2003-03-26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 26, 2003
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
PAUL HAYES, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
NORMAN HIMES
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE
JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
LEWIS STONE
CHARLES ABBATE
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2003 TYPE II RICHARD PENNOCK, JR. AGENT: N/A
PROPERTY OWNER: RICHARD PENNOCK, JR. ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 37
ORCHARD DRIVE, OLD ORCHARD SUBD., SECTION 3 APPLICANT HAS PLACED A
235 SQ. FT. STORAGE SHED ON THE LOT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK
REQIUREMENTS AS WELL AS MAXIMUM SIZE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 3/12/03 CROSS REF. BP 2002-918 AX MAP NO. 296.10-1-42 LOT SIZE: 1.19
ACRES SECTION 179-5-020(B1b) AND (D)
RICHARD PENNOCK, JR., PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2003, Richard Pennock, Jr., Meeting Date: March 26,
2003 “Project Location: 37 Orchard Drive, Old Orchard Subd., Section 3 Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant has placed a 235 sq. ft. shed on his property. Relief Required:
Applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement (for the
Country Club Road frontage) and for 35 sq. ft. of relief from the 200 sq. ft. maximum size
requirement for an accessory structure in an SFR Zone; §179-5-020 (B1b and D). Criteria for
considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the
applicant: Applicant would be permitted to keep the oversized shed in the existing location. 2.
Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives might include relocating the shed to a compliant
location. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the Ordinance?: 10 feet of relief from the 30-
foot minimum front setback requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to
the ordinance (33.3%), and 35 sq. ft. from the 200 sq. ft. maximum size requirement may be
interpreted as minimal to moderate relative to the ordinance (17.5%). 4. Effects on the
neighborhood or community: Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a
result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? Some of the difficulty may be attributed
to a claim by the applicant he misunderstood the requirements for maximum size allowed and
the requirements for locating the structure compliantly. Parcel History (construction/site
plan/variance, etc.): BP 2002-771: 11/07/02, 200 sq. ft. shed. BP 95589: 11/07/95, 300 sq. ft. deck.
BP 95219: 05/11/95, in-ground pool. BP 94528: 10/03/94, single-family dwelling with attached
garage. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
applicant claims he misunderstood the requirements for locating the structure compliantly and
the definition of a building’s “floor area” versus a building’s “square footage” pertaining to the
maximum size allowed. The applicant claims the plot plan he submitted for the building permit
application backs up his claim for the setback misunderstanding. The applicant claims he
ordered and paid for a 20’ x 11’ shed, which has an inside floor area of 199 sq. ft. Additionally,
the applicant claims his neighbors support his application. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Pennock, Richard, Jr. Owner: Richard Pennock, Jr. ID Number: QBY-03-
AV-20 County Project#: Mar03-38 Current Zoning: SFR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant has placed a 235 sq. ft. storage shed on the lot. Relief requested from
setback requirements as well as maximum size requirements. Site Location: 37 Orchard Drive,
Old Orchard Subd., Section 3 Tax Map Number(s): 296.10-1-42 Staff Notes: Area Variance:
The applicant requests relief from an already constructed 235 sq. ft. storage shed. The property
borders two roads Country Club and Old Orchard. The Shed was constructed 30’ from Country
Club where 50’ is required. The maximum size shed allowed in the residential zone is 200 sq. ft.
where the applicant’s is 235 sq. ft. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff
recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Pennock?
MR. PENNOCK-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to add to your application?
MR. PENNOCK-Yes. Actually, when I came in to Queensbury to see about this shed, it was in
October, if you’d read right, what they gave me, it says right in there it may not exceed 20
square feet floor area. So that’s not telling me a footprint of the building. So, I mean, that’s why
I went by that, to go right off the bat, and that’s right in the packet that I gave you, and it reads
just like that. So, I mean, if you read that, to me, you know, and I’m in the building business,
200 square feet of floor area is floor area, not the footprint of the building, not the framing of the
outside, and also, it is 30 inches on my permit that they okayed for that side line. It says 30
inches right on it, not 30 feet, and my address is 37 Orchard Drive. So when I went in to this,
you know, I asked and I told them where my property was. I called Queensbury about this
whole thing, and they told me 10, 10, 10, and 50 from the front. Well my address is 37 Orchard
Drive, not Wincrest Road. I mean, so now they’re telling me that I have two front roads because
of Wincrest and Orchard. So these are the problems that I’ve run into, and it’s not what I said.
It’s what you people, you know, what Queensbury told me I could do. I also have from my
neighbors, my immediate neighbors right around me, they signed a little petition here stating
that they don’t have a problem with the shed, the location. They actually like where I put it.
These are my neighbors that live right around my house, and I didn’t submit this because I just
had this done in the last couple of days, and they’re all signed, and their address is on this.
MR. HAYES-All right. I’ll have you give that to the secretary at the end of the, that’s over here.
All right. He’ll read those names and the caption at the top.
MR. PENNOCK-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything else you’d like to add?
MR. PENNOCK-That’s it.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for Mr. Pennock?
MR. BRYANT-I actually have a number of questions. I agree with what you just said. I mean,
even if you look in the Code book under Floor Area, it does say the size of the building, which
is really not saying footprint of the building versus square footage of the interior, and that’s
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
what you based it on. Okay, but I’m looking at your permit application. It does show your
shed. It shows a couple of things. It shows 50 feet from Country Club Road.
MR. PENNOCK-We went from the other side of the road basing that’s the other person’s
property. So we took a tape out there and we just ran it, and that actually leaves me 22 feet of
the property line in, which they told me 10 feet at the time. So that’s why I had done that.
MR. BRYANT-No, it doesn’t show it clearly here. It just says to the road.
MR. PENNOCK-Well, it’s drawn to the other side of the road, if you look at it, the line is drawn
across the road.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but they didn’t show the other side of the road on my sheet.
MR. PENNOCK-I agree. I didn’t know how else to do it.
MR. BRYANT-And then the other thing it doesn’t show is the size of the storage shed.
MR. PENNOCK-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So I think if you had put that on the application, that the building was,
whatever it was, 20 by 11.
MR. PENNOCK-I did put that on the application. They asked me to bring a plan.
MR. BRYANT-You did put that on the application?
MR. PENNOCK-I gave them a plan of the building.
MR. FRANK-He’s referring to the building permit application.
MR. PENNOCK-On the building permit application.
MR. BRYANT-Does it say, because we don’t have a copy of that.
MR. FRANK-No, but it was for a.
MR. BRYANT-A 20 by 11 shed?
MR. FRANK-I’m not sure. I didn’t review that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, because all we have is a copy of your drawing, okay, but on the drawing it
doesn’t say how big the shed is.
MR. PENNOCK-No. What they asked me for was a copy of a brochure, because they didn’t
have any floor plans for these sheds. So I brought the brochure down and I circled the shed,
and I gave that with my application for the building permit.
MR. BRYANT-And did it say it was a 20 by 11 shed?
MR. PENNOCK-Exactly.
MR. BRYANT-Those are my questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here that wishes to speak in favor of this application? Opposed?
Please come forward and identify yourself.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DOUG HERSCHLEB
MR. HERSCHLEB-Good evening. I’m Doug Herschleb, 33 Orchard Drive, and I’m opposed to
the granting of it. I believe you ought to enforce the zoning codes the way they’re written. I
have some issues around the structure, as far as my, the integrity of my development. I know
that’s not an issue for you, but I do have issues around that. I think the Zoning Board ought to
consider that when they’re taking these variances at task here. That does effect the integrity of
my neighborhood. It effects the value of my home. So, basically, I’m opposed to the variance.
MR. BRYANT-What portion are you opposed to? Are you opposed to the size of the structure
or are you opposed to the placement of the structure?
MR. HERSCHLEB-I’m opposed to the size of the structure, and I am opposed to the site, the
location. I understand that the back of his home, where he placed it, was probably the only
place he could place it. I mean, he placed it where it made sense from his perspective, but I still
think that he ought to meet the Zoning Code as written, and I’m a little concerned that we give
variance after the fact. I mean, I’m concerned about that. I know there’s some issue around him
being confused about what the rules were, but I get nervous about doing that after the fact. So,
I hope there’s some remedy that makes sense for this, but I have to say that I’m opposed to it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the
application?
SPENCER BALDWIN
MR. BALDWIN-My name is Spencer Baldwin. I live at 26 Orchard Drive in Queensbury. I’m a
new resident. I purchased a home through a local attorney, and I was told that the Town of
Queensbury does not allow second garages. They allow one garage with an attached or
detached, because at the time I was hoping to have another vehicle storage area on my own
property and I was told that is not possible in the Town of Queensbury. So I’m concerned with
the fact that, you know, I’m meeting the guidelines. I have not purchased the third vehicle that
I would like because I have no place to put it at this point, but I just think that having a, to me,
it’s a one car garage, I’m sorry. It looks like it’s got a garage door. It looks like a garage, and it’s
only 10 foot from the road, approximately. I would certainly know not to measure from the
other side of the road for the setback requirement. So I just don’t think you should grant a
variance from the 30 foot setback at all. I think you guys have got the call, but this is my first
opportunity to be in front of you, and we purchased that property because of the community.
It’s a beautiful area to live and we like it, and I’m just concerned with the property values and
things like that in the future. That’s basically it. Any questions?
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. BALDWIN-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to the application? If
not, I’ll read correspondence. Mr. Pennock, would you like to come back up to the mic and give
the secretary your petition there or? Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-This reads, “We the neighbors of Richard and Carmella Pennock, 37 Orchard
Drive, Queensbury, NY have no opposition to the placement of said storage shed size or
placement on his property. It does not in any way take away from the perception we have
achieved in our neighborhood.” I can’t read all these signatures. The first one is.
MR. PENNOCK-Steven Klempa. He’s the gentleman building the new house next door to me.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay, 59 Wincrest Drive is what he’s showing, and I gather it’s his wife that
signed the second.
MR. PENNOCK-Yes, Lisa Fedele.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Diana Tallon, 32 Orchard Dr., Ralph E. Daab, 76 Country Club Rd.,
Robert M. Purdy, 75 Country Club Rd., and Al Boychuk, 35 Orchard.
MR. HAYES-Is there any other additional correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No other correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, in fairness to the applicant, I just wanted to comment on one of the
things one of the neighbors had said. As you can see, I’ve got a photograph up here. I
measured setback to a survey point that was in the ground that was put in shortly before I had
investigated, and the setback is about 20 feet from the property line. The survey point is in the
ditch along the side of the road. So to the actual road bed it’s at least 25 feet from the road bed.
I also pulled a distance to the center of the road, just to see what I would get, and it was about
48 feet. So I don’t know who measured what and when. I know what I did, and for the record,
that’s what I believe to be accurate.
MR. HAYES-You’re saying that the setback from the current property line then is 22 feet?
MR. FRANK-If you look at this photograph. I have another photograph that you can see the
actual flagging on the pin that’s in that drainage ditch. That’s where the property line runs. So
that’s where the property line is. It’s 20 feet to the shed from the property line.
MR. URRICO-What do you think it is to the edge of the road?
MR. FRANK-To the edge of the road is probably about 25 feet, and to the center of the road it’s
about 47, 48 feet.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask the applicant another question, please.
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. BRYANT-I know somewhere in your application you say that you can’t place it any place
else on the property. Why is that?
MR. PENNOCK-Well, I can move it forward, I think it’s eight feet I’ve got to move it, but it’s
going to be stuck out in the middle of my lawn. I think it’s going to be more of a sore sight
there, as far as the neighborhood goes, than where I tucked it in the woods. I mean, it’s got
trees growing around it. I left trees behind it. I left a good barrier so that when it grows in you
don’t really even see it. It’s just that it’s wintertime in that picture.
MR. BRYANT-Those trees actually act as a barrier from your house because.
MR. PENNOCK-And on the road, too, if he goes back to the picture. I left a nice, you know, 22
foot barrier between the road and the shed itself, and it’s all trees. I didn’t clear any of it out. I
just cleared the spot for the shed, you know, to hide it in the woods more or less.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. BRYANT-As far as the comments made, relative to that being an additional garage, that
shed is just a store bought shed that was put there. There’s no concrete foundation under there?
MR. PENNOCK-Nothing. They came, leveled it off. They dropped it off with a flat bed truck
and you can come see, there’s no car inside that shed. It’s lawn furniture and things everybody
puts in their shed. I mean, I can guarantee you there’s not a car in that shed.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think you could drive a car in that shed because you’d go through the
floor.
MR. PENNOCK-Yes, exactly. It’s a wood floor.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but all I’m saying, you don’t have another level place?
MR. PENNOCK-If you look at the hill in the back of my house, everything slopes away from
the house, and we did that because it’s a very wet piece of property. I mean, it’s very poor
drainage there. So, I mean, that’s the flattest area, really, on my property.
MR. BRYANT-How much flat space do you have to the left of the shed going toward your
property?
MR. PENNOCK-I’m guessing probably six to eight feet before it gets into the slope.
MR. BRYANT-And if you had to move it those six to eight feet, how complicated would it be?
MR. PENNOCK-I’d have to clear that area, which, that’s what they didn’t want.
MR. BRYANT-There are trees there, right?
MR. PENNOCK-Exactly. It’s all wooded. I mean, I tried to leave it so that it was hidden. Steve
Klempa the gentleman that signed that paper, actually wanted to come tonight, and I didn’t
think I’d need him because it’s just a shed, or else I would have had him come. He was going to
speak for me saying that it gives him nice privacy from the shed because he’s building the
house right next door to me.
MR. HERSCHLEB- Is there any way I can comment on the barrier aspect? There’s no barrier.
MR. HAYES-I’m going to reopen the public hearing for one comment. Go ahead.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. HERSCHLEB-I want some reasonable remedy, but the fact is, there isn’t a barrier to
Country Club Road. It sits right there and it stares at you when you’re coming up Country
Club Road. Now, if somehow you could create a barrier between that shed and Country Club
Road, it sure would help a whole lot.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anyone else that has any other comments, because I’m going to
close the public hearing permanently? Okay. Thank you.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions?
MR. URRICO-I have a question for Bruce. Bruce, can we get a copy of the permit with the size
on it?
MR. FRANK-I don’t. What I can tell you is this. That’s reviewed by the Zoning Administrator.
He has that file, and he reviewed these notes. So if the applicant is stating something other than
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
what is the truth, then the Zoning Administrator, I would believe, would have comment on it.
He edits and critiques my notes. That’s the best I can tell you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll start right off in order
with Joyce.
MRS. HUNT-Okay. Well, looking at the picture, that’s what bothers me is that it’s so close to
the road. It is sort of sticking out there, but it doesn’t seem to be that, it was really self-created,
you know, with the size and with the location, figuring that was his back yard. So, no, I would
like to see something to make it look less obvious from Country Club Road, maybe plantings or
something like that. That’s what my.
MR. HAYES-Okay. So you’re a little bit undecided?
MRS. HUNT-A little bit undecided.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I do agree with the applicant on one issue, and I think the Zoning Code here is
not clear. It does say inside. It does say, I’m sorry, I just lost my spot here, but he was talking, if
he was given instruction, I can see where he would have gotten that instruction from. It says
storage sheds may not exceed 200 square feet in floor area. Now if that’s right in the Code, I
think there’s a problem there. So I do agree with him on that. I’ll give him that one, but I am
bothered by its proximity to the road, and I’d like to see some adjustment back. I don’t know
what that adjustment is, but I’d like to see some movement back.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you, Bruce? In his application, he’s got this one, two, three, four, five.
I’m assuming, it’s a blank sheet of paper, one, two, three, four, five, and a couple of paragraphs.
Are you saying that the Zoning Administrator looked at this portion of it? This is not added
after the fact or anything? So he was able to see that it was an 11 by 20 shed from the get go?
MR. FRANK-His responsibility is to review building permits for zoning compliance. So he
reviewed the portion of this application that shows the site plan. That was included in the
building permit application.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, but we don’t have the portion of it that actually says that the shed is 11 by
20.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-We have this sheet here, which is part of this, the application for this variance,
that says it’s 11 by 20.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-We can’t verify that, from the get go his application said it was 11 by 20.
MR. FRANK-Because I didn’t review that application, because it’s not my job, again, the Zoning
Administrator does, he reviewed my Staff notes, which I have stated that, and he didn’t critique
it and make changes or discuss it with me. That’s all I can give you, and again, I realize that’s,
it’s hearsay.
MR. BRYANT-Now he would have, at this time, he would have, at the permit application, he
would have seen this drawing that we have here that shows the 50 foot mark?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. FRANK-This is the drawing that he submitted as part of the building permit application
for the shed.
MR. BRYANT-But he would also give a setback worksheet, right?
MR. FRANK-Yes. There’s a sheet, a zoning compliance sheet, that’s filled out showing what the
setback requirements were for the Old Orchard subdivision.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and in that, did it show that it was a 50 foot setback?
MR. FRANK-The applicant wasn’t given that. The Zoning Administrator was given that by
support staff. It’s a compliance check sheet to show what the setbacks are for that zone, or
Planning Board approved subdivision, and he used that piece of information, and he looks at
the building permit application and the site plan that’s submitted to review it for zoning
compliance.
MR. BRYANT-I’m just trying to determine whether or not, on the initial application, the
applicant put the proper setback, you know, if he showed a 50 foot setback, if that was what
was originally brought to the Administrator to approve for the permit.
MR. FRANK-What you see right here is what was brought to the Administrator as part of the
building permit application, with that 50 feet showing somewhere past the front property line,
and this 30, there is an inch mark next to that, to the side property line, and by the way, I
measured that. It was 15 feet. So, again, the applicant may have not provided accurate
information for that side setback, which is an issue here, but why he put 50 feet down, he’s
claiming he was confused. I have no reason to doubt him. Why would you put that on your
application.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I have just one more question and then I’ll make my comment. You said
you’re in the building business. You build houses, is that what you build?
MR. PENNOCK-No. I do kitchens and bathrooms. So I work with a lot of the builders in the
area.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you don’t build houses, and you don’t have anything to do with
setbacks or anything?
MR. PENNOCK-No, no.
MR. BRYANT-Well, my opinion on the thing is one of the things that I look at is whether or not
I would have approved it prior to building, you know, an addition or putting a shed, if you
came to us with the application prior to putting the shed, I probably would not have approved
it, okay. I’ve got to say, though, that, in this particular case, I don’t find the shed offensive,
Number One. Driving up and down Country Club Road, I’m a little bit concerned about the
placement towards the road. If you could move that shed over another six feet or eight feet, it
would probably make it more palatable. The size of the shed does not, the relief that you’re
asking for, the 35 square feet, is not excessive. I would go along with that easily. I would like to
see the shed moved over a little bit. So I’m in favor of the application, however, I would like to
be able to grant less relief as far as the setback is concerned, and that’s my position.
MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s well said. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think if you look at the Old Orchard subdivision, that, you know,
this is not in the architectural front yard. So it’s not going to have any effect on the subdivision
up the hill, but I think that when you do drive down Country Club Road, and I drive down it
every day, the shed does kind of stick out like a sore thumb. One suggestion I would make is,
in lieu of moving the shed, I don’t think moving it over an extra five or eight feet is really going
to make that much difference, as far as anybody seeing the shed or anything like that, but I
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
notice that, you know, over the time that you’ve been there, that there’s been quite a bit of
clearing of the vegetation along there. I know you wanted to open it up so you got more sun,
probably, because you get that nice early morning sun.
MR. PENNOCK-Yes, it’s very wet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But at the same time, I think where your shed is, I mean, you could paint it
a darker color maybe. I don’t know if that would help or put some shrubbery around it, just to
have it blend in a little bit better so it doesn’t show so much as it is. As far as the size of the
shed, it’s close enough. I don’t think that’s any big deal, but I’d be willing to grant the relief,
but I think that you could maybe do something like that to camouflage it a little more.
MR. PENNOCK-I could put some cedars or something like that along it. It’ll grow.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, don’t have any difficulty with the square footage
area, except the statement, the misunderstanding, and it can be possible that some of the stuff in
our Code, it is a small amount. On the roadway, I think that it should be moved back to be
compliant, a little bit away from that slope, cut into it if you have to, move it back, and you
don’t even, you have no other problem as far as setback is concerned, a little vegetation which
we could require in that instance would help because you can see construction materials, and
you’ve got a trailer or two and so on, and it isn’t an appealing site, as far as I can see. So that’s
the way I feel about it. I would not approve the application as submitted in connection with the
setback to the road.
MR. HAYES-Chuck? Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, several thoughts. I could probably go along with the increase in the
square footage size, but I would, I want to make the point that I’m not going to say it’s minimal
and I don’t care about it. The rules say 200 square feet. On the other hand, I think this is
another case where somehow the Town has failed the applicant. I don’t know who’s to blame,
but I think the Town has got to get busy and pay more attention to people that are coming in to
apply for things like this, understand that they may not be familiar with all the procedures and
somebody’s got to take them by the hand and make sure they understand what’s going on, you
know, the fact that this is a second front yard should have been picked up early on. So that you
would have known that.
MR. PENNOCK-I agree with you.
MR. MC NULTY-And, likewise, the square footage. I haven’t run into it before, but I can see
where the misunderstanding came from, and that, again, should have been picked up and
explained thoroughly before you ever moved to buy the shed or whatever. So, as kind of
mitigation for that, or vice versa, I could go along with the increased size, but, frankly, the
appearance of that particular section of land bothers me, and while my values, as far as what
looks good or bad, may not be important, at the same time, I think this goes towards the
detriment to the community versus the benefit to the applicant. Certainly, it’s better to have it,
for Orchard Park it’s better to have it here than up next to your house, but at the same time, the
trend on Country Club Road is towards better homes. There is a good development across the
street from the end of Wincrest. It’s headed upscale, and, frankly, I think this is going to end up
being an eyesore the way it’s sitting now, in the future, for Country Club Road, and while it’s a
shed, it does look like a second garage. The first time I saw it, my initial reaction is, those guys
that are building the house on the corner of Wincrest must have dropped it there for
construction material for now and it would be a temporary thing. So, as it sits now, I would be
opposed to it, based on the fact I think it is going to be a detriment to the neighborhood,
speaking in terms of Country Club Road, in the future. On the other hand, if it were moved
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
back to a compliant setback, which I think in this case is feasible, it may be a pain in the neck,
but it’s not like this was a house with a big foundation on it. It’s something that somebody with
a big sized forklift or a good tractor could probably haul it back. So I think it’s feasible to move
it. If it could be hauled back and some provision made for some screening, whether it’s shrubs
or whatever, to screen that area a little bit, because now we’ve got a shed and a trailer in there,
and I don’t want to see a collection of other things in there, at least that are visible.
MR. PENNOCK-The trailer’s a registered vehicle, though.
MR. MC NULTY-So, again, from my viewpoint, I could vote in favor of increased floor square
footage, but I’d like to see the shed moved back to a compliant location.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Historically, I’ve made it a point not to reiterate what my
fellow Board members have said. I’d just simply say I pretty much agree with what’s been said.
As I go through my informal poll, I think that you’re not going to get the application that is
submitted. I think that the possibility of a successful application if you move the shed back is
there, and I think that’s the direction of the motion, and I feel similarly. So, having said that,
would someone like to take this one?
MR. BRYANT-What did you just say?
MR. HAYES-Well, I just said that I feel similar to the Board in the fact that the increased floor
area ratio, I think that there is possibly some mitigation there, and I don’t think it’s to the extent
that troubles me, but I certainly think that the shed is too visible from Country Club Road to say
that it doesn’t impact the neighborhood. So, I guess that’s similar to what most of the other
Board members have said. So I think some, I think a motion to approve the floor ratio, the
increased square footage on the shed, the leading, the dimensional relief would carry, if
somebody wants to make that motion. Norm? Thanks.
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2003 RICHARD PENNOCK, JR.,
Introduced by Norman Himes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
37 Orchard Drive. Applicant has placed a 235 square foot shed on his property. The relief
required, the applicant requests 10 feet of relief from the 30 foot minimum front setback
requirement for the Country Club Road frontage, and for 35 square feet of relief from the 200
square foot maximum size requirement for an accessory structure in an SFR zone, per
paragraph 179-5-020. The benefit to the applicant, the applicant would be permitted to keep the
oversized shed. However, the application is being approved with your agreement and
understanding that the shed has to be moved back to a compliant distance from your property
line on Country Club Road. Feasible alternatives, in connection with the square footage
variance that will allow that without requiring any change there because we don’t feel it would
be practical in this particular situation. In connection with the distance, setback, a feasible
alternative is to put it in a compliant location, which has been agreed upon. Is the relief
substantial to the Ordinance? Ten feet of relief from the thirty-foot minimum front setback
requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, and the thirty-five square feet from
the two hundred square foot maximum size requirement may be interpreted as minimal to
moderate. Effects on the neighborhood or community, well, in connection with the size
variance, we feel that there is minimal effects on the neighborhood or on the community.
However, in connection with the setback as applied, it would have a negative impact, especially
on individuals using Country Club Road, and possibly in connection with the overflow to your
neighbors, in connection with the back yard that might be deemed to be not right up to snuff,
from appearance standpoint. I’d like to add, as a condition, that we’ll allow a reasonable
amount of time, certainly, say August 1 for you to make the move of the shed, and again, we
st
would like to say, in addition to that, and I think if you could add a little vegetation, along the
side where you park your vehicle and the trailer, perhaps, just to help to conceal its presence
there. So with those conditions agreed upon, I, again, move that we approve this application.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
Duly adopted this 26 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MR. PENNOCK-Quick question. I mean, it’s real wet right now. Can I have a little time so it
dries out a little bit, so that I can get the stone in?
MR. HAYES-How does the Town handle that?
MR. FRANK-I believe you have a year from the time the approval is made for you to act on a
variance, but since the applicant is in noncompliance, I don’t think that year time span is
appropriate. I mean, he’s asking for a certain amount of time. So he’s willing to work with you.
I think it’s up to the Board if they want to make a certain time arrangement.
MR. HAYES-Yes. Norm, I think you can add a condition, you know, that’s a reasonable amount
of time to accomplish this.
MR. HIMES-Yes. Okay. Yes, I will, at the end.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right.
MR. HIMES-Thank you. Again, we would like to say, in addition to that, and I think you (lost
words) from your comments that if you could add a little vegetation along the side where you
park your vehicle and the trailer, perhaps, just to help conceal its presence there, I’m sure it
would be appreciated by all your neighbors.
MR. PENNOCK-We had planned on doing it.
MR. HIMES-I thought so. I could tell from looking at it you’ve left stuff there.
MR. PENNOCK-I’m doing it a little bit at a time.
MR. HIMES-Yes. It will grow in in time. Perhaps you can work on that.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Pennock, you understand the motion, basically allowing you to keep your
shed, not tear the shed down, but move it to a compliant location, completely compliant
location?
MR. PENNOCK-Sure. Which is 30 feet from my.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to make sure that the applicant agrees to modify his application,
because, you know what I mean? Should we ask him, is he agreeable to modify his application?
MR. HAYES-Well, no, he doesn’t have to modify his application. We’re only granting him a
specific relief. If he doesn’t move the shed, he won’t be in compliance. We’re granting him the
relief for the size, but he’ll be out of compliance with the location. So he’ll have to move it or
he’ll, you know, we’re granting part of the relief, so he’ll have to move the shed to comply.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thanks for coming.
MR. PENNOCK-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2003 TYPE II WILLIAM BERNARD AGENT: N/A PROPERTY
OWNER: WILLIAM BERNARD ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 133 ASSEMBLY POINT
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENCLOSE EXISTING 12 FT. BY 32 FT. LOWER DECK
AND CONSTRUCTA ROOF OVER UPPER DECK AND ADD A 4 FT. WIDE 320 SQ. FT.
DECK AROUND THE ENCLOSED FIRST FLOOR PORCH. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-24 LOT SIZE: 0.90 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030
WILLIAM BERNARD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2003, William Bernard, Meeting Date: March 26, 2003
“Project Location: 133 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to convert an existing 12-foot by 32-foot lower deck into an enclosed porch with a
covered second-floor deck above, and add a 4-foot wide, 320 sq. ft. deck around the first floor
porch. Relief Required: Applicant requests 16 feet 0.5 inches of relief from the 25-foot
minimum rear setback requirement and 9 feet 6 inches of relief from the 30-foot front setback
requirement (Knox Road frontage) of the WR-1A zone, §179-4-030 and for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure, §179-13-010(E). 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 addition in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 16 feet
0.5 inches of relief from the 25-foot minimum rear setback requirement may be interpreted as
moderate (64.2%), and 9 feet 6 inches of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback
requirement may be interpreted as minimal to moderate (31.7%), relative to the ordinance. 4.
Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal 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 2002-845: 10/15/02, 480 sq. ft. storage shed.
AV 69-2002: denied 08/28/02, size and height relief for storage shed.
BP 2002-613: applied for 07/19/02, permit for oversized shed also above allowed height (never
issued).
BP 95-462: 08/11/95, septic alteration.
BP 95-132: 04/13/95, 448 sq. ft. sundeck over dock.
SP 10-95: 03/28/95, 448 sq. ft. sundeck over dock.
AV 1400: 09/21/88, setback relief for single-family dwelling.
Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The new
construction, should it be approved, doesn’t appear to pose any negative effects on the
neighborhood or community. Note: Site not in compliance. Small shed needs to be removed
from lot as a condition of issuing BP 2002-845 for the 480 sq. ft. storage shed. Permanent CO has
not been issued. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Bernard, William Owner: William Bernard ID Number: QBY-03-AV-21
County Project#: Mar03-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes to enclose existing 12 ft. by 32 ft. lower deck and construct a
roof over upper deck and add a 4 ft. wide, 320 sq. ft. deck around the enclosed first floor porch.
Relief requested from setback requirements. Site Location: 133 Assembly Point Road Tax Map
Number(s): 239.7-1-24 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to enclose a 12X 32
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
sq. ft. open deck and to add 4’ wide deck around the enclosure. The existing home is a pre-
existing non-conforming structure. The enclosed porch will be 8+/- from the north side where
25’ is required – existing is 12’ +/-; on the south side the applicant proposes 20+/- where 25’ is
required – existing is 24’. The enclosed porch will be converted to living space and will be
consistent with the existing home. Staff would suggest confirmation that the septic system is
compliant. Staff recommends no county impact with the stipulation that the septic system is
compliant. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The
Board recommends No County Impact with the Stipulation that the septic system is compliant.”
Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/15/03.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I need to make a comment on the special note I put at the end. The
shed was removed this weekend. The applicant didn’t get a C/O for the new shed until some
time until this winter, and it wasn’t feasible to get that shed out of there. So he wasn’t actually
able to utilize the new shed. He was using the old one, and now that enough snow has been
removed, he did move the shed this weekend.
MR. HAYES-All right. So we don’t have to worry about that last paragraph?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. HAYES-Good. Thank you. Mr. Bernard, is there anything you’d like to add to your
application?
MR. BERNARD-I just think it would improve the property where it would fit in a little better in
the neighborhood, and I’d be able to use the front deck more, in inclement weather, a little
longer each year, you know, whether it’s cold or windy or snowing or mosquitoes, whatever. It
just would improve my ability to enjoy the lake. Other than that, you know, the house is very
small. I don’t have a lot of room. This would give me 384 square feet. I’m going to be retiring.
I don’t know if I should say that, but I’ll be there a lot more. So I’ll enjoy it a lot more,
hopefully.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. BERNARD-I’ve talked to the neighbors, especially the one closest to me, and they’ve been
more than supportive of it. A few things I’ve done I think probably they were a little concerned
about how it would work out, and Mary and her son have been well pleased with a lot of things
I’ve done to the lot around the area. So I think that’s the biggest probably hurdle is close to her
line. That row of posts is the line, and I don’t know, unless there’s a concern you’ve got
specifically.
MR. HAYES-The Board will ask you some questions in a minute, but if you just wanted to
clarify or amplify your application, that’s what we’d want at this time. Are you ready for
questions?
MR. BERNARD-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for Mr. Bernard?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Bernard, you’re not increasing the footprint at all?
MR. BERNARD-No.
MR. BRYANT-You’re just enclosing the porch?
MR. BERNARD-Enclosing the porch. That’s it. Well, if you call adding a four foot deck for
aesthetics and, you know, ease of going in and out from different sides to make it look, rather
than have five sets of steps, or whatever.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. BRYANT-So you’re going to enclose the existing deck, and then you’re going to build
another deck outside?
MR. BERNARD-That’s what it says. It’s a four foot deck around the stone stairs.
MR. BRYANT-And then the setbacks are relative to that four foot?
MR. BERNARD-Right, that I’m asking for relief, yes. View D kind of shows what it would look
like, balanced off in the aesthetics of the building and the structure would be. Do you have
View D there?
MR. BRYANT-I see that, but I’m not really seeing how it really.
MR. BERNARD-Just look to the right of the house, how the deck goes out, it says four foot deck.
MR. BRYANT-But how does that play in the?
MR. BERNARD-Well, the measurements for the setbacks go to that four foot deck to the edge of
the, but where you see the house, now, see the upper deck?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. BERNARD-Well, right now, it goes right straight down through, there’s a straight line.
The deck doesn’t go past there. So if you’re saying is it in the same footprint, the enclosed deck
is in the same footprint, but I would like to add the four foot deck around it for access. I don’t
know if everybody’s got that same question.
MR. FRANK-The relief he’s seeking is to the four foot deck, not to the actual enclosed proposal,
that portion of the building.
MR. BRYANT-I’m old. I can’t see these little numbers on this drawing. Okay.
MR. HAYES-Where does he get the rear setback, that relief, what is that for?
MR. FRANK-This is another case of this being a corner lot.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. FRANK-Knox Road is a Town road. So he actually has two frontages and two rears. He
doesn’t have any side yard.
MR. HAYES-So it’s the four foot deck in front of this triggering this dimensional relief?
MR. FRANK-What you’re looking at right now, that’s his other rear yard.
MR. HAYES-Yes, Knox Road.
MR. FRANK-Exactly.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s basically the end of this deck to the lot line and other end of his deck to
Knox Road and the other end of this deck to Knox Road that we’re relieving. Right?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s not the distance from the front of the house to Assembly Point.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. BERNARD-But they’re calling the back and the front actually both sides of the house.
MR. MC NULTY-Right.
MR. BERNARD-When you read it. I believe. In other words, the back would be that string of
posts. The front would be on that side of the house.
MR. MC NULTY-Right. It would be the Knox Road side.
MR. BERNARD-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. Do you have to have that four foot deck all the way around?
MR. BERNARD-You know, I don’t have to have a deck. I mean.
MR. BRYANT-All I’m saying is, you know.
MR. BERNARD-I mean, I’m looking at picture, and, you know, you try to balance the house.
MR. BRYANT-Sure, I understand that, but you’ve got a four foot deck on the side here that
you’re already close to the line. If you took that four foot off, that would give you almost 13
feet. Which is probably the area that that house was originally approved at. Do you know
what I’m saying?
MR. BERNARD-But when I built the house, it wasn’t a Town road I don’t believe. That’s
another issue I think.
MR. BRYANT-Well, when you built the house, you got an Area Variance for setback
requirements.
MR. BERNARD-Right, but they were different than what they are.
MR. BRYANT-They were probably for the side setback here that you’re adding a four foot deck.
It only would be leaving you 11 foot 11 to the side. Is that the side we’re talking about? I’m just
wondering if you could eliminate that four foot deck, and then you’d be at the original
footprint.
MR. BERNARD-You’re saying all the way?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m just saying that corner there. I mean, it’s already encroaching on that
line. This side here, not this side. This is an issue right here. You already need, and that’s
what the original setback requirement was.
MR. BERNARD-Again, I’m just looking at the aesthetics on that there. If that’s an issue, then
it’s gone. I mean, I don’t want to haggle over this. I really want to enclose the porch. I want the
living area. I want the porch upstairs, and, you know, a small deck in the front and down that
one side, but if that’s the only issue, then, you know, I would do away with that and either put a
trellis up or something that would balance it off or ask somebody’s wife to give me some ideas.
MR. HAYES-So if he eliminates the four foot deck on the side, he’s still going to need the rear
setback relief essentially? Right?
MR. FRANK-He won’t. Because he has an odd shaped lot, and I’ll bring that up so you can see
what I’m saying, but the setback requirements are, for the rear, 25 feet. If the width of the lot
was actually looked at without the rear portion, the setback would not be as restrictive. Let me
show you what I’m referring to. The Zoning Administrator takes a look at the average width,
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
and because this lot is an odd shape, you have to consider the average, how he came up with
that exactly I can’t tell you, but if you looked at just the thin portion that’s closest to Assembly
Point Road, you wouldn’t have to meet such a great setback, but I think the average of the lot
size is what carried him over to the next highest setback from 20 feet to 25 feet from the rear.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any further questions for the applicant?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, one more question. Your View D, is that as it appears, as it looks toward
Assembly Point Road?
MR. BERNARD-Yes. That’s looking at it from the lake.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Is there any other place where you’re going to exit out on the deck from
the house?
MR. BERNARD-There’s five eight foot sliders going to go in that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. What about View E? View E is on what side?
