2004-06-16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 16, 2004
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
LEWIS STONE, CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
PAUL HAYES
ROY URRICO
JAMES UNDERWOOD
CHARLES ABBATE
LEO RIGBY, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
ALLAN BRYANT
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY
MR. STONE-I just want to tell the people assembled that the second and third items on the
agenda, namely Sign Variance No. 16-2004, Tractor Supply Company, and Area Variance No.
30-2004, John W. & Kathleen M. Tarrant, will not be heard this evening. Their agent has asked
they be adjourned until next week. So we will not be hearing them. We will start again next
week with them.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II WALLACE R. HIRSCH AGENT:
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERING, PLLC OWNER: WALLACE R. HIRSCH ZONING:
WR-1A LOCATION: BIRDSALL ROAD EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 991 SQ. FT. SEASONAL CAMP AND CONSTRUCTION OF
A 3,805 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN 816 SQ. FT. DETACHED
GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK AND
MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 45-2001 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 4/14/04 LOT SIZE: 0.78 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-45
SECTION: 179-4-030
TOM JARRETT & MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2004,Wallace R. Hirsch, Meeting Date: June 16, 2004
“Project Location: Birdsall Road Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes demolition of a 1,342 sq. ft. camp and the construction of a 3,805 sq. ft. single-family
dwelling with an 816 sq. ft. detached garage.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 9 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum shoreline
setback requirement and 4.5 feet of relief from the 28-foot maximum height requirement of the
WR-1A Zone, §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 27-2004: tabled 04/21/04, same as
current application except for 19 feet of shoreline setback relief requested.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
SP 45-2001: modified plan to be submitted for the July agenda.
SP 45-2001: 04/24/03, extension of approval to 03/30/04.
SP 45-2001: 01/15/02, clearing and grading to facilitate driveway, parking, accessory structures,
and future septic area. Approval includes 10,000 cu. yds. to be cut and 5,000 cu. yds. of fill to be
placed to a finished elevation of 135’.
Staff comments:
On 04/21/04, the applicant proposed to locate the new dwelling 31 feet from the shoreline. The
applicant currently proposes to set the dwelling back 41 feet from the shoreline. Additionally,
the original proposal requested 4.5 feet of height relief. The new proposal is still requesting 4.5
feet of height relief; however, being the dwelling is proposed to be recessed into the slope to
hide it from the lake exposure, the net exposed façade height will appear to be 10 inches above
the maximum height allowed by code. The applicant also proposes to plant numerous shrubs
in addition to retaining the existing trees for screening and aesthetics.
Should the board move to approve this application, the approval should include the condition
the applicant must get the proposed modification for SP 45-2001 approved (July review by the
Planning Board). Without the approval, the site cannot be developed as submitted in this
application.”
MR. O'CONNOR-There was a new narrative page that was also submitted with the changed
plans.
MR. STONE-The May 18?
th
MR. HAYES-From Tom Jarrett?
MR. O’CONNOR-From Tom Jarrett, yes.
MR. STONE-Yes. You better read that in. Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. This is a May 18 letter, addressed to the Board, from Tom Jarrett. It
th
says “Attached is a modified site design for the Area Variance request related to the Hirsch
property on Glen Lake. Considering the comments received from the Board members, and
considering both site constraints and the owners’ needs, we have taken steps to try to
accommodate all parties. The following modifications are presented for the Board’s
consideration. 1. The proposed replacement house has been moved back from the proposed 31’
setback (the current setback) to 41’, an additional setback of 10’. 2. The house has been recessed
into the slope to hide it from lake exposure; (the relief sought is 4’6”, however, the net exposed
façade height is proposed as 28’10”) 3. Additional landscaping around the front of the house
has been provided, and the existing trees have been shown more clearly to illustrate the level of
vegetative enhancement and screening that the owners propose. 4. Neighbors along Birdsall
Road Extension are firmly supportive of the variance requests, and have prepared letters to the
Board to document that support. 5. The location of the neighboring house to the northeast was
measured and shown on the site plan to illustrate how its location impacts the Hirsch property.
6. Floor plans have been added to the submission to clarify the design of the house. The
Hirsch’s have carefully considered the Board’s comments, and have worked hard to try to reach
a balance between their needs and the needs of the community. Although they were not able to
redesign the house without great expense and without compromising the house function, the
house elevation has been dropped (recessed into the slope) in an attempt to reduce the exposure
from the lake. They also have moved the house back to a more compliant location (41’ setback
proposed), which will limit their view to the north to some extent, and constrict the site for
design of new wastewater and stormwater systems, but they feel that it addresses the Board’s
concern. Lastly, the neighbors support the variances, and the two adjoining neighbors have
come out against moving the house any further away from the lake. Overall, we feel that these
modifications will meet the needs of the Hirsch’s, and the neighbors, and we hope that the
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
Board agrees. If you have any advance questions, please call our office. Sincerely, Jarrett-
Martin Engineers, PLLC H. Thomas Jarrett, P.E. Principal”
MR. STONE-Okay. Gentlemen, and lady.
MR. O'CONNOR-For the purposes of your record, I’m Michael O’Connor from the law firm of
Little & O’Connor, and with me at the table is Tom Jarrett who is the engineer for the project,
and Mr. and Mrs. Hirsch, who are the owners of the property, and the applicants. I sometimes,
when I get here, say that I don’t know whether I’m going to be hunting for chipmunk or
hunting for bear, but I will say in this instance, from what I’ve seen, and I wasn’t at your first
meeting, I would think that we’re probably hunting for chipmunk and not for bear. This is a
very conservative use of this property. If you take a look at the Floor Area Ratio, it’s almost less
than half of what could be there. I think they could have structures with floor area of about
8175 square feet. This total project is 4621 feet. If you take a look at the existing structure that’s
there, this betters the setbacks significantly than what is presently there now, as a small camp.
If you look at the adjoining properties, it is much more conservative than the adjoining
properties. I think the property to the east, which I would, to the west, no, to the east, away
from Route 9, has a setback from the lake of eight feet, and what they’re proposing here is 41
feet, and the 41 feet actually is to the deck. You would have another three or four feet if you go
away from the point of the deck at which that measurement’s made, and the deck does count
for setbacks. So we are asking for that relief. The height is the other issue that we have before
you, and if you take a look at what they’ve submitted as landscape plans, you will see that what
appearance there is, if any appearance, is about 10 inches from the lake. They basically are
going to berm in front of the house, in front of the deck, and they’ve lowered the house into the
hill as much as they can and still have some decent light through that floor of the house. So the
likelihood of impact on the neighborhood by character or environmentally, there just isn’t any,
that I’m aware of. You’re going to have a brand new septic system. You’re going to have a
house that’s further back from the lake. You’re going to have a stormwater management plan
for the house as it’s constructed. You don’t have that for the existing house, and Mr. Hirsch
probably is the best to talk about the landscaping. I have a color print. Have you got a color
print? That shows the existing and the proposed. The second page, and I think you have letters
from everybody that adjoins this property, and for two or three houses down, that they all think
that it will be an improvement.
MR. STONE-We’ll read those in.
MR. O'CONNOR-And that it will not affect the character of the neighborhood in any
detrimental way. The only other thing that we would touch upon is probably are there
alternatives? The alternatives that they’ve looked at are, they’ve already expended a great deal
of extra money in the construction, simply to accommodate what they’ve done. I don’t know if
they could go further into the hill to make the house lower, and that really is probably the
alternative. They could go another two feet down into the house, or into the hill, but I think
what they’re trying to do is accommodate everybody, and balance what the Board said, offer
the improvements that they’ve offered, and hope that it would meet with your approval.
MR. STONE-Anything else?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, I think that’s it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Questions?
MR. HAYES-I have a question about the height. I guess you’re still requesting the height relief,
even though you’re saying in effect it’s going to be.
MR. JARRETT-Technically, we’re still requesting the full height, but we’ve recessed the
structure so the net visible relief we’re looking for is 10 inches.
MR. ABBATE-Into the shoulder of the?
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. JARRETT-Into the face of the?
MR. ABBATE-Right, into the face.
MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the color sketch, the bottom diagram on the left hand side
shows you that the, if you measured from the bottom of the well, if you will, or measured from
the bottom of the floor area underneath the deck, to the peak, that’s where you get the 32 feet 5
inches, but if you look directly in front of that, there’s a very substantial berm that’s being
established, that’s about four feet high. So if you look from the lake, and if you look out into the
trees, you’re going to see where they show 28 feet, 10 inches. That’s the appearance from the
lake, and then the one above it, I guess, also shows it without the landscaping on it. The other
thing, too, there’s still trees that are going to, this, even at that height, this is not going to be a
house that looks like it sticks out on a ridge. It’s going to be lower than the house that’s next to
it, and there’s still going to be some old growth trees that will be behind it, that will frame it, as
far as if you’re way out on the lake.
MR. ABBATE-And that’s what the applicant is referring to, when he indicates it’s going to be
recessed into the slope to hide from lake exposure and what have you. Am I right on that?
MR. JARRETT-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-But the, looking at the front of the house, where you have the recessed window
and columns, I mean, what are you going to see when you look from the lake to that thing? Is
it like a moat?
MR. O'CONNOR-No, you won’t see anything. You’re going to see the landscaping, which will
show up about halfway in the bottom part of that window.
MR. JARRETT-It’ll look like the bottom four feet of the house is cut off. The earth is four feet up
on that structure. That’s all you’ll see is the earth and the landscaping.
MR. STONE-But that window, I’m just saying that window is going to be above ground level
where it is, though, I’m looking at the west elevation here.
MR. O'CONNOR-Part of it is. That’s the north elevation, I think, toward the lake.
MR. STONE-The west elevation is the one I’m looking at.
MR. JARRETT-If you look at the two views above it, the two north elevations, the one with
landscaping and one without, they show the view from the lake.
MR. STONE-But if I walk up the berm, when I get to the house, what am I going to see?
MR. O'CONNOR-You’re going to see right to the ground. You will see the full exposure.
MR. STONE-So there’s going to be a lip, so to speak, that?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, it’ll be higher than this table, and the top of it will be wider than this
table. It’s not an insignificant berming or landscaping.
MR. STONE-But it’s not going to be against the house?
MR. O'CONNOR-No. It’s going to be out at the edge.
