what Mr. Brown is telling me. I still have some
confirmations here of what I’m finding on Hudson Pointe subdivisions, what he’s tying it to, and I
think it just has to be measured out as to what the real rear setbacks should be on those lots.
Southern Exposure was done back in 1982, from what I’m getting from all these maps that I have.
The side setbacks are not a problem. The rear setback is. When Hudson Pointe was approved in
1994. There were some concessions made, but all the maps say that Southern Exposure was to stay
as filed. I have a copy of Lots 1 through 49. They are one third acre lots. This is trying to be
considered as a half acre lot. All of Southern Exposure is one third acre. This is .46 acres. There’s
seven lots in Hudson Pointe, Lots 1 through 49. Some of those are actually over half an acre, but
they still have 10 foot rear setback. I’m just asking that they be considered the same as what’s already
over there.
MR. HAYES-Okay. You understand that we go by Mr. Brown’s determination, and that if you want
to appeal that determination, that’s a separate course of action. Tonight we’re just going to consider
the relief, as an Area Variance, and either grant or deny that, but the interpretation of what is, in fact,
the proper rear setback, that would have to be an appeal, I believe, essentially. That’s another matter,
but we’re going to hear the Area Variance in its entirety, assuming a 20 foot setback, in this particular
case, and you can appeal the other part of it later, if it’s necessary.
MR. MILES-All right.
MR. HAYES-All right. Is there anything you’d like to add to the application or clarify for the Board,
Mr. Randall?
MR. RANDALL-No. Pretty much I guess we’re trying to decide which way to go about this, to
somewhat fight it or to, or go by, this means listening to everyone else that’s come up before us. It
was definitely, I guess it’s a misinterpretation of what should or shouldn’t be. Where we’re at right
now is kind of a standstill towards the back, in hopes of getting this relief. We reside in Queensbury
now. We run a business in Queensbury, and we still love to live in Queensbury. We chose that spot.
We work hard. This is our dream home, and it’s what we want, and what we’re trying to get. That’s
it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. ABBATE-If I may, Mr. Chairman. The plans will reduce, I’m going to go through this, and if
I’m in error, please correct me. The plans will reduce from 3,322 square feet to 2,239 square feet. Is
that correct?
MR. MILES-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Show me where I’m wrong.
MR. MILES-The only changes were that instead of going out 14 by 14, it’s just out 8 feet by 14 foot.
That is the alternative, and we’re under construction right now, but we did not do anything with that
last six feet, nor have we done anything with that eight by fourteen area until we get a decision from
the Board.
MR. ABBATE-So you’re saying that this BP 2001-648, which was issued 9/11/01, has nothing to do
with this application this evening?
MR. MILES-No. I’m just saying, it doesn’t sound like there’s that much square footage. You’re only
talking about six foot by fourteen foot, a difference of 84 square foot.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Now, look, I’m getting confused here now. A permit was issued on
9/11/01 for a 3,322 square foot single family dwelling. Am I correct?
MR. MILES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. We agree on that. Number Two, the application this evening, and
I’m, on the information you’ve submitted to us indicates it’s 2,839 square feet?
MR. MILES-That could be an error. I’m not sure.
MR. BROWN-That’s the footprint of the house.
MR. ABBATE-That’s the footprint. So the original 3,000 remains?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct. Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Well, we answered that question. What is the height of this
building, just out of curiosity?
MR. MILES-Twenty-four feet to the ridge, roughly.
MR. ABBATE-About 24 feet? Don’t you have plans that you can give me a more definitive
number?
MR. MILES-Yes. Twenty-six and a half feet.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Twenty-six and a half feet. All right. Thank you, sir. That answers that
question. For now, Mr. Chairman, thank you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Question for you, Craig. Have a lot of these lots had this problem with the
side setbacks from the back down in Hudson Pointe?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I didn’t think it was the concern.
MR. BROWN-We can talk about that if you want to, but what we have in front of us is a 20 foot
setback.
MR. HAYES-Yes. That’s a separate decision, and there’s no point in going down that path because
we may end up there anyway.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question. Is that okay?
MR. HAYES-Certainly, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you. Just for my mind, here. The original building permit application, the
solarium was eight by fourteen?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. MILES-The original, yes. The original print of the house was 14 by 14, but in order to comply
with the Code and get going on this thing, we set it through an eight by fourteen.
MR. BRYANT-And so you actually designed the house?
