2009.12.16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2009
INDEX
Area Variance No. 60-2009 Ronald Morehouse 1.
Tax Map No. 309.9-3-24
Notice of Appeal No. 4-2009 Robert & Victoria Glandon 4.
Tax Map No. 239.7-14
Area Variance No. 68-2009 Thomas & Stella Koleci 19.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-29
Area Variance No. 69-2009 Alex & Linda Alexander 26.
Tax Map No. 297.10-1-52
Area Variance No. 70-2009 Margaret Foote 30.
Tax Map No. 309.17-1-3
RESOLUTIONS NOMINATION OF OFFICERS 36.
FOR 2010
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2009
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
JAMES UNDERWOOD, CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
GEORGE DRELLOS
JOAN JENKIN
RICHARD GARRAND
JOYCE HUNT
BRIAN CLEMENTS
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’m going to call the December 16, 2009 meeting of the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to order, and starting out I want to quickly go
through our procedures, once again, for anybody that perhaps is new here. As we
handle each application I’ll call the application by name and number. The secretary will
read the pertinent parts of the application, Staff Notes and Warren County Planning
Board decision if applicable into the record. Then we’ll ask the applicant to present any
information they wish to present to the Board. The Board will ask questions of the
applicant, and then we’ll open the public hearing. The public hearing’s intended to help
us gather information and understand it about the issue at hand. It functions to help the
Board members make a wise decision, but it does not make the decision for the Board
members. There will be a five minute limit on all speakers. We will allow speakers to
speak again after everybody’s had a chance to speak, but not for more than three
minutes, and only if after listening to other speakers, a speaker believes that they have
new information to present, and, Board members, I’d suggest that because we have the
five minute limit that we not interrupt the speaker with questions while they’re speaking.
Rather we should wait until the speaker has finished his five minute period and then ask
the questions. Following all the speakers, we’ll read in any correspondence into the
record, and then the applicant will have an opportunity to react and respond to the public
comment. Board members then will then discuss the variance request with the
applicant. Following that, the Board members will have a chance to explain their
positions on the application, and then the public hearing will be closed or left open
depending on the situation, and finally, if appropriate a motion to approve or disapprove
will follow.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II RONALD MOREHOUSE
AGENT(S): GARFIELD RAYMOND, MELISSA TRAVIS OWNER(S): SAME ZONING:
MDR LOCATION: 46 RHODE ISLAND AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 60 FT. (1,440 SQ. FT.) MANUFACTURED HOME
AND REQUESTS RELIEF FROM FRONT AND REAR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF
THE MDR ZONE. CROSS REF.: AV 28-09; BP 08-540 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 11/10/09 LOT SIZE: 0.14 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.9-3-24
SECTION: 179-3-040
GARFIELD RAYMOND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-We previously heard this last month. I think the information that we
had asked for was whether there were going to be porches accessing the rear and the
front of this, because we wanted to make sure we were accurate on the relief.
MR. URRICO-There’s a little narrative explaining the variance. “We need new Area
Variance because the home we were going to use in the old hearing we were unable to
buy. So we have to use a different home which is also a different size. The size of the
new home is 23.4 x 56.5 but the mobile home is sold as 24 ft. x 60 ft.”
STAFF INPUT
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2009, Ronald Morehouse, Meeting Date:
December 16, 2009, “Project Location: 46 Rhode Island Avenue Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 1,440 square foot mobile home on
a 0.14 acre parcel.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 7 feet of relief from the 30 foot front setback line requirement, 20
feet relief from the 30 foot west rear setback requirement and 23 feet from the 30 foot
north rear setback line requirement per §179-3-040.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
utilize Area Variance 23-2009 approved by this board on May 27, 2009 for this
parcel.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 7 feet or 23.3
percent relief from the 30 foot south front setback requirement per 179-3-040 may be
considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 20
feet or 66% relief from the 30 foot west rear setback line and 23 feet or 77% relief
from the 30 foot north rear setback line may both be considered severe relative to the
ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
A.V. 60-2009 Front and read setback relief Tabled 11/18/2009
A.V. 23-2009 Front setback relief Approved 5/27/09
Staff comments:
The applicant was before this board on May 27, 2009 and gained approval for a 1,104
square foot manufactured home that required rear setback relief (see approval language
on survey). According to the applicant’s narrative, the manufactured home previously
proposed for the site could not be purchased. They are now seeking relief as a result of
a different sized manufactured home proposed for the parcel.
The applicant was also before the board on November 18, 2009 and was tabled due to
lack of entrance deck information.
Note: If approved, the survey will need to be updated to reflect the approval language for
Area Variance 60-2009 and not the approval language of Area Variance 23-2009.
SEQR Status:
Type II – No action necessary”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Raymond, anything else you want to add on that?
MR. RAYMOND-Not really. I think we’ve been around a number of times.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If everybody’s looking at the new survey, that’s got the
correct numbers on there shown, that he needs seven feet on the front and 23 feet on
the back for relief. I think everybody’s pretty much squared away with that. Anybody
have any questions at this time? Okay. I’m going to re-open the public hearing.
Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. UNDERWOOD-We don’t have any correspondence that I know of.
MR. URRICO-No, no correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I’ll poll you guys. Brian, do you have a problem with it?
MR. CLEMENTS-I have no problem. I’d be in favor. Fine.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. The same. The deck is certainly a very small deck. Very small. So
I have no problem. We agreed with it before.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I don’t have any problem.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George?
MR. DRELLOS-I’m fine with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. HUNT-And I’m okay with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m okay with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Does somebody want to take this one?
MR. GARRAND-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2009 RONALD MOREHOUSE,
Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
46 Rhode Island Avenue. The applicant proposes the placement of a 1440 square foot
mobile home on a .14 acre parcel. The applicant requests seven feet of relief from the
30 foot front setback line requirement; 20 feet of relief from the 30 foot west rear setback;
and 23 feet from the 30 foot north rear setback line requirement per Section 179-3-040.
On the balancing test, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character
of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. No, I don’t believe it will create
any undesirable change. It will still be in character with the neighborhood. Whether
benefits sought by the applicant can be achieved by other means feasible. Given the
size of the home and the location of the septic, options are quite limited. Whether this
request is substantial. The combined relief may be deemed substantial to moderate.
Will this proposed variance have adverse effect or impact on the physical conditions of
the neighborhood? Very minor impacts on the neighborhood. Like I said before, this is
in character with the neighborhood and other parcels in the area. Whether this difficulty
was self-created. It may be considered self-created. So I move we approve Area
Variance 60-2009. That the survey be updated to reflect that the Area Variance is going
to be for this one, 60-2009, not the 23-2009, as it presently exists.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. RAYMOND-Thank you.