MR. JARRETT-It’s out at the edge of the lower patio.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-Out at the edge of the columns.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Instead of backfilling against the house, which would eliminate that, which
would cause a problem of the window, it’s held out at the bottom of the line of the post for the
deck that’s above it.
MR. HAYES-So how many feet is that, like 10 or 12 feet then?
MR. HIRSCH-I think it’s 12 feet. Yes, the porch is 12 and the deck is 10.
MR. HAYES-It’s the total of those two, then, essentially.
MR. O'CONNOR-No. Well, the deck’s above it.
MR. STONE-Okay. According to this, you’re going to have a terrace that will be flagstone or
concrete or something around the outside of the house, behind the berm, away from the lake?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions? All right. I’m going to open the public hearing, even
though we did close it, but I’m going to open it, because there are some letters which we did not
have before, and we did not read in. So we will, first of all, ask the public, does anybody wish
to comment on this application? Anybody wishing to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. STONE-Okay. Let’s read these letters in, since they certainly support the applicant’s
position.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m going to read one in that was in the office file that’s not in our
packet, first, so I don’t forget it. This is a letter from Steven and Lisa Potvin-Jackoski, and they
say “We are writing in support of the application made by Mr. & Mrs. Hirsch relating to the
construction of their new year-round residence on Glen Lake/Birdsall Road. We have
personally met with the Hirsch’s concerning their plans and strongly believe they have given
significant consideration to Glen Lake, the neighborhood and their immediate neighbors. We
believe their relief requests are in keeping with the character of our small neighborhood and it
is exciting for many of us to know the Hirsch’s choose to be year-round residents of Glen Lake,
especially given their local and family connections to Glen Lake and the greater Queensbury
community. Wally’s own personal dedication and internal spirit for the good of Glen Lake is
appreciated and respected by all. He truly is a walking history book when it comes to his life
experiences on Glen Lake and the impact the lake has on his family, his friends and him. The
Hirsch’s resultant residence will ultimately improve our neighborhood and the quality of the
lake water with the addition of the new septic system, runoff controls and grade improvements.
We believe you will find great support for this project within our neighborhood. Please
unanimously support the requested variances and we thank you for continuing to look out for
the interests of the surrounding neighbors and our community as a whole. Very best regards,
Steven and Lisa Potvin-Jackoski” And then the other letters that we’ve got, one from Russell
Pittenger and Lin Whittle. They say, “I’m writing in support of the height and setback request
before the Board. Our seasonal camp is located immediately south of the proposed residence
and it is our family that would be most affected by the variance request. At one time, the
Hirsch family owned the entire south basin. The Hirsch camp and our camp, [formerly
McKinney,] are the remaining vestige of the first cottages built in the early 1950’s. The Hirsch
lot is large, with a lake frontage of 100 feet. The site topography is challenging and steep. Their
requests for these variances are worthy of your consideration. An attractive year-round
residence with an updated septic system would be an asset to the neighborhood. They should
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
not be penalized for being the [next to] last to convert from seasonal to year-round. Easily half
of the neighboring homes exceed the height and setback requirements [look to Dineen, Vittengl,
Horowitz, Valente, Jaskoski, DiMartino to name a few.] It is prudent and proper for this Board
to carefully consider each request as it relates to preservation of the fabric of our neighborhood
and the protection of the natural and recreational resources of Glen Lake. Wally Hirsch is a
respected local business owner. We believe that his proposal is consistent with the
neighborhood character, and his 50 plus year residence on the lake is evidence of a life-long
commitment and appreciation of this important natural resource. Thank you for your
consideration. Russell Pittenger, Lin Whittle” Okay. Jumping to the next one. This is from
Frey and Anita Frejborg. They say, They have lived, “since 1996 at 153 Birdsall Rd. and our
property line is – 100 ft. from the Hirsch’s east-side property line at Glen Lake. We are aware of
the two variances (set back and height) the Hirsch’s have petitioned and we cannot see that
neither of the petitioned variances would change or compromise the character of the
neighborhood or the shoreline. Kindly add to your records that we have no objection to such
variances. Wally and Kate’s construction plans for the home and the beautification of the
surrounding lot represent another positive fall-out from this. It will represent a substantial
upgrade from the current camp-type atmosphere and we feel that this project will further
enhance our neighborhood image and have an overall positive impact, seen from both the lake
side and from the road. As members of Glen Lake’s Protective Association, we have found that
year-round residents provide more active support for the important objectives of the
association. Kate and Wally’s plans to become year-round residents here at Glen Lake was
accordingly much welcomed news for all of us, as the Association can certainly benefit from
families like the Hirsch’s that have spent their summers at the lake for over 50 years. Sincerely,
Frey and Anita Frejborg” And then we have one from Colleen Beadleston. “As their neighbors
for over a period of thirty-five years we have no problems with the Zoning Board granting their
request pertaining to “set back and height” for their new home. Plus, the fact of being here over
fifty years at this location only contributes to our approval just knowing how much they have,
and will contribute also to keeping the lake and surrounding area environmentally safe and
healthy. When I say “we”, I am sure Mr. Beadleston would also have approved of their plans if
he were still with us to express his views. Thank you for your consideration in this matter”
Mrs. Colleen Beadleston & Family” And note from Gloria Cooley. “I have no objection to the
setback in height being requested by the Hirsch family requesting these variances. These
changes would not compromise the character of the neighborhood or the shoreline. Wally
Hirsch has spent more than 50 summers on Glen Lake, and his wife, Kate, has enjoyed 35
summers on Glen Lake. They surely would not do anything that would hurt the environment
of the lake or the land. I hope you will consider granting the Hirsch’s these variances.
Sincerely, Gloria Cooley” And finally we’ve got a note from Kevin and Ann Dineen. “I am
writing in regards to the variances sought by Wally and Kate Hirsch. We are aware of the
height and set back proposals and would like to notify you all of our support for both. Our
own home was redone in 1991 and a large screened in patio added in 1993 that faces the Hirsch
property. The precedent has been set by the zoning board in the last fifteen years we have been
a part of the Glen Lake community has allowed many older properties to be demolished and
rebuilt in an updated style. The shape of our adjoining properties makes variances a
prerequisite to keep a uniform neighborhood and lakefront. Many smaller pieces of property in
our in our immediate area have put large homes on small lots and the Hirsch property is large
and can accommodate the proposed project. The Hirsch’s have been neighbors of ours for
fifteen years and have been part of the Glen Lake community for over fifty years. As owners of
a nursery and landscape business they are cognizant and respectful of our lake and
surrounding watershed. We are residing in Ohio during the winter months and are not able to
attend tonight’s hearing personally. Thank you, Kevin and Ann Dineen”
MR. STONE-That’s it?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Let me close the public hearing.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any comments you’d like to make on those?
MR. O'CONNOR-The one comment that I didn’t make, if the home were moved further back, it
would totally obstruct the view to the east, because of the existing structure that’s to the east, on
the property to the east. They’ve given up a good part of their view, to the east end of the lake.
I say the east end of the lake as opposed to Bay Road, as opposed to the west end being toward
The Great Escape. If you stood on the property where they’re talking about their deck, their
present deck gives them some view to the east. That deck is going to come back 10 feet, and it’s
just the deck itself, they’re going to have probably a view that they will see at an angle over
towards St. Mary’s Bay. They won’t see down the lake significantly. They won’t see down past
the point of the islands that are right in front of my place or that end of it. So if they went back
further, I think they’d be looking out a tunnel, basically, and they’d also be looking into the
back of the neighbor and his porch and his seating area, and I know that he made some
comments early on that he’s much more comfortable with them being out where they are, as
opposed to being looking right in to the back of his place.
MR. STONE-I have one question of Mr. Jarrett. In your letter of May 18, you said constrict the
th
site for design of new wastewater and stormwater systems. What do you mean? Is it going to
be a legal system with all distances, or is there going to be a variance needed?
MR. JARRETT-No, it will be, we, at the last meeting, I told you it would be difficult to move the
house back. We’ve looked at this, and we can get it back at least 10 feet. We feel we can’t get
back the 20 feet to be in compliance, but we can get back 10 feet and build a legal system.
MR. STONE-Okay. So if you move back the 10 feet you’re okay.
MR. JARRETT-We’re okay.
MR. STONE-That’s the question I.
MR. JARRETT-It makes things a little tighter and a little tougher to design, but we can do it.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions, anybody?
MR. RIGBY-Just one quick question. On top of the hill there’s gravel and sand and there’s a
telephone pole on the top of the hill situated, but what’s the situation with that?
MR. JARRETT-That is part of a prior site plan approval to remove that hillside, and there’s
currently a site plan modification applied to to the Planning Board to extend the schedule to
remove that. So that’ll be removed down to approximately the road elevation, and if you
approve this variance, these variances, then we will be going to the Planning Board for site plan
review for the entire project, the entire house, and septic, stormwater systems and garage.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. Thanks.
MR. O'CONNOR-The gravel removal, as I understand it, was an application by three different
neighbors, or two neighbors.
MR. JARRETT-Two neighbors, Pittenger and Hirsch.
MR. O'CONNOR-It now affects the Cooley property to some degree.
MR. JARRETT-Not officially, but I guess unofficially we have to correct some things on that
property.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-So then there would be a separate site plan for this project, because it’s new
construction. I think it does call for a site plan. It’s not an acre lot. So it’s probably.
MR. HIRSCH-It’s .8 or something like that, just short.
MR. O'CONNOR-All right. So we’d probably have to go for site plan, we will have to go for
site plan for the house itself, which will be after the other project is completed.
MR. STONE-Okay. Jaime, let’s start talking about it.
MR. HAYES-Well, the Hirsch’s came the last time, and probably felt a little unsatisfied when
they left. That does happen, but I guess in this particular case, we asked them for some
changes. We asked them to, in particular I was troubled by them placing the house 31 feet from
the lake, and it seemed like I made that clear, because they’ve moved it back substantially in my
mind. I mean, there is some natural constraints on this lot, and the applicant has put that
forward, and I think there is some validity to that, and I’d like to see the house back to the 50
foot requirement, but we do have to take into consideration the terrain and existing conditions
and what we think is fair and balanced, as we go forward. The applicant has changed their
plan. There’s some alternatives that have been implemented, which is always an important part
of our test, whether alternatives have been explored, and, you know, has there been an attempt
by the applicant to examine them to come up with them, and I think in this particular case there
has been. The overall neighborhood is going to have the benefit of a new septic system, an
improved stormwater system which they both, at this point, I’m not an engineer, but both I
would say are probably shaky. The applicant came up with something that, you know, and I
don’t want to use the word trickery, but certainly they asked for a height variance, but they’ve
done something to reduce the impact from the lake, and that’s that berm. I mean, the effect, if
the visual effect, particularly right directly from the lake, is going to be that it’s, you know, a
little over 28 feet, I’m not as troubled by that as I was with the original application which called
for four and a half feet of relief, a lot of relief by comparison. So I think with that convention
employed, I guess I wouldn’t necessarily give you full credit for that, but I think it does matter.