MR. MILES-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So when you designed the house and submitted the application, it was actually
eight by fourteen?
MR. MILES-Correct.
MR. BROWN-Originally it was 14 by 14, and I notified Mr. Miles that it didn’t meet the setbacks so
he modified the drawings to construct an eight by fourteen in order to get construction underway,
and then he decided to apply for a variance to get the additional six feet.
MR. HAYES-I guess it’s important for us to understand, though, that you haven’t started
construction on that part of it, yet, though.
MR. MILES-Correct.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Are there any other questions?
MR. MC NALLY-I did. Just so that I understand, this solarium, what the heck’s a solarium? Is it
like an enclosed porch, a three season porch?
MR. RANDALL-It’s a four season living area. Basically a gathering room, off the back of the
kitchen.
MR. MC NALLY-It’s adjacent to the kitchen?
MR. RANDALL-That’s correct.
MR. MC NALLY-The main part of the house is the kitchen, and then there’s a sitting area?
MR. RANDALL-Where you normally would see a breakfast nook, where it says the larger room, the
gathering room.
MR. MC NALLY-And I think you answered my question regarding what it was on the building
permit.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Chairman, did I hear someone said that construction has already begun?
MR. HAYES-No. He said that they have purposely not constructed in that area.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-All right. If there’s no more questions for the applicant, then I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the application? Please step
forward. Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Let’s talk about it, gentlemen. I guess first on this one is Bob.
MR. MC NALLY-I think it’s a lovely home, at least what little I’ve seen of it on the plans. I’m not
sure we have all of them. The applicant would certainly be permitted to construct the desired home
in the preferred location. So the first factor weighs in your favor, but whether there are feasible
alternatives, unfortunately, I think, is something that’s belied by the building permit. Apparently
there must be feasible alternatives since a building permit was issued and some plan and thoughts
were put into building a home with a somewhat smaller solarium. Is the relief substantial relative to
the Ordinance? I find it moderate. A 25% increase or reduction in the 20 foot requirement would
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
certainly be moderate. The effects on the neighborhood or community, I think there’s a need for
some continuity from lot to lot, and this is new construction. Don’t get me wrong, but that weighs
in with the last factor, too. It’s a Tabula Rasa. It’s blank slate. You can build, and as long as you’re
going to build, you might as well build in accordance with the Code. So, I find that the difficulty is
self created, and I would be opposed to this application as it’s submitted.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I come down about where Bob does. It’s a case that this is new construction.
There’s an opportunity to fit the new house to the lot and the requirements, and I don’t see any
compelling reason to allow the variance. I think there is a need to be consistent lot to lot, and I think
it would have an effect on the neighborhood. So I’m going to be opposed.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to look at the size of the house that’s there on that lot.
I mean, the house itself is 73 feet across by 36, you know, plus that little addition, whatever it would
be on the back, whether it’s eight by fourteen or fourteen by fourteen, and I don’t think it’s really a
make or break situation. You’re still going to have a solarium, and eight by fourteen is going to give
you some room. It’s going to give you the benefit of the sun exposure there, and so I don’t think I
could approve this either.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I think I agree with the other Board members. I think we have to balance the desire
to have the room, versus the need to have the room, and in this particular case, I can understand
wanting the room. However, I would fall on the side of the Code, and be opposed to the addition.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is new construction, gentlemen, and there’s equal
time for a reasonable solution, and unless a reasonable solution is presented to this Board, I would
favor on the side of my fellow Board members in denying your request.
MR. HAYES-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. I agree with the comments made by the other Board members, and I
would not support this application. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Well, as you can see, you have six votes against right now. So I won’t spend a lot of
time commenting on the aspects of the case. I guess my recommendation to you is, or an option to
you, is to appeal the decision of the 20 foot setback, because, at this point, we’re clearly in the
position to deny the application. So, would you like to withdraw the application in lieu of the appeal,
or would you like us to deny the application, because that’s what’s going to happen.
MR. RANDALL-I would like to withdraw so we can appeal it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Do they need a denial to go for an appeal, Craig?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. MC NALLY-That would be an appeal from Chris’ decision.
MR. BROWN-Well it was my decision, yes.
MR. HAYES-It’s an appeal of the Zoning Department determination that it’s a 20 foot setback
instead of a 10 foot setback, essentially.
MR. MC NALLY-Okay.
MR. RANDALL-Could you tell me what the steps would be?