NEW BUSINESS:
NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II ROBERT & VICTORIA
GLANDON AGENT(S): THE WEST FIRM, PLLC OWNER(S): PROVIDENT BATAVIA
ZONING: WR LOCATION: 67 KNOX ROAD APPELLANT IS APPEALING AN
AUGUST 5, 2009 DETERMINATION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR REGARDING
THE APPLICABILITY OF THE OLD ZONING CODE FOR THIS PROPERTY. CROSS
REF.: SP 53-07, NOA 11-07, BP’S WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 11/10/09 LOT
SIZE: 0.45 TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-14 SECTION: 179-14-040
TOM WEST, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think what I’ll have you do, Roy, is read Staff Notes in, and
then I’m going to read in where this originated from.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. 4-2009, Robert & Victoria Glandon, Meeting Date:
December 16, 2009 “Project Location: 67 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project:
Information requested:
Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to an August 5, 2009
decision made by the Zoning Administrator regarding the applicable code to be used for
the review of a pending application.
Staff comments:
First, Standing:
Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing
party aggrieved?
?
The appeal was signed on September 29, 2009 and filed September 30, 2009
with the Town.
?
The appellant is an adjoining property owner.
It appears as though this appeal is timely and the appellant may be an aggrieved party.
Second, Merits of the argument:
The filed appeal appears to address information other than the August 5, 2009
determination.
The appellants September 30, 2009 Application for an Appeal from Zoning Administrator
Decision papers address the following items:
?
Building Height
?
Floor Area Ratio
?
Prior violations
?
Stormwater
?
Incompleteness
?
Change in ownership
?
Other such grounds as are developed in a hearing with the ZBA
The August 5, 2009 Zoning Administrator decision addresses 1 item.
?
Site Plan Review 53-2007 is subject to the 2002 Zoning Code
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
It is the appellant’s position that Site Plan application 53-2007 should be subject to the
current, 2009 Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance and they have provided several
reasons to support their position. None of the specific reasons offered by the appellant
were described or referred to in the determination being appealed. As such, those items
are not ripe for appeal and will not be addressed in these notes.
To date, the only determination that has been rendered is that Site Plan application 53-
2007 is still subject to the same code that was in force at the time of the submittal of the
original application. The application in question has never been denied by the Planning
Board nor withdrawn by the applicant; as such it is a valid, pending application. The
original building permit for the structure in question was issued for a valid permissible
structure. Per 179-15-100, the project may be completed “…pursuant to the provisions in
effect when the project permit was issued only if, in the case of a project primarily
involving a building, the foundation has been completed prior to the date of the
amendment…” In this instance, the foundation was completed in the summer of 2007
which was well in advance of the adoption of the 2009 Zoning Ordinance amendment.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Just for a little review here, we’ve had this case before us
numerous times. The Zoning Board did render a decision regarding this building project,
which was challenged, and it was backed up in court by Judge Krogmann’s decision
also, backing what, you know, it was primarily concerned with building height problems
that we ran into with this building, as well as Floor Area Ratio and other things like that. I
think that, as we last left this, it was left with the Town as an enforcement type action,
and I believe that the original owners of the property, which was Mr. Solomon, I guess at
the time, I don’t know if he had partners at the time. He was listed as the original owner
of the property at the time. It was left, I think, with you to work out some kind of
remediation for the project to bring it into compliance before any kind of a Certificate of
Occupancy could be granted for the completed project, you know, that met all the
standards of the Code, that met all the standards of the Old Code at the time, which was
our 2002 Zoning Code. In the interim, I don’t know what the resolution of the conflict
was, as far as what we had asked as a Zoning Board to do. It was sort of in the hands of
the Planning Board at that point, I believe, to bring it into completion. There were
outstanding issues regarding septic, the number of bedrooms that could be
accommodated in this building. I know that the height was something that needed to be
dealt with because of the proposed removal of the wing walls to bring it down to the
natural gradient which was what our determination was made upon. I don’t know where
we’re at at this point, Craig. Maybe you would like to give a little synopsis as to what has
happened since then, because I’m going to read, eventually I’m going to read in your
th
August 5 memorandum to the Planning Board as far as the Provident Development.
Now, in the interim of this project, the project seems to have changed hands, and I don’t
know if these are partners, original partners, or if it’s a continuation maybe just one
person of the partnership, but I don’t know if the partnership’s been dissolved, it’s turned
into something different in that time period also, but as an update, also, I think that, you
know, the Town was looking towards resolving the difficulties with the effected parties.
The neighbors on both sides of that property had issues with this, who had originally
brought it to the attention of the Zoning Board. I don’t know if that’s been resolved, it’s in
the process of being resolved, where are we at, you know, as far as that goes. I did take
a drive out there on Tuesday morning, and it didn’t look to me like much had changed,
other than it looked like one wing wall was down on the, I would say the north side of the
building there, that was now gone, and I don’t know what’s being done as far as bringing
into compliance with height and things like that. I mean, those are sort of tertiary issues
to what we’re deciding here tonight, but nonetheless, they’ve been raised in the letter
from the West Firm who I think is representing Mr. Glandon at this point in time. So, for
the sake of the Board, I think it’s difficult for us to just narrow it down to, you know, which
Code we’re using to apply here, because I think what we were looking for as a Board
was getting this building fixed to the point where everybody could accept what it looked
like and they could be granted a Certificate of Occupancy. So maybe if you want to just
give us your end of it.
MR. BROWN-Well, I can certainly do that, and as you see in the audience here, there’s
counsel, actually Mr. West is here on Mr. Glandon’s behalf, and Attorney Buettner’s here
on the Provident behalf, and they can deal with who owns what and who’s part of the
partnership and talk to them about those issues, but my understanding is that Solomon
was part of Provident. Provident Development is listed as the contractor of record on the
building permit, and I believe Solomon is no longer part of Provident, but the other
partners involved are still involved with that project, but I’m just trying to get sidetracked
a little bit, but all of the other issues, you know, really don’t play into the determination
that was made, and I think unfortunately you really have to focus it down to the one issue
of what Code’s applicable. The other, building height, stormwater, Floor Area Ratio, they
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
do not come into play as part of this determination. So I don’t really want to get into
those things. It’s either allow the permit and the project to continue being reviewed
under the Code under which the permit was originally issued, or change gears and tell
them that they have to be reviewed under a whole new Code that wasn’t in place when
the permit was issued.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you, you know, I took the time to look at the new Code
versus old Code, and I think that the new Code is kind representative of, you know, this
problem was created out there, I think that maybe procedurally things, it never had to
happen this way to begin with, as far as I’m concerned, and I think as far as the decision
of the Board was going forward here. I think that when we reviewed the process, we
were all a little bit baffled by how this building got to be so high because, you know, in a
Waterfront Residential area I think we understand that at the time any project that’s
proposed has to have some kind of Site Plan Review done on it, and I think that, I did not
understand why this one did not fall under that guise, why it just sort of had an end run
done. It was a building permit. You looked at it. Dave Hatin looked at it. It was given
the green light and it proceeded at that point in time. I was a little bit baffled because I
said to myself, you know, if there’d been a review by a third party, I don’t think this ever
would have happened.
MR. BROWN-Well, just to answer that question real quick for you. It was given a
building permit because it met all of the requirements and only after the permit was
issued did the project take on a life of its own and too much land was cleared, too many
trees may have been taken down, a different building was built. It was built too tall. So,
how did it get off the ground? It met the requirements when the permit was issued.