It is going to reduce the visual impact from the lake, and I guess, as I looked at the application,
the fact that you weren’t reducing the size of the house, that I wasn’t necessarily overjoyed with
that, in the sense that, you know, we kind of told you last time it might have been a little too
much, but I think, you know, in fairness, as I looked at the neighborhood again, the size of the
house is consistent with the Dineens, and people that are around you. I mean, I don’t think it’s
out of line, by comparison, to what is immediately surrounding you, the neighborhood, per se.
So, while I would still like to see it smaller, I don’t think that this represents a further
encroachment into, you know, that you’re not going to become a bigger example of too much
housing in a smaller area. I think Mr. O’Connor pointed out that, you know, from a lot size
perspective or a floor area ratio perspective, which is part of our lakeside analysis, that you
could build a much bigger house than this, and I think we’ve got to, not that I think you’d build
an 8,000 square foot house, but it does demonstrate the fact that this is lower, significantly lower
than what would be allowed. You’re not really trying to jam one down on us in this particular
case. So it’s still a lot of house, and I’m saying that, but I think it, on balance, with the test that
we’re asked to employ in this particular case, I think there’s been an improvement more or less
across the board, to the extent that I think I’m comfortable approving this.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, to sum up, I guess, to start with, I’m inclined to agree with Jaime that I
think sum total probably is the answer is the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment,
simply because this might fit in with what’s already there at the neighborhood isn’t necessarily
a total justification because I think we have to look what the zoning is, not what exists now.
Presumably the people that drew up the zoning did that, too, and even though there’s a lot of
places there that are closer than 50 feet to the lake, they decided 50 feet was a reasonable
distance. Likewise, this is a fairly deep lot, and probably technically at least you could put the
place in a compliant location. It might have to be up on top of the land instead of down where
it is, but I think you balance that with the benefit to the applicant, and even though having a
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
nice view is not necessarily a right, I think it’s a privilege. It’s simply because you’ve got an old
camp that’s there that’s got a good view doesn’t entitle you, necessarily, to have a good view
with a new place, but nevertheless, I think there’s been a real effort made to meet the needs of
the applicant and comply as much as possible with the zoning. I think the berm in front of the
house to reduce the visual affect of its height is a good move. So while I’ve got some
misgivings, and I’d prefer to see it in a compliant location, I think, when you consider the
benefits to the applicants and the fact that it will tend to fit in with what’s there now, not make
conditions worse, I think the balance falls to the applicant, and I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I, too, would be in favor of it. I think you’ve made some major
changes from what you originally proposed. I think the extra 10 feet that you’re set back from
the lake does make a difference, and I think recessing the house into the hill, you know, the net
effect from the lakeside is only going to be 10 inches, really, above the 28 feet. So I’d be in favor
of it, too.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I have five points. One, I was here at that initial meeting on
April 21 of this year, and what I found interesting, and I think certainly has a positive effect, is
st
that most of the neighbors who are effected by this proposal, if approved, support the Area
Variance, and I also believe that, you know, Counsel presented an argument that, in my
opinion, meets the reasonableness, if you will, of a balance between their needs, that is the
applicant’s needs, and the needs of the community, which I think was great, and this shows, at
least to me, on the part of the applicant’s part, a position of good faith. Additionally, I feel that
approving this variance would, in fact, have a positive effect on the community, and so based
upon my comments, I certainly would support the application.
MR. STONE-Leo?
MR. RIGBY-Yes. Like Chuck, I believe that it’s definitely an improvement over what’s there
now. It’s an improvement in the community. You’ve done, you’ve increased the setback from
31 to 41 feet. I think that’s a positive thing. You’ve addressed the height issue to some extent.
Neighbor feedback’s all been good. My only concern with the neighbors was the neighbor to
the west, who still has that small camp. We haven’t heard anything from, anything bad from
that neighbor.
MR. O'CONNOR-One of those letters was from that neighbor.
MR. RIGBY-It is? Okay. It says positive.
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes, positive. That’s Pittenger. That’s the Pittenger letter.
MR. RIGBY-Okay.
MR. STONE-You’ve got two neighbors, actually.
MRS. HIRSCH-Pittenger and Whittle.
MR. O'CONNOR-Pittenger and Whittle. They’re immediately to the west.
MR. STONE-And Dineen is to the east.
MR. O'CONNOR-Is to the east, and then everybody, there’s like four immediately to the west
that sent in letters of support.
MR. RIGBY-Pittenger is the small camp?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-So, I mean, you know, given all that, you know, I think overall it’s a positive
improvement, and I’d be in favor of it as well.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with my Board members, my fellow Board members. I
think I’m satisfied you’ve addressed some of the concerns we had, and you’ve compromised. I
think those addressed those concerns, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-I think this is a case where, that shows that the system works. We obviously had
some real concerns, almost unanimously. We thought it was too close and too high, and I
congratulate the Hirsch’s and their agents, who have done some diligent work, particularly Mr.
Jarrett, obviously, to fit this thing in, to make sure that we have an updated septic system. A
real change has been made from the application we considered before. That coupled with the
fact that you’ve gotten unanimous support from the immediate neighbors, and that’s always
nice to hear. We quite often hear neighbors tell us they don’t like something, but it’s nice when
neighbors are willing to take the effort, and I guess you had one couple here who wrote a letter
and just left, to support a project. So, having said that, I certainly would lend my support to this
application, along with everybody else on the Board, and I would call for a motion to approve,
remembering that we have to put in the comment about referring it to site plan, per Staff notes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Can I address that issue?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Why do you have to put that in? We can’t build this without that site plan.
MR. STONE-You’d have to go to Staff to tell me. I’m listening to what they say.
MR. O'CONNOR-Why is this different than any other?
MR. FRANK-You’ve got a point. If the site plan for the previous excavation project is denied, I
guess you could say that, by approving this, you’re allowing to develop that land per this plan.
I mean, you could look at it that way.
MR. STONE-Well, but this plan doesn’t talk about the gravel removal, per se.
MR. FRANK-The only thing is that was a plan that was approved that was started. So, I think
that’s where the technicality is, and I don’t think I’m in a position to argue that. I think the
Zoning Administrator’s made this decision that this has to be approved, or I’m sorry, the other
site plan has to be approved.
MR. O'CONNOR-I don’t think that’s his call. I think that’s this Board’s call, but I also say that
this applicant has to have it’s own site plan before it can begin construction, regardless of the
site plan that has to do with the excavation.
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe it needs site plan for this project, though, because it’s not an
expansion. It’s a tear down, rebuild, which does not require site plan review.
MR. O'CONNOR-On a nonconforming lot?
MR. FRANK-It makes no difference. The lot’s pre-existing. You’ve argued this a lot in the past.
MR. O'CONNOR-I haven’t argued it. I’ve tried to go the other way.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. FRANK-Exactly.
MR. STONE-Well, I don’t think there’s any, I can’t see any down side, Mr. O’Connor, to, just
referring to the need for site plan, for the overall lot.
MR. FRANK-And I’m not sure, when you give him that direction.
MR. O'CONNOR-Let me give you this scenario. Say that doesn’t get approved, for whatever
reason, that means that we can’t go ahead with this construction. We can go in and do our own
lot with excavation that we need to do this house, regardless of that site plan, particularly with
what he just said, which I think the Ordinance says otherwise, but if that’s going to be your
ruling, we won’t file an application.
MR. FRANK-Well, it’s not my ruling. Were you given direction, Tom? Were you given
direction you needed site plan?
MR. JARRETT-We were originally, yes.
MR. FRANK-You were?
MR. STONE-Well, this excavation is all on the back lot?
MR. JARRETT-Behind the house?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. STONE-But it’s on the lot that the house is going to sit?
MR. O'CONNOR-Some of it is.
MR. STONE-Some of it is, yes.
MR. O'CONNOR-Some of it’s on the adjoining neighbor’s, too.
MR. STONE-Yes, and as I understand that site, the site plan was given for excavation on the lot,
and all we’re saying is that the whole thing should be looked at. That’s all.
MR. O'CONNOR-But we don’t necessarily need to have that approval to go forward with our
project.
MR. ABBATE-And, you know, at the risk of placing myself at further risk, I agree with Counsel.
I think that if we approve this variance, I think he’s right, however I realize that we’re in a
minority on this.
MR. JARRETT-We will need some type of site approvals.
MR. O'CONNOR-If we need to go get those approvals, we will get them, and I’m sure that Staff
is going to tell us what we do. I have the impression that because it’s an undersized lot, we
must do site plan approval, even though it is a new build, and not an addition.
MR. FRANK-If you were directed you needed site plan for this project, it was because you don’t
front on a Town road. Is that a private drive they’re on? That would be the only reason it
would require, because once you tear it down, it’s like it never existed. I think that’s what
you’ve argued for in the past. Not because it’s an undersized lot. That would not be the cause
for a need for site plan review, only if it didn’t front on a Town road.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. O'CONNOR-We’re getting off into, and I don’t mean to hold you up, but you’re approval’s
of the variance, and if we need site plan approval, we will get it. I’d hate to have your approval
be conditional or look conditional, if it’s unnecessary.
MR. MC NULTY-But I think the Staff that wrote this, they’re saying without the site plan
approval, the site cannot be developed as submitted in this application. So I think what they’re
arguing is that what we’re approving is conditioned on that site plan being approved, and if it’s
not approved, then this is not a valid application.
MR. JARRETT-It’s actually not technically true. We could develop it this way with this, the
house in this location without that particular approval. We’d have to have some type of
approval of some form.
MR. ABBATE-Do you want me to do a motion to approve, Mr. Chairman?
MR. STONE-Why don’t you try it, and see.
MR. ABBATE-In my personal opinion, but I’ll do whatever the Board wants me to do, but in my
personal opinion, I don’t think we have to put, without approval, but I will if you insist.