MR. BERNARD-View E’s on the Knox Road side looking at the side of the house.
MR. BRYANT-So you really, there’s an exit there. So you really need that deck there, too.
Right?
MR. BERNARD-Well, I’m hoping that it wouldn’t be, yes. I would like that for a couple of
reasons. One, the house is very plain, very narrow, very tall, and I’m trying to come up with a
way to make it look a little more aesthetically acceptable or whatever for a lake house. I don’t
have the luxury of architects and stuff. So I’m just coming up with a couple of ways to possibly
shorten that tall building, but there again, if that’s an issue, take it off. I just, I mean, I just think
that it’s going to add to the aesthetics of the house, and access to and from wherever during the
summertime, as you’re enjoying the lake.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, but you could build a beautiful house right on the property
line. In reality, what we’re trying to do is eliminate some of the relief that you’re requesting to
make it more plausible. That’s all.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions for Mr. Bernard? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there
anyone here wishing to speak in favor of this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN COLLINS
MR. COLLINS-Yes. My name is John Collins. I live at 35 Knox Road. I can appreciate
everybody wanting to get the maximum use out of their property. The biggest problem that I
have is the close proximity to Knox Road and if the porch does wrap around, as proposed, the
four feet, it’s just pulling more of the house toward the road. He does have quite a bit of room
in the front, so I guess I’m not opposed to, if the Board does approve the build out of the porch,
it’s more adding a new porch in and around to the existing structure that I have an issue with.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. COLLINS-Thank you.
MR. BRYANT-Let me just ask you a question, sir. Isn’t part of the building, though, already
intruding on the Knox Road area? So that deck is not going to go any further than that.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. COLLINS-It is, but it comes down to, at some point, how much do you build out a
property, this is an unusual shape, in that you have a narrow section where the main property
is. Then you have a stream that runs between the back of the house and the driveway, up to the
landing where the new shed garage is, and so it’s like a separate property. So if you keep
loading on to this, where you have the narrowness, in my mind it’s overusing the land. If
you’re looking at the total acreage, you say, gee, for the footprint of the house it’s fair for the
land, but when you look at the configuration, it’s almost like two pieces of property. So that’s
why I have.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I just wondered that’s all. Thank you.
MR. COLLINS-Sure. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in favor of the application? Anyone
opposed to the application? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, we have two pieces of correspondence. First one is from Mike and Gail
Dawson at 115 Assembly Point Road, and they say, “Please read my letter at the public hearing
on Wednesday, March 26 at 7:00 p.m. This letter is in support of William Bernard and his
request for a building permit and variance. I have seen Mr. Bernard’s ideas for this request and
believe it will definitely enhance his home and our neighborhood. Mr. Bernard takes great
pride in his home and our community. After knowing Mr. Bernard, I can only say I have not
met anyone who loves the lake and the community more. Mr. Bernard has proven over and
over through previous construction projects that he will always make it a better place for all to
live and enjoy. Very truly yours, Mike and Gail Dawson 115 Assembly Point Road
Queensbury, NY” And we have a note from Mary Trello, I don’t see an address for her. She
says, “I have received the notice for William Bernard 133 Assembly Point Rd. Lake George, NY.
For the project he is about to get involved. I think it would be fine. This would make
(Assembly Pt.) look a finer place. I’m in favor of it. Thank you. Mary Trello the next door
neighbor.” And that’s it.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Bernard, would you like to come back up please? Would you tell us where
Mrs. Trello lives? Is she your immediate, to the north there?
MR. BERNARD-She’s on the back relief side.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. BERNARD-Her property is where those posts go up the side.
MR. HAYES-Okay. If there’s no other correspondence, I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-And I’ll begin polling the Board. Let’s start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I’m going to use the criteria that we’re asked to apply, and the first one is
the benefit to the applicant, and of course the benefit would be that you would be able to build
what you want, the desired addition in this location. I do agree with that. The feasible
alternatives are limited somewhat because of the size of the lot. As far as the relief and whether
it’s substantial relative to the Ordinance, here’s where I sort of break this down. As far as the
rear setback, I think I would like to see that four foot section eliminated, so that rear setback is
brought back to, I guess it would be five feet six inches. I do not have a problem with the front
setback, but that’s where I stand on that. I believe the house already extends out, and that the
four foot deck would not present a problem in my estimation. I looked at it today, and I think it
would sit in there without hopefully extending any further into the main neighborhood. We’ve
heard from the neighbors. There seems to be a balance as to whether they’re in favor or
opposed to it. The concern always in Assembly Point or any of these communities, when I
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
mean tight, I mean tight by the proximity of the houses to each other, that we not upset the
balance, try to keep it within reason, and I think this is reasonable, and is the difficulty self-
created? Yes, it’s self-created. So I would be in favor of granting the front setback relief, but not
the rear.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, I agree with what Mr. Urrico says relative to that rear setback, but I also
view the deck on Knox Road as problematic. I have no objection to the enclosing or the four
foot deck on the Assembly Point side, but I tend to agree with your neighbor on the Knox Road
side that we’re starting to build that house out further and further, and I think we should
enclose the porch and go with the four foot deck on the front, on the Assembly Point side, and
eliminate the two four foot decks on either side, and then I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-All right. So I want to be clear. You are?
MR. BRYANT-I’m opposed to it as it stands. If they remove the four foot deck on the Knox
Road side and on the Trello property side, and he can keep the four foot deck in the front and
enclose his porch, and makes it more attractive, then I’d be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Okay, Allan. Thank you. Jim?
MR. BRYANT-That means the relief is not as great on the side, on either side.
MR. HAYES-As far as side setbacks?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Right.
MR. BRYANT-The front setback and the side setback.
MR. HAYES-Yes. That’s true.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. You still need relief, but it’s not as great.
MR. HAYES-All right. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would also favor the elimination of that north side part of the deck over
there. As far as the Knox Road side, since it doesn’t stick out any further than the garage, a four
foot wide deck is basically architectural. It’s not like you’re going to be spending a lot of people
out there, or a lot of time out there with the neighbors having a party or something. So, I think
it’s more in keeping with your scheme to soften the way that the house looks there. I applaud
your design. I think it’ll make the house look much nicer, you know, closing in over your
current deck that you have there. So I would be in favor of granting the relief, except for the
north side.
MR. HAYES-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with what has been said. However, I think
I’d go along with the whole thing. Saying nothing more in connection with the Knox Road
deck. It encroaches less than the garage, as Jim just finished saying, and I think the part of the
deck going around the corner a little bit, I think there’s a driveway going up on the neighbor’s
property there, and as I recall, I think the neighbor’s structure is really not contiguous to the,
not very proximal to that bit of decking, and again, I don’t think that it would be any great use,
or intensity of use, let’s put it that way. So, I think the aesthetics of the thing are as described by
the applicant would improve, soften the appearance of the size of this house somewhat, and so
the matter of that, and the fact of a nonconforming structure increase, I don’t think, is of any
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
great impact to the neighborhood or community, negatively anyway. So in short I would
approve the application as submitted. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I can echo what’s been said. I’m just trying to decide which one to echo.
I’d like the design as you proposed it, and I agree. I think it would make it look a lot nicer. At
the same time, we are charged with giving the minimum relief required to accomplish the job,
and I think there is some argument for deleting the portion of the deck that’s on the north side
of the house and keeping just the Knox Road side and the Assembly Point Road side. I guess I
could go for either proposal. I’d be more inclined, though, I think to agree to the proposal that
would take the small portion of the deck off the north side.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes, I agree with most of the things that have been said, and I really wouldn’t
have too much objection to the deck. It’s kind of an open feeling to it, rather, not the deck, well,
the deck, the open deck. It’s not a closed in building, but I would go along with the others if
they wanted to remove the four foot deck on the Knox Road side.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Well, we’ve got a fairly mixed bag of small modifications. So, I
guess I won’t repeat too many of the comments, but I think that in an overall sense, I think that
I’ll agree with the other Board members that the plan at what’s being attempted here will
probably result, you know, with some modification, to a positive change in the environment
and the architectural appearance of the house. It doesn’t look bad now, but I think the Board
feels that the chance for this to be an improvement is there, and that certainly is a positive
aspect of what you’re trying to accomplish here. Looking at the relief, you know, specifically, I
guess, while I’ll agree with some of the other members of the Board, is that 64.2% of relief is a
little bit on the aggressive side, I think, in my opinion. I think we can permit you to do a great
deal of what you want to do on this application, without maybe possibly going to that high a
percentage, as it’s relative to the Ordinance, and I don’t think that there’s any real negative
effects on the neighborhood or community by what you’re proposing here. So I think that it
actually could be a benefit, and the difficulty is self-created in the sense that this is what you
want to do. I think it’s a good idea, but it is what you want to do, and it’s your decision to do
so. So, I would fall on the side of, myself, of allowing the deck on the front, enclose the porch,
and certainly remove the deck to the north side, and possibly the south side as well, but I’m not
going to try and shepherd a motion, in the sense, I guess we’ve got to try and find enough
common ground here to have the votes to have this work. So maybe I do have to shepherd a
motion. If someone would like to make a motion. It appears that the only factual difference
that may need a vote to determine is whether the Knox Road portion of the deck will pass or
not. So if somebody makes a motion asking for the removal of the north deck, but allowing the
south deck, the Knox Road deck, if that doesn’t pass, then we’ll know that has to be excluded
as well. Does everyone understand what I’m saying, based on the fact that we have a little bit
of a?
MR. BRYANT-No, I don’t understand. Go slow. Speak into the microphone.
MR. HAYES-All right. Certainly. We have a mixed request for modification, if you will.
Everybody seemed to have a slightly different opinion of what they thought was okay, but it
appeared certainly that the majority of the Board wanted the north deck removed. I think that
that, for sure, the question, factual question in my mind is does the Board, the majority of the
Board want the south deck, or the Knox Road deck four foot removed as well. That, to me, is
unclear, and if somebody makes a motion that allows them the Knox Road portion of the deck,
if it doesn’t pass, then we’ll know that.
MR. BRYANT-Why don’t you just re-poll to see if the Board members will accept the south, the
Knox Road deck.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. HAYES-I could do that. Okay.
MR. URRICO-Aren’t we just denying the, one of the variances he’s requesting, the?
MR. BRYANT-No, because he’s still required, he still needs setback.
MR. URRICO-Yes, but there’s one, the from the rear, the rear setback we’re denying, or at least
it appears that way.
MR. BRYANT-No, he still needs a certain amount of rear setback.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. I don’t think you want to split it up anyway because the applicant
is willing to forgo, I think, the north side deck, actually, he’s gone even further, but it looked
like, from my poll, that there was enough to carry a vote for just removal of the four foot north
side deck.
MR. HAYES-Well, I’ll poll the Board members now, and if that’s the case, then we’ll have a
clear motion. I just wanted to be clear of what we were actually voting for. I’ll go right in the
same order. I guess the issue is the south side deck, the Knox Road deck, and I guess I started
with Roy on this one, and I’ll start with him again.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to stay with what I said originally, that I’d support the north side,
I mean, I support the south side, but I would like to see the north side eliminated.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I just want to clarify something. If you deny the, if he doesn’t want the four foot
deck on the north side, you still need 13 feet of relief.
MR. FRANK-He would need 12 feet and one half inch of relief.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and then if the Knox Road side was also eliminated, he would still need
three foot six relief, right, or whatever.
MR. FRANK-Five foot five.
MR. BRYANT-Five foot five. So he still would need relief in either case.
MR. HAYES-No doubt about it, but we’ve got to clarify what we’re approving.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m opposed to the north and the south side.
MR. HAYES-Okay. So we have a yes, and a no, on the Knox Road side.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, and I understand that he has to have relief on both sides regardless.
MR. HAYES-That’s true.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with the south side.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Norm?
MR. HIMES-I have no problem with the south side.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Ditto. I’ll go along with the south side, not the north side.
MR. HAYES-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-The south side but not the north.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, I think we have the direction of our motion, if someone would like to
make that motion.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2003 WILLIAM BERNARD, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its approval, seconded by Roy Urrico:
133 Assembly Point Road. The applicant proposes to convert an existing 12-foot by 32 foot
lower deck into an enclosed porch with a covered second floor deck above and add a four foot
wide deck around the first floor on the east and south sides of the house, not the north side.
The applicant would be permitted to construct the desired addition in the preferred location,
and feasible alternatives seem to be limited. The amount of relief is basically 12.5 feet of relief
on the north side, and on the south side it would amount to 9 feet 6 inches of relief from the 30
foot front setback on the Knox frontage, of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030, and for the
expansion of a nonconforming structure, Section 179-13-010(E). As we agreed, the relief on the
north side would have been more substantial at 64%, but I don’t know what the percentage
would be now, and 9 feet 6 inches of relief from the 30-foot minimum front side setback
requirements may be interpreted as minimal to moderate, 31.7% relative to the Ordinance.
Everyone seems to be in agreement that the architectural change in the house would be a
positive note for the neighborhood, and that granting this relief would not be a detriment.
Duly adopted this 26 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
MRS. HUNT-I have a question. The Knox Road, we were denying that, right?
MR. HAYES-No, this motion is to approve the Knox Road, based on the poll we took of the
Board members.
MRS. HUNT-Okay. I’ve got you.
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried. You’ll need to see the Building Department for a permit.
Thanks for coming.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2003 TYPE II KRAFT CONSTRUCTION FOR JEFF HARADEN
AGENT: RAYMOND KRAFT PROPERTY OWNER: KARA L. HARADEN ZONE: WR-1A
LOCATION: LOT 5, SUNSET HILL FARM, KNOX RD., ASSEMBLY PT. APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED OF A 3,908 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/12/03 CROSS REF. BP 2002-008; AV 6-2002 TAX MAP
NO. 239.07-1-40 LOT SIZE: 2.18 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030
RAY KRAFT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2003, Kraft Construction for Jeff Haraden, Meeting Date:
March 26, 2003 “Project Location: Lot 5, Sunset Hill Farm, Knox Rd., Assembly Pt.
Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 3,900 sq. ft. single-family
dwelling and seeks setback relief from the minimum side yard requirements of the Waterfront
Residential zone. Relief Required: Applicant requests 6.70 feet of relief from the 25-foot
minimum side yard setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, §179-16. 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 existing structure in the preferred configuration
and location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible alternatives may include purchase of additional
lands in order to establish a compliant condition. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the
ordinance?: 6.70 feet of relief from the 25-foot requirement may be interpreted as minimum to
moderate, relative to the ordinance (27%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action as a whole;
however, the nearness of construction to the property line may present undue impacts on the
westerly adjoiner in the future, should they desire to construct a home in proximity to the
applicant. 5. Is this difficulty self-created? The difficulty is self-created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV6-2002 resolved 2/27/02 height relief: 35 ft vs. 28 ft.
BP 2002-008: 01/14/02; construction of a single-family dwelling. Staff comments: Although the
relief sought may appear to be minimal to moderate, it is unclear as to how or why the error
occurred. Notwithstanding the cause, the relief requested is a moderate amount. It does not
appear as though the structure, at its current location, presents any significant adverse impacts
other than those mentioned already. Reconfiguration or relocation of the structure seems
extreme, however, the acquisition of additional lands appears to be a reasonable feasible
alternative to granting relief for this otherwise compliant property. (2+ acre lot in a 1 acre zone)
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Kraft Construction for Jeff Haraden Owner: Kara L. Haraden ID Number:
QBY-03-AV-22 County Project#: Mar03-34 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed a 3,908 sq. ft. two-story single-
family dwelling. Relief requested from side setback requirements. Site Location: Lot 5, Sunset
Hill Farm, Knox Rd., Assembly Pt. Tax Map Number(s): 239.07-1-40 Staff Notes: Area
Variance: The applicant requests an area variance for an already constructed dwelling. The
new home does not meet the west side setback. The house is 18.3’ from the property line where
25’ is required. There is no explanation as to why the home was not built in a compliant
location on 2 +/- acres of land. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff
recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County
Impact.” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. KRAFT-My name is Ray Kraft and I am representing Jeff Haraden who would be here
tonight but they’ve got three out of five kids with the chicken pox. So it’s all on my shoulders.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is there anything you’d like to add to the application, or amplify?
MR. KRAFT-Well, there’s not much you can really say. As far as adverse to the neighboring
piece of property, there is another 50 foot right of way that runs down that side yard. So having
another house close to it, it would have to be another 75 feet away from that line, plus the
shortness of the setback on the house that’s there. Other than that.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, I guess the question’s probably on everyone’s mind as to how did it
happen?
MR. KRAFT-That’s a good question. I’ve got no explanation and no, somewhere along the line,
between the owner and the guy who dug it, and I didn’t catch it, it just got cocked a little bit. It
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
goes from the 6.7 feet on one corner to 1.7 feet on the other corner. It got cocked up on the top
of the hill and the snow and it’s, in 25 years it’s never happened, and believe me, it won’t
happen again, because it’s no fun sitting up here.
MR. HAYES-Is there anything you’d like to further add to your application at this time?
MR. KRAFT-There’s not much else I can say, other than try to answer any questions that
anybody has.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any questions for the applicant?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Kraft, this survey that I have here, October 1, 2001, okay. It wasn’t altered at
all, right? This is the original survey?
MR. KRAFT-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-It shows the house. It shows the things, and you have a building permit, 114-02.
So obviously this survey was done before the building permit. Correct?
MR. KRAFT-No.
MR. BRYANT-No? How did that work, then?
MR. KRAFT-There was a subdivision map, and then after the house was put up, to get the C/O,
he had to have it resurveyed, and that’s when he had it resurveyed, and that’s where it showed
the.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but the survey date, the date on this survey, is prior to the building permit
being issued.
MR. FRANK-That’s not correct. That’s not the actual as built survey date. Why it’s not on here,
I don’t know. I didn’t review this application. When was the house actually surveyed, the as
built?
MR. KRAFT-It was, yes, this year.
MR. BRYANT-No, the point that I’m trying to make, this survey.
MR. MC NULTY-Look at the survey you’ve got, where it says Lot Five, Sunset Hill Farms.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-On top of that block, in real fine print, up in the top left, it says foundation
and final survey 1/14/03. They use the original survey and added the house on top of the
original survey, on 1/14/03.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t see that either. My gosh.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, I know, you want a magnifying glass.
MR. BRYANT-I have a magnifying glass. Well, that answers my question. Thank you.
MR. HIMES-One other question, please. Confirm again, it is a 50 foot right of way. Is that
going to be like an access road for properties going further to the?
MR. KRAFT-On the pamphlets, there’s a set of pictures and then there’s that survey and then
there’s another one which is the subdivision copy that shows the 50 foot right of way that’s set
for five and six lots.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. HAYES-So basically, Bruce, there’s no C/O on this house until they get a survey, or get a
variance then essentially. Right?