Somewhere between issuing the permit and pounding the nails, something changed, and
then once we started doing inspections, we understood that, hey, this isn’t what the
permit was issued for, and we stopped.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think all of us at the time when we went out there were aghast
at how much it had proceeded to such a level of completion that, you know, there were
no red flags that flew up from building inspections, somebody didn’t say, wait a minute,
this isn’t what’s on the plan, and things like that.
MR. BROWN-Yes, and I’ve tried to explain that several times in the past at the meetings,
that the inspection process is such that when the foundation is put in, there’s an
inspection. There’s a backfill inspection, put the dirt back around the foundation.
There’s no other inspection required until all the framing is done, the walls are up, the
roof’s on. That’s when you have your framing inspection. So theoretically a 27 story
building could have been built there and we’re not required to go back and look at it until
they call us and say, hey, we’re ready for you to come back. So, the project, you know,
could advance a long ways before we go back and look.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there anything that’s changed from 2002 to the present adopted
Code, though, that now firms that up so we don’t have this occurring going forward?
Because what I’m thinking is, you know, we’re here talking about an individual project,
but at the same time, I don’t think the Town or the neighborhoods up there want to get
into this situation again based upon what’s occurred here, that, you know, if we can put
some kind of checks and balances in play here that it’s going to make a big difference for
everybody.
MR. BROWN-Well, we may be able to do that, but that’s not what we’re talking about
tonight. It’s just what Code applies to the Site Plan Review application for this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then let’s get back on track here, and I think what I’m going
to do is this. I’m going to read your memorandum to the Planning Board, and we don’t
really have any idea. In other words, like I can read the memorandum, and then the
question I would ask you is, where did this originate from? Were you asked this as a
question by the Planning Board?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So this was in response to the Planning Board?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. So, this was to the Planning Board from Craig Brown, Zoning
Administrator, on August 5, 2009, RE: Provident Development. “The Planning Board
review of the Provident Development Site Plan Review application; 53-2007 began when
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
the application was subject to the April 1, 2002 Zoning Ordinance. As the application
has not been denied or withdrawn, the application shall continue to be subject to and
reviewed under the 2002 Zoning Ordinance.” I would assume, at that point, that
th
generated the letter of August 7 from the West Firm, or was that already in the works?
MR. BROWN-No, I think that was probably already in the works and Mr. West was
planning to submit that in hopes of a time before I had issued a determination. I just had
the determination out before the letter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So your determination just happened to be a couple of days before
that, at that point. All right. When the West Firm made that letter or basically produced
th
that letter that was dated August 7 there, it had an awful lot of information, a lot of
questions that were asked at that point in time there, and so that letter in itself, I don’t
know if, I guess I could ask Mr. West at this point in time. Was that letter generated as a
th
result of that determination of the 5?
MR. WEST-No, Mr. Chairman. It was not. What happened, essentially, is this matter
was noticed before the Planning Board, and we came to the Planning Board, I don’t quite
recall when it was, but it would have been last Spring, and we raised a bunch of issues.
We brought them up to speed on the history of the project. We raised a bunch of issues
about lack of compliance of any stormwater controls, which that issue took on a life of its
own, and we also raised the issue concerning which Code would apply, because as Mr.
Brown aptly summarized, I mean, the project was not built in accordance with the plans.
The building became too big. It became too tall, and in the meantime the Code had
changed, and the project had transferred hands, etc. So when we got in front of the
Planning Board, it was a very simple question, which Code applies. We had a debate
about this. We had a debate about all the violations, a number of the issues that are
th
addressed in my August 7 letter, and the Planning Board said to Mr. Brown, we need
guidance on this, tell us, okay. Well, I think his determination and my letter crossed in
the mail. I had no idea he had rendered a determination. This was supposed to be our
input on those issues reflecting the same issues that we had identified to the Planning
Board as to the reasons why the project remains too big, based upon a series of
misrepresentations to the Building Department, that Mr. Glandon is prepared to detail
tonight, which had the effect of creating the monstrosity that’s there. All right, now I want
to go back to one thing you said, however, Mr. Chairman. The desire to get this worked
out, and that has been our desire and we have met with the owners of Provident on
multiple occasions in an effort to work this out. We think we worked out a settlement of
the driveway issue, which you remember was tangential to this, but that’s contingent
upon them getting a septic system approved, and they’re having difficulty getting a septic
system approved in thin air in the cliff that they’ve left and where the garage begins, all
right. If they could get a septic system approved there, that settlement may go forward.
We went one step further. We sat down with them and Mr. Glandon is an engineer. He
understands these plans probably a lot better than the applicant’s consultants do, and he
came up with some very constructive suggestions as to how they could take down
sections of the building and make it comply with the new Code and we’d all be done with
this. That wasn’t acceptable to them, and so ultimately we had to go ahead with this
Appeal. So we made an effort to try and resolve this. The Appeal is very simple, and
unfortunately the one thing that continues to aggravate me about appearing before this
Board, it has nothing to do with this Board. Every time I come before this Board, I’m told
that issues are not properly before this Board. Well, you have to know that all of the
same issues that are addressed in my letter, and therefore addressed in our Appeal on
behalf of the Glandons, were brought to the attention of the Planning Board, and they
were all debated and they said, we can’t decide that. The Building Department has to
decide that. So they make a one sentence decision, and now we’re told that this Board
can’t hear any issues concerning the violations. Well, your Code says that you should
because the Code says that permits should be suspended or revoked where they’re
based on misrepresentations or they’re violated, okay. It’s as simple as that. You’ve got
88-16. You’ve got 179-17 dealing with misrepresentations. This case should have been
subject matter of an enforcement proceeding a long time ago. In every other town that I
do business with, they would have hauled these guys into court and said, you know, this
is a violation and they would have revoked the permit, and for some reason, we have a
Building and Zoning Department bending over backwards to take this oversized box that
was admittedly built in violation of the Code and the permit, and trying to say, okay, now
go ahead and make it better, and what they propose to do is cut a few feet off the top
and do this, and we’re not going to count, we’re not going to count the area over the
garage. We’ll put up a sheet rock wall and it won’t matter that somebody can come
along with a little saw (lost word) and cut that out later, and we won’t count any of the
basement space, even though the new Code makes it very clear that the basement
space has to be counted, and so you’ve got all these reasons why this permit should not
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
be in existence and it should be a do over. Secondly, you have this transfer. This is not
a situation, this is not a shell game where you get to play, I was listed as a contractor or
something on the permit, therefore I’m properly the owner now. The owner was listed as
Mr. Solomon. When we sued them, they criticized us for bringing in the other party.
They said Mr. Solomon was the owner. He was the record owner in the County Clerk’s
Office, all right, and now when they transfer it to Provident, all right, a new owner, that
was a deed, it’s recorded in the County Clerk’s Office, nothing could be simpler, nothing
could be clearer, they say, that really wasn’t a transfer because this is just an issue
dealing with permits.