MR. STONE-Well, we’re being guided by the Staff.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I don’t think the Staff is right.
MR. STONE-Well, I’m not sure, quite frankly, that I know they’re right or wrong in this
particular case.
MR. ABBATE-If you say I’m not sure whether they’re right or wrong, if that’s the case, then
maybe the stipulation shouldn’t be in there, because that’s an impedance.
MR. STONE-Well, a comment that the previous site plan approval be acknowledge. How about
that? In making this motion, we recognize that.
MR. FRANK-There were some constraints with the timing of the removal of the fill that was
associated with the previous site plan.
MR. JARRETT-And we have a pending site plan application.
MR. STONE-Yes, just acknowledge that there was a site plan.
MR. O'CONNOR-Theoretically, I just have real problems with where we’re going. They needed
a site plan for removal of fill, because they weren’t constructing a residence. Once I go in and
apply for a building permit, all excavation and removal of fill that is associated with that, which
will accommodate this project, this grading, is under that building permit. I do not need site
plan approval for removal. Mike Barody’s house is just down the lake, right next to your house.
It used to be two houses by LaVoy there. He went in and got a building permit and took out
300,000 yards of fill.
MR. STONE-No, all I’m saying, Mr. O’Connor, is that the motion can acknowledge that there
was a previous site plan approval for this site, just acknowledge it in passing.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. That’s a good compromise.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-That’s fine. As long as it’s reasonable, that’s the most important thing. Okay.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2004 WALLACE R. HIRSCH,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
145 Birdsall Road Extension. The applicant proposes demolition of a 1,342 square foot camp,
and the construction of a 3,805 square foot single family dwelling with an 816 square foot
detached garage. The applicant is requesting the following relief. The applicant requests nine
feet of relief from the fifty foot minimum shoreline setback requirement and 4.5 feet of relief
from the 28 foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, Section 179-4-030. I move
that this be approved based upon our guidelines for balancing the application. Does the benefit
to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or
community by granting the Area Variance? In making the determination, we give
consideration to the following. One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the
character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created. Not in my
opinion. It is my opinion that approval of this request would result in an added positive impact
on the community. Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some
other method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area Variance? Well, the
applicant has come before us on several occasions, and in the final occasion, I stated earlier that
Counsel made a reasonable request. The applicant has shown his good faith by proposing a
balance between their needs and the needs of the community, and in my opinion that any other
restrictions would, in effect, have an adverse effect on the application. Three, whether the
requested Area Variance is substantial. Based upon all the circumstances and the information
submitted this evening, and questions asked by this Board, I do not believe it would be
substantial. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Not in my opinion. It
will not. Whether the difficulty is self-created. That’s always a question that can be debated by
either individuals. In my opinion, partially yes, partially no, but that in itself is not a deterrent.
Now, there is another consideration. I do, in fact, acknowledge that a previously approved site
plan was indeed approved, and based upon this information, Mr. Chairman and fellow Board
members, I move that Area Variance No. 27-2004 be approved. I was here on April 21 of this
st
year’s meeting, and I must state that, after reading my comments, it’s obvious to me that the
applicant and Mr. Jarrett did, in fact, take all of our comments into consideration and based
upon the new application, it’s obvious to me that they have indeed acted and shown good faith,
and they have indeed attempted to come up with a balance between their needs and the needs
of the community, and this, Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, shows not only good faith, but
indicates that they are willing to work with the compromise with their neighbors and also with
this Board. That the neighbors that appear to be most impacted submitted recommendations
for approval. I think that in itself is worth noting.
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-Thank you for working with us.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. HIRSCH-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT & JANICE GRILLO AGENT:
SHAWN CALLAHAN OWNER: ROBERT & JANICE GRILLO ZONING: WR-1A, CEA
LOCATION: 121 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 720
SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EXISTING 720 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS, SIZE,
AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 96-241 DEMO OF 2-CAR
DETACHED GARAGE. BP 96-240 REPLACE 2-CAR DETACHED GARAGE.
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 6/9/2004 LOT SIZE:
0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-51 SECTION: 179-5-020(D) 179-4-030 179-13-010(E)
SHAWN CALLAHAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT GRILLO,
PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2004, Robert & Janice Grillo, Meeting Date: June 16,
2004 “Project Location: 121 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes a 720 sq. ft. garage addition, at 21 feet high, to the existing 720 sq. ft., detached garage
at 21 feet high.
Relief Required:
1) 17.8 feet of side setback relief from the 20-foot minimum requirement.
2) 5 feet of height relief from the 16-foot maximum requirement.
(1and 2 per §179-4-030)
3) Relief from the continuation requirements, per §179-13-010(E).
4) Additionally, even thought the applicant has not requested any, 540 sq. ft. of relief is
needed from the 900 sq. ft. maximum size requirement for a garage, per §179-5-020(D).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 96-240: 05/23/96, construction of a
720 sq. ft. detached garage.
BP 96-241 05/27/96, demolition of a 720 sq. ft. detached garage.
Note: in 1996, the replacement of dangerous structures was permitted without the need for a
variance.
Staff comments:
Should the application be approved, site plan approval by the Planning Board will be required
being the proposed expansion is in a CEA (Critical Environmental Area), per § 179-13-010(F).”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 9,
2004 Project Name: Grillo, Robert & Janice Owner: Robert & Janice Grillo ID Number: QBY-
AV-04-45 County Project#: Jun04-24 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes construction of a 720 sq. ft. addition to
existing 720 sq. ft. garage. Relief requested from side yard setback requirements, continuation
requirements, size and height restrictions. Site Location: 121 Seelye Road Tax Map Number(s):
227.17-1-51 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to expand an existing 720 sq. ft.
garage by an additional 720 sq. ft. the proposed addition will ft. from the North property line
where 20 ft. is required, 21 ft. in height where 16 ft. is the maximum allowed, and the total
square footage of the garage 1,440 sq. ft. where 900 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. The
information submitted indicates the addition will be used for storage. Staff does not identify an
impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends no county
impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
MR. STONE-Gentlemen. Identify yourselves. Anything you want to add to the application?
MR. GRILLO-My name’s Robert Grillo.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. STONE-So the application stands the way it is?
MR. GRILLO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any questions, gentlemen?
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m confused. Here’s why I’m confused. You’re requesting 17.8 feet of side
setback relief from the 20 foot minimum requirement, okay, and here’s why I’m confused.
That’s almost about an 87, 90% relief, but I’m willing to listen. I don’t have a pre-position on
this, but I’m willing to listen to what you and everybody else has to say. To me, that’s quite a
bit of relief, but you may be able to justify that, or perhaps other individuals might be able to
justify that, or perhaps even my Board members might be able to justify that, but that’s kind of a
sticking point with me, right now, and it’s not an indication of how I’m going to vote, by the
way, just to let you know. It’s just, it’s bothering me, that’s all.
MR. STONE-Now this is a, you’re just increasing the size of the garage? You’re not building a
second separate garage. You’re just doubling the size toward the west?
MR. GRILLO-Correct.
MR. STONE-Why do you need it? I mean, to be very blunt, I have great difficulty with an
oversized garage.
MR. GRILLO-I actually need the storage space. I have a few old vehicles that I’d like to keep in
there, lawn mowers, and I am right now in a very tight space.
MR. STONE-You live there year round?
MR. GRILLO-No. I would say I live there about half the year.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-The size garage that you’re proposing, the size addition, strikes me to just
about cover the collection of trailers and other stuff that you’ve got parked beside the existing
garage, without leaving you any room for vehicles. Now, when you put this on, you put a
couple of vehicles in the garage, is that going to move that collection of, well, I hesitate to say
junk, but that’s what it looks like from the road. Is that just going to move that closer to the
road, or what’s going to happen with that whole pile of stuff?
MR. GRILLO-No, no. A couple of the trailers are going to be piled on top of each other. I’d be
able to put those in the garage, plus have additional room for storage.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So this would get that stuff out of site, as well as your vehicles.
MR. GRILLO-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay.
MR. RIGBY-A couple of questions. Right now there’s a second floor in the garage. What’s that
second floor used for?
MR. GRILLO-Storage of wood, building materials left from when we constructed the first
garage.
MR. RIGBY-Now the expansion of the garage is also going to have a second story as well. Is
that correct?
MR. GRILLO-Yes.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. RIGBY-And what would the continuation of that second story be for?
MR. GRILLO-It’s just going to duplicate what’s there. I mean, I need a pitch on the garage to
get rid of the rain. It’s going to look the same way it looks now.
MR. RIGBY-Eight foot, is that an eight foot ceiling up there?
MR. GRILLO-No, no. I would say it’s about six feet dead center, and it just comes right down
on either side.
MR. RIGBY-I’ve also noticed that the back of the garage is very close to the neighbor’s property
line.
MR. GRILLO-Correct.
MR. RIGBY-Now, is the neighbor, have you discussed this with the neighbor at all?
MR. GRILLO-Yes, I did.
MR. RIGBY-And what’s the feedback?
MR. GRILLO-They have no problem with it at all, and they’re well aware that the meeting is
tonight. I explained it to them, and they received a letter and they would have come if there
was a problem.
MR. RIGBY-Yes. Okay. I’m just looking at it, and I was out there tonight, too, to take a look at
it, and it looks like a tremendous addition. I mean, you’re doubling the size of the garage.
Right along the property line, and it’s, it looks like quite an addition in my view, and I’m not
sure what the space is going to be used for. I know you’d said that, you know, you’re going to
put some of the things that are next to the garage in the garage. Are there other things you’re
going to do with it as well? I know it’s on the plans you’ve got noted on here workshop. Does
that mean anything? Here it says proposed addition, and in black it says workshop. Are you
planning to woodwork, or what does that mean?
MR. GRILLO-No. Basically I just work on the snowmobiles. The wave runners that we have,
the quads, the lawn mowers. I just need room to work.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. Thanks.
MR. STONE-What was the size of the garage that had to be demolished in ’96?
MR. GRILLO-Approximately about the same, 720 square feet.
MR. STONE-That height?
MR. GRILLO-That, I don’t know.
MR. CALLAHAN-I don’t think it was that height.
MR. STONE-So it wasn’t 21 feet?
MR. CALLAHAN-There was no height restrictions at that time.
MR. STONE-Well, in ’96 there was. When did the height restriction go in, Bruce?
MR. FRANK-I don’t know.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. CALLAHAN-I think right after that garage.