MR. HAYES-You’d have to see Mr. Brown and he’ll explain that to you. All right. Thank you.
MR. MILES-Thank you.
MR. RANDALL-Thank you.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2001 TYPE II TODD J. BAPP AGENT: N/A PROPERTY
OWNER: ROBYN TRUST ZONE: SFR-20 LOCATION: 72 EVERTS AVENUE
APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 448 SQ. FT. CARPORT AND SEEKS RELIEF
FROM THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SFR-20 ZONE. OLD TAX MAP
NO. 108-1-29.1 NEW TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-73 LOT SIZE: 2.14 ACRES SECTION: 179-
20
TODD BAPP & BETTY NELSON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2001, Todd J. Bapp, Meeting Date: October 24, 2001
“Project Location: 72 Everts Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has
constructed a 448 sf carport addition. Relief Requested: Applicant requests 10.8 feet of relief from
the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the SFR-20 zone, § 179-20. Additionally, the applicant
seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming structure per § 179-79. Criteria for considering
an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to maintain the carport as built. 2. Feasible Alternatives: Feasible
alternatives may include alteration of the carport to a more compliant location. 3. Is this relief
substantial relief to the Ordinance?: 10.8 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be
interpreted as moderate to substantial, relative to the Ordinance. (72%) 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal to moderate effects on the neighborhood may be
anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be
interpreted as self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2000-505
submitted 7/18/00 448 sf carport….. not issued Staff comments: Minimal to moderate
impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The subject property appears to have ample
room for compliant construction. A portion of the difficulty may be attributed to the uncommon
angle at which the property line runs back from the road, however, an accurate plot plan would have
identified such a condition prior to construction. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-No County.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Hello. Please identify yourselves.
MR. BAPP-Hi there. Todd Bapp, 72 Everts Avenue in Queensbury.
MRS. NELSON-Betty Nelson, and I own the property, he’s buying it under contract from us.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Is there anything you’d like to.
MRS. NELSON-Robyn Trust.
MR. HAYES-All right. Fine. Is there anything you’d like to add to the application, Mr. Bapp?
MR. BAPP-Yes. I did start to erect the carport, which was going to be a temporary thing to start
with , and Mr. Hatin came down and inspected the concrete, at which time I applied for a permit and
he did come and inspect the concrete, made me dig up one to show that they were four foot in
depth. At that point, we didn’t know where the property lines were on the property, or we could
have changed it from that point, but now it is erected, and we are closer to the line than we expected,
after we had the property surveyed.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MRS. NELSON-Could I say something, please?
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MRS. NELSON-Being the owner, my husband had gone down there with the surveyor, prior to
Todd and Tina purchasing the property, and from the maps that he had and whatever information he
had, I guess, thinking in terms of, Todd had asked if he could put up a carport or whatever, and the
person that did ultimately do the survey had thought that, you know, the setback was going to be
fine, but the way, what is it, a right of way or something there. Am I describing that right?
MR. BROWN-No, I think it’s just another property line there, another fee ownership.
MR. BAPP-The driveway is blacktopped from who knows when, the driveway has been a right of
way.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MRS. NELSON-Yes. It’s been a right of way for years and years, and by looking at it, just visually
looking and pacing it out, he felt that it was okay, but unfortunately after he did the actual survey,
which his time didn’t allow at that point, it came up that it is over a bit.
MR. HAYES-So, in summation, an honest mistake then, I guess, is what you’re saying.
MRS. NELSON-Well, yes, basically. It wasn’t that we.
MR. BAPP-Well, it was very much an honest mistake, and also Craig had explained it to me that he
and Mr. Hatin kind of weaved back and forth together, and had they gotten weaved together a little
closer, this project wouldn’t have taken place, and we wouldn’t be in this situation right now.
MR. BROWN-I’m not sure exactly what we’re talking about here, and if you want, I can give you a
little history as far as what I know about the construction of this carport, but if you want that, I can
certainly do that.
MR. HAYES-That’s fine. Please do.
MR. BROWN-Okay. My understanding is that the carport had been constructed prior to any
inquiries or applications that were made to the Town, and upon discovery that the carport was there,
Mr. Hatin stopped and said, this type of construction is going to require a building permit. While I’m
here, maybe I can solve some of your questions if I can inspect one of the piers, your footings, to
determine if it’s at least four feet deep. Then we’ll make sure we include that as part of the
application. Ultimately, we got Mr. Bapp to submit a building permit application, mid-2000.