MR. KRAFT-Correct.
MR. FRANK-There’s a temporary C/O that was issued, but no permanent C/O has been issued
yet.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone here wishing to speak in favor of the application? Anyone opposed?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CAROL COLLINS
DR. COLLINS-Hi. My name is Carol Collins. I reside at 35 Knox Road. My husband John
Collins. I am the adjacent lot owner, Lot 6, with my sister, Rene West, who is traveling and
could not be here tonight, and so I’m speaking on her behalf. We have resided on Assembly
Point at 79 Knox Road, my sister and family and I since, well, all of my life, and my father
bought the property in the back for our family, and we have not intended, we have no
intentions of doing anything at this particular time, but we have purchased that lot in our, have
gone through the whole planning process in the original plan for Sunset Hill Farms, and that
was a very long process, and it was very well thought out, and considered by the Planning
Board over a long period of time, and in that consideration, the lines that were drawn for the
setbacks and all that were given a lot of thought, and given the size of that particular lot, being
2.1 acres, we never expected it to hug the property and indeed impinge upon our setback
priorities in that particular site. As it turns out, it has. So we are not at all in favor of this
variance. We think that this is a serious problem, the origin of which I will not question at this
point, but it’s a very serious infringement on the property rights of our property, and on the
Codes of the Town of Queensbury, in which I have participated long and hard, as many of you
have, in developing and making sure we abide by. So this whole thing is really quite unusual.
By pushing it up farther on the hill, it’s, you know, it need not have happened. It could have
been located anywhere on that site, and to then have it impinge upon the setback rights is of
great concern to us, and I think my husband had some additional comments.
JOHN COLLINS
MR. COLLINS-What makes the solution of this so hard is there is a 50 foot right of way, and
that is meant, in the right of way, to service both the property that Carol and her sister own, but
also another lot. So you’re going to have two separate property owners using that 50 foot
easement as access to their properties. The reason so much time was spent in the subdivision,
and Paul Knox came around to get input from the neighbors on it is due to the fact it’s on that
ridge and you have significant slope. So you have siting problems and then you have septic
issues about being able to where you can put your septic, and I guess, although I can be
sympathetic when somebody has a problem like this, on the one hand, on the other hand, in our
minds, they’ve pushed the envelope to get as close to the top of the ridge to be able to have the
western exposure, and it caused the problem, and whenever you’re committing that much
money to build a house, and the builder doesn’t check the, no survey is done, the owner doesn’t
check, I don’t think relief ought to be given for such an egregious error, and the impact that it’s
going to have on us, to say, I noticed in the application that, well maybe one relief is to give,
have some land acquired. This is a problem because the land that’s adjacent is the 50 foot
easement to service the other two property’s entrance. So we really don’t see that there is a
solution to this problem that’s an easy fix, and so we’re opposed to the request.
DR. COLLINS-In addition, I might mention that in addition the height variance was given,
which was sort of to give that extra height on the hill type of exposure, and to accommodate
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
them the best they could, and so to do this additional thing, I think is just compounding the
error, and something that the Town really seriously needs to consider.
MR. URRICO-Can you point out where your property is, in relation to that map?
MR. COLLINS-Right there, that whole piece, and then we’re at 35 Knox and then Carol and her
sister own 79 Knox Road as well.
MR. HAYES-Which is where?
MR. COLLINS-The kind of pie-shaped lot in the bay.
MR. HAYES-Okay.
MR. COLLINS-So this vacant land is right behind the family camp.
MR. HAYES-What are you proposing for a remedy? You’re obviously very apprised of the
whole situation. I mean, what do you suggest?
MR. COLLINS-I don’t know that there is a solution, other than they have to move the house. I
mean, the right of way, if you look at the subdivision, goes right along their entrance and then
along the back route to service the lot on the right hand side, as well as the lot that Carol and
her sister own, and that has spot, I believe, for only one house on the large, and although it’s a
lot of acreage, it’s very sloped. So there isn’t that much area.
DR. COLLINS-No, very little buildable, that’s why so much effort was made in the original
sitings of these with the Sunset plan.
MR. COLLINS-Right.
MR. MC NULTY-Do you own the right of way that we’re talking about now that this is too
close to, or who owns?
MR. COLLINS-Yes. The right of way is an element in the deed for the lot.
MR. HAYES-It’s a deeded easement.
MR. MC NULTY-It’s a deed easement, but you own the land, underlying land on it?
MR. COLLINS-Yes, correct.
MR. MC NULTY-And I gather, then, that you would be unwilling to sell a slice of that to make
this house compliant?
MR. COLLINS-I don’t know that we can. Because then you push the easement over, if you look
at the site for the lot, it’s very steep and there isn’t much of the ability to move to relocate the
building site, but I guess, when you look at the subdivision for Sunset Hills, it was very clear
where the house was to go, and then where the septic was to go. So that’s why I say, I feel bad
for them, but.
MR. HAYES-I just have a question for Matt. If that was a subdivision and they wanted to
acquire a little piece of property like that, I mean, would that require reexamination of the
whole subdivision or is that permissible, minor?
MATT STEVES
MR. STEVES-If that’s a part of an approved subdivision, any modification to that, an
adjustment in easements or lot lines, would have to go back in front of the Planning Board.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. HAYES-So, okay.
MR. HIMES-Excuse me. Would you, again, go over the impacts of it, as it is. In other words,
what would you describe what the negative impacts of this error have on you or anyone else in
the area or the community at large?
DR. COLLINS-I think it’s similar to any setback violation. It’s encroaching on the area where
we would be siting a house. So that imposes on us and our access site, our access area to our
house.
MR. HIMES-So that’s the total of it, the encroachment as defined?
DR. COLLINS-Well, it would totally effect where we wouldn’t have to site our house, I feel.
Because they’ve put their house, they’ve hugged the area as tightly as they could, and even
beyond, on a two plus acre lot that didn’t need to go beyond the envelope.
MR. HIMES-Yes. I follow you with that, but I guess what I’m looking for is the damage, trying
to take a, you’ve got the 50 foot easement and whatever is left of the space between, you know,
what’s left of the encroachment. What is the damage? I mean, you mentioned the septic. Do
you think that’s going to be a problem, runoff, because of the way it’s situated on to, where
your wells or what not might be, or that’s the kind of information I’m looking for.
MR. COLLINS-Yes. That, we just found out about this the other day. So we came here to talk
about it. The damage to us is, we acquire property with the intent of a legacy for our extended
family, and when you put a house closer, two things, variance height and closer to the property
line, when you buy six acres in Lake George, you want to enjoy the beauty of the trees, and the
house is going to be close. We’ve got the 50 foot easement that we have to provide to the other
lot, and it may, and we don’t know because we haven’t done all these studies. It may have an
impact because we have very limited flexibility on where you could place a house on the lot.
That’s why on six plus acres there’s only one building lot, and there is a well over there.
DR. COLLINS-We really don’t even know what the implications are right now, because, you
know, this whole thing, you know, we’re just amazed that this all happened. I mean, as you
may know, the stormwater regulations are something that I’m quite concerned with. I’ve been
involved in developing stormwater regulations for the Lake George basin, and sit on the Lake
George conference in many capacities, as a scientist in the Lake George region. So I have not
even had a chance to look at what the stormwater implications are on this, from this, and the re-
siting of it. So I don’t know. I just can’t see how you could grant a variance for something that
is so far off the site condition that it could have been.
MR. HIMES-You’re right. What we have to grapple with here to some extent is the feasibility of
what alternatives there are to fixing it, which kind of comes down to moving the house, and so
when you, not that that can’t be decided. It has happened before. The thing is, in doing that,
what kind of balance is there in terms of the negative effects amount to what.
DR. COLLINS-Well, let me tell you about one of the negative things. Not knowing how this
really occurred, there’s reason to believe that this will occur again, and if there’s not some
punitive action taken here, these type of construction activities will occur again and again, and I
don’t think you would have an argument with that, and so there needs to be some sort of denial
in order to make that sort of thing meaningful, so that our zoning laws in the Town of
Queensbury have merit, and the work that our Code Enforcement Officers do have merit.
MR. BRYANT-We happen to, as a Board, we happen to agree with you wholeheartedly.
However, just recently we had a situation where we denied a variance and a building that was
already built, and we were only talking about six feet of relief here. We’re talking about a more
offensive condition, and it went to Town Court, and it was overturned. So the reality is, that
yes, it is a serious condition that we have to deal with. However, what Mr. Himes is trying to
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
point out is, the cost to move that building the six feet, to come within the guidelines, far
outweighs the detriment to your property or that, you know.
DR. COLLINS-I don’t think so.
MR. COLLINS-If I can ask you this. In terms of the construction process and making sure
you’re doing the right job, to take a survey that was done before the building was put on and
just plop it on, and not have a whole new survey, I mean.
MR. BRYANT-Well, we agree with you. We’ve had this discussion on multiple, where we
should require, the Town should require a survey, after the foundation is in, so that if there is
an error, that it can be rectified without this extensive cost, but that has never been acted on.
That’s up to the Town.
MR. COLLINS-So I guess where I come down is, where should the burden be? On the
adjoining property owner after the fact, because now it’s too costly to move a house, or on the
owner, the builder, the architect, the surveyor whoever made the error to have to bear the
burden, and where we come down is, unfortunately the burden ought to go on the owner,
builder, whomever, not us. Because when you look at, that’s a ridge, and they’re right up on
top of the ridge. So in terms of where everything flows, you’d have to go do a big study. We
have the 50 foot right of way, the easement that we have to provide for the two lots. So there’s
going to be, at some point in time when those two lots are built out, there’s going to be a bit of
traffic servicing the two lots, and you’re going to have a house right next to it. So I guess when
you take into account driveway, house, septic, it could really have an impact, and that’s where
we come down.
MR. BRYANT-No question about it. There are a number of Board members who agree with
you wholeheartedly.
MR. COLLINS-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any further questions? Excuse me. Is that all you’d like to say, as
far as the public record? We generally limit to five minutes, but if you want to quickly add
anything that’s.
MR. COLLINS-We’re done.
MR. HAYES-You’re finished?
DR. COLLINS-I don’t know if we’re ever finished.
MR. HAYES-All right. Well.
MR. COLLINS-The question was related to moving the easement. I mean, to have to go in and
do a whole new subdivision, and we haven’t even been able to talk.
MR. HAYES-We were just exploring alternatives there. That was not our intention to suggest
that, you know, basically we were asking Mr. Steves because he does this quite a bit.
DR. COLLINS-It’s just that it’s all kind of new. It’s all so new.
MR. HAYES-Do you have a comment, Mr. Steves?
MR. STEVES-Just one comment. The width of a right of way, 50 feet, just like a Town road
would be, doesn’t indicate that the width of the drive lane is 50 feet. So you know that, there’s
room for flexibility in where the drive lane or where the actual physical access within that 50
feet is.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. HAYES-All right. Is there anyone else? Thank you very much.
MR. COLLINS-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Is there anyone else that would like to speak in opposition to this application? Do
we have any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence. Again from Mary Trello. She says, “To
Whom It May Concern:”, she’s received the notice regarding Haraden, “I’m in favor of it. Sorry
I can’t attend the meeting due to illness. The project will be an asset to the Pointe.”
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. I guess there was questions raised at a blame associated with
this mistake, and you’re willing to stipulate, Mr. Kraft, that that, it’s you?
MR. KRAFT-Sure.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, I guess that way we can just, it was not a fault survey or anything like
that. You moved it, just placed it improperly then, essentially?
MR. KRAFT-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Are there any further questions for the applicant’s agent at this point?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one.
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
MR. MC NULTY-I gather that you haven’t attempted, at least at this point, to negotiation any
kind of purchase of the adjacent land or any kind of arrangement that way?
MR. KRAFT-No, but obviously we were just told there isn’t.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. If there’s no further questions for the applicant, I will close the
public hearing and poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I believe it is time to start with Allan.
MR. BRYANT-Well, this is one of these tough ones, and the relief requested is not significant.
It’s not a lot. Saying it’s moderate is really stretching it, six feet, six and a half feet, whatever it
is, but when you look at the size of the property, there’s so many other places to put the house, I
don’t understand how this error could have occurred. When you weigh the cost of moving the
house versus granting the relief, you have to be in favor of just granting the relief. In the past,
I’ve been opposed to these types of applications. I’m really on the fence, in lieu of what’s
occurred recently. So I’m going to just withhold my opinion until the end.
MR. HAYES-So I can put you for a “U” for undecided?
MR. BRYANT-I’m undecided.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we’ve had a real run on these. We had one up on Lakewood
Estates I think last year, and we had the one that was just re-decided by the court, by County
court last week that we had was returned to us as being wrong on this. I can understand your
frustration, you know, especially with the greater (lost words) family purchasing all that
property and having plans for the future of it, but, at the same time, I think asking people to
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
move the house over six feet and what that would be gaining, I mean, that’s like from myself to
Roy in distance away. I don’t really see that that would really change anything that much. It’s
an over height structure which does impact you on the side line there, but I don’t think there’s
any doubt that they screwed up big time by not keeping it to its original setbacks as it was
intended to be, I’m sure, but how that came to be, whether it was, you know, done deliberately,
I really can’t say either. In instances like this, I don’t know what the suggestion would be.
Whether we end up having contractors put up a performance bond before they start
construction and, you know, roll it over into some fund that is useful for doing restoration
projects on the lake, I don’t know if that’s something to consider, but that would be something
that would have to come from the people up on Assembly Point and up on the points on the
lake there to be considered, but as far as it goes, I don’t think there’s anything we can do, really,
other than grant relief. I think, you know, asking them to purchase land from you would really
not solve the problem. The house is still going to be where it is, and I think that, you know, you
just have to modify your original plans for the lot that you had, and unfortunately there’s
nothing we can do.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don’t disagree with what Jim has said. However, I
feel that, again, in view of the size of the lot, and that I think reasonable prudence would have
lead anyone that was going to build in that particular site to make an effort to confirm where
the property line is. Mistakes can happen, and it has been said by others, since I’ve been on the
Board, we’ve had a number of these, and usually there’s considerable explanation as to what
lead up to a human error that might have taken our thoughts a little bit away from the
negligence factor, and a number of things might have played into it. I didn’t hear any of that
here, and again, in connection with the size of the lot, I think that this was, you know, just
something that I have a hard time excusing. I do also have a hard time saying, well, what the
remedy’s going to be, but, as it stands right at this moment, I don’t think that I can say that I
would approve this application as submitted.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I just add one more comment also? Looking at the size of the lot, that
it’s 2.18 acres, I don’t know if, in the future, that comes up for discussion, whether or not that lot
is subdividable, but if we grant this relief, I would like to put a stipulation that this lot be
undividable in the future, that it be kept as a single family lot. Because, I mean, it does imply
the intent that by putting the house where it’s sited there that you could add one there later on.
I don’t know what the future holds for it, but.
MR. KRAFT-There’d be no access to it anyway. Because it’s all property bound around the
outside of it, but I’d have no problem with that stipulation.
MR. HAYES-All right. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I, too, am bothered by this. I don’t know how to express it really, in a
two acre lot, cramming a house up next to the lot line, applicant came in and got a variance for
height relief, commonsense says you make darn sure if you’re going to crowd the lot line that
you’re on the right side of it. It’s awful tempting to say move the doggone house, and as has
been pointed out, that has happened before in the Town of Queensbury. I see three
possibilities, move the house, we just grant the variance where it is, or there’s a real attempt
made to purchase additional land to make the house compliant. Given whether this is an
honest mistake or negligence, whatever, it’s happened several times before. We’re charged with
granting the minimum relief possible. My feeling is at this point in time all the possibilities
have not been explored, and I’d be opposed to granting this relief until the applicant made a
real honest attempt to purchase sufficient adjacent land from the adjacent landowner to bring it
into compliance, and I think this may take some negotiation to make that attempt because the
adjacent landowner obviously has got some thoughts to straighten out. They need to think
about what this would do if they moved their 50 foot right of way six or seven or eight feet,
whatever would be required, but I think that option should be thoroughly explored before we
grant this relief. So, at this point, I’m going to be opposed.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-It seems to me that putting the house so close to the property line, when you had
all that property, is really kind of ludicrous, and I know we’ve had decisions overturned when
we’ve asked them to be moved, but I do, I kind of agree, I would like to see something, some
more investigation done before we make a decision yes or no.
MR. HAYES-Roy? Thank you.
MR. URRICO-I’m going to echo what some of my fellow Board members have said. Basically
when I look at this, and I believe you when you say this was an honest mistake, but there was
an obvious attempt here made to get as close to that line as possible, and when you have so
much room there, you leave very little room for a mistake, and that has to be taken into account.
Somebody has to be accountable for that, and if this was coming to us fresh, without anything
being built on it, there’s no way we would grant this relief. There’s no way, but I’ll take the test
to this application, and I think I’ll come down the same way. The benefit to the applicant, you
would be able to keep your property, your house where it is, but there are feasible alternatives
here. As far as relief substantial to the Ordinance, I think 6.7 feet of relief, in normal
circumstances, probably wouldn’t be much, but I think in this case it really is a lot, considering
that you had 2.180 acres to work with, and now we’re quibbling over seven feet which is, I
think, a lot, in this instance, and the effects on the neighborhood or community, well it is. This
is a planned development that was, I guess, negotiated in good faith, with a lot of people
involved, including our Planning Board, and now we’re right up against the easement, and this
difficulty is self-created. So I would be against this, but I would also be hopeful that there
would be some reasonable resolution decided as far as rectifying the situation. That’s not
something I’m going to offer an opinion on, but as it stands, I’m against this application.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Well, a number of the Board members have pointed out that we have
faced these particular situations in the past and its always a tough decision. We certain do not
like to be presented with relief post construction. It puts us in a difficult circumstance, but
considering that, in moving immediately to the balancing test, which is the criteria for the Area
Variance in our Town Code, I believe that the benefit to the applicant would be that they would
be able to maintain this expensive home in its current location. Feasible alternatives in this case
I think are extremely limited. The purchase of land under, I don’t want to say duress, but under
requirement to have this house become a valid piece of property or a legal piece of property is
an extremely difficult proposition to arrive at a negotiation, because there’s no real balance in
the economic interest of the two parties. You have an interest or a great need. Whether they
want to satisfy that or not is entirely up to them. Mr. Steves has pointed out that that
alternative as well would require a complete revisiting by the Planning Board for this
subdivision, even if the boundary lines were to be altered slightly. I mean, is that a correct
statement?
MR. STEVES-A modification. It’s not a, it’s a one time, not an application. It’s a letter requiring
a modification to an approved subdivision.