MR. STONE-May have been. Okay.
MR. URRICO-In ’96 when you rebuilt, was there any consideration given to putting up a larger
garage at that time?
MR. GRILLO-No.
MR. FRANK-The garage was re-built, in ’96, in kind. It was the same size, and the zoning
allowed you to do that back then.
MR. URRICO-But they could have requested a larger garage?
MR. FRANK-Well, they wouldn’t have needed relief back then. They could have built it
without relief back then because it was an unsafe condition, and that’s why it was replaced.
MR. URRICO-My question was whether they thought about enlarging it at that time.
MR. GRILLO-No, back then I didn’t.
MR. STONE-Do you have any idea when the original garage was built, which you replaced in
kind?
MR. GRILLO-Way before I was born. I would say early 1900’s.
MR. STONE-Okay. Considerable time ago.
MR. GRILLO-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other comments?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I have a question about the size of the garage doors. The current garage,
you have a larger garage door to the left and a smaller one to the right. Is there a reason?
MR. GRILLO-Yes. I have a dual wheel pick-up truck. So I need the extra space on each side to
get it in there.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. STONE-And what is that vehicle used for?
MR. GRILLO-To pull my boat in and out of the water.
MR. STONE-Okay. You don’t use it for work purposes?
MR. GRILLO-No.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s a question we have to ask, because in this zone you can’t have trucks for
work purposes.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Grillo, what is your occupation, since the door was opened for that.
MR. GRILLO-The last year I’ve been retired. I used to have a fuel oil business down in New
York City.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me ask you this question, and so I’m not offensive, I’m going to use the
word junk, okay. This junk that’s out there, can you guarantee this Board that in the event that
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
your application is approved, that the items that are outside will be stored inside, and that area
will be cleared up?
MR. GRILLO-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Under penalty of death?
MR. GRILLO-Yes. I have somebody who’s supposed to take the junk trailer. I gave it to
somebody. They never came and got it. So the big junk trailer pulls a junkie formula racing
boat.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-What’s the, and this is just for information. Obviously your neighbor has a right of
way over your driveway.
MR. GRILLO-The three houses across the road have a right of way to use part of the lake, part
of the beach.
MR. STONE-Well, how about the gate there, on the fence?
MR. GRILLO-Are you talking about the chain?
MR. STONE-Well, going toward 9L, going toward the end of Seelye Road.
MR. GRILLO-Right.
MR. STONE-They obviously use that to get to their garage and things like that.
MR. GRILLO-No, no. They have their own driveway next door. That chain, I just put it there
because we used to use the same garbage man, and he always used to come around. That was
no problem. Then we stopped using him, and he still kept coming around, and so I put a little
white chain up.
MR. STONE-Okay. So your driveway is not used by your neighbor?
MR. GRILLO-No, he has his own.
MR. STONE-Okay. Anything else before I open the public hearing? Well, let me open the
public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this subject, please come forward.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARTY DION
MR. DION-My name’s Marty Dion. I live about three properties away.
MR. STONE-Which direction?
MR. DION-Toward 9L.
MR. STONE-Toward the dead end.
MR. DION-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. DION-On Seelye Road, and with me is my niece and her husband who live there year
round.
MR. STONE-Okay. State your names, though, please, for the record.
KIM HOYT
MRS. HOYT-I’m Kim Hoyt, and this is my husband.
KEITH HOYT
MR. HOYT-Keith Hoyt.
MR. STONE-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DION-I’m not sure exactly when Mr. Grillo moved in, but I can tell you from the noise
level that we’ve noticed in the last four or five years, that the Grillos have moved in. I know
he’s saying that all the junk will be gone from the outside, and that’s a fine thing, and let me
first state that I have no problem with building another structure there, increasing the size, that
doesn’t affect me at all. I don’t think it affects the lake. I don’t think it affects much else. If
anything, it could clean up what you called as junk. The real problem I have is that I don’t
know, those pictures did not show the four or five, I don’t know, last count it was probably
around four or five ATV’s and go karts, and recently there’s been a very large one that they got,
that drive up and down the driveway, like ad infinitum. There are some nights when we’re out
trying to have dinner, and you just can’t hear yourself think.
MR. STONE-Okay. I appreciate your concern.
MR. DION-I’m getting to the point.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. DION-They’re not shown on those pictures. Where are those vehicles going to go? Well,
secondly they’re used on the road as well, which is illegal, but I don’t know how you get
around that. So I guess I want to know, with all that I saw there, and knowing that there’s four
or five, I’ve lost count, of these things that run up and down, where are they all going to go?
What are they going to do with them? There’s, we have concerns about that. I know some of
the other neighbors do as well. They didn’t want to show up because they’re afraid of some
retaliation, or whatever.
MR. STONE-We’re not going there. The question before us is Mr. Grillo’s request to double the
size of his garage, and build it five feet higher than is allowed, and what is there is there. That
is a legal size, illegal, nonconforming height, I’ll use it that way. That’s not the issue before us.
The issue before us, he wants to expand that building by 100%, make it 21 feet high, and put it
very, very close to the property line, and those are the three of the four issues. The other is a
technical issue, the continuation, and I appreciate what you’re saying, and I would, I
understand where you’re coming from, but what do you think about the construction itself? Do
you feel any thoughts about this oversized, over height, over tall garage that he’s asking?
MR. DION-As I stated before, I have no real problem with anyone building something that
doesn’t really affect the lake, and that’s exactly what he’s doing. So to answer that question, I
don’t really have a problem with that.
MR. STONE-Okay, and I don’t want to put you on the spot, but that’s what we have to sit here
and decide.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. DION-Well, understood, and this is also the only forum that we have a chance to say that
there’s, we’re considering, in a quiet neighborhood, that, you know, there’s something about
environmental and safety and so on.
MR. STONE-Well, it’s the detriment to the community.
MR. HAYES-But it has to relate to the construction.
MR. STONE-But it has to relate to the garage. That’s the point.
MR. HOYT-The only real relation to the garage is we just don’t want to see this addition become
room for more toys.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. HOYT-We want it to be used for what it’s supposed to be used for, and I don’t have a
problem with it either. I just want to see it be used for what it’s supposed to be used for.
MR. HOYT-I live down there seven days a week, 365 days a year.
MRS. HOYT-And us, along with other people in the neighborhood, they’re just afraid that it’s
not going to be used for what it’s being stated it’s being used for.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. HOYT-And that’s a concern that we have. We just don’t want it to overtake, you know,
take away from the lake, is all, I guess people are worried about, plus the noise level.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. HOYT-That’s our concern.
MR. STONE-Okay. Any comments to these people? If not, thank you. Anybody else wishing
to speak on this subject, on the Grillo application? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence. This is from Susan Barden, Land Use
Coordinator for the Lake George Association. She says, “I’m writing on behalf of the Lake
George Association with our concerns regarding the above mentioned project. Our primary
concern is with the variance request for the size of the accessory structure. The applicant’s
propose to double the size of their 720 square foot garage, totaling 1440 square feet. In Section
179-5-020D, it says “garages may not exceed 900 square feet in floor area in any residential
district”. This is a substantial request, notwithstanding the other three variances needed.
Furthermore, an “accessory structure” as defined in the codebook is, “a building or structure
subordinate and clearly incidental to the principal building on the same lot and used for a
purpose customarily incidental to those of the principal building”. The building footprint of the
primary structure on the lot is 1002 sq. ft. The proposed size of the accessory structure (1440 sq.
ft.) does not indicate that it is “clearly incidental” to the principal building. The applicant
should show the interior layout of the accessory structure. Are there living quarters, bedrooms,
or bathrooms? The site plan delineates the septic tank, but no specifics on what the capacity is
or the type of wastewater treatment system. Finally, the Board should inquire as to the planned
use of the accessory structure; the garage should not be used as a rental unit or other
commercial activity in 179-4-10, “An accessory structure shall not be used for commercial
purposes by residents of residential structures”. Thank you for your consideration of our
comments for the protection of the water quality and aesthetic resources of Lake George.
Respectfully submitted, Susan B. Barden Land Use Coordinator”
MR. STONE-Is that it?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. MC NULTY-That’s it.
MR. STONE-Let me close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Any comments you want to make on what you heard?
MR. GRILLO-Yes. I appreciate that they approved about the garage. As far as my children
with the quads running up and down the driveway, if they’d like to talk to me, I can talk to my
kids. I’ve really never met them before. I do know who they are. I do know where they live. I
was never approached about it, and I’m a gentleman. I can resolve the situation, but then again,
I thank them, and that’s about it.
MR. STONE-Okay. I have a question to Staff, and this is something I just noticed. On the Area
Variance sheet, it says building footprint 1,002 feet. On the second sheet, the Floor Area Ratio
one, it says the house is 4,002 feet. What’s the size of your house, Mr. Grillo?
MR. GRILLO-My house? Is it because one of them just asked for how much space takes up and
the other one asks for, because it’s a two story house?
MR. STONE-Well, no, it says 2,001 on each story, which would at least say the footprint is,
unless it’s cantilevered way up, it would be.
MR. HAYES-I guess it’s safe to assume that the primary house is 4,000 square feet?
MR. GRILLO-Approximately, yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-Could it be the building footprint they transposed the numbers on it and it
should be 2,001 instead of 1,002?
MR. STONE-That’s a good point.
MR. HAYES-Site development data it says 1,000.
MR. STONE-Two, and the other side says 4,002.
MR. HAYES-It just contradicts what the.
MR. STONE-Looking at the house, it’s certainly not 1,002 feet.
MR. GRILLO-No.