ROBERT GLANDON
MR. GLANDON-It’s a new company, too, Provident Batavia. The other one was
Provident Development Group.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Let me do this, okay. We’re pretty short and succinct here in
what we’re going to do tonight, and what I would like to do is this. I know you have a lot
more to add. I know there’s probably going to be questions from Board members at the
same time also, but when we began this process, we were operating under the 2002
Code, and as everybody knows, as of March of this year, we adopted a new Code, and I
think that that new Code is representative of the fact that we really wanted to dial in,
when we ran into problems such as this building here, and all future buildings that are
going to be created on Waterfront Residential properties in Town, that we’re never going
to get into this situation again based upon the new Code, because I think the new Code
basically does count all that space, even if it’s crawl space, whatever it happens to be.
I’ll just say this for myself, and I’m not going to speak for the rest of the Board members.
Having been out to the site and looked at the site, I’m a little bit baffled by the fact that
here there were proposals presented to the Planning Board back in April, and it looks like
the Planning Board hit the ball back into your court and Dave Hatin’s court. You’re the
ones who are going to be making the ultimate decision as to what this building, what
happens to this building going forward, as far as bringing it into compliance. I don’t
understand where we’re at with that.
MR. BROWN-No. Well, I mean, that’s in the powers of the Zoning Administrator and
Building and Codes Director to determine, does it meet the Building Code requirements,
does it meet the Zoning Ordinance, but I think the direction was, why don’t you go back
and work with the Building and Zoning and Planning to maybe come up with some
alternatives to make this building compliant, and then come back to our Planning Board
and finish up the Site Plan. We don’t get into designing the building. They’ve come in
with probably a half a dozen different iterations of what about this, what about that.
Haven’t landed on any of them, and they’re still in the process of negotiating.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I was out at the site, and I’m going to make this statement, that I
walked down through the snow. I didn’t see anybody else’s footprints going down there,
to walk down in front to see what had happened. It looked to me like the windows had
been closed over. The sliding glass doors that access the lake are still down there in
front. My understanding is that the plan suggested that, just simply by closing off the
cellar, that that somehow was going to make that go away as living space down there,
that that was somehow going to alter the height of the building, but I thought that the
height of the building we had made that determination it was the natural grade on the
side of the building. It looks to me like we’re still looking at about a 35 foot tall building
from natural grade there, 31.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I’ve seen plans, conceptual plans, to remove five or six or seven feet
of the building to bring it into a compliant height. Obviously nothing’s happened. The
building is, and the construction is still under the Stop Work Order. So no construction’s
taken place on the building since we shut it down a couple of years ago.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But is there any kind of statute of limitations? Is there any goal in
mind like by such and such a date this building will have been changed to this form, you
know, so you can grant a CO?
MR. BROWN-Well, I don’t think that was part of the Zoning Board’s determination on the
last Appeal or any variances that were before this Board, and no other decisions have
been made. The Planning Board hasn’t ruled on the, hasn’t made a decision on the Site
Plan application yet.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know that we got into a musical chairs representation when we did
the Ritano case there, with the fact that we had to hear it five times before, you know, we
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
finally got an enforcement action done on that one. Are we looking at the same process
occurring on this, or are we going to try and get this done?
MR. BROWN-Well, I think the philosophy of our Building Department and Zoning
Department is, if we find something that’s in error, we’re going to give the applicant the
opportunity to correct that, whether it’s take it down and fix it and bring it into compliance,
or appear before a Planning Board and/or Zoning Board and try and get permission to
keep it that way. Put the breaks on, don’t do anymore work, and either decide what path
you want to take. In this case, the applicant’s chosen to try and get permission to keep
it. They got before the Zoning Board, were not granted that permission to keep the
height. So, like I said, they’re in the process of redesigning the building to bring it into
compliance with the Zoning Board ruling on the height, and they’re in the process of
having their Site Plan Review finalized with the Planning Board to deal with the site
improvement issues. So, how long will it go on? Until either the Planning Board makes
a decision, the applicant withdraws the application, or it’s denied. That will be a decision.
MR. URRICO-So if they, in their attempt to correct the situation, create another situation
that still needs a variance or is still out of compliance, that would fall under the current
Code, then, because it’s happening now?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. URRICO-No. So, that, to me, is the problem.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s the Section that I referenced in the Code there.
MR. URRICO-No, I understand that, but if, in trying to correct the problem, they
incorrectly correct the problem, then now we’re still dealing with the 2002 Code.
MR. BROWN-That’s my position. That’s correct. Yes.
MRS. HUNT-I have a question for Mr. West.
MR. WEST-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-What do you hope to accomplish by using the new Code versus the old
Code?
MR. WEST-Well, that’s an excellent question, and I think Mr. Underwood hit the nail on
the head, that there was a substantial effort by this community to tighten up the Code, to
prevent the gamesmanship on Floor Area Ratio, all right, and we want to make it clear
that you can’t just put sheet rock walls up and leave dormered areas over garages right
next to bathrooms that can be easily re-opened and turned into usable living space, after
the CO is granted and after the property is sold. We want all that area to count, so that
this oversized box and monstrosity that was created is sized appropriately according to
what the current Code requires. It’s very simple. Mr. Glandon is prepared to detail how
they have misrepresented what they’re going to do, built in excess of what they’re going
to do, misapplied common engineering techniques, in terms of measuring Floor Area
Ratio, to basically get themselves into this mess that they’re in, and I have
documentation from the Town of Clifton Park where the Town of Clifton Park is issuing
these same individuals and this same company tickets every week for a violation that
they created in the Town of Clifton Park following the very same type of gamesmanship,
and I’d like to actually make that submission now, so that it is part of the record.
MR. DRELLOS-That’s not submissible here. Why do we have to listen to that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-George, you’re not the Chairman. All right. Let me just say this, all
right. You can make a submission this evening. We’re not going to be privy to it
because, Number One, we haven’t had a chance to digest it, but for future reference, I
think it would be important for us to have that. I don’t have a problem with that. What I
would like to do is this, all right. Do you guys, at this point, have any questions or
concerns going forward as to what we’re doing here tonight? We’re not here to resolve
all the difficulties of this property in one evening. We’ve been asked to look at the Code,
and I have some questions that I want to ask, but I want to have you guys ask some
questions first, because I don’t want to monopolize.
MR. URRICO-Basically we’re just looking at the Appeal.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, whether the 2002 Code applies or whether this demands a
new look using the new Code based upon the questions that have been raised. Now, I
didn’t read into the record tonight some of the argument from the appellant, Mr.
Glandon’s side, and that is that this property did, so to speak, change hands. We’re not
privy to the information of what was filed up at the County, who originally filed to be the
major domo on this project, whether it was Mr. Solomon or whether he had these same
partners at the time. I really don’t know what the situation is. I would just be guessing if I
were to guess, but I think there’s a lot of red.