MR. HAYES-Okay, but they would have to revisit it, though.
MR. MC NULTY-It would have to go before the Planning Board, but it’s not as bad as doing the
original subdivision.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. HAYES-The full review, but it would require a trip to the Planning Board, and that’s not
necessarily even guaranteed approval on that. I think, in this particular case, the thing that
swayed my mind the most, while certainly conscience of the Collins’ objections and many of
their points are certainly well taken, is the fact that the 50 foot access point is the thing that’s in
between this house and their property, which means that that area cannot be constructed on,
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
and I think the Staff notes are well pointed in the fact that when you combine the 50 foot right
of way, along with the 18 feet of relief that is still there, I mean, it’s not like this is over the line
onto the other people’s property line, you’re talking in excess of 68 feet of immediate relief, and
that’s if the nearest property owner chooses to place their home as close to the thing as they
may, and I don’t think that, while it’s certainly their right, that would still be a choice on their
point, at this particular point, with the knowledge that you’re slightly past your setback relief. I
don’t think, as far as the size of these lots, I don’t think that there is any real neighborhood
impact, in terms of somebody assessing this house as being too close to the property line. These
are very large lots. That lot that you’re encroaching upon is a very large lot. I think that the
spacing between these houses, most likely in the end, will be fairly dramatic. Again, I think the
Collins’ comments are well taken, though. We need to defend immediate property owner’s
rights, and I think that there’s no question that the Board feels strongly about that. Is the
difficulty self-created? I think that it is. I mean, I think you made a mistake, and you
acknowledged that fact. Historically, my personal position on these is the first time that you
come before me, and say that you made a mistake, I take that less egregiously than I do if it’s
your second or third time, because obviously then the idea of clean hands or honest mistakes
become less so, for sure, but this is the first time that I’ve seen you here, Mr. Kraft, as a builder,
saying you made a mistake, and so I guess I’d take you at your word in this particular
circumstance. Further, I’d like to add that I think that, in a balancing test, I think that the
alternatives here, as to moving this house or tearing this house down or cutting this part of the
house off is fairly draconian. I think, and my opinion will not hold up under further
examination, the court case that we just had reversed on us had greater relief, proportionally,
with the house much closer, as the immediate neighbor, and it was overturned. I think that 6.7
feet of relief on a 25 foot minimum side yard setback, you know, I think that’s minimal. I think
that’s the, Staff notes use the words minimum to moderate, but I think I would consider that
more minimal than moderate in my opinion, in this circumstance. So, I think this is a mistake.
It’s unfortunate. I don’t like it, but I think, if a balancing test is applied, 6.7 feet of relief on a 25
foot minimum side setback, versus moving this house or tearing it down, I think that that
would fall in favor of the applicant. So, now, my own personal poll, I see two yeses, three noes,
and two undecideds. So we’re going to have to kind of motion this out, to get a direction on
this application. It’s the only way we can do it democratically. So, I guess, to get a motion,
what I’d like to do is speak more directly with the two undecided people and see where they’re
at, and then we can probably get a motion in a direction. Is that fair? Are you comfortable with
that, Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Sure. I’m ready.
MR. HAYES-All right, Allan. I guess you were the first undecided.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. Actually, I agree with what Mr. Hayes has just said. I think that the fact
that you’ve got, I don’t think there’s a heck of a lot of difference between the 68 feet and the 75
foot that they would normally be entitled to, because you have that 50 foot area there, and,
frankly, when you compare the cost of moving the house versus the inconvenience of the
variance, I think it wouldn’t stand further scrutiny. So I would come down in favor of the
application.
MR. HAYES-Okay, Joyce. I guess you were the other undecided.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I listened very carefully to what you said, and I think that I would now go
along with granting an easement. I never thought you would have to be able to move a house,
but I thought maybe there was some other adjustments we could make, but I would vote yes for
the easement at this point.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Jim, you were the other yes, and you had a stipulation that you wanted
included in that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If it’s not going to be subdividable property, I don’t think we need to
include it. I would assume, since it’s a subdivision, it’s not subdividable any further.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. HAYES-Does anybody know what the underlying designation is up there for?
DR. COLLINS-It’s not (lost words).
MR. HAYES-Is that three acre lots up there?
MR. FRANK-It’s WR-1 Acre.
MR. HAYES-I guess I would ask Mr. Steves, conceivably, is that subdividable?
MR. STEVES-I don’t know. The current zoning, yes, but as far as lot width requirements, and is
it in a deed restriction, that I do not know.
MR. HAYES-All right. Okay.
MR. STEVES-I mean, if the people who did the subdivision are saying it’s non subdividable,
agreeing to it in a motion, saying that no further subdivision, it’s just, you know, amplifying
that, that it can’t be subdivided. I don’t see that as a problem.
MR. HAYES-You said that you were willing to agree to that stipulation.
MR. KRAFT-Sure.
MR. HAYES-Then we won’t debate it, I guess. Then there’s no point.
DR. COLLINS-Can I ask a question?
MR. HAYES-Certainly.
DR. COLLINS-It looks like you’re voting in favor of this. Is that what you’re, the poll looks like
right now?
MR. HAYES-Well, we have to make a motion, and actually see where the chips fall.
DR. COLLINS-Okay. I just want to say that my sister isn’t here at this present time, and we
were never even approached by the owner or the applicant to let us know about this problem,
nor were they ever discussed the opportunity to remedy this with us. So, rather than you make
the motion to approve it, I still feel you need to consider an opportunity to remedy this
problem, without granting a variance. So I’m just saying, you know, I think you’re going in the
wrong direction with the vote, so, at this point, I would ask that you give some time to this,
because we need some more time for due consideration, and certainly they have not given us
any consideration on this error, which you’re deeming as an error, but I’m probably not,
because I know that during the other variance hearing these things were probably considered,
when the variance for height was considered, a lot went into that, and I think that you’re
overlooking a few things right now.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Would someone, I guess, historically, Dr. Collins, as far as the
public input, we have not not proceeded on applications, based on public comment not being
able to be made by some aspects. That’s, historically we have not done that. So unless it was a
special circumstance.
MR. MC NULTY-I would echo what she has said, though. I still feel that all the opportunities
have not been pursued, if the applicant has not tried to purchase additional property, and I
think I’m beginning to hear an inclination that something like that might be worked out. If
we’re concerned about builders of all kinds continuing to do this kind of thing, then I don’t
think we should make it easy for them to do it, and I’ll agree, I wasn’t going to bring it up. I
was going to leave it as a hammer over the builder’s head, but I’ll agree moving the house is not
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
going to work. There’s no court that would agree that that was a legitimate solution, but I think
purchasing additional property and spending the effort to negotiate it is a possible solution.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with you that it’s a possible solution prior to this kind of forum. Mr.
Hayes points out something that now, the adjacent property owners, you know, they hold the
cards.
MR. MC NULTY-Absolutely.
MR. BRYANT-The reality is, that six feet of property might be worth what those two acres of
property are worth at that point, if we’re not going to agree to that variance.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, we don’t know. We don’t know what they’ll come up with, you know,
and that would be one thing the builder and the applicant could come back with, say, I tried
and they wanted $200,000 for it, in which case it wouldn’t be reasonable, but the effort hasn’t
been made.
MR. HAYES-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you. I’d just like to make a comment, in connection with the possible
further review, judicial review, here. I think in most of the other cases that we’ve seen, the
factors that lead to the situation were quite different, and here, it is just about entirely that the
situation is self-created, and I think when you have that kind of a condition, the judicial review
is not going to be the same. It’s not going to be influenced in the same way as it has in most of
the others or all of the others, that I can recall, having been here. That’s all I have to say. Thank
you.
MR. HAYES-I guess I will take a quick poll, to be democratic, to see if we want to proceed with
a motion, and if not, then we will table it. All right. So I will start, I guess I’ll start with Allan.
So, Allan, are you in favor of tabling it, in lieu of this negotiation or moving forward on the
application?
MR. BRYANT-Frankly, I would like resolution.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t see, you know, adding a little six foot piece of property is
going to make any difference. I mean, they’re still going to be intruding into the zone that
they’re in and at this point in time I don’t really see that there’s any resolution by doing that. So
I would be in favor of voting on it now.
MR. HAYES-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you. As much as I would like to grant the people who have criticized the
prospective vote a little time to do some research, I don’t know what could possibly be found
that would change the voting here, in view my vote is against it anyway, but I would think that
we ought to just go ahead and go with it.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I would go for tabling. Otherwise, I’m going to be opposed.
MR. HAYES-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I would go for voting on it right now.
MR. HAYES-Roy?
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. URRICO-I would be in favor of tabling it, but I would be opposed to it now.
MR. HAYES-All right. I guess that’s a five to two vote in favor of proceeding on the
application. So, if someone would like to make a motion to approve the variance, I guess that’s
where we should start.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2003 KRAFT CONSTRUCTION FOR
JEFF HARADEN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Allan Bryant:
Lot 5, Sunset Hill Farm, Knox. Rd., Assembly Point. The applicant has constructed a 3900
square foot single family dwelling and seeks setback relief from the minimum side yard
requirements of the Waterfront Residential zone. Specifically, they’re asking for 6.7 feet of relief
from the 25 foot minimum side yard setback requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-16.
Benefit to the applicant, they would be permitted to maintain the existing structure in the
preferred configuration location. Feasible alternatives might have included moving the house
or purchasing property on either side, but given the fact that, is the relief substantial relative to
the Ordinance, 6.7 feet of relief from the 25 foot requirement may be interpreted as minimal to
moderate relative to the Ordinance, 27%. Effects on the neighborhood or community, obviously
the neighbors to the north side there are being effected by the fact that this was built too close to
the property line, should they desire to construct their house in reasonable proximity to the
house. The difficulty is fully self-created, due to the improper layout of the house before
construction began. Although it is our opinion that the relief sought is minimal, considering the
50 foot right of way that does exist to the side also, that that would somewhat mitigate the
intrusion into the space on the side line. So, in lieu of that, I would move that we approve this
application. I would also add the subdivision that at no further point in time, whether or not it
was the intent of the property owner that this property in perpetuity not be subdividable in the
future.
Duly adopted this 26 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The application is approved.
MR. KRAFT-Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2003 TYPE II WALTER ENGLERT AGENT: VANDUSEN AND
STEVES PROPERTY OWNER: WALTER ENGLERT ZONE: WR-1A LOCATION: 166
LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING 326 SQ. FT.
GARAGE AND CONSTRUCT A 624 SQ. FT. TWO-CAR GARAGE WITH STORAGE.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE SETBACK AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS.
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/12/03 CROSS REF.
BP 2001-757, BP 2001-758 TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-3 LOT SIZE: 0.27 ACRES SECTION 179-
4-030
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2003, Walter Englert, Meeting Date: March 26, 2003
“Project Location: 166 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
demolish the existing 326 sq. ft. garage and construct a 624 sq. ft. two-car garage with storage
space above at 18 feet in height. Relief Required: Applicant requests 21.95 feet of relief from
the 30-foot minimum front setback requirement, 8.54 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum
side setback requirement, and 2 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement for
a detached garage of the WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030. 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 structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives might include replacing the old garage with a new compliant attached
garage. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 21.95 feet of front setback relief
might be considered moderate to substantial (73.2%), 8.54 feet of side setback relief might be
considered moderate (42.7%), and 2 feet of height relief might be considered minimal to
moderate (12.5%) all relative to the ordinance. 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action being the proposed garage is only
52.2% larger in area and 12.5% greater in height than the existing garage. 5. Is this difficulty
self-created? The difficulty may be interpreted as self created. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance etc.): BP 2001-757: 10/10/01, demolition of residence. BP 2001-
758: 10/24/01, 2228 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Staff comments: Moderate impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action, even though the amount of combined relief being sought is
substantial relative to the ordinance. However, the applicant could replace the old garage with
a compliant attached two-car garage that would provide for the desired additional storage.
SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Englert, Walter Owner: Walter Englert ID Number: QBY-03-AV-23
County Project#: Mar03-26 Current Zoning: WR-1A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes to demolish the existing 326 sq. ft. garage and construct a 624
sq. ft. two-car garage with storage. Relief requested from the setback and height requirements.
Site Location: 166 Lake Parkway Tax Map Number(s): 226.15-1-3 Staff Notes: Area Variance:
The applicant proposes to demolish a 326 sq. ft. garage and to construct a 624 sq. ft. garage. The
new garage is located in a similar location as the old garage. The applicant proposes the front
setback as 8’ where 30’ is required, and the side setback as 11’ where 20’ is required. The new
garage will have two bays. Staff would suggest some stormwater controls be implemented for
the new roof and driveway area. Staff does not identify an impact on the county. Staff
recommends no county impact with the stipulation that stormwater and erosion control
methods are implemented for the new garage and driveway area. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact with Stipulation The Board recommends no County
Impact with the Stipulation that stormwater and erosion control methods are implemented for
the new garage and driveway area.” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board
3/15/03.
MR. STEVES-Good evening. My name is Matt Steves and I represent Mr. Englert on this
application. What is before you in the picture that Staff has up is the existing garage with the
new structure in the background. The existing garage is at the exact same setback that we were
asking for with the new garage. As you can see on the map, the northeast corner of the garage
is being placed exactly where the existing garage is. The existing garage is 11.46 feet from the
north line, and 8.05 feet from the road line. We’re asking for nothing more than what exists.
We’re just asking to extend the garage a little bit farther to the south to enlarge it to a two car
garage. As far as the feasible alternatives is moving the garage and attaching it to the house, as
you can see with the house with the windows, and the way the house is built, it is not a feasible
alternative, but the main thing that precludes us from doing that is that’s where this brand new
septic system that had to be placed, because when you build new on the lake, you must comply
with the new setbacks. The septic system is in that area, right, roadside of the house. So you
would be building the garage over the top of the compliant septic system. So that is not a
possibility. As far as being in harmony with the neighborhood, I’ve got some pictures that I’d
like to pass by the Board that depicts the existing garage, and then the neighbor’s garage is up
and down the road, from both directions from the subject garage, and as you can see, you
know, the character of the neighborhood is the houses are on the lakeside and the garages are
out closer to the road. As far as the size and the height of the building, it, in our opinion, is in
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
100% compliance with the existing garages in the area, and at this point I would leave it open
for questions from the Board.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Are there any questions from Board members for the applicant’s
agent?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I noticed the two garages, the adjacent garages on either side, they’re pretty
tall. How tall are they? Do we know?
MR. STEVES-I would say that they’re probably closer to 20 to 22 feet, or higher. One of those is
considerably higher.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I know the one that looks like it has an apartment above it.
MR. STEVES-An apartment or something over the top of it, something. I’m not sure if it’s an
apartment or what it is, but I would say it’s probably five to six feet higher than what our
garage is going to be.
MR. MC NULTY-How high is the existing garage now?
MR. STEVES-That garage is approximately say about 13 to 14 feet.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant?
MR. URRICO-Is there any way of reducing the height to 16?
MR. STEVES-Reducing the height to 16? It becomes the snow load, when you try to slide the
garage in width to flatten it out, leaving the slightly steeper pitch, which raises your roof up a
little bit. I think it’s more of a design criteria. I mean you could lower it. I don’t know if,
aesthetically, it’s going to make it fit in or really with the garages, as you can see in the pictures,
if it’s really going to make that much of a difference to lower it. I mean, Mr. Englert just told me
that he’d be willing to try to lower it a little bit, but technically speaking, I don’t see where it’s
going to make any difference.
MR. BRYANT-The new garage is right where the old garage is going to be, as far as the front of
it, right?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-So there’s not going to be any difference as far as that setback. Where is it
coming from on the side?
MR. STEVES-The same exact location. The northeast corner, as you can see on my map, is being
built right on the existing building, or in the existing corner.
MR. BRYANT-That’s the place that requires the setback? So you’re not really, from the existing
structure, you’re not really asking for any more setback?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. HAYES-Just coming south with the development.
MR. STEVES-You’re absolutely correct, and making it squarer to the road. As you can see as
you come south, the existing garage swims a little closer to the road. So what we did is we held
to the farthest point from the road line, and in the dimensions that are given in those photos are
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
from the actual edge of the asphalt, where we’re giving it from the actual right of way line. So
we’re a little bit farther back than most of the garages on there.
MR. HAYES-That’s a Town road, then?
MR. STEVES-That’s correct. Lake Parkway is a deeded Town road.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. HIMES-Just one, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Who owns the land across the street? Is that
a common thing, or?
WALTER ENGLERT
MR. ENGLERT-It’s the Association of all the landowners around that section of Assembly
Point.
MR. HIMES-Okay. So it’s like a common?
MR. ENGLERT-It’s forever wild.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant’s agent? If not, I’ll open the public
hearing. Is there anyone wishing to speak in favor of this application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MILFORD LESTER
MR. LESTER-My name is Milford Lester. My family has lived at 110 Lake Parkway for 40 some
odd years. I see no objection to this. Having talked to Mr. Englert, he has approval of his lot
owner, property owner to the north, and with that approval, it’s a perfectly normal, acceptable
garage, and is needed if it’s going to be a year round house, and needed garage space.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Is there anyone else that’s in favor of the application? Anyone
opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-One piece of correspondence. It’s from Tom and Suzanne Irish. They’re
located at 162 Lake Parkway. They say, “We are neighbors of the Englerts just to the north of
them. We have talked to the Englerts and reviewed their plans to replace the existing garage
and would support this plan 100%. The new garage that they are planning would substantially
improve the property and the view of it from other vantage points. The plan is well thought
out, aesthetically correct, and will only enhance the area that we live. We strongly recommend
that the Board vote to allow the variance as requested.” That’s all.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, and I will poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-It’s time to start with Jim Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Where is your septic located on the lot, Matt?
MR. STEVES-The septic, if you look at the picture that Staff has up, is right in front of the house,
between the house and the road.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. As far as the garage, I mean, it definitely needs an update from
what you have there, and I think that you, in looking at it, you know, increasing the size of the
garage slightly more over towards the house there I think it’s going to be a bit of a stretch, but
it’s not really going to impact the lake because the house is already going to block the view from
the lake of it, if you create that situation, and the house itself I think is reasonably well suited for
the lot. It’s a brand new house and it’s, you know, it’s not an eyesore like some of the monsters
that have been created up there. So, I guess I’d basically be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’d pretty much agree with what Jim has said, and
I think that Mr. Steves was talking about the height and the shape of the roof or what not. It’s
the one thing that I’m wondering about, given that it’s a modest sized garage, only six hundred
and something square feet, and isn’t there anything that can be done to bring that height down
to?