Subsequently, we asked him several times for a plot plan to determine where it was going to be
constructed on the property, to see if it met the setbacks, and if it did, then we could go ahead and
actually issue the building permit. It took a long time to get that drawing from him, and ultimately
found out that the property line was in a position that didn’t afford him enough room to build in a
compliant location. So I don’t think he was inferring that the Town went down there and said, hey,
this is okay, continue construction, because that’s not what happened. It was constructed. We found
out about it, asked him to file for a permit, and then that’s when we got into this process.
MR. BRYANT-When you say it was constructed, prior to the application of the permit, what are we
talking about, June, May, when was the carport actually put up?
MR. BAPP-I would say, May we bought the property. We had no garage or storage area. It was
probably June, right in that area.
MR. BRYANT-June?
MR. BAPP-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So then the following month somebody discovered the carport, and then he applied
for the permit. Is that what you’re saying?
MR. BROWN-No. I would think very shortly after the carport was under construction, somebody
from the Building Department stopped by.
MR. BRYANT-So it wasn’t complete when?
MR. BAPP-No.
MR. BROWN-I don’t, no I don’t think so.
MR. BAPP-No, it was not. There was no roof.
MR. MC NULTY-And we’re talking Year 2000?
MR. BROWN-The Year 2000, and since it has been, apparently, completed. I think the roof is
completed on it now?
MR. BAPP-The roof is completed, yes. At that point, I was asked not to go any further, and then
Mr. Hatin made a special appointment with me to come back down, after, because I had to dig up
the concrete. So he came down with a special appointment, and he did sign the paper which I don’t
have. At that point, I thought my permit was all good to go. I had spent the $25 and I felt we were
good. Now Craig explained to me earlier that their aerial photo had showed that we were too close
to the line, but that was three months after, I didn’t hear anything from the Town of Queensbury for
three months.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. BRYANT-I’m not really understanding at all, because, maybe I’m not hearing, because I think
you have to speak a little bit louder.
MR. BAPP-Sorry about that.
MR. BRYANT-But you started building a carport. Then the Town got involved, and you applied for
this permit.
MR. BAPP-Right.
MR. BRYANT-Which never was issued, and you continued to build a carport after the fact. I don’t
understand. I’m not following that.
MR. BAPP-I was never asked to stop building the carport.
MR. ABBATE-I see. Mr. Bapp, help me out. Let me try to get the sequence of events here, so I
don’t have an attack here. July the 18, Year 2000, you submitted a request for a 448 square foot
th
carport, is that, correct? Number One.
MR. BAPP-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-So that’s correct. Fine. Number Two, is it also correct that the permit was not
issued?
MR. BAPP-I guess that is correct.
MR. ABBATE-Well, no, either it was or it wasn’t.
MR. BAPP-I had a piece of paper that was on my window that said that I paid the $25 for.
MR. ABBATE-I want it for the record. Was a permit issued to you to build a 448 square foot
carport on July 18, 2001?
MR. BAPP-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. So we took care of that. Now, my other question is this. You submitted
the request to have this carport constructed. Is that correct?
MR. BAPP-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Good. We answered that, and when you submitted this request, did you submit a
plan for this request?
MR. BAPP-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Where it was going to be built and everything else like that?
MR. BAPP-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and based upon the plan, and your request, the Town, in its infinity wisdom,
said no. Is that correct?
MR. BAPP-That is not correct, because I took pictures and took it up there, and they never told me
not to go any further with the project. After I had spent the $25 for the permit, which I thought I
had received the permit, because I did get a yellow piece of paper.
MR. ABBATE-Wait a second. You’re confusing me. You received, see, you have to go slow with
me, because I’m 70, okay. You received a yellow piece of paper, correct?
MR. BAPP-Right.
MR. ABBATE-And what did the paper say?
MR. BAPP-I truly have no idea.
MR. ABBATE-Maybe it said you’re going to be charged with a felony.
MR. BAPP-It very well could have.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. ABBATE-So you’re operating under a set of circumstances in which you have no idea what
time of day it is, and then based upon, what you said to me, you have no idea what time of day it is,
you said, the hell with them. I think I’ll build a carport anyway, and now you find yourself in the
situation that you have to come before this Board. Is that correct?
MR. BAPP-That is correct, sir, and it’s a lovely Board, it is.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-One other question in that regard. Okay. I just want to understand. Somebody told
you not to continue construction?