MR. WEST-He has the information, Mr. Chairman, because he has the original building
permit that was issued to Richard Solomon, and the builder is Provident Bay Road, LLC,
not Provident Development.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, I don’t know when these tertiary sideways companies,
you know, a lot of companies do this by just simply slight of hand for whatever reason
that happens to be, or whether it’s a legitimate cross reference to the same company. I
don’t really know. I don’t think, probably, Mr. Brown knows either. I think you’d just be
guessing if you were saying looking at the names there, but I think it’s important for us,
let’s just stop for a minute. I’m going to start with you, Brian. Do you have any questions
you want to ask at this point?
MR. BROWN-Well, Mr. Chairman, please keep in mind we have Attorney Buettner here
for the party, the property owners.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I don’t have a problem, and I’m going to give her some time,
to address the Board also. I think that’s important, too.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think all of us would like to see this thing resolved at some point in
time, but at the same time, I think it’s important for us to keep on task here. I don’t want
to see us get into a situation like we’ve been in previously where we have five different
chairman and five different boards sitting, making the same decision over and over
again, or if something’s not done to somebody’s liking, that they appeal to the Zoning
Board and you keep coming back 50 times to get exactly what you want. We’re
supposed to be looking towards resolution here, but I think it’s important that as Board
members you take it upon yourselves, I hope you read through everything you had from
before, plus the new stuff that’s here tonight, and I think it’s important for you to come up
with some questions, because we’re looking for answers here. So, Brian, do you have
anything?
MR. CLEMENTS-I guess I have, more than anything else, a statement, and I would say
this. First of all, and this is however this vote is going to go. I agree that this should
come under the old Code. However, in saying that, I also think that these problems that
haven’t been taken care of yet should be taken care of in a timely manner, and if they’re
not, I think there should be some penalty for that, and, you know, that’s kind of where my
stand is right now.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. My take on this is you still have the application. It’s still a valid
application. It’s still on the books, but when you have a building that’s built in violation of
Codes, and in the permit, it’s not, the permit is not, the permit that was issued is not for
the building that was constructed. Do you, at any point, now, revoke that permit? I don’t
understand. You said that you keep working with the people and you keep trying to
make changes and everything, but at a certain point, when there’s many, many things
happening and it goes over, do you revoke a permit?
MR. BROWN-Yes. That’s exactly the discretionary point that Mr. West and I are on
separate sides of the fence on. You can probably think back and name a handful, sitting
here tonight, how many after the fact variances have you guys seen? We built it too
close to the line, now it has to come for a variance. Well, we don’t revoke those permits.
They have the option to come and get it approved. Could we drag them into court and
say this is a violation? Sure. What’s the judge going to tell us? Have you asked the
Zoning Board for relief yet? So there’s no benefit to drag them into court and tell them
they’re in violation when the court’s going to send them here to have them ask for
permission first. So, do we every revoke the building permits? Not that I’m aware of.
We give them a chance to remedy it by either tearing it down, or seeking approval to
keep it that way. Historically. I mean, as far back as I can remember.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MRS. JENKIN-So I guess that’s my concern, because even, any changes that they’ve
made have not been changes that have changed the look of the building or the size of
the building or any of the things that were the concern.
MR. BROWN-And remember, the project is under a Stop Work Order, and it’s not, that
Stop Work Order is not going to be lifted until they come in with a plan that meets the
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance, the Floor Area Ratio requirements, and the height
measurement determination that was ruled by this Board, at the last Appeal, the natural
grade height measurement. So until those plans are submitted and they’re compliant
with all those requirements, there isn’t anything that’s going to happen to the building.
They can’t, it’s under a Stop Work Order.
MRS. JENKIN-And as you just said, there’s no statute of limitations. This could go on for
years and years and years.
MR. BROWN-At some point, I suppose, you know, they could withdraw an application or
a Planning Board could say, we haven’t seen any action on this in six months or a year,
we’re going to move to deny this without prejudice. I suppose they could do that, but if
the applicant is still progressing or still in negotiations with whatever, you know,
neighborhood disputes there might be in working out the ultimate end result to the
building, usually the Board, the Planning Board and Zoning Boards, have been very
gracious in allowing applicants time to work things out, resolutions.
MRS. JENKIN-Because the zoning, it was taken in front of the courts. The courts upheld
the zoning, zoning application, but you keep saying that it has to go back to the Planning
Board, but what about the.
MR. BROWN-They have to have a Site Plan Review approval, and that Site Plan Review
approval has to include all the conditions that may or may not have been put on it by the
Zoning Board as far as the height.
MRS. JENKIN-So really the Zoning Board doesn’t have anymore say in it until the
Planning Board gives their okay.
MR. BROWN-Yes, there’s no other issue before the Zoning Board on this project, other
than this Appeal. You guys have rendered your decisions. If they come back with a 29
foot tall building, they’ll be back in front of this Board requesting for a height variance, if
they can’t get it done in 28.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay, because we’ve given our decision, then we haven’t, we really have
no more say except for the application.
MR. BROWN-The Appeal that’s in front of you tonight. That’s correct.
MR. CLEMENTS-Can we, I guess this is a question to both the Chairman and Craig.
Can we say that if this is not resolved by a certain date that the permit can be revoked?
And in that case this would come under the new Zoning Ordinance if they applied again.
Would that be true? Would we be able to do that and then would that be true?
MR. BROWN-I wouldn’t suggest that you do that as part of this Appeal. If this Board, as
a Board, wanted to send a resolution to the Planning Board that says, we suggest you do
this with this pending Site Plan application, or we would request that you do this because
of whatever reasons, the timeliness of it, I think the Board could send that message to
the Planning Board if you want to, but I’m not so sure you want to tie it to the Appeal.
MRS. JENKIN-Why not?
MR. BROWN-Well, they’re two separate things.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. George, why don’t we go on to you.
MR. DRELLOS-Okay. My thought is this. If this permit started in 2002 and it’s still a
working permit, then I still think it should fall under the old regulations. Now, if there’s
violations, then I feel that it’s up to Craig or the Town to pursue legal matters to fix the
violations. I don’t think that’s our privy to do that, and I do have one question for Mr.
West . You said you tried to make a deal under the new Codes?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. WEST-It was not Code specific, sir. We came in. Mr. Glandon worked very hard to
come up with some suggestions. There’s a couple of issues here, and we never get to
see the complete picture. You’ve got the septic system issue, which is now, I think
there’s too little space to build a septic system. So there may never be.
MR. DRELLOS-By my question was, under the, you tried to make out a deal under the
new Codes.
MR. WEST-We made suggestions under either Code that would not be Code specific, it
would have been a settlement.
MR. DRELLOS-Okay. So you tried under the old Codes, too.