MR. STEVES-You can bring it down slightly. I don’t disagree with that. If you still wanted to
try to have, as we say for a modest sized garage, to be able to still have some overhead storage
so that you can park two vehicles in instead of having stuff around the sides where you can’t
open your doors, you know, you could lower it down by flattening the pitch, but you’re going
to have to flatten it down considerably to get it down two feet. If you slope it down a little bit
you might get it down to 17 feet, and you’re only talking just a peak. It’s not like it’s a gambrel
roof or hip roof. So as far as the percentage of the roof that sticks above the requirement, you’re
probably looking at about 10 to 15%.
MR. HIMES-Okay. I’m still having a little problem with this height requirement. If there could
be something done about that, I’d have no problem with approving this, but, in spite of the fact
that the garage is, the other ones out there, you could put this one right inside easily inside a
couple of them.
MR. STEVES-Yes. It’s a pretty modest garage compared to the other ones that are there.
MR. HIMES-It is, the square footage and all, I agree to all that, but it’s just a matter of the others
being there. If they were coming in and asking to be built now, they probably wouldn’t get it.
The same old story there, not as high as they are. So I think I’d like to see something down to
try to get that height down a little bit.
MR. STEVES-Do you have any suggestions, as far as height?
MR. HIMES-I’m not much in the construction part of it, really, but there are a lot of garages
around that meet the height requirement, and so I’m wondering why can’t this one. I guess if
you could answer that question satisfactorily, I’d go for it, but otherwise I’d say I’d have to say
that I don’t know if I’d be in favor of the overall.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, the height bothers me, too, but height isn’t as great as some of the
adjoining garages, and I guess for me it’s mitigated by the relatively small size of the proposal.
I end up being in a quandary, because on the one hand I’d like to see it reduced, but it’s
certainly shorter than the adjacent garages, but if we continue to approve because the adjacent
garages are out of Code also, then pretty soon we’re changing the zoning, but, nevertheless,
given a situation like this one, I think I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, I agree with Jim. I don’t see that I have a problem with the height or the size
of the garage or the positioning. I think because there’s no one opposite on the other side of the
street, it would not be a problem. I’m for it.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. HAYES-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. Normally I’m bothered by height also, but when you take the whole area
into consideration, I think the two garages are going to dwarf this one. So I really don’t see a
problem with the height. I certainly think there’s a benefit to the applicant. I think you’ve done
as much as you can with this garage. You’ve basically put it as close to where it currently is as
possible. I think you’ve done a good job in setting the property on. It really looks nice, and I
think the garage will be a nice addition to it. I also believe that it’ll be complimentary to the
neighborhood, and the only difficulty that’s self-created here is that you are on a relatively
small piece of property, but I think we’ll be fine with it. I think it’s a good job, and I’m in favor
of it.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, as far as the setbacks go, I have no problem with the setbacks because of
the existing garage. They’re not really requesting any more than exists. The height I normally
have a problem with. You’ve got two monstrosities on either side, and, you know, I don’t see
any reason why shouldn’t be allowed a couple of extra feet. You’re not going to be as high as
either one of those garages. The one on the right hand side is a monstrosity. I wonder if they
even got, I mean, that’s a relatively new garage. That’s not an old garage. I don’t remember.
MR. STEVES-I don’t know if it was refurbished. It might have been an older garage. I’m really
not sure.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m in favor of the application as it is. The only thing I’d suggest is that
when you order the garage from Curtis Lumber, you make sure you buy the right garage
because you’ve got 26 feet, and it doesn’t add up to 26 feet.
MR. STEVES-Yes. The reason, just to explain that real quickly, Allan, is that this was the
standard plan, and they said, you know, we’ll design it and you can get your package, but
we’re not going to go to the expense of adding the extra two feet until we know we can build it.
MR. BRYANT-I hope they give you the right parts. I’m in favor of it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Well, I feel similar to the rest of the Board. Normally, in this particular
circumstance, we fight the height requirements on these garages pretty good, but when
consideration is given to the immediate surrounding or neighborhood garages, this one seems
to be a modest proposal for sure. I guess in certain circumstances, timing is everything. If Lew
was here tonight, we would all lose ten to fifteen minutes addition of our lives, but he’s not. So
I’m in favor of the application. I think that the benefit to the applicant in this particular case, is
clear, and I believe that, I don’t think there’s any real negative effect on the neighborhood or
community that needs to be addressed or to be concerned about, particularly compared to the
other garages therein. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2003 WALTER ENGLERT, Introduced
by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
166 Lake Parkway. The applicant proposes to demolish the existing 326 square foot garage and
construct the 624 square foot two car garage with storage space above at 18 feet in height. The
applicant, in doing so, is requesting 21.95 feet of relief from the 30-foot minimum front setback
requirement, 8.54 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback and 2 feet of relief from
the 16-foot maximum height requirement for detached garage of the WR-1A zone, 179-40-030.
The benefit to the applicant would be to construct this desired structure in his preferred
location. Feasible alternatives are somewhat limited. He’s replacing the old garage with a new
compliant attached garage, but this plan is a good plan. The relief regarding the Ordinance,
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
21.95 feet of relief, might be considered moderate to substantial but it should be pointed out that
it’s no closer to the road than it currently is. The 8.54 feet of relief from side setback might also
be considered moderate but that, in addition, is not closer to the side yard as well. The two feet
of height relief we believe is mitigated somewhat by the adjoining properties, which are
somewhat higher, and we think that’ll be fine. The effects on the neighborhood or community
would be to enhance it, and I believe that, yes, the difficulty may be interpreted as self-created.
Duly adopted this 26 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Himes
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thank you.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2003 TYPE II ROBERT J. MULLER AGENT: N/A PROPERTY
OWNER: ROBERT J. MULLER ZONE: RR-3A LOCATION: ELLSWORTH LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3 BAY-GARAGE (34 FT. BY 44 FT.) FOR
VEHICLES, TRACTOR, AND BOAT STORAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM
SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2000-228 SFD; BP 2001-715 INGROUND POOL
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO.
265.00-1-19.2 LOT SIZE: 11.61 ACRES SECTION 179-5-020(D)
MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2003, Robert J. Muller, Meeting Date: March 26, 2003
“Project Location: 33 Ellsworth Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
construction of a 1496 sq. ft. 3-bay garage for vehicles, tractor, and boat storage. Applicant
requests 596 sq. ft. of relief from the 900 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for garages in
residential zones, per §179-5-020(D). 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 structure in the preferred location. 2. Feasible alternatives: Feasible
alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?: 596 sq.
ft. of relief from the 900 sq. ft. maximum might be considered moderate relative to the
ordinance (66.2%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal effects may be
anticipated as a result of this action as the proposed location of the garage will not be
observable from any of the neighboring properties or from the road. 5. Is this difficulty self-
created? The difficulty may be attributed to the desire to house equipment needed for
maintenance of the large parcel in addition to vehicles and a boat. Parcel History
(construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2001-715: 09/25/01, inground pool. BP 2000-228:
05/01/00, 3820 sq. ft. single-family dwelling. Staff comments: Minimal impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. Should this application be approved, the garage will not be
visible from the road or from any other parcel due to the dense forest. The applicant could
construct a compliant 900 sq. ft. garage and a 500 sq. ft. accessory structure that would provide
for 94% of the storage capacity desired. However, the applicant would prefer to have one large
structure rather than two smaller structures. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Muller, Robert J. Owner: Robert J. Muller ID Number: QBY-03-AV-24
County Project#: Mar03-36 Current Zoning: RR-3A Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes the construction of a 3 bay-garage (34 ft. by 44 ft.) for vehicles,
tractor, and boat storage. Relief requested from maximum size requirement. Site Location: 33
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
Ellsworth Lane Tax Map Number(s): 265.00-1-19.2 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant
proposes to construct a 1,496 sq. ft. 3-Bay garage for the storage of vehicles, tractor, and a boat.
The parcel is 11 +/- acres and located in the rural residential 3-acre zone. The applicant would
be permitted to construct two separate buildings, one for storage and one as a garage. The
applicant would like to construct only one building. The new garage will be located near the
existing home. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources. Staff recommends no
county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed Bennet
F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 3/15/03.
MR. BORGOS-Good evening. Michael Borgos, as agent for the applicant. I think what’s
represented in what you just read tells you that this is a pretty straight forward application.
What I wanted to explain to you that the way this garage was conceived in the plans was
instead of building two separate structures that are permitted, one structure is going to be,
Number One, more attractive and more consistent with the home that’s been built on the
property. Number Two, you’re going to save quite a bit of money in building one structure,
and the size kind of was dictated by what he wants to store in there. He’s got three vehicles
right now. He wants to have a tractor and put the boat in there as well, and if he has three bays,
he can double stack these vehicles. So he could have six vehicles under the roof, and I think
that’s really why you see the size that you do there. I think it was apparent from what you
heard that, if you visited the site, you know that you can’t see this proposed location from the
road or from any of the neighboring locations. He’s got just under 12 acres on this side of the
road, six more on the other side of the road. So it’s really very well buffered from all the
neighbors, and I think if you look to the intent of the restriction on the size of the garage, it’s
primarily for the protection of the neighbors. So nobody has to look at a large building adjacent
to them on a property, and that’s not an issue here. Are there any questions?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I have a question. Well, first an observation. You make a point, and of
course the Staff notes make a point that you could build a 900 square foot garage and a 500
square foot accessory building, and I think the difference between your application and that
scenario is the fact that you’re building and oversized garage here, and then would have an
opportunity, at a later date, to build another accessory building if you so desire. So, my
question to you in that regard is, if you build this building, is the owner going to be satisfied
with just this building and not, and forgo any future accessory buildings?
MR. BORGOS-I believe that’s his intent. If you look at the history of the parcel, he built just the
house originally. He’s moved from a city lot to the country, essentially, and he wants to be a
minimalist. That’s why he’s preserved as much land as he has, and he originally thought he
could get by without a garage. He has some interior storage that’s now filled up with other
things that he used to have these outside things with, and he now realizes, at his wife’s
prodding, has indicated that she wants the vehicles inside during the winter. So, this is really
pushing the limit for me. It’s taken three years to get to this stage, and he doesn’t plan on
building anything else. That’s all he wants to do.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So you wouldn’t object to that stipulation?
MR. BORGOS-I would because he’s not here to address that specific issue. We haven’t
discussed that, and I think, the application is before the Board to consider just this variance
request for the garage alone, but I can tell you that I don’t believe he has any intention of doing
anything like that.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. URRICO-Well, he says right in his, the application that he would be, it would seem that a
single, this is Number Three, it would seem like a single structure less than the size would be
more consistent with limiting the number of buildings on our land.
MR. BORGOS-Yes.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. URRICO-So it would seem like that he would be in favor of something like that.
MR. BORGOS-I believe he probably would be, but I don’t want to bind him to that without
running that by him. I don’t think it’s necessary for the Board’s review tonight, necessarily. If
you understand the general intent is not to do that, and even if he was going to do that, and
stated so affirmatively tonight, I don’t see where there’d be an impact upon any neighbors or
any concern about that, and if that was going to be done, I think there would have to be a
substantial reason, because, as proposed, and this is an awfully large garage which should
handle everything that he needs for that property. I just can’t imagine what else he would need
to store inside.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I’ll open the
public hearing. Is there anyone here wishing 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-And I will begin to poll the Board. This one we’re going to start with Norm.
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a comment I’d make. I’m surprised he has the
garage so far away from the house. For reasons I can understand, but I would think in the
wintertime walking from that garage to the back door, the wind would probably blow you right
off your feet, but that’s neither here nor there. In short, I’m in favor of this application, for all
the reasons given. I think that, all taken, with the amount of area involved, and the needs for
storage of facilities other than a boat, for acreage and, you know, just maintenance equipment
and so forth, like you described, I think is needed, and I don’t think that there’s any negative
impact on the neighborhood or community at all, and the benefit is entirely to the applicant
with nothing wrong coming back to the community, so I’d be in favor of this application.
Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Well, I’m going to, I guess, take a gamble. There’s the old basic rule in zoning that
you always plan for the worst case possible, and the worst case possible here would be that he
does build another 500 square foot storage building after he gets a variance, and then decides to
subdivide the land, so we could end up with a much smaller parcel with substantially oversized
garage, but I have no reason to expect that that’s what the intent is at this point. So I think I’m
going to gamble on that. I’ll agree with all the other points that have been made. The structure
is going to be up where it’s not going to be seen. The piece of property is substantially larger
than a normal piece of property, if you will, for a regular subdivision or suburban area. So I
think this size building is probably reasonable for this particular piece of property, and I’ll be in
favor.
MR. BORGOS-If I could just interject, and respond to what Mr. McNulty just said, the
topography of the land really dictates that you can’t subdivide this parcel. The house is situated
on the ledge with an overlook, and it drops off sharply down the Bay Road. If there was any
subdivision possible, I don’t think there is because of the gully that’s down by the Bay Road,
but if there were, I think it might be right along Bay itself, which, again, is out of view of the
house and the garage which is to the rear. So I don’t think there would be any impact that way,
either, in that worst case scenario.
MR. HAYES-Okay. I guess, Joyce.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MRS. HUNT-Well, I agree with what the other Board members said. I don’t have any
objections. I think it’s a very attractive building, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m very thankful that I didn’t have to drive up that driveway two weeks ago. I
went up there today. It was probably a lot easier than it would have been with snow on the
ground, but I have no objections to the application. I don’t know if we need to make a mention
that this structure is using the combined square footage of an accessory structure and a garage
as consideration. I don’t know if that needs to be mentioned, but I’m in favor of it as it is.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-Well, as I stated earlier, I have a problem with the fact that we’re building an
oversized garage and next year he can build an accessory structure because he bought another
tractor and he never has to come before this Board again, and you see where I’m going? So I
see, I’m basically in favor of the application, but I want a restriction that you can’t build another
accessory building. Without that restriction, I’d have to be opposed to it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, in the last year we’ve granted two similar requests, one over on the
infamous Fuller Road and another one over on Gurney Lane, and I think that when you have
these larger parcels, people have other things going on on their property. They may have a log
skidder. They may have equipment that they want to maintain their property with, and it’s
understandable that they need the extra storage space. So I think it’s an attractive design. No
one’s ever going to see it, except the property owner, as far as I’m concerned. So I have no
problem with it at all.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I feel similar to the rest of the Board in this particular case. Normally
this would probably get more scrutiny if it was in a subdivision of more closely located homes,
but in this particular case, you know, we evaluate each Area Variance on a unique set of
circumstances, and certainly I agree with the application in that this additional garage space, if
you will, is not going to be, affect neighbors. It really isn’t even going to be visible to neighbors,
and that presents me with a change in the balancing test, a significant change, in that there’s
really no negative effects on the neighborhood or community. Essentially we’re dealing with
the benefit to the applicant, and I think that, in this particular case, the applicant’s agent has
demonstrated that the applicant has a few extra things that he needs to store in there, that he
wants to store them properly, and he would prefer to do it with an oversized garage versus a
fairly large permitted accessory building, and I think that that is also a good decision, as far as
the neighborhood is concerned, in this particular case. So I’m in favor. Having said that, is
there a motion out there?
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2003 ROBERT J. MULLER, Introduced
by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman Himes:
33 Ellsworth Lane. The applicant’s proposal is to construct a 1,496 square foot three bay garage
for vehicles, tractor and boat storage. He’s requesting 596 square feet of relief from the 900
square foot maximum size requirement for garages in residential zones, per 179-5-020(D). The
benefit to the applicant would be to construct this desired structure in his choice location.
Feasible alternatives appear to be somewhat limited. The 596 square feet of relief from the 900
square foot maximum height could be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance, but the
applicant has also made mention, I won’t make this as a stipulation, but has made mention that
he’s constructing this in lieu of a garage and an accessory structure, and that mitigates the
application somewhat. The effects on the neighborhood or community are non-existent because
it’s blocked off considerably by a dense forest, and the difficulty is somewhat self-created, but
it’s more or less attributed to the house equipment needed for the maintenance of this large
parcel.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
Duly adopted this 26 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2003 TYPE II ALEXANDER & PAULINE M. MAC PHERSON
AGENT: MARK D. CRONIN, ACTION CRAFT CONSTRUCTION PROPERTY OWNER:
ALEXANDER & PAULINE MAC PHERSON ZONE: SFR-1A LOCATION: 124 MONTRAY
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ENCLOSE EXISTING 245 SQ. FT. DECK/SCREENED
ROOM. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. BP 2002-922
PORCH TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-28 LOT SIZE: 0.19 ACRES SECTION 179-4-030
MARK CRONIN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2003, Alexander & Pauline M. MacPherson, Meeting
Date: March 26, 2003 “Project Location: 124 Montray Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to convert an existing 245 sq. ft. open deck to a covered screened-in porch.
Relief Requested: Applicant requests 10.9 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum rear setback
requirement of the SFR-1A zone, §179-4-030. Criteria for considering an Area Variance
according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Benefit to the applicant: Applicant would be
permitted to convert an open deck to a covered and screened-in porch. 2. Feasible
alternatives: Feasible alternatives seem to be limited. 3. Is this relief substantial relative to
the ordinance?: 10.9 feet of relief from the 20-foot requirement may be interpreted as moderate
relative to the ordinance (54.5%). 4. Effects on the neighborhood or community: Minimal
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. 5. Is this difficulty
self-created? The difficulty may be attributed to the desire to utilize the area protected from the
weather and insects. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): None Staff
comments: Minimal impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The new
construction, should it be approved, doesn’t appear to pose any negative effects on the
neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed new porch does not extend outside of the footprint
of the existing deck. SEQR Status: Type II”
MR. MC NULTY-And there’s no County.
MR. HAYES-Mr. MacPherson, I presume?
MR. CRONIN-I’m Mark Cronin. I represent Mr. MacPherson.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Do we have an Agent’s form signed? Are we okay with that, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-Yes.
MR. HAYES-Fire away.
MR. CRONIN-I think the benefits are obviously he’s just looking to improve his living space.
He’s not encroaching any farther on the setback than he is already. I think it’s an attractive
design. It’s going to improve the look of the house. To my knowledge he’s spoken with at least
the immediate neighbors and there’s no objection that I know of.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Is that it?
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. CRONIN-Yes. I’ll answer any questions you have.
MR. HAYES-Are there any questions for the applicant at this time?
MR. BRYANT-I have a question. Mr. Cronin, the deck that’s existing, when was it put in?
MR. CRONIN-It was almost 15 years ago.
MR. BRYANT-Fifteen years ago.
MR. CRONIN-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So it probably wasn’t subject to any zoning then, right?
MR. FRANK-As far as size requirements, 15 years ago, our support staff didn’t come up with
anything. So I think we can assume that it wasn’t required.