MR. BAPP-If that be the case, nothing has been nailed or anything since that point.
MR. BRYANT-There’s a carport that exists, though.
MR. BAPP-There’s a carport erected, yes, there is.
MR. BRYANT-So you built that after the fact, though, is what I’m trying to understand.
MR. BAPP-I truly don’t know if it was completely built before David Hatin came down to inspect
the concrete.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. The purpose of the carport, you’ve got a dump truck there, and the carport is
a big high enough to fit the dump truck?
MR. BAPP-Sure, yes.
MR. BRYANT-And that’s what the purpose of it is?
MR. BAPP-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-For commercial vehicles on a residential lot.
MR. BAPP-And lawnmowers, and again, outdoor power equipment. I have a snowmobile. My son
has a snowmobile. We have motorcycles and that type of stuff, yes, to get it out of the weather.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but the point I’m trying to make, you don’t need a 20 foot high carport to put
a lawnmower in. It’s for the dump truck, a commercial vehicle.
MR. BAPP-It’s to get a vehicle in, sir, but also, the windows at the back of the house, the foundation
is off the ground about three foot, okay. So the windows, from the upstairs to the downstairs, which
also is an older addition on the back of the house, we had to run along that heather to get something
to bite into good for the carport.
MR. ABBATE-Maybe I’m being too harsh. What do you do for a living, sir?
MR. BAPP-I own and operate a landscaping business.
MR. ABBATE-You have your own business?
MR. BAPP-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-So you have to pay taxes and you have to fill out income tax forms and all that stuff?
MR. BAPP-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-So you have to read and answer the questions, correct?
MR. BAPP-Yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-But when it came to this yellow piece of paper, you didn’t read it?
MR. BAPP-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Hell of a way to run a business.
MR. BROWN-I’m sure the paper that Mr. Bapp had was a receipt that said he paid for the permit.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. ABBATE-Was that a receipt?
MR. BAPP-That could have been the $25 receipt. Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Was it? Are you gaining recall now? You’re getting recall now, correct?
MR. BAPP-I guess you are, yes, sir.
MR. ABBATE-No, no. You’re getting recall.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Let me break in her now, just for a moment.
MR. BAPP-Please do.
MR. HAYES-And I’d like to focus on the relief that’s here in question. I think we’re going to have
to stipulate that there’s some issue about whether a building permit was issued or not, and it has not
been resolved completely in any direction, but I think we have an Area Variance here that’s in front
of us for a specific amount of relief, and we need to get focused on that. That’s what we’re here for,
and that’s what this hearing is about. So, as far as the carport itself, okay, is there anything else that
you want to add as to why that needs to be that close to the line, or why, as far as the parts of the test
that we’re charged with, that are on the application?
MR. BAPP-No, I understand, Paul. No, at this point, there isn’t, like I say from the start, if we had
known the property lines, I could have certainly have gone back toward Mr. Cass’ house. I’ve got
two and a half acres down there. So it’s not like this thing to have been erected further, eight foot or
ten foot or whatever is in question to the back of the house. That wouldn’t have been a problem
from the start.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. MC NALLY-When I was at your home, Mr. Bapp, and going into that driveway area, on the
side where the line is close, there’s a lot of parking area. There’s a lot of, it looks as if it’s a side yard.
How is it you use your next, it must be that you use your next door neighbor’s yard?
MR. BAPP-Yes, I do.
MR. MC NALLY-How does that happen?
MR. BAPP-Hewitt’s Garden Center actually owns all the way around our corner, from Quaker Road
corner all the way around to the property, and they have given me the okay to use their property for
whatever I want to, truly, and it’s been a right of way for a driveway, obviously it’s blacktopped and
has been there for quite some time.
MR. ABBATE-Now I’m really getting confused. This is a single family residence? Craig, this is for
you, an SFR-20 zone? Right?
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Are commercial operations permitted in this area.
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. ABBATE-Sir, are you operating a commercial business out of this area?
MR. BAPP-Yes, sir, I am.
MR. ABBATE-You know you’re not supposed to.
MR. BRYANT-You can have a home business.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Is this considered a home business?
MR. BRYANT-You can have a home business. You just can’t, I think you’re limited to one
employee.
MR. BAPP-I have a home business, and nothing is done at my home. All the work that I perform is
performed elsewhere, thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? All right, having heard
that, I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here that would like to speak in favor of the
application, outside of the property owner?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BETTY NELSON
MRS. NELSON-Could I say one thing?