MR. WEST-Yes, that would have just said, if you downsize it, you may have to make
your garage smaller. You may have to do things that make it clear that there’s no
dormers, no permanent living space over the garage, and you have to substantially
reduce the height by changing, instead of having two living floors and a basement, that’s
perfectly capable of being occupied, you may have to eliminate one of those, and you
could smart size this to make a compliant building, and we would not have pressed the
old code/new code issue under that kind of resolution. That was rejected. They made a
settlement proposal to us that we couldn’t live with, but the bottom line is, we were left in
a situation where, when we went to the Planning Board, we said to the Planning Board,
you can really decide if the Site Plan is appropriate because we don’t know what size the
building’s going to be, because they haven’t applied for and obtained a modified building
permit for whatever they’re proposing to do. What they’re proposing to do is some minor
adjustments to the roof height, and the rest of it’s all interior, what I call Floor Area
gamesmanship. They don’t want to count the basement as living space, but it’s got walk
out space.
MR. DRELLOS-Well, my question was I just wanted to know if you tried to make a deal
or proposal under the old Code?
MR. WEST-Yes.
MR. DRELLOS-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-No questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-I don’t have any questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-No questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Then I guess what I’ll do is this. Why don’t we have the
other side come up here for a minute, because I’m sure she wants to give us a little bit of
her side of the coin here.
MR. GLANDON-Could I respond, if I could, to Mrs. Hunt’s question as to, you know, why
we were saying it should go under the new Code?
MRS. HUNT-Right. What would you gain?
MR. GLANDON-The latest that we can see, in terms of the Floor Area Ratio game, is to
not count the basement, all right, that’s currently there, with a nine foot ceiling and like
some walk-in and somehow ignore this large basement that’s at level, and so not have to
count that Floor Area. If they were under the new Code, there’d be no question they’d
have to count it because if it’s over five feet, you have to count it. So that’s one of the
biggest reasons is just to say that basement, guys, has got to count. You can’t ignore
this. Ignoring the basement, they end up with a house with two bedrooms. With their cut
down they take off part of the upstairs. They have a loft area up there, and then they
have one bedroom upstairs, a master bedroom downstairs. Two bedroom house coming
in with their calculations and ignoring, you know, calling stuff storage area, they get down
to the 4100 square feet. So 4100 square foot house on 100 foot of Lake George with a
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
four bedroom septic that only has two bedrooms. It’s a shell game, and so that’s why we
were thinking if you push to the new Code, and we think they’re required to go to the new
Code.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Karla, do you want to come up here, please. Thank you
for showing up.
KARLA BUETTNER
MS. BUETTNER-Thank you for letting me sit here and speak to you. I’m Karla Buettner.
I’m an attorney at Bartlett, Pontiff. I’ve been before you just a couple of times. They
usually don’t let me before you guys. They stick me in the courtroom, and I know your
time is valuable. I don’t want to sit here and re-hash a lot of things. I would request,
though, that I get a little more than the five minutes, just because we are the real
property in interest.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Absolutely.
MS. BUETTNER-Thank you. I’m not going to sit here and rebut all the arguments set
forth in the Appeal, and in Attorney West’s letter, because that’s not what’s before this
Board. What’s before this Board is old Code versus new Code, and old Code should
apply. Your new Code has a grandfather provision in it, and it’s there for a reason, and
it’s a three pronged provision. You have to have a valid approval or permit. It has to be,
if you’re going to go under the new Code, you’re going to be not in conformance, and you
have to have, with respect to this project, a foundation in before enactment of the Code,
and we meet all three of those things. There is no evidence in the record that this Board
or Judge Krogmann ever invalidated the building permit. Yes, Judge Krogmann and this
Board said you’re measuring height wrong, but it was not, the building permit is invalid.
That issue wasn’t even before this Board, and that issue wasn’t before the court,
because it was way past the statute of limitations to go after the building permit. So
that’s one thing. A couple of other things that they are bringing up is the ownership
issue, and, Chairman Underwood, you wanted a little clarity, and perhaps I can give that
to you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. I know that you submitted something this evening, and Roy
could read that into the record, too, also, if you wish.
MS. BUETTNER-He can, or I can just.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you want to summarize.
MS. BUETTNER-I can just explain it, and I have copies. I don’t know if you were able to
pass it out to the Board, but I have copies of that. It’s just a copy of the assignment and
the deed. Richard Solomon, James Quinn, Ken Rotondo. They are all business
partners. They have various entities, Provident Bay Road, Provident Development,
Provident Batavia. They have various entities, and when they purchased the property in
2005 from the Fowlers, they put the title in Richard Solomon’s name, but they were all
working on this, and as you are probably aware, both Ken and Jim have been intimately
involved in this project since the beginning. In April, Richard wanted to go to North
Carolina, so he transferred his interest to Provident Batavia, which is Jim Quinn and Ken
Rotondo. So the same parties that were involved in this from its inception continue to be
involved in it now. So it’s not really a change in, it’s a change in title, and contrary to
what opposing counsel says, we’re not saying it’s not a transfer of ownership. It’s a
transfer of ownership, but it’s really, and it’s not a shell game either. It’s, Richard had it,
Richard wanted to move on. He transferred it to his business partners, and if you look at
the deed, there’s no tax. So the consideration was one dollar. So we’re not talking
about an arm’s length deal where there was a lot of negotiations going on. Be that as it
may, the only issue before you tonight, and I think a couple of you have hit it right on the
nail. Does the old Code apply. We have a valid permit that hasn’t been revoked yet, and
Craig could correct me, but the permit itself has not been revoked, is my understanding.
Okay. So we meet the first one. We would be not conforming under the new Code,
perhaps under Floor Area Ratio, perhaps under the increase in permeability
requirements, definitely with respect to lot size. We don’t have a two acre lot. So we’d
meet the second criteria. The third one, that hasn’t really been contested. The
foundation was done, as maybe you said. That building was built. There was a lot of it
put on there. So there was a foundation that was done in 2007. Those are the, your
requirements in your Code as to whether this project is grandfathered in. So I’m happy
to address any of the other issues that this Board would like me to, but I don’t want to
take up all of your time tonight, and I know there’s other applications before you. One
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
thing I do want to address, though, that was brought up, and if you would indulge me for
one moment. The timeline, I guess, has been a little bit misconstrued. As Craig has
indicated a couple of times, we’ve been under a Stop Work Order for quite some time
now. We were given the opportunity to winterize a couple of years ago, but that was the
limit of the lifting of the Stop Work Order. We did not receive the Judge’s decision until
March of this year. Two months later, April or May, we submitted new plans. June we
modified the plans again. July, we’re at the Planning Board. August, Glandon takes the
Appeal that stays our, we can’t go any further on the Planning Board until this Appeal is
heard. So it’s not like we’ve been sitting around doing nothing, nothing, nothing. We’ve
been working since the Judge gave it’s decision to try and work with the Judge’s decision
and with this tribunals decision. So it’s not like we’ve been sitting around. We have
been trying to do things. I can sense this Board’s frustration, and I appreciate it, that
we’re going to be here again, and again, and there’s going to be lots of appeals, and
then it’s never going to end. It’s going to be, as someone said, Ritano all over again. I
certainly hope not, but, you know, I can’t speak for the Glandons. I can’t speak for the
Rosenburgs who live on the other side. I can speak for my clients that they would like
this to end. That they’ve been trying to get this settled, that they’re working, trying to
work with the Building and Planning Department and that at this point we’re kind of at
your mercy. If you put us under the old Code, we will continue to move forward and we
will bring it into compliance the best way that we can. If you put us under the new Code,
we’ll either bring it into compliance with the new Code or, you know, we have other
options, but I really think that Craig’s determination is correct, and I would respectfully
request that you guys uphold that, and I’m happy to take any questions.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to ask any questions, and I think we
should keep it on track here for the moment. We’re still looking at a public hearing here,
and I want to give the public time to address the situation here tonight. I think it’s
important.