MR. HAYES-So it’s kind of pre-existing, even if it’s nonconforming.
MR. FRANK-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-That was my question.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other questions for the applicant at this time, by the Board? Hearing
none, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anyone that wishes to speak in favor of this
application? Anyone opposed? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
MR. HAYES-Then I’ll close the public hearing, and I will begin to poll the Board members.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-I believe this one we start first with Chuck McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Now, this strikes me as a fairly modest proposal, given that there’s a deck
there now, and basically what’s proposed is just enclosing the sides and screening in the back
side. Given that and apparently no objections from the immediate neighbors, and allowing for
the fact that this property also has a garage that must be almost on the lot line, that I don’t see
where it’s going to have an adverse impact on the neighborhood, and the benefit to the
applicant is clear. It gives him a better set up for summer evenings. So I think the balance falls
to the applicant, and I’m going to be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I don’t have any objections. I think it’s a modest request, and it’s not going to be
impacting on any more property. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think this is a reasonable application and I would be in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with the other Board members. I’m just hoping, I mean, the design is
very nice. I’m just hoping that you’re never going to enclose it as a bedroom or anything like
that.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. CRONIN-He has no intention that I know of to do that. No.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I’m in favor of it.
MR. HAYES-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, as far as I’m concerned it’s a very modest request, and I have no
problem with it at all.
MR. HAYES-Norm?
MR. HIMES-Yes, thank you. I support the application for the reasons already given. I have
nothing further to add. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. I agree. This certainly seems like a modest proposal. I think that the
relief, while moderate, I don’t think there’s any negative effects on the neighborhood or
community that can be identified or that are significant, and I think that the benefit to the
applicant, the applicant has given us a couple of reasons why they would like to do this, and I
guess we’ll take them at their word on that matter. So, on balance, I’m certainly in favor of the
application. Having said that, would someone like to make a motion?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2003 ALEXANDER & PAULINE
MACPHERSON, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Norman
Himes:
124 Montray Road. The applicant proposes to convert an existing 245 square foot open deck to
a covered screened in porch. The applicant requests 10.9 feet of relief from the 20 foot
minimum rear setback requirement of the SFR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030. The benefit to the
applicant, the applicant would be permitted to convert an open deck to a covered and screened
in porch. Feasible alternatives, feasible alternatives seem to be limited. Is this relief substantial
relative to the Ordinance? 10.9 feet of relief from the 20 foot requirement might be interpreted
as moderate relative to the Ordinance. Effects on the neighborhood or community? Minimal
effects on the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of this action. Is this difficulty self-
created? The difficulty may be attributed to the desire to utilize the area protected from the
weather and insects. Parcel History, none. Staff comments, minimal impacts may be
anticipated as a result of this action. The new construction, should it be approved, doesn’t
appear to pose any negative effects on the neighborhood. Additionally, the proposed new
porch does not extend outside of the footprint of the existing deck. SEQR status: Type II.
Duly adopted this 26 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-Thank you for coming.
MR. CRONIN-Thank you.
USE VARIANCE NO. 26-2003 TYPE: UNLISTED JOHN P. KOKOLETSOS AGENT:
MULLER AND MULLER PROPERTY OWNER: JOHN P. KOKOLETSOS ZONE: HC-INT.
LOCATION: 9 FOSTER AVENUE, NORTH SIDE APPLICANT PROPOSES
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,232 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH A 900 SQ. FT.
DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PERMITTED USE REQUIREMENTS
FOR HC-INT. ZONING. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/12/03 TAX MAP NO. 302.10-1-
16 LOT SIZE: 0.7 ACRES SECTION 179-4-020
MICHAEL BORGOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Use Variance No. 26-2003, John P. Kokoletsos, Meeting Date: March 26, 2003
“Project Location: 9 Foster Avenue, north side Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 1,232 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 900 sq. ft. detached garage.
Relief requested from the permitted use requirements of the HC-Int Zone. Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the allowable uses of the HC-Int Zone per, §179-4-20. Single-
family dwellings are not allowable uses within the HC-Int Zone. Criteria for considering a Use
Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 1. Is a reasonable return possible if the
land is used as zoned, provided that lack of return is substantial as demonstrated by
competent financial evidence? While the applicant offers responses to each and every
permitted use, there is no “dollars and cents” evidence to support the “lack of reasonable
return” criterion. There is no reference to the current financial encumbrances on the property.
Is there a mortgage? How much? Taxes? 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in
question unique, and does this hardship apply to a substantial portion of the district or
neighborhood? The alleged hardship appears to be unique, as the property is the only
remaining undeveloped parcel in the neighborhood, which is predominately comprised of
single-family dwellings. However, the property zoning has not materially changed since 1967.
3. Will the requested use variance, if granted, alter the essential character of the
neighborhood? It appears as though the essential character of the neighborhood, being single-
family dwelling residential, will not be altered should this application be approved. 4. Is the
alleged hardship self-created: Given that the commercial zoning designation of the property
has been applied to this property since 1967, it would appear as though the difficulty is self-
created. The most recent transfer of the property on December 18, 2002 occurred while the
current zoning designation (HC-Int) applied to the property. Arguably, a new “time clock”
would start from the most recent transfer. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): None Staff comments: While the applicant claims that a reasonable return on the
property is not possible as zoned, no financial evidence has been provided to substantiate this
claim. The application acknowledges that a few of the permitted uses may “work” on the
property with a certain degree of relief from the dimensional requirements of the code. This
should be considered a reasonable use of the property. Arguably the most difficult criterion is
the reasonable return requirement associated with the property. This requirement deals only
with the property, not with what might be most profitable for the applicant. Notwithstanding
the claims for dimensional relief for virtually all allowable uses, such development is possible
and unless substantiated, should not be considered as proof of “lack of reasonable return”.
SEQR Status: Type: Unlisted”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form March 12,
2003 Project Name: Kokoletsos, John P. Owner: John P. Kokoletsos ID Number: QBY-03-UV-
26 County Project#: Mar03-33 Current Zoning: HC-Int. Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,232 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 900
sq. ft. detached garage. Relief requested from permitted use requirements for HC-Int zoning.
Site Location: 9 Foster Avenue, north side Tax Map Number(s): 302.10-1-16 Staff Notes: Use
Variance: The applicant requests a Use Variance to construct a 1,232 sq. ft. home with a 900 sq.
ft. garage in the Highway Commercial Zone. The parcel is about 0.70 acres in size and is located
on Foster Avenue but is adjacent to Price Chopper. The applicant has provided detailed
information as to the allowed uses versus the probable uses for the parcel. This information is
provided for the Board to review. The information indicates that much of Foster Avenue is
residential use. The building of residential would be consistent with the area. Information was
not provided as to why this area with residential use was amended to Highway Commercial.
Staff would recommend discussion to obtain additional information about the zoning in the
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
area. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact The applicant provided
the requested information about the zoning in the area. The Board recommends No County
Impact.” Signed Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board, 3/15/03.
MR. HAYES-Mr. Borgos?
MR. BORGOS-Michael Borgos. As the Board knows very well, a Use Variance is the most
difficult thing to get from the Zoning Board of Appeals. The standard is very difficult, and
under most circumstances I think it would be easy to say, well, there’s no way you’re going to
get a variance that’s requested tonight, but I think this parcel is ideally suited and it should be
easily granted, and I think the eight page submission we made, which went through the 35
permitted uses in Highway Commercial Intensive use, really elaborates upon that point and
drives it home. It demonstrates that there is no realistic commercial use that you can have in
this. Those that are permitted require setbacks so that the building triangle becomes, I think, 12
feet by 150 feet. A very strange shape, and impractical, which would then require variances
from this Board before going to the Planning Board for site plan review. Additionally, most of
those things listed there require a great deal of parking and they’re the intensive use type thing
that would also require the buffer, when you consider that they’re residential homes on either
side and across the street from this parcel. So it doesn’t seem like any of those things are a
possibility. To substantiate that, and to respond to the Staff notes with regards to the first
question on dollars and cents, well, dollars and cents is one way of looking at it, but as required,
there’s got to be competent financial evidence. There doesn’t necessarily have to be dollars and
cents, and in this case, it is an ideal case point for that. You have a real estate appraiser who’s
given his opinion that there is no commercial use that is suitable for this property. If it’s zero
it’s zero. You don’t need to have some other dollars. I think Mr. Brown’s Staff notes ask if there
are taxes. Well, there’s only one other thing that’s certain in life, and we know what that is.
Taxes is certainly one of them. Yes, there are taxes on this parcel and they have been paid all
these years. The history of the parcel is a little bit interesting, and that’s my way of addressing
the other part. I think there was a misunderstanding when Mr. Brown wrote this, regarding the
self-created part of the hardship as he sees it. There was a deed recorded in December of 2002,
but that wasn’t transfer of ownership of the property. The property was owned by Mr.
Kokoletsos’ mother, and when she died in 1981 or 1982, as a function of law, as a matter of law,
her recorded will automatically transferred it to him. In anticipation of transferring it to his son
Michael, who is the intended resident of this lot, he was filing that deed to make it an easier
transfer and getting the loan from the bank and all those things in order. So, there really is no
transfer in ownership at all, and when you look at it as an inheritance from a parent, there is no
change in ownership going back to 1964 when it was acquired. So that pre-dates the zoning
change to commercial which was in 1967. In fact, that was the only question that the Warren
County Planning Board had about this. They couldn’t understand, Number One, why it was
zoned Highway Commercial Intensive use, and, Number Two, they said, well, when did that
happen, and we’re only speculating. We have no way of knowing why that was done back in
1967. I presume it was with the thought that maybe there would be some turnover of those
existing residences that were built in the 40’s and 50’s, and it would become a commercial zone,
but that hasn’t materialized, and a consistent use of this property would be for residential
purposes. So I think we’ve been able to demonstrate, through the real estate appraisal, the
analysis of each of the 35 different things that are permitted in the Highway Commercial
Intensive zone, that there is no reasonable return possible, and I want to stress that this is not
about profit to the applicant. The owner is going to transfer this to his son for a private
residence, which is going to be a nice home on the street, which is only going to improve
property values there. It’s going to be built on what is essentially a double lot in this
neighborhood. Most of the lots have 56 feet of frontage. This has 112. So he’s going to have
much greater yard area and green space and permeable area than any of the neighbors, and I
think it’s going to be a real improvement there, as compared to what might possibly be
sandwiched in, and I think those possibilities are just very, very difficult to substantiate, as you
look at them and you start thinking about, what if I put in an automotive repair shop? You
have the sounds and the noise and the parking required, and the variances, and the impact
upon the neighbors to the north, or to the left and to the right at least, certainly across the street.
So, if there are any questions, I’d be happy to address them.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. BRYANT-I have a question, Mr. Muller. You’re the attorney for the applicant?
MR. BORGOS-My name is Borgos.
MR. BRYANT-I’m sorry, Borgos?
MR. BORGOS-Yes, I work for the Mullers.
MR. BRYANT-Are you the attorney for the applicant?
MR. BORGOS-I am.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. It’s my understanding, and I may be incorrect, and that is that I know
you’re saying it’s difficult to provide this financial data, but that financial data is essential, from
our standpoint, to determine whether or not it’s a legitimate application.
MR. BORGOS-Well, I don’t think that it is. I think what is required is that there be competent
financial evidence, dollars and cents as far as Mr. Brown, I think, was looking for a mortgage. I
think that’s irrelevant. We have what is above and beyond what you normally get, in terms of
having the real estate appraiser come in and say, there is no commercially viable sale possible
here. Nobody would buy this except at a fire sale at a gift price, and I think that tells you that
the return would be zero, or close to it, and there’s no need to weigh what you normally weigh
with, in terms of a normal applicant, I suspect that what you usually see is someone who is
contract vendee, who has a goal in mind of building a motel, for example, and they might have
development costs, they have site acquisition costs, they have offering costs, whatever might be
going in to it, and you weigh that against the price that they’re going to be paying, and what
they could otherwise do with the property. Here what we’re arguing is that there’s nothing else
that you can do with this property, as it’s currently zoned, and I think the fact that it’s been
vacant for 35 years in this zoning is further proof that there’s nothing else you could do.
MR. BRYANT-But it’s been in the family for 35 years. So legitimately it hasn’t really been
vacant. It hasn’t been, you know, somebody hasn’t owned it and tried to sell it, you know, for a
commercial use. It’s been in the family.
MR. BORGOS-Sure. Land is always for sale, and with the other development in Queensbury,
there’ve been plenty of people who’ve owned vacant land who’ve been approached by
developers over the years and the same case here, but there’s nothing that you can do with it.
So no commercial ventures could come up with a price that was satisfactory. I don’t believe
there were any commercial ventures looking to buy it. I think the only people looking to buy it
were other people hoping to put a residence on it.
MR. URRICO-I just want to add to what Mr. Bryant said, and I don’t feel that the appraisal by a
real estate appraiser is a substitute for dollars and cents figures. That’s just my opinion.
MR. BORGOS-Well, if I could direct you to the final page of.
MR. URRICO-I read through it.
MR. BORGOS-Yes. Mr. Bean’s final paragraph kind of addresses that, and in fact the final
sentence does. “This parcel is simply not properly zoned as a Highway Commercial Intensive
parcel and that no practical application of the listed and allowable uses permitted within the
indicated zone can result in any reasonable dollars and cents yield to the owner.”
MR. URRICO-If it’s improperly zoned, then it needs to be changed by the Town Board.
MR. BORGOS-Actually, that’s one of the purposes of the Zoning Board is to grant the variance
where it’s necessary, rather than having to go through something like that.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. URRICO-But if it’s zoned incorrectly, that needs to go to the Town Board.
MR. BORGOS-They would have to rezone all the neighboring parcels as well.
MR. URRICO-Right.
MR. BORGOS-And that’s really unfeasible and unfair and overly burdensome.
MR. URRICO-It’s really a mixed use in that neighborhood. It’s not, there are other commercial
properties on that street.
MR. BORGOS-I believe there is one.
MR. URRICO-You have Ace Courier.
MR. BORGOS-Ace Courier.
MR. URRICO-You have a real estate office on the corner. You have a nursery down the street.
MR. BORGOS-The real estate office is on Glen Street, I believe.
MR. URRICO-And the property that’s owned by Price Chopper is also commercial. That was
original a residence also, wasn’t it?
MR. BORGOS-That’s not owned by Price Chopper. I believe it’s a lease situation.
MR. URRICO-That’s an easement? Okay.
MR. HAYES-Any other questions for the applicant? If not, I’ll open the public hearing. Is there
anyone that would like to speak in favor of the application? Please come forward and identify
yourself.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JAY MAYER
MR. MAYER-Jay Mayer, 1 Foster Avenue, Ace Courier. We’re the owners of Ace Courier, and
at this point on Foster Avenue there are no other businesses that I know of, other than my own.
They’re all private residences, and Rudley Drive, of course, is Garden Apartment type complex.
I do cannot see any harm in granting this variance at this point, as far as we would be
concerned. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. 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-Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. HAYES-Are there any last questions for the applicant before we?
MR. HIMES-Just one. There would be no variances needed with the planned residence?
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. BORGOS-That’s absolutely correct. What we’re going to do is propose to get a building
permit from the Building Department and it would be fully compliant with all the setbacks, and
probably exceed all the setback requirements.
MR. HIMES-Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. HAYES-Certainly, come forward. You have to come up and speak into the microphone,
though. Identify yourself.
SUSAN BALFOUR
MRS. BALFOUR-Susan Balfour. I just wonder what the side line setbacks would be for them to
build a residence on that property.
MR. HAYES-Do you have the Code. Probably 20 feet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ve got the plan here if you want to look at it.
MRS. BALFOUR-I saw that, but is that what they have to?
MR. FRANK-The front setback is 50. The sides are 25. The rear is subject to a shoreline setback
of 75 feet for a small stream, which they’ve already showed they will meet that setback also. So,
what they provided showed a home located in a compliant location.
MR. HAYES-I have a question for Staff now, too, as far as, if this was commercial, if someone
tried to put a commercial operation in there, what, there would be buffer requirements on both
sides?
MR. FRANK-They definitely would be subject to buffer requirements between different uses.
Because it’s residential on both sides of the parcel in question, they would have to have a 50 foot
buffer because it’s a buffer between a residential and a commercial. So the buffer requirements
alone would minimize the.
MR. HAYES-So there’s 12 feet, then.
MR. HIMES-The references that I’ve seen it would be the difference, it was a zoned use.
MR. FRANK-I can point to the Code for you. It’s the difference between uses, and I’ll be glad to
show you.
MR. HIMES-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Don’t mess with Bruce. He knows his stuff.
MR. HAYES-That’s important. Do you have any other comments, Mrs. Balfour, that you, or do
you want this question answered?
MRS. BALFOUR-Yes, I’d like the answer to that first.
MR. HAYES-Okay. That’s fine. She wants to get a confirmation from the Code that that’s, in
fact, the case.
MR. FRANK-I’ll be glad to provide that for you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Great.
MR. BORGOS-I believe it’s 50 feet with a minimum of 25 (lost words).
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. HAYES-I guess we’ll need to get that clarified, because that plays some role in what would
be feasible there.
MR. FRANK-For Highway Commercial Intensive, it’s a side setback of 20 foot minimum, sum
of 50.
MR. HAYES-That’s for the side setbacks.
MR. FRANK-That’s for the side, 25 foot rear, 50 foot front.
MR. HAYES-Now what are the buffer requirements?
MR. FRANK-That’s what I’m going to look up for you.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Great.
MRS. BALFOUR-This is if a Highway Commercial use went in there, it would be a 50 foot
setback. Is that what I’m understanding?
MR. HAYES-Well, yes, combined 50. Twenty minimum, combined 50. So the other side would
have to be 30.
MRS. BALFOUR-I see. Okay. So it’s really not all that different if it’s a residence or a?
MR. HAYES-Not in that case, I would say no.
MRS. BALFOUR-Okay.
MR. HAYES-But I would think the buffers would be more significant.
MR. BORGOS-If there is any further concern about the setback, I could always stipulate to a 25
foot setback on the (lost words) side. There’s no concern about that at all.
MR. HAYES-Yes. I don’t think we’re concerned about that. I think that the buffer requirements
do play in to what’s feasible there.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, do you want me to read from the Code that Section?
MR. HAYES-Yes, that would be fine. Thank you.
MR. FRANK-Section 179-8-050, Types of Buffer Zones Between Uses, “The purpose of buffer
zones is to separate land uses and offer visual screening between uses that may not be
compatible. The level of general compatibility dictates the level of screening. Three different
types of buffers are specified. The buffer types are designed at Type A, Type B and Type C
buffers. The following table illustrates the types of buffers required between adjacent uses.”