MR. HAYES-Of course you can.
MRS. NELSON-I spoke to, I did go over, not knowing Hewitts, I did go in there one day and spoke
to the young man in there, and asked him how he felt about it, and he, on behalf of his dad and a
man that does own the other property, had no problem with it, and as you all may or may not know,
there is a business that is seeking to buy all of that property anyway, which, in that case, the buildings
wouldn’t exist, and that would take care of everybody’s problem. So, to be an eyesore for that
amount of space, I don’t feel that it is. Yes, I agree with you that we could have gone, or, had I been
involved, I was out of town, family matters, we could have gone an easier route to come to some
kind of a conclusion, but I do please request your patience with this.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application?
Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Having heard that, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Gentlemen, we’ll talk about it. First on this one is Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-I was afraid of that. This is a tough one. There’s several things against the
applicant. He built this structure without a building permit, without checking to see how close to the
line he was. On the other hand, as has been pointed out, it probably impacts at least at this point, no
one. Though it hasn’t specifically been said, it sounds like it would be major project at this point to
move the structure or to tear half of it down and build it on the back end of it, or whatever, to bring
it into compliance. So that certainly would be a hardship for the applicant. I honestly don’t know
which way I’m going to go. I’d like to hear the reasoning of the other members of the Board. I’m
half drawn to saying that I’d approve, since it doesn’t seem to affect anybody else, and since it would
cause a lot of difficulty. On the other hand, it was built without a building permit, and it’s too close
to the line. So, I don’t know, which is no help, I know.
MR. HAYES-That’s honest remarks, though, and they’re always appreciated. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think that the applicant has explained, you know, that the driveway
situation there and, you know, onto the neighbor’s land there at the same time, but, you know, the
carport where it’s been constructed, I think is less offensive than if it were on the side, and all that
equipment was exposed to the street and passing traffic and probably for securing your, all your
expensive equipment, too. It’s not going to be that much of a temptation for somebody to come by
and help themselves. It’s probably not good that a building permit wasn’t received prior to
construction, but at the same time, as you mentioned, too, this is kind of a transitional zone here, I
mean, who knows if it’s going to be here five years from now, it may be a shopping center for all we
know, due to its nearness to Quaker. So, I’m sitting on the fence on this one, too. So, I’ll wait and
see what everybody says.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, you’re going the wrong way. I think after Chuck it should have been
Bob.
MR. HAYES-I did that purposely. I just wanted to see if you were still alive on the last.
MR. BRYANT-As I look through the criteria for granting this type of variance, I can understand,
after the thing is built, your desire to maintain the carport. There is a feasible alternative, and albeit
an expensive alternative, but to move the carport to a more compliant location, and based on the
survey map, there’s plenty of location to put that carport. Granted, as Mr. Underwood said, it’s in a
place that is not readily visible from the street, and so, you know, in that regard, that’s positive. I
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
think the relief is substantial. Seventy-two percent of relief is substantial, and I think, even though
it’s a transitional area, that the effects are relatively moderate. I think the most troubling thing for me
is the sequence of events, and that has nothing to do with the application, but once you were told
that you should really stop working, that’s what should have happened, and you should have gone
through the normal process and you wouldn’t be here tonight. So, with all that in mind, I think there
are feasible alternatives, and I think I would be opposed to the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Bapp, I believe you are an intelligent person. I
also believe that you are literate, and this is evidenced by the fact that you are a business owner, and
I’m going to assume that it’s a successful business, and I certainly hope it is successful, for your sake,
but what troubles me, sir, is that there is an indication that you really weren’t quite sure, and you’ve
based your argument on the fact that you have received a yellow piece of paper and you had thought
that that was a building permit. I don’t buy it, and there are other areas of which I’m concerned
about. I think there are feasible alternatives, and I’m sorry to say, sir, I believe this is an application
which is after the fact, and you knew darn well what you were doing, and I would not be in favor of
approving this request.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I think the matter that we’re looking at here is a small bit of relief, in
connection with something that’s badly needed, in an area where almost no matter where it was built,
other than I’d say the north side where there is another dwelling nearby, that it would have any
negative impact. Across the way there we’ve got Duke and that lot which I’m sure will always be
some commercial area, and I think that the, all told, where it is, in spite of the procedures that might
have preceded our being here tonight, which are confusing to me, still, I think that it would have
been perhaps easy to assume, the applicant to assume that he was on safe ground. So, be that aside, I
would approve this, based upon the matter of the amount of the variance or relief is not substantial,
not any great impact to the neighborhood or community, and it is something that the applicant
needs, and that’s my feeling. I would support the application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Bob?