MR. CLEMENTS-Just a quick question, and maybe a comment. After that Stop Work
Order, which you said you were able to winterize it, weren’t you also given permission to
deal with the water runoff?
MS. BUETTNER-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-Were there any other things that you were? Just those two things?
MS. BUETTNER-That’s my understanding. Yes. I don’t know, Craig, if you.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think when we issued the Stop Work Order the building was maybe
half shingled or had half of the windows in and we allowed them to just continue that, to
kind of protect what they had, and then, sure, any environmental issues where there’s
stormwater runoff problems, potential for, you know, sediment, erosion, we wanted them
to address that work on the site immediately, and they took care of those things. Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess, anybody else, any other questions you want to add?
MR. URRICO-If, in the perfect world, you were given the green light to go ahead tonight,
how long would it take to get this project completed?
MS. BUETTNER-I honestly can’t answer that question. The engineer is not here tonight.
I was under the impression he was going to be, but he’s not here tonight.
MR. URRICO-So in the time that you’ve been waiting for decisions to be rendered,
nothing has been discussed as to what can be done to bring this into compliance?
MS. BUETTNER-Well, that’s not entirely true. I don’t know who you would like to, mean
discussions with. There’s been discussions, internal discussions, amongst the partners.
There has been discussions with both neighbors on both sides, and Attorney West is
correct that we have been trying very hard, and actually we have come up with a very
good settlement for one of the issues, which is contingent on the other issue, but we
have been working at trying to make the neighbors happy and work within the Town
Board. It’s just, there’s a lot of parties involved, and the court’s a little slow.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else? Okay. I think what I’m going to do, then, is I’m
going to open up the public hearing here. So, anybody from the public wishing to speak
on the matter, raise your hand, please. Do you want to come up?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. The Lake
George Water Keeper is concerned about the determinations of the Town of Queensbury
regarding the non-compliant activities at 67 Knox Road, and the failure to apply the
updated Town of Queensbury zoning regulations. These actions have resulted in
negative impacts to the community and the environment, and we offer the following
comments for consideration by the Board. The applicable Code. The application for Site
Plan Review and variances was originally submitted in October of 2007. Nearly every
aspect of the original application has been substantially changed over the past 26
months, including building design, site development design information and most notably
the owner and applicant. Subsequently the Town of Queensbury has revised its Zoning
Code to affect all new projects after May 2009 to mitigate negative water impacts
resulting from development on waterfront properties. The Lake George Water Keeper
recommends the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to determine whether
this application should be considered as a new application and should be subject to the
new Zoning Code. Compliance with Town Code. Another disturbing aspect regarding
the development for 67 Knox Road is the significant non-compliance with Town Code in
regards to stormwater management, wastewater treatment, site clearing and
construction of a structure which was determined to be a violation by the Town Zoning
Board of Appeals and Supreme Court Judge. Additionally, the Planning Board has
required items to be addressed prior to the continuation of review that appear not to have
been met. These include the submission of consistent plans. Plans continually change
and do not match, address engineering comments and stabilize the site to prevent
erosion. However, significant construction has occurred on the site, and the application
somehow appears to progress through the review process, despite these continuing
issues. In summary, there’s been a significant amount of site disturbance, clearing,
alteration to the site, including construction of a residence, all without proper review and
approvals. As one note, we notified the Building Department I think the week that
clearing first happened, and sent pictures. That was the Friday before Memorial Day
2007. Another thing, we talk about a valid permit. I don’t see how you can have a valid
permit without knowing what you’re going to do with wastewater. That, to me, just
boggles my mind. So, we can talk that there’s a valid permit, but I don’t know how one
could have ever been issued. Unfortunately, the project was allowed to proceed in
violation of the previous Town Code, which has impacted the community and the lake.
Lake George Water Keeper recommends the Town Zoning Board require the project
application comply with the current Zoning Code, all items requested by the Planning
Board be required to be met prior to any additional review on the application,
consideration of the immediate removal of all non-compliant structures, and re-establish
the vegetation of the site. This will improve mitigation of the development activities at the
site, maintain the character of the community, and ensure that supporting infrastructure
will fit the site and protect the local environment and water quality of Lake George.
Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak on the
matter? Come on up.
PETER BROTHERS
MR. BROTHERS-Thank you. Good evening. I’m Peter Brothers, and our family has
owned the parcel down from the parcel at 67 Knox Road for almost close to 40 years,
and during the summertime, we have a lot of enjoyment there, swimming, recreating,
canoeing, what have you. I concur with, agree with the testimony from the Water
Keeper, Chris Navitsky, as well as Mr. West and Mr. Glandon, and we don’t want to be
swimming in other people’s wastewater, plain and simple, and I just don’t see how to
have this large structure. When I walk by there every other day, I look at this site and I
wonder how could anyone possibly think of putting something that’s compliant with the
existing structure? I think they need to start over again, and that’s all I have to say.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. WEST-One minute of rebuttal, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t you come up. Yes.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. WEST-Thank you. I just want to call to your attention one section of law, Section
88-13, entitled Issuance or Denial of Permits, Non-Transferability, Extensions,
Authorization of Inspections. Any permit granted hereunder shall not be transferable
except when the transfer is approved by the appropriate official, and any change, any
change in the activity, size, extent or type of operation, location, ownership, or use shall
require a new permit. You know that the original permit was issued to Mr. Solomon. The
contractor was Provident Bay Road LLC. We now have Provident Development as
receiving the determination because, according to their attorney’s own admissions, the
property was transferred. It doesn’t say it’s okay to do it among friends, and change
partnership structure. You have Mr. Solomon has the permit. He’s left for, I think,
Florida, not North Carolina. He’s gone. He is no longer here to build this building.
Provident Development has taken ownership after the effective date of the new Code.
This is exactly what was argued to the Planning Board and referred to Mr. Brown, and for
that reason, this permit is no longer valid and the new Code should apply.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess at this point I’m going to poll the Board members. I’m
going to start with you, Rich.
MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. For me, I’m referring right to the Code, and
179-17-050, any permit or approval granted under this Chapter, which is based upon or
is granted in reliance upon any material misrepresentation or failure to make a material
fact or circumstance known, by or on behalf of the applicant, shall be void. Basically the
changes made to this house in and of themselves have voided the permit. Anything they
want to do now is going to require a new permit.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. After reading everything from the West, and the Code, the Town
Code, I also agree that the permit that was given and was valid at the beginning is no
longer valid because the permit has not, it has nothing to do with the building that was
built, I guess. It’s modified. It’s been changed, and with the ownership, because the
owner’s name was on the deed, and now it is changed, I also feel that that’s another
reason why this permit should be revoked, and I think I would go with that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I would like to know from Mr. Brown if he’s consulted with the Town
Attorney on the change of, the transfer of ownership.