MR. STONE-Okay. It was just an argument that was made in the letter, and I just wanted to
just comment on it. Okay. Anything else? Let’s talk about it. Let’s start with Chuck here.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I guess I’m going to assume my traditional role. I don’t know. This
strikes me as a fairly extreme request, looking at it on the surface. It’s doubling the size of the
existing garage. It’s clearly going beyond the 900 square feet that’s normally allowed for a
garage. It’s requesting height relief, although if an addition were put on this existing structure,
I can understand why anybody designing an addition would want to keep the same height, but
nevertheless, it’s still asking for a height relief, and again, while it’s extending an existing
situation, the side setback is fairly severe also. So I’m trying to balance those extremes with the
benefit to the applicant and the benefit to the community, and that brings me to the idea of the
applicant, like several that have come before us in the past, have accumulated a number of
objects that are cluttering up his yard, if you will, whether they’re vehicles, trailers, four-
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
wheelers, whatever, and I’m a little troubled with the concept of, well, we’ll accumulate a lot of
toys and then we’ll ask for variances to cover them up, and I guess I’m a little troubled with the
idea of whether or not they will all disappear into this structure if we were to allow it, and I
guess where I’m coming down right at the moment is I can see some benefit to the applicant,
but I’m not sure that granting this variance will cure the current detriment to the community
with all this stuff being out visible, and given the number of variances requested and the
amount, I’m inclined to be negative on this one.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to point out, you know, we are in a critical environmental
area here near the lake, but, you know, where this proposal is being, the addition on the garage
is going to be located further away from the lake. So as far as an impact on the lake itself, I
don’t really see that it’s going to be any grand burden for Lake George. At the same time, I
think that the applicant has shown that, you know, he does have a lot of objects, you guys are
motor heads, you’ve got lots of toys out there. It makes sense to have a place to put them,
rather than drag them from one end of the yard, depending on the season, and putting them
somewhere else. It is a pretty substantially sized lot for Seelye Road, you know, it’s .84 acres.
That’s a lot bigger than what we see out there. Certainly, if we had a request like this on a lot of
the smaller lots on Seelye Road, I don’t think we’d be inclined to want to grant permission for
anybody to add on, but in this instance, I think that, you know, you have been reasonable. I
mean, it’s, you know, there’s a need for it. I don’t really see that there’s going to be any
detriment to the neighborhood. I would be willing to guess that we’ll probably get similar
requests from some of the larger lot owners out in Cleverdale at some point for these similar
applications, you know, that want to build on to their garages. So I’d basically be in favor of it, I
guess.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, thank you. I’m going to echo the sentiment of my fellow Board member,
Jim, and then, I, too, will be in favor of it. I, too, don’t really see any impact on the lake itself,
quite frankly. You folks do have a lot of vehicles, or toys or whatever the case might be, and
what struck me was the neighbors who did appear before us this evening to testify. They
acknowledged the fact that they don’t object to your variance being approved. So that, to me,
was the positive factor in my decision. I think it’s admirable that you want to stow these away,
but I think that you have a responsibility to ensure that these vehicles are stowed for the sake of
the appearance of the area as well, and if you are stating categorically that the purpose of this
garage is to store those items that are currently exposed to the elements, well I think that’s a
good thing, and I think it would have a positive impact on the area. So, Mr. Chairman, I would
be in favor of the application.
MR. STONE-Leo?
MR. RIGBY-Looking at the amount of relief that’s requested, I kind of fall on the other side.
We’re looking at doubling the size of a nonconforming structure and it just seems to be too
much relief for me to go with. Looking at the property line, it’s right up against the property
line of the neighbor on the, I guess it’s the north side. We haven’t heard from that neighbor, but
it’s a further encroachment on the line, according to the drawing here. That concerns me. The
continuation of the height variance concerns me. The going over the 900 square foot maximum
concerns me. It just seems to be too much relief from my standpoint. So I’d be opposed to it,
the way it stands right now.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I also have some concerns. When you look at the test, certainly you would
benefit by having this larger building there to put your belongings out of sight, and that would,
in turn, improve the character of the neighborhood, but whether that’s a good thing or not, I’m
not sure, and we already know that it won’t impact the lake because it’s away from the lake, but
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
the amount of relief and the feasible alternatives might be not to do anything, or to do
something smaller than what you’re proposing. I think 17.8 feet of side relief definitely stems
from the fact that you’re looking to double the size of this garage, and that maybe something
smaller would certainly reduce that relief, maybe accomplish some of the things you want but
not all of them, but it would certainly be maybe better. I am normally bothered by height relief,
and in this case I am, too, but I would understand it if you were slightly expanding the garage,
and I would only be in favor of something that met the 900 square foot maximum size
requirement. So that’s about 180 square feet, and if my calculations are correct, that’s about
another eight and a half feet beyond where you currently are, and that would bring, that would,
I don’t know if my calculations are right, but I think it’s about seven feet of relief, and that’s all I
would be willing to move to, at this point. So, as currently presented, but I’m open to some
compromise.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-Well, I’m not troubled, I guess, by the height relief. I think that Chuck pointed out
that anyone who is going to expand this structure should probably expand it at the same height
or else it would look bad. I don’t think there’s any, so I’m not troubled at all by that piece of
relief. I’m not actually troubled that much by the dimensional relief to the side of the property,
because I just don’t see where the impact is going to be. This is, you know, for Lake George, I
would maybe even classify as a gigantic lot, I mean, it’s big. It’s almost 400 feet on one side
there. I sense from the Board that maybe the fact that you want to expand it 720 more feet and
end up with 1420 might be just a little past what they’re going to accept or go for or whatever,
and I guess I kind of agree with Roy with that. I guess what I would feel comfortable doing,
and I’ll say this just so we don’t have to go back through. I would be comfortable with 380
square feet, approximately, for like an 1100 square foot garage. That would allow you to be a
50% expansion of what you have now, and I would feel comfortable that, while that’s over the
900 square feet that’s allowed for a garage in this particular case, and where that garage is set, I
think something that’s, you know, 20% over the thing is relief that I could be in favor of. So,
that’s where I’m at.
MR. STONE-I’m, speaking for myself, obviously, I think this application fits the category of too
much, too high, too, too. We have, and while I will acknowledge that you have a larger than
normal lot for the Cleverdale, Rockhurst, Assembly Point, Pilot Knob area of Queensbury,
nevertheless the Waterfront 1A zoning applies equally across the whole area, and we
specifically, as a Board, have been particularly tough on oversized garages. Nine hundred
square foot seems to me, and has normally seemed to the majority of the Board, to be a
reasonable size for a garage. The height is somewhat an issue, and I can understand, you don’t
want to come down, necessarily, to build, but nevertheless, 21 feet, you have an oversized
building, by far, which is nonconforming and therefore legal, but I don’t want to compound a
felony. I would like to see Mr. Grillo come in with a revised plan, because right now I, and at
least three other members of the Board would deny the application as presently constituted. I
think you’ve heard a lot. I think it would behoove you to, and I hate to say this thing, table the
motion, or go out in the other room and see if you can come back with a revised application, but
there are at least four of us who, without compromise, are going to say no. Whether or not
there’s going to be enough compromise that you might be willing to provide to satisfy some of
the other people, obviously it’s an open question. The call is yours. I mean, I can ask for a
motion, right now, to deny the variance request that you made, specifically 720 foot addition at
25 feet high, too close to the line.
MR. HAYES-Twenty-one feet.
MR. STONE-Twenty-one feet. I’m sorry. Twenty-one feet high, you’re right. My fault. The
side setback, I don’t see that neighbor here, and obviously with the length of your lot, and the
position of the homes, it’s not a terrible concern, but it is one more piece of relief required, and
usually our job is to provide minimum relief to the Ordinance. So it’s your call.
MR. GRILLO-Could I say something?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. STONE-Surely.
MR. GRILLO-As far as like what you guys were calling junk, I do have a 40 something foot
trailer there which would need to get into that space. Without that extra relief, that trailer
probably wouldn’t make it with the boat on it. I do have one of the larger boats on the lake. It’s
a 38 foot boat, and I do pay all the necessary fees and have all the necessary permits for that
boat, and basically I would just like to get that boat out of the elements, and, you know, having
that boat inside this garage, especially in the wintertime, there’s a lot of residents in the area, do
enjoy the lake during the wintertime, I won’t have this monstrosity of a boat outside.
MR. STONE-Your word, monstrosity. I didn’t say that, and I’m a lake resident, and I didn’t use
that word. Let the record be clear. I certainly appreciate that, but when you talk to me, I have a
smaller boat, and I store it with a professional. So you’re not getting to me with that particular
argument, unfortunately. Anyway, the call is yours. I mean, I think I’ve correctly spoken for
the feeling of the Board. I can table it, for two months, let you come back with, after you read
the minutes and see exactly where we’re coming from, come back with a revised plan, or say,
hey, you want to go with this, and we’ll vote to deny it, in all probability, which means, if you
want to come back again, you’d have to make a drastic change anyway.
MR. GRILLO-Yes, exactly. I guess we’ll have to table it, then.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2004 ROBERT & JANICE GRILLO,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
121 Seelye Road. For up to 62 days, to allow Mr. Grillo to respond to the comments made by
the Board, the majority of whom felt that this was too big a variance to grant as originally
proposed.
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-Sorry, gentlemen, but we’ll see you soon.
MR. GRILLO-Okay. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II BRUCE & KIM HANSON OWNER:
BRUCE & KIM HANSON ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 33 HANNEFORD ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 1,006 SQ. FT. CAMP AT 18 FT.
1 IN. HIGH AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,006 SQ. FT. CAMP AT 27 FT. 9 IN. HIGH ON
THE EXISTING FOUNDATION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK,
AND CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REFERENCE: BP 2000-130 DOCK, BP
99-176 DECK ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/2004
LOT SIZE: 0.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.06-1-15 SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-13-10A1
BRUCE HANSON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2004, Bruce & Kim Hanson, Meeting Date: June 16, 2004
“Project Location: 33 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
demolition of the existing 1,006 sq. ft. camp at 18 feet 1 inch high and construction of a 1,006 sq.
ft. camp at 27 feet 9 inches high on the existing foundation.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests 13.4 feet of side setback relief from the 15-foot minimum
requirement, per §179-4-030. Additionally, the applicant needs relief from the continuation
code, per §179-13-010(A1).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 29-2002: 05/22/02, setback relief to
replace stone stairway from camp to lake with wood stairs.
BP 2000-130: 05/01/00, 114 sq. ft. stake dock.
AV 28-2000: 04/21/00, setback relief for a 114 sq. ft. stake dock.
BP 99-176: 06/22/99, 400 sq. ft. deck.
AV 42-1999: 06/16/99, setback relief and relief for the expansion of a nonconforming structure
for a 400 sq. ft. deck.