MR. MC NALLY-I was impressed, when I drove in. I would not have known that your side yard is
not your land. Because of the vehicles parked there and the pavement and everything else around, it
seems clearly occupied, and I kept trying to figure out, was this the shed in the rear of the building
that was the one that we were to look at, because it seemed like it was awfully far from where the rest
of the stuff was, the edge of the property, but I do see the problem, on the survey, how it’s so close
to the line, and I always ask myself, if you had come to us before you built this place, would I have
approved a shed 4.7 feet from the line, and to be perfectly honest with you, I don’t think I would
have. I would have asked you to go to your neighbor and get an easement. I would have asked you
to go to your neighbor and get some kind of an agreement that would be filed as a deed so that
there’s no question nothing could be built on the property that you’re occupying already, and with
that surety in hand, I think I would approve it, but I wouldn’t let you walk away from here without
some kind of assurance that in the future someone is not going to build along that property line or
kick you off that property line, and then you are four feet from the line. Your comment that no one
in the world is going to really be affected by this is true, though. There is nothing on that other lot,
and it is right behind the house where you would normally expect it to be, but in this case you’ve got
2.1 acres. One heck of a garage and shed could be built on the remaining 2.1 acres. I don’t know,
necessarily, that the shed is a very costly structure to move or to change, and I do think that by going
ahead with the construction, even after being told to stop, you kind of created your own problem
there. So, on balance, unless there’s some kind of concessions or some kind of effort, I think I might
be opposed to this.
MRS. NELSON-Could I say something more?
MR. HAYES-You’re fine. Go ahead.
MRS. NELSON-I’m sure you all know, obviously you’d have to know more than what I do what is
going on with each property, right?
MR. HAYES-The only problem with that is.
MRS. NELSON-Well, there has been, they have signed.
MR. BAPP-We have actually signed the paper.
MRS. NELSON-The paper that within three months they will be (lost words).
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. HAYES-That’s an option, then. Unfortunately, until executed, that’s still a hypothetical. See, as
a Board, if we dealt with those type of hypotheticals, we could get decisions that are based on things
that might not, in fact, happen.
MRS. NELSON-Well, my point was going to be for him to take that, you know, not such a costly,
and then move it to another location or even spend the money, okay, he did something bad, and
that’s like slapping him twice on the hand. It’s almost for naught, you know, especially this time of
year, the three months of, with the weather being the way it’s going to be here in another month, it
won’t allow him time to do that. Because by the time that’s done, the option will have been picked
up.
MR. HAYES-Well, theoretically. You understand why we can’t go by that, just because it’s.
MR. MC NALLY-And I don’t see it as your picking up the whole thing and moving it. You’re 4.7
feet from the line, and you have to only be 15 feet from the line. So there might be some way of
cutting it short that it might be less (lost words) is what I’m saying.
MR. HIMES-Again, though, as said in the Staff notes, it’s already a nonconforming structure. Part
of the house, I think, is up pretty close, and this thing, from looking, I looked at it and looking at the
drawings, it does encroach a little more, but it isn’t as if the thing itself was impacted by the whole
relief required. It’s just a little more than the pre-existing condition of the house. That’s my
understanding, at least. Right, nonconforming structure?
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me throw my two cents in here, too. I’d like to, not remind the Board, but I
guess I have a question for the Board. I believe that 72% of 100 is substantial, and I’m not asking
for a reply, but 72% of 100, in my opinion, is substantial relief.
MR. HAYES-Right. I guess I’m the only one who hasn’t spoken here. So I’ll finish my comments
and then we can go to a motion. Historically, in the past, we’ve had these building permit issues
happen before, and there’s certainly sometimes it’s conflicting testimony, as to how they happen or
why they happen, and there’s probably an element of truth on both sides, and historically in those
circumstances, the first time I’ve given the benefit to the applicant, and then after that it’s their risk.