And if you were to view this table, a single family residential use and a commercial/recreation
use is a Type C buffer, which is a 50 foot buffer, and I’d be glad to have anybody take a look at
this if they’d like.
MR. HAYES-No. I’m comfortable with that. That’s what the applicant thought it was, too.
MR. BORGOS-And that’s what I was referring to when I said you have a buildable strip of 12
feet, because it’s 112 feet in width, and it’s a rectangle, except at the rear. You’d take away 50
from each side, you’re left with 12.
MR. HAYES-Are there any other further questions for the applicant at this time? If not, I will
begin to poll the Board members. I will start, I guess, with Roy.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
MR. URRICO-Okay. I agree with the application in theory. I think it’s probably incorrectly
zoned, and perhaps it stems back from the time that the Northway was being completed, and a
lot of the houses along that stretch had to be displaced and I think they were moved to that
section. I’m not sure why this would be zoned Highway Commercial, though, even then. I
don’t understand it, but I imagine it had something to do with that, but I really feel I need more
financial evidence to make a reasonable decision on this, and, you know, I would be in favor, at
this point of tabling it, and waiting for that information to arrive.
MR. BORGOS-If I could just respond to that. Can you give us, if you’re intending to suggest
that, I don’t know how we could possibly generate any financial data. That’s why we went to
Mr. Bean. That’s why we went through the exhaustive list of 35 different things. If you can’t do
any of them, then there’s nothing that you can do. So there can be no one side of it.
MR. URRICO-To me going to one real estate appraiser does not substitute for some reasonable
financial data.
MR. BORGOS-There’s no opposing information.
MR. URRICO-Has there been an attempt to sell this property before?
MR. BRYANT-Are we going to have a debate, Mr. Chairman, or what’s going on here?
MR. URRICO-Well, I didn’t want to cut Roy off. He was asking a question pertaining to his, but
I guess we don’t traditionally get into, once people have their opinion.
MR. BORGOS-I don’t intend to be (lost word). I’m just trying to understand where you’re
headed, to see if I can get some more information for you. Because I’d be happy to table it if
there was some information out there I could obtain. I don’t know if two or three or five real
estate appraisers would be sufficient. I’m not aware of any case law or any.
MR. URRICO-I’m looking for some dollars and cents figures.
MR. HAYES-Okay. All right. Thank you. Allan?
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Urrico. I’m totally in favor of it. It makes absolute sense for that
to be a residential one family dwelling, absolute sense, but I don’t think that the applicant has
met the criteria, which includes financial information. Now Wally Bean is a real estate broker.
MR. BORGOS-And a certified appraiser.
MR. BRYANT-Well, he’s a certified, he’s also a real estate broker. He’s a real estate agent. He
sells real estate. Okay. I think a logical approach would have been to say, we pay x number of
dollars in mortgage. We pay x number of dollars and so forth and so on, and extrapolate that
over a period of years and say we’ve attempted to offer it to certain developers who may want
to put an ice cream store there or a tire store or whatever. Fundamentally, I agree with the
application, but I think somebody should have done a little bit more homework and said, this is
a requirement, and there here is the financial, this is what it’s costing us to maintain the
property. So, in that regard, as it’s presented today, I don’t think that we could even look at the
application. So I’d be opposed to it.
MR. HAYES-So you’re opposed, or you think it should be tabled for more information?
MR. BRYANT-I think it should be tabled until we get some financial data.
MR. HAYES-All right. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m going to take a different tact here and try and iron this thing out, but if
you look at the current uses in the neighborhood there, where you do really have Highway
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
Commercial Intensive use out on the main drag, on Route 9 out there, I think in the back, you
know, you have those large parcels. I think those are Rudnick property back there in the back,
and I don’t know what their intentions are, but certainly Foster Avenue, having, you know, if
you were dropped off and someone said, what do you think it’s zoned here, I think most people
would probably reflect and say, well, obviously, it’s residential housing on that street, and I
think that, even if you were to create one more residential home on that street, in essence it’s
still zoned Highway Commercial Intensive, and if some big builder wanted to come along and
buy everybody out and change it over to some major project, maybe that’ll happen down the
road, but I don’t think it’s going to happen any time soon, given the way things are going. So, I
think it’s reasonable for us to grant this request, because it makes sense for the moment, and
down the road it could change again, and, you know, a major project still could go in there, but,
you know, it would be having to buy up all those properties, including this one, at that point in
time.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Norm?
MR. HIMES-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with some of what’s been said by all parties
here. A couple of things. One, I know in the Comprehensive Land Use Plan there was talk,
discussion about connecting Foster Avenue with the shopping mall I think. Nothing has been
done about it and so on, you know not enough, it and some other things in the Comprehensive
Use Plan never got the funding. I don’t know whether those plans have been thrown out the
window or not, but that’s indicative of something that could be coming down the road, and
what Jim said here I had in my mind, too, that it’s not uncommon for someone who’s going to,
finds it in their mind that here’s a plum for the picking, so to speak, that they do, they wouldn’t
go with the one lot. They would buy one or two or three there, and put something in there and
get going with it, and how successful it might be I couldn’t begin to say, but that I think could
reasonably happen. So, I think the matter of what has been said in connection with the financial
matters, it’s always difficult to do in these things, to come up with other figures than what you
have, just from your own personal experience, a vacant lot especially. So I’m thinking that,
really, the line, it’s very hard to read that zoning map as far as I’m concerned, magnifying glass
or not. As I see it, that zone runs just almost up where that Price Chopper exit way comes out
or maybe a couple, maybe a house or two further down. That’s where it ends, and so I would
think that a reasonable, I think this should be a legislative undertaking, and not one of zoning,
and because of that, I would say I would not support the application. I think it should be
looked at otherwise, and most of your arguments would seem to support a change in the zoning
rather than a variance. Thank you.
MR. HAYES-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, okay. Two or three thoughts here. One, I guess just a comment for
Staff or whatever. Sometime I’d like to see a legal opinion on our problem of distinguishing
between use and zones. Because I’ve been in a couple of situations where there’s been
essentially a nursery commercial use on one piece of residential property, and other residential
property on the other side of it, and they were told that there was no buffer required because
both sides were residential. Here we’re taking the other tact. We’re ignoring what the zoning
is, and saying if one use is here, and another use is here, there’s a buffer required. I think it’s
another job of lousy writing in the zoning law. There’s no definition of what they mean by
“use”. So I don’t know whether use is the same thing as zoning or whether it’s something
entirely different, but that’s for something in the future. Second, the zoning of this particular
area, it strikes me that probably it is logical for it to be Highway Commercial Intensive. There’s
commercial south of it, Price Chopper. There’s commercial north of it, and I think probably
whoever was writing the zoning or drawing the map stepped back and took a look and say, it’s
commercial north, coming south, and there’s commercial south coming north, and some day
that whole area is going to become commercial, which it could some time, but right now clearly
it is residential. As far as the applicant’s arguments, I’m inclined to agree with him. I’m
inclined to agree with him even if he’s not required to have a 50 foot buffer on each side. I think
when you look at a lot that’s 112 feet wide, and you go down through that list of uses, as he’s
pointed out, in most cases, the technically usable activities there are impractical. They either
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
simply won’t fit on that property, even ignoring the 50 foot buffer, just for 20 foot, 25 foot side
setbacks, and the few that might fit on there, like for instance maybe a doctor’s office or a
professional office, as soon as you start thinking in terms of the number of parking places that
would be required, I think, again, you’re not going to fit the required number of parking places
in with a reasonable sized building for a doctor’s office or something else. So I’m inclined to
agree with the applicant, that, even absent numbers written down, I think that the answer is
that almost all commercial uses on that property are impractical at this point in time. So my
only argument with myself is perpetuating the residential area in an area that’s zoned
commercial, but I think it certainly is consistent there for now, and I’m inclined to go with
what’s there at this point. So bottom line, I think he’s made the case, and I’d be in favor.
MR. HAYES-Thank you. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, I would use that 50 foot buffer, because if that would be required, you
wouldn’t be able to sell this property to anyone for commercial use, and that’s one of the, you
know, no reasonable return. You could, I mean, you couldn’t sell it now as residential, and you
couldn’t sell it as commercial. So I don’t think we have any choice but to grant the Use
Variance.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, Use Variances are certainly, as you pointed out at the beginning of
your presentation, they’re certainly the more difficult test that the Zoning Board is asked to
contemplate, and the criterion are certainly strict, and they’re, they have to be all satisfied to get
the affirmation of your application. I think the Board members have brought up some good
points on this matter, particularly Chuck. I, myself, am not clear, as far as, I mean, I think
you’re right about that, but I’m not, I understand where he’s coming from, as far as the buffers,
you know, if you’re, when do they apply and when do they not apply. It’s not entirely clear. I
mean, the fact that they have to have buffers between uses is clear, but, in this particular case, in
the end, I was overtaken or convinced of the economic impracticality of using this as a
commercial parcel based on those two buffers. I just think that, basically, 12 foot wide of area is
just self-evident in itself that it could not be used for something as it’s zoned. I think, you
know, there were some good arguments made that the idea that this potentially could be
commercial at some point in the future, I think that that is a possibility, but at that point I would
think it would be incumbent upon the developer to buy up the homes as they’re there. I think
when I drove through this neighborhood I felt as Jim Underwood pointed out that if somebody
had dropped me off there and said, okay, pick a zone, which is not my job, there would be no
doubt in my mind that it would have been zoned residential, and everything in there, except for
the Courier service, is residential, and I agree with Chuck in the sense, I’m certainly taken
slightly aback by the idea of perpetuating residential, further residential development in an area
that’s zoned commercial, but I just think for property that has been in this family for that length
of time, I think we’re essentially telling them that the property’s worthless, because if it’s not
residential, and it can’t be used commercially in any practical sense, I know the argument zero
is zero is dangerous, in a way, but I think in this particular case, I’m a property developer, and I
would walk away. I just don’t think that it’s feasible. So, going through the criteria associated
with a Use Variance, I think that, while I agree with Roy entirely that a letter from a real estate
agent is not conclusive in and of itself, but certainly, they certainly have an understanding of
best and use, the best uses of property and relative values. That’s not financial evidence in the
sense of actual dollars and cents balance sheets, income statements, these things, and I think
that’s what we’re looking for, but what I think is self-evident is that a reasonable return cannot
be obtained in 12 feet, in any one of the uses, and I read through every use that is permitted in
this zone, and I just couldn’t possibly think of one of those that would work within 12 feet. So I
think this is so over the top that it, in itself, is evidence. If there was 25 feet there, then I would
say, well, then we would need to see balance sheets, income statements to prove that it’s not,
but 12 feet, I can’t see it. Is the alleged hardship related to the property in question unique? I
think that it is. I think that that is the only lot that’s not developed in that thing, and I think it is
unique in that everything around it is single family dwellings. I think the Staff more or less
concluded that and stipulated that in their Staff notes. Will their requested Use Variance, if
granted, alter the essential character of the neighborhood? I don’t think so. I think it’s a
residential neighborhood, and I think another house there would not alter it. If anything it
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
might continue it. So I would say my answer to that is no, and is the alleged hardship self-
created? I don’t think that it is. I honestly believe that this property has been owned by a
family and this was re-zoned, but I think that it was more a function of the change of zone with
that consistent family ownership of the property versus somebody buying the property and
knowing what the zoning was in advance and then coming in and asking for a Use Variance.
So in my mind, I would think that the four criteria have been met, and I say that very narrowly,
because I agree with what some of the other Board members pointed out about the lack of
income statements, etc. So, I would say on a very narrow basis, I would be in favor of the
application. We’ve got to do a Short Environmental Assessment Form. We do have to do one
on this one?
MR. MC NULTY-It’s Unlisted.
MR. FRANK-Yes. All Use Variances are Unlisted Actions.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Before we make any kind of motions, then.
MOTION THAT THERE IS NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH
THIS VARIANCE THAT’S BEEN CONTEMPLATED, Introduced by Paul Hayes who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 26 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Himes, Mr. McNulty, Mr.
Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-All right. Back to the variance at hand. Would someone like to make a motion?
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO. 26-2003 JOHN P. KOKOLETSUS,
Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
9 Foster Avenue, north side. The applicant’s proposing construction of a 1,232 square foot
single family dwelling with a 900 square foot detached garage and needs relief from the
permitted uses requirements of the Highway Commercial Intensive zone. Specifically, we
propose granting the applicant relief from the allowable uses of the Highway Commercial
Intensive zone per Section 179-4-020 to allow the construction of a single family dwelling within
this zone. In considering this Use Variance, we’ve considered the four questions. Is there a
reasonable return possible if the land is used is zoned, provided that lack of return is substantial
as demonstrated by competent financial evidence? And while the applicant has not provided
an actual dollars and cents figure to show this, I believe he has shown, with his analysis and
comments from a licensed real estate appraiser, that there is no viable commercial activity that
could be conducted on this property, considering the setbacks and the buffer requirements for
the property, since there is residential uses on each side of it. Is the alleged hardship relating to
the property in question unique and does a hardship apply to a substantial portion of the
district or neighborhood? I think we’ve established that this is the only empty, vacant lot left on
this street, which is predominantly residential in character. So that, yes, this is a unique
situation. There’s no other lot in this situation on this street. Will the requested Use Variance, if
granted, alter the character of the neighborhood? Here again, the answer is, I think
emphatically, no. The applicant is proposing a residential use, in a neighborhood that while
classified as Highway Commercial Intensive, is actually almost 100% residential neighborhood,
and is the alleged hardship self-created? Given that the property has been essentially in the
same family for many years, and just transferred from parent to child, I think it could be said
that it really is not self-created. The zoning was put in place after the family owned the
property. Given all these conditions, I think the applicant has made the case that there is no
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
other viable use of this property, other than a residential use. So I move that we grant this Use
Variance.
Duly adopted this 26 day of March, 2003, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Hayes
NOES: Mr. Himes, Mr. Bryant
ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. HAYES-The motion is carried.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I want to recommendation relative to the Johnson issue.
MR. HAYES-Is this on the record?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t care if it’s on the record or off the record.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Well, proceed.
MR. BRYANT-Particularly with respect to the Kraft home, under normal circumstances, I
would have been opposed to that variance, for the pure and simple reason that the lot was big
enough and it could have been put anywhere, and it’s really not up to us to determine the fact
that it’s going to cost x number of dollars to move the house, etc., etc., etc. So, based on that
ruling, now I’m a little gun shy, and I want to make a suggestion. You’re the Chairman tonight.
I think we ought to call a special meeting where we discuss this issue before the 30 days is up.
We’ll review the minutes that led to our rejection of the Johnson variance and also, because I
think, first off and foremost, the ruling is based on faulty factual information. The ruling, if you
read the ruling, it says specifically that the applicant presented a legitimate survey. They did
not. Okay. It was an architect’s rendering of the location of the building. So, I’m not saying
that I suggest that we appeal it, but I think as a group we need to sit down and we need to talk
about the implications of this ruling and how it affects our future performance.
MR. MC NULTY-I think that’s a good point. I don’t think we should be cowed by a judge who
may have made an arbitrary decision, although we call ours arbitrary, but that aside, given that
he’s made that kind of a decision, I think it would be worth maybe even hearing from Town
Counsel is what else do we need to be sure we put in the record, in the minutes, when we
approve or disapprove something to try to avoid this kind of a reversal again. Because I think
this is part of it is I don’t think the judge had the full picture.
MR. BRYANT-No. One of his reasons for his reasons for the ruling in that direction is the fact
that he said that we didn’t provide enough information that showed that it was a detriment to
the neighborhood. So, we really need some guidance here and understanding as to how much
information, objection, is sufficient.
MR. MC NULTY-Right.
MR. BRYANT-So I think that we need to have a meeting with Town Counsel is a very good
idea, and we sit down and review our documentation, you know, the minutes of our meetings
relative to the, because there were two meetings, I think, that she was involved in, and then the
overall opinion of the judge, so that we can know where to go from here.
MR. HAYES-I’m certainly in agreement with you. I think it’s a good idea. I went to law school
myself, and when you get into these legal, the advice really has to come from legal counsel, and
the reason why is when you get into these legal test, which a variance has a legal test, okay,
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 3/26/03)
what really matters is what’s the precedent out there that a judge has to examine as to what
qualifies as, you know, a feasible alternative or what qualifies as, you know, the parts of the
test, and that information is out there, but that’s really what determines, really should be
binding the judge as to what he determines, you know what I mean? He should be examining it
as compared to the precedents in regards to the Use Variance. As far as us failing in some way,
I mean, you know, I guess you examine it that night based on the facts that are in front of you
and stuff like that. I mean, it’s almost like Town Counsel could provide us maybe we a little
better examples and maybe some documentation or some case history. There’s some test cases
that are generally associated with big decisions that say this is what floats, this is what doesn’t
under these circumstances, and that’s out here.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I think there are a couple of issues, one issue being the fact that the
ruling was based on faulty information, Number One, and Number Two, the fact that there was
a clear indication on the judge’s part that he didn’t feel that we made our case, that we didn’t go
through the criteria, and if that is the case, and that’s why I voted out of character tonight,
particularly on the Kraft house, and even in this last, because, from a realistic standpoint, you
know, it was totally logical to approve that Use Variance, but I don’t feel that he met the criteria.
Criteria is very clearly spelled out. There has to be financial data. There was no financial data.
So from that perspective, Wally Bean, in my estimation, is not financial data, but, you know,
you need dollars and cents, okay, and I don’t think they provided it. So, normally, I would
have voted for it, but I voted against it with that in the back of my mind, saying we’re not doing
it by the book. So I think we need to have a meeting either with Town Counsel, maybe with
Chris Round, maybe with Bruce and Craig where we all sit down, and let’s go over the
discussion, you know, let’s go over the minutes, be specific on that case.
MR. URRICO-Last week we had a case where Michael O’Connor came in and he found some
obvious discrepancies in the way we measure things, and, you know, there are times where I
feel naked here, because we don’t have any guidance. The attorney shows up for specific cases
which means, to me, if I was a resident of the community coming before here and the attorney
is here only certain times and not other times, it means like John Salvador is important but the
rest of us aren’t. So we don’t get the benefit of Town Counsel.
MR. HAYES-I think we’ve discussed the fact that that we, when we summarize, those
comments, we’ve discussed the fact that the Board has a general feeling that we need some
additional guidance in regards, particularly in lieu of the Johnson decision. Correct me if I’m
saying anything that you don’t agree with, in terms of some of the specific parts or criteria
associated with the Variance, Area Variance request, and that at this point we’d like to have
some help from legal counsel along those lines. Is that good enough, and then I’ll close the
meeting, because that’s a fair statement to make, I think.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Paul Hayes, Acting Chairman
58