Staff comments:
Should this application be approved, site plan approval by the Planning Board will be required
being the proposed expansion is in a CEA (Critical Environmental Area), per § 179-13-010(F).”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 9,
2004 Project Name: Hanson, Bruce & Kim Owner: Bruce & Kim Hanson ID Number: QBY-
AV-04-46 County Project#: Jun04-25 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing 1,006 sq. ft.
camp at 18’1” high and construction of a 1,006 sq. ft. camp at 27’9” high on the existing
foundation. Relief requested from side yard setback and continuation requirements. Site
Location: 33 Hanneford Road Tax Map Number(s): 240.06-1-15 Staff Notes: Area Variance:
The applicant proposes to remove an existing 1,006 sq. ft. camp at 18 +/- ft. in height and replace
it with a 1,006 sq. ft. camp at 27 +/- ft. in height. The new home will be located 1.6 +/- ft. from
the south property line where 15 ft. is required and 28 ft. from the rear property line where 30’
is required. The information submitted indicates the location of the new and existing dwelling,
with elevation drawings. The plans indicate the dwelling and property are pre-existing
nonconforming. The new home is to be located in the same location as the original house. Staff
does not identify an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff
recommends no county impact. County Planning Board Recommendation: No County Impact”
MR. STONE-Okay, before I call on you, Mr. Hanson, I just want to make a comment. For a
small piece of road, we have had more action on Hanneford Road over the years. That is no
comment about where we stand on it, but we’ve been up there a lot. Anyway, go ahead, sir.
MR. HANSON-Good evening, Board members and Staff members. I’m Bruce Hanson. This is
my son Kyle Hanson, and basically goal is to do away with the inferior camp that, if Mr. Frank
could show pictures. It was poorly constructed in two by four rafters, two feet on center. It’s
more or less a dump and needs to be torn down, but our goal is to work with the means that
we’re given and the character of the lot and the property and the neighborhood, not to try to
expand or engross the lot with too large of a building, and we’ve come up with what we feel is
the most practical and well balanced design, meaning the chalet design pictured. Since we’re
not there in the winter, the roof will shed the snow load and prevent ice back up. We didn’t
want any valleys or hips for that reason. The footprint of the camp is very small, and so
therefore the chalet design offers us a cathedral ceiling to give us a little bit of relief from the
claustrophobia, and basically, as we said, the goal is to main the character of the lake front
neighborhood and remain balanced amongst the neighboring buildings.
MR. STONE-Did you start to try to fix it? Is that why the?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. HANSON-Yes. We’ve beefed up the existing foundation and decking, and then when we
got to the framing, number one, the south side is only six foot six, and Kyle’s growing faster
than weeds. I think he’ll be taller than my six feet two. So we can’t stand up in the bedroom
area, but as I said, it was poorly built, and to try to reconstruct it as is would be, nothing would
be in compliance with Code, I don’t believe.
MR. STONE-Okay, and you’re not the first that’s had problems like that. So, it does happen.
MR. HANSON-Right. So we do want to re-use the existing deck and therefore there won’t be
any environmental impact because we’re not adding any square footage or changing the shape
design. We’re simply raising the roof.
MR. STONE-And the current house is approximately the 1.6 feet from the property line, that’s
you’re going to put this?
MR. HANSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. HAYES-It’s only 15 feet from the other side, too. So any movement is just going to create
equal dimensional relief, essentially.
MR. HANSON-Right.
MR. ABBATE-You son drew the drawings, did he?
MR. HANSON-Yes. He’s an aspiring architect.
MR. URRICO-The new structure, should you get it, would be no closer to the property lines
than the current structure is?
MR. HANSON-Right. There’ll be no change whatsoever because we’re going to place it on the
exact decking. We’re not even taking the floor, we’re not demoing the floor, just the walls.
MR. RIGBY-There’s a structure behind that home, it looks like a garage with a second floor.
MR. HANSON-That’s a garage with an attic above.
MR. RIGBY-Is that part of, that’s your property?
MR. HANSON-Yes, it is. That’s on our property.
MR. RIGBY-It is.
MR. STONE-Bruce, this would require an as-built survey? This would be considered new
construction if we allowed it?
MR. FRANK-I don’t believe so, because he’s going to utilize the existing foundation and floor.
MR. STONE-We can put that in, though, if we wanted to.
MR. FRANK-You can, but if he’s going to build on top of the existing construction, the building
permit, he’d have to submit this information, they would not be inspecting footings, because it’s
going on the exact, same foundation.
MR. STONE-You’ve got real footings, a real foundation in there?
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. HANSON-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. You’re not replacing. I didn’t notice cinder block or concrete block.
MR. HANSON-It was a stone foundation. There’s a small crawl space. Stone foundation on
ledge, and Kyle and I formed within the perimeter and poured additional concrete so the
foundation walls are stone with another foot and a half to two feet of concrete. It’s strong.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. RIGBY-There’s also a second, looks like a second foundation underneath the deck in the
front of the camp.
MR. HANSON-That was basically a footing that we poured to support the deck.
MR. RIGBY-Okay.
MR. HANSON-And the retaining wall.
MR. RIGBY-So there’s no intent to expand the structure out onto that foundation, is there?
MR. HANSON-No.
MR. RIGBY-Okay.
MR. STONE-Yes. We gave permission for that deck a few years ago. Some of us anyway.
MR. MC NULTY-I’d like to go back to the garage for a moment. You say it’s just attic over the
garage?
MR. HANSON-Yes. We sleep there now while we’re building, we’re in construction.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Is there any kitchen or bathroom?
MR. HANSON-No.
MR. STONE-And you wouldn’t propose to put any in?
MR. HANSON-No. The lot can’t support anything beyond the, in fact, the camp will be a one
bedroom with just the sleeper sofa in the living area, whereas it was a, it’s a two bedroom now,
but we’re just going to have it as a one bedroom.
MR. ABBATE-And the chalet, I think you used the word chalet, provides you the appropriate
space and height and what have you, as opposed to what you currently have?
MR. HANSON-The chalet design gives us the ability to have a cathedral ceiling so we won’t
feel so cramped.
MR. ABBATE-I understand.
MR. STONE-What about the septic? Are you going to do anything to the septic?
MR. HANSON-Not at present, until such time as it needs re-work.
MR. STONE-Bruce, this wouldn’t trigger?
MR. FRANK-Not in our New York State Building Code. There’s no expansion of the floor area.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. STONE-Okay. Any other questions?
MR. RIGBY-The height of the proposed building, in comparison to the neighbors, is it lower, is
it higher, do you know? The neighbors to the north?
MR. FRANK-The same height.
MR. HANSON-The neighbors to the north would be the Hoppers.
MR. HAYES-It’s got to be lower, because she got a variance.
MR. HANSON-Yes. We stayed within the.
MR. HAYES-In the end she didn’t?
MR. FRANK-I think that’s at a compliant height, 28 feet.
MR. STONE-She had to make some changes.
MR. FRANK-You did not approve that height variance.
MR. HANSON-It would be, I believe, slightly lower than the Hoppers.
MR. STONE-Yes. She’s right at 28, I guess.
MR. HAYES-The thing’s compliant, though.
MR. RIGBY-Thanks.
MR. FRANK-By the way, Mr. Hanson’s drawing shows it 27 feet 9 inches on the western
exposure. It’s not 27 feet 9 inches all the way across. It’s much less in the east end of the
building.
MR. STONE-Right. It’s the maximum, taking the vertical, it does go down, because you’re
leaving the house, the roof pitch the same, or the ridgeline the same, and the ground’s coming
up.
MR. FRANK-The ridge is the same.
MR. STONE-Yes. Okay. Any other comments? Let me open the public hearing. Anybody
wishing to speak on this subject?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KEN KAMBAR
MR. KAMBAR-My name’s Ken Kambar. I’m the southern neighbor of Bruce. I want to state
that I’m in favor of Bruce replacing that camp. It is old and it does need replacing, and it will
help the neighborhood. On a personal note, probably I’m not 100% happy with the height of
the roof. I will lose a little bit of view, but I would not stand in the way of his, of doing that
camp.
MR. STONE-Thank you for your candor, Mr. Kambar.
MR. KAMBAR-Okay.
MR. STONE-Anybody else wishing to speak on this subject? Any correspondence?
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. MC NULTY-We have one piece of correspondence. It’s from Dave & Jane Hopper. They
say, “As neighbors of Kim and Bruce Hanson, we have no objection to the proposed project
before this Board. We have seen their house plans and feel it would be an asset to our ever
improving neighborhood on Hanneford Road.”
MR. STONE-Okay. Hearing no further comments, I will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-You can come forward again. Any comment you want to make on what you
heard?
MR. HANSON-Yes. Ken and I are good pals, and we work well together as neighbors. We
resolve issues, and like you said, the neighborhood has had issues. We’re all small lots, and it’s
unfortunate that he does have a concern. My opinion is that it’s a moot issue that I do feel that
the loss of view for the Kambar’s is minuscule, if it at all, because I would say that picture is
representative of it. There’s evergreens to the north that I feel is what the roof would be
blocking, although Ken, as he stated, he does, in the winter, get somewhat of a view of the
mountaintops through the evergreens.
MR. STONE-But you are legal. It’s one of those situations that does come up. Well, you have a
lot that you can’t put anything on because of the side setbacks. There’s no question about that.
Any other comments anybody wants to make? Well, let’s talk about it. Jim, what do you think?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s a reasonable request. Every structure has a limited lifespan.
This one certainly has outlived it’s lifespan by a long shot, and the amount of relief that’s
requested is just reflective of where it’s built, and it’s not going to increase anything or decrease
anything. It’s going to be a major improvement for the neighborhood and one less one we have
to go look at up there on Hanneford Road.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I’m going to echo Jim’s comments as well. Mr. Hanson’s
request is not an enormous request, and again, if I were to place myself in the position of Mr.
Hanson, quite frankly I would be doing, requesting the identical same thing that he’s
requesting, and I believe his request is a reasonable request, and I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Leo?