I believe in that, and in this particular case, I’m willing to do that. I’m willing to extend the benefit to
you, Mr. Bapp, being that you have not been before the Board on this matter before or any other
matter. So I’ll assume that that’s not a habit, or a problem that we have to deal with. In this
particular case, I think I agree with Norm, in that certainly the amount of relief that’s being requested
is moderate or substantial. As Chuck has pointed out, 72% of the Ordinance is certainly high, but as
I look at the property, I don’t believe that there’s any real affect on the neighborhood or community
by where this carport is placed. In fact, if there’s some kind of collection of the articles that are
involved with your life or your business in this particular circumstance, it might actually benefit that
particular road and that particular neighborhood. The feasible alternatives are limited, I think, based
on the fact that this is a very unusually shaped lot, and placing this carport where you did, near your
home, for the reasons that you’ve stated, I guess they’re believable to me, to the extent that I might
be able to reflect favorably on the application. It’s already a nonconforming position, and as Bob
pointed out, when I first looked at the position of this, it would be hard to imagine that that was
closer to the line. So the idea or the fact that you’re suggesting that you constructed this believing
that it was not in the setback, I think, is believable because, hey, that’s how I interpreted it when I
walked on the property, or when I looked at it. When applicants ask me to accept that, when I have
the complete opposite conclusion, when I visit the property, it’s harder for me to support them, quite
frankly. If you didn’t have a survey, it is believable, in my opinion, that you placed that in what you
thought was a compliant location, in that circumstance, and I guess we have to be careful in
examining remedies to this type of situation, to the point where we encourage people to build things
without permits or too close to the line, but I think, when it’s a very close decision, I think it’s a little
bit of Draconian relief, in this case, because of where it sits, to ask you to take that all down and
move it. I don’t think that that’s, I just don’t think that it’s enough of a violation, or it’s close call
anyway. So I think that the amount of relief that I’d be asking you to conduct would be too much,
based on that. Obviously, if I didn’t feel that it was an honest mistake, or if it didn’t look good as I
saw it, then I think we’d have to do that, but I don’t think we have to do that in this circumstance,
but that’s only my opinion. So I guess I’m in favor of the application, very slightly, based on, really,
you passing three out of the five tests, and that’s just a small pass, but that’s the thing to do, I think.
So I’m in favor of the application. Having said that, though, I guess we have three noes, two yeses,
and two maybes, according to my poll. So I think we need to have a motion and then we’ll see where
this goes.
MR. HIMES-A motion for?
MR. ABBATE-Or do you want a motion against?
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
MR. HAYES-Well, we have, whatever the Board, that’s not my job. I think it’s whatever.
MR. HIMES-Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may offer a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2001 TODD J. BAPP, Introduced by
Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
72 Everts Avenue. The applicant has constructed a 448 square foot carport addition. The relief
required is 10 feet of relief from the 15 foot minimum setback requirement of the SFR-20 zone,
Section 179-20. Additionally, the applicant seeks relief for the expansion of a non-conforming
structure per 179-79. The benefit to the applicant is simply the applicant would be permitted to
maintain the carport as built. The feasible alternatives, there are alternatives, with the amount of land
that’s available to the applicant, but it would site his carport in an area removed from his dwelling
therefore there would be security problems for the stuff that he wants to store in it. So having it
close to the dwelling, and in back of it, away from the road, is, to me, the most practical place to put
it, and thus we have the problem of the encroachment. Is the relief substantial relative to the
Ordinance? 10.8 feet of relief from the 15 foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate to
substantial relative to the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood and community? As per Staff
notes, moderate effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. I’d like to
supplement that with the fact that we have had no correspondence, no one here to oppose, and I
might think that we might say that this silence gives consent, in so far as any of the neighbors are
concerned. So there’s certainly no negative impact, as far as we can see, on the neighborhood. Is the
difficulty self-created? Well, yes and no. Yes the lot is kind of oddball shaped, lending to the
problem, and the matter that the house itself is already close to the line, it’s a non-conforming
structure. What the carport is doing is, it by itself is asking for all this relief, but it’s only a little bit
more relief from what has already existed in terms of the house, the front of the house, what I think
of as the side, from the line, from the way I understand it. So in view of these factors, I think that it
is a benefit to the applicant and the community to approve this application as submitted.
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. McNally, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is passed.
MR. BAPP-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Hang on, gentlemen. We have a set of minutes here that I’d like to take
care of. Has everyone had a chance to review the September 19, 2001 minutes? Does everything
look okay?
MR. HIMES-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
September 19, 2001: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 19, 2001 QUEENSBURY ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS MINUTES, Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 24 day of October, 2001, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNally
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The meeting is adjourned.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/24/01)
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman
36