MR. RIGBY-Yes. I believe it’s a reasonable request as well. It’s basically an improvement to the
area. It’s on the same foundation. It’s within the height limitations. I’d be in favor of it as well.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Obviously, you would benefit from the granting of an Area Variance by
improving something that’s not suiting your preference right now, and as a result it would
improve the character of the neighborhood, because it is somewhat in need of repair. There are
feasible alternatives. I think you’ve looked at them, and I think the ones you’ve come up with
are good. There is substantial relief, according to the Code, but it’s no more than was there
before. So I think that’s a weight in your benefit, and there won’t be any detrimental effects to
the environment otherwise. I would be in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I’m in favor for the reasons that have already been stated by the Board members.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. MC NULTY-I’ll also be in favor. We can say we wish the height weren’t quite as great, as
proposed, and I think, given that they’re going to reconstruct on the existing foundation, it
certainly makes conditions no worse than what they are, and obviously it’s going to be an
improvement, all told, and a benefit to the applicant. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-When I went out to visit the property, I certainly, I had the opportunity to talk to
the neighbor to the north, who’s already written a letter and said that she had no problem with
it. I did appreciate, from one of your other neighbors who is not immediately adjacent, this pole
you had put up to show what the height would look like, and I certainly appreciated that. I
don’t know if everybody recognized that’s what it was, but there was a pole there at 27’ 9”, and
that’s certainly within the Code. The only thing that we’re dealing with is really the side
setback and the continuation which is technical more than anything. So, having said that, I
certainly would also go along with this application. I need a motion to approve. Remember,
we’re not talking about the height. We’re not talking about, just the side setback and the
continuation.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2004 BRUCE & KIM HANSON,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby:
33 Hanneford Road. The applicant is proposing demolition of an existing 1,006 square foot
camp at 18 feet 1 inch high and construction of a 1,006 square foot camp at 27 feet 9 inches high
on the existing foundation. The relief required is 13.4 feet of side setback relief from the 15 foot
minimum requirement per Section 179-4-030, and additionally the applicant needs relief from
the Continuation Code per Section 179-13-010 Section A1. As explained by the applicant, this
structure is long past renewal, and it needs to be replaced, and because it’s going to be replaced
on the exact same foundation print that’s there, by the camp that’s essentially the same size,
only taller, we’re all willing to go along with this request.
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr.
Stone
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. HANSON-Thank you, gentlemen.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2004 SEQRA TYPE: II HAROLD A. SMITH OWNER:
HAROLD A. SMITH ZONING: WR-1A, CEA LOCATION: 167 PILOT KNOB ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE THE EXISTING 464 SQ. FT. GARAGE/ENCLOSED
PORCH AT 13 FT. HIGH WITH THE SAME IN THE SAME LOCATION. RELIEF
REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK, SHORELINE SETBACK, AND THE
CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING 6/9/2004 LOT SIZE: 0.08 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.14-1-25
SECTION: 179-4-030, 179-4-070, 179-13-10
HAROLD SMITH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2004, Harold A. Smith, Meeting Date: June 16, 2004
“Applicant proposes to replace the existing attached 464 sq. ft. garage/enclosed porch at 13 feet
high with a new 464 sq. ft. attached garage/enclosed porch in the same location and at the same
height.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
Relief Required:
1) 5 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 50-foot minimum requirement, per §179-4-030
and §179-4-070
2) 8 feet of side setback relief from the 12-foot minimum requirement, per §179-4-030.
3) Relief from the continuation requirements, per §179-13-010(A1, B and E).
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None.
Staff comments:
Should the application be approved, site plan approval by the Planning Board will be required
being the proposed expansion is in a CEA (Critical Environmental Area), per § 179-13-010(F).”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form June 9,
2004 Project Name: Smith, Harold A. Owner: Harold A. Smith ID Number: QBY-AV-04-47
County Project#: Jun04-31 Current Zoning: WR-1A, CEA Community: Queensbury Project
Description: Applicant proposes to replace the existing 464 sq. ft. garage/enclosed porch at 13
ft. high with the same in the same location. Relief requested from side yard setback, shoreline
setback, and the continuation requirements. Site Location: 167 Pilot Knob Road Tax Map
Number(s): 227.14-1-25 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes to remove an
existing 446 sq. ft. garage/enclosed porch at 13 ft. in height with the same size structure. The
structure is to be located 4 ft. from the north property line where 12 ft. is required and 32 ft.
from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The information submitted indicates the structure is
pre-existing, nonconforming and the new structure is proposed to be built in the same location
with the same use. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the
information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact”
MR. STONE-How about Washington County? Do you have to go to them?
MR. SMITH-Not for this project, no.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. SMITH-We went to them, we’ve been there a little over a year now, and when we
upgraded the septic system we went through them and got the permits through them.
MR. STONE-Anything you want to add? Introduce yourself.
MR. SMITH-Good evening. I’m Harold Smith, and this is my wife Eleanor. Basically what it
states is we want to re-do the garage, I need to re-do it before I finish siding the whole house.
Rather than take a chance by doing it stick by stick and having something happen, it fall down,
run into problems, we’ll come and get the variance ahead of time, and so that we can go right
back through it and just do it right, but that’s basically, we’re trying to improve the place. We
intend to more or less retire there. We do live there year round now, and we’re just fixing it up
before I do retire.
MR. STONE-We appreciate your comments about prevention before whatever we want to call
it. It’s important. I don’t have any comments. Does anybody have any comments?
MR. ABBATE-No, just a quick comment. Mr. Smith, you would do a tremendous justice to the
Town by removing that enclosure.
MR. STONE-What are you going to call this one?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MR. ABBATE-Well, I didn’t say it was a dump. Tremendous service, yes.
MR. STONE-How long have you been there?
MR. SMITH-I’ve just been there a little over a year.
MR. STONE-Any other comments? Any questions?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Jim referred to it as a pre-existing structure.
MR. STONE-Okay. I’m going to open the public hearing. Anybody wishing to speak on this
subject? Any correspondence?
MR. MC NULTY-No correspondence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
NO COMMENT
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Chuck, let’s start with you. Let’s talk about it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I really mean this, I think that Mr. and Mrs. Smith will be doing a
tremendous amount of good by replacing this structure. I truly do. It’s obvious that it has to be
replaced, and as you indicated, you have only been there for approximately a year, and you
took a look at what’s there and you made a decision that this has to be replaced, and taking a
look at it, it indeed has to be replaced, and I think that it’s, your request is a very appropriate
request. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. STONE-Okay. Leo?
MR. RIGBY-Yes. I agree. It does need to be replaced. My only concern would be the adjoining,
not the adjoining, but the property right next door. It’s so close to where your house is. We
haven’t heard any feedback from the neighbor, so I’m assuming that it would be in.
MR. SMITH-Just to let you know, that’s my brother.
MR. RIGBY-I was going to bring a letter, but I thought it wouldn’t pull much weight. So that’s
my brother and sister-in-law.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. So there’s no complaints there obviously, and the structure is going to be
basically on the same footprint as the existing structure, I understand.
MR. SMITH-Same exact footprint.
MR. RIGBY-So I don’t think I would have any problem with it either.
MR. STONE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I want to compliment the applicant for coming to us before the fact. It’s a
great concept, actually.
MR. ABBATE-Right, yes.
MR. URRICO-Actually coming to us before you do any work on it. I think obviously you
benefit from the granting of this variance. It would improve the character of the neighborhood,
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
as some of my fellow Board members have stated, and I agree with them. Feasible alternatives
would be actually to take it down, but I don’t think that’s really feasible. The relief is
comparable to what’s there already. I don’t think there’s going to be anymore intrusion than
has already taken up, and it will not effect the lake, as I can see, even though it’s in a Critical
Environmental Area. So I would be in favor of this.
MR. STONE-Jaime?
MR. HAYES-I agree. I think that was very well put. These last two applications to me, lighting
would have had to strike in testimony to feel that they shouldn’t be approved, and it just hasn’t
happened. So I’m in favor.
MR. STONE-Chuck?
MR. MC NULTY-I can basically agree with what’s been said before. This is a replacement in
kind. No one has raised any kind of issues or questions, and I don’t see any negative side to
this. The variances requested are basically to continue what exists already. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think aesthetically what you’re proposing is going to be a big step
forward. It’s going to be a compliment to your neighborhood. So, I’d be all in favor of it.
MR. STONE-Yes. Our job is to protect the Code, protect the lake, protect the Town, and I think
by doing this we’re granting doing all those things, even though you do need some relief. First
of all, five foot is the minimum, because it’s landing slightly away from the lake, so it’s probably
going to 47, 48. You don’t have it laid out. You don’t have to. So I think it’s a good project, and
I do applaud you for your comment earlier, as I said, of saying let’s get the variance just in case
something happens that’s unexpected, because we do know there are many properties, people
start to work on them, and all of a sudden, down they have to come. So, having said that, I
need a motion to approve.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2004 HAROLD A. SMITH, Introduced
by Paul Hayes who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
167 Pilot Knob Road. The applicant proposes to replace the existing attached 464 square foot
attached garage enclosed porch at 13 feet high with a new 464 square foot attached
garage/enclosed porch in the same location and at the same height, essentially a complete
replacement of exactly the same thing. The relief that the applicant is requesting is five feet of
shoreline setback relief from the 50 foot minimum requirement per Section 179-4-030, and
Section 179-4-070. The second piece of relief is eight feet of side setback relief from the twelve
foot minimum requirement per Section 179-4-030, and the third piece of relief is relief from the
Continuation requirements per Section 179-13-010 Parts A1, B and E. Examining the
application, I find, and I believe the Board finds, that there will be no negative impact on the
greater neighborhood and our community by this action, and the fact that it’s replacing a
structure of an identical dimensional. In fact, it has been suggested that the replacement of this
particular part of the structure will be an improvement in the neighborhood and greater area, as
has been noted, and as far as alternatives, there really is no alternative, outside of removing this
thing completely, and I think the Board finds that we don’t feel that that should be compelled at
this particular time. So, on balance, I just don’t see any negative implications, and the fact that
the neighborhood and the applicant will benefit from the replacement of this structure, a
structure that the applicant has come for permission in advance for, which the Board
appreciates. I think the test falls in favor of the applicant.
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Rigby, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant
MR. STONE-There you go.
MR. SMITH-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Build away.
CORRECTION OF MINUTES
March 2, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 2, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Paul Hayes:
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
March 17, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 17, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone
who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
March 24, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF MARCH 24, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
April 6, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 6, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles Abbate:
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
April 21, 2004: NONE
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/16/04)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Hayes, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
April 28, 2004: NONE
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF APRIL 28, 2004, Introduced by Lewis Stone who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Leo Rigby:
Duly adopted this 16 day of June, 2004, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Hayes, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Stone
NOES: NONE
MR. STONE-I want to publicly thank Mr. Rigby for being the only other member of the Zoning
Board to come to Monday’s joint meeting of the Planning Board and the Town Board, to discuss
their moratorium resolution. Anyway, having said that, motion to adjourn.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Lewis Stone, Chairman
35