MR. BROWN-I have not.
MR. URRICO-You have not. Is that because this came in tonight, or is it something that
wasn’t addressed?
MR. BROWN-You mean with the deed that was submitted this afternoon?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. BROWN-I didn’t look at the deed. It was sent to the Zoning Board. So it’s not
something that would have played into my decision.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I would be in agreement with some of my fellow Board members. I
think there’s been a change in the permit and there’s been a change in the parties
involved in the permit, and as such, that negates the original permit, and in my mind, the
2009 Code should be applied here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Boy, this is a tough one. I’ll say that probably up to the point that Mr.
West brought up the ownership issue, I would have said that it would come under the old
zoning regulations. However, at this point I think I would agree with the rest of the
Board, that it should come under a new permit. My feelings before were that we should
vote on the Appeal and then do a resolution to the Planning Board, but my mind has
changed since this other issue has been brought up.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Thank you. I think because of the substantial misrepresentations and
the fact that the original permit was not complied with at all, I think the new Code should
apply.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George?
MR. DRELLOS-Well, I’ll disagree with all my fellow Board members. I’m going to side
with our Administrator. It should fall under the old Codes. I think you’re going to open
yourself up to more problems. People come in with mistakes, and what are you going to
do, pull all their permits? So I’m going to agree with the Administrator.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. To summarize here then.
MR. CLEMENTS-Could I say one more thing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. CLEMENTS-I just, and I had said that I would probably vote with the rest of the
majority of the Board on this. However, we have, in the past, had changes like this, not
quite as drastic and as many, but we have allowed a permit to go on, not that that may
be right or wrong. I’m just bringing it up the point.
MS. BUETTNER-Mr. Chairman, I’m aware that you’ve closed the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t want to get into cross arguments. My Board members are
making their statements.
MS. BUETTNER-I understand. I just had an actual law question.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s okay.
MS. BUETTNER-Fair enough.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Go ahead, Brian. Are you done?
MR. CLEMENTS-I’m done.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m going to summarize here as best I can. When occasions
like this occur, I always tend to look at them with a very open mind, and I know that, you
know, we have a lot of different entities involved here, between the Building and Codes
Department, the Zoning Administrator, the Planning Board, the Zoning Board, we’ve
even involved the court system here in this case, in this instance here. I think that,
throughout the process, it’s been very difficult to understand how we always get to these
points where we’ve gone so far around the bend that there’s almost no turning back. It’s
like you headed down the river and you went over the waterfall and there’s no way you
get back upstream again, and at this point in time, in looking at the situation, I’m thinking
back to Day One, the first time that we went out here to this site, and all of us spent time
here very early on. I don’t think any one of us went out to that site and wasn’t absolutely
appalled by the conditions that were the result of the initial work on this project. The
Water Keeper, in his representations to us very early on, had pictures, before and after
shots. I think everybody’s had an opportunity to look at the properties next door, and
when we made our first determination and it was appealed to the court situation there, I
think that, as far as the building height went, there was no way that we were going to
look askance at what was done here on this site here. I don’t understand how the
process gets so far gone along, when neighbors pointed out to the Town, nothing
happens, and I put that solely on your shoulders, as the Zoning Administrator.
MR. BROWN-Would you like me to explain it to you again, how it got so far along?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not pointing fingers or anything like that, Craig. I’m just saying.
MR. BROWN-You just pointed the finger.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that at this point in time, that the sole responsibility for this
process has to lie upon the shoulders of both the Building and Codes Department and
the Zoning Administrator. Whether you like it or not, I’m telling it like it is. Because if I
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
were in that position, if I were doing your job, I would not have allowed this to have
gotten to this point, and you can beat around the bush and say that, you know, I don’t
have any responsibility to go out and inspect sites, but the mere fact is that we’re all
responsible, as community members, whether we’re on a Board or not on a Board, and I
think at this point in time it’s reprehensible what’s occurred here, and I think that because
there’s been so little movement moving forward here, for whatever reason that happens
to be, the Judge basically told these people your building’s way out of violation here,
closing up the cellar isn’t going to solve this problem. The septic issues that have to be
resolved with the Planning Board. I think the best thing for us to do at this point in time is
that, if we remain under the old Code, we could probably work this out, but we’d be
running around like a merry-go-round for weeks and months and years before we
resolved it. So what I’m going to do is this. I’m going to ask that the Board members,
before our next meeting, each of you draft a statement that we’re going to send to the
Planning Board in regards to this project, and you can include anything that’s been
brought up, as far as I’m concerned. This is long overdue for fixing. It should have been
fixed a long time ago, and the Town should have just stopped it from Day One. It needs
to be resolved at this point in time, and I’m going to go with the majority of the Board
here, and I’m going to side with the fact that I think that the new Code should apply. It
should have to come in under the guise of a new permit, and at that point in time, we’ll
make the determination, with the Planning Board as the ultimate authority as to what
needs to occur to bring this building into compliance, and if it means taking off the
dormers and the roof, that’s going to happen, and you can shake your head, like you’re
somehow absolved from anything else, but that’s the way it is. So let’s vote as a Board.
Does somebody want to do the resolution?
MR. CLEMENTS-I think you should do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 4-2009 ROBERT & VICTORIA
GLANDON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Richard Garrand:
Regarding 67 Knox Road. The appellant was appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals
th
relative to an August 5, 2009 decision made by the Zoning Administrator regarding the
applicable Code to be used for the review of the pending application. In essence, the
th
filed appeal appears to address information other than the August 5 determination, as
Mr. Brown has pointed out, but all those different parts of the appeal, the appellant’s
September 30, 2009 application for an appeal from Zoning Administrator’s decision
papers, address many of the following terms that we have brought up and talked about
before, and that is building height, floor area ratio, prior violations, stormwater,
incompleteness, change in ownership, and other such grounds. It’s the appellant’s
position that the Site Plan application should be subject to the current 2009 Town of
Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, and they have provided many reasons, not just several
reasons, to support their position. Having listened to these reasons and having
deliberated amongst the Board members, the majority of the Board feels that the project
has changed significantly from the time it was first issued as a building permit, has
changed significantly during the building process, and has changed significantly since
being given a Stop Work Order that the new Code should apply to this building going
forward and that a new building permit should be applied for before any future work is
done. So we do feel that those items are ripe for appeal, including the other items that
were addressed here.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. CLEMENTS-Mr. Chairman, I think that maybe you should also add that there is a
new ownership issue.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Well, I did list that as one of the issues.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Sorry.
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. Drellos
MR. WEST-Thank you very much.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, we’re going to take a five minute recess here before we go on
to the next one. Thanks.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II THOMAS & STELLA KOLECI
OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR LOCATION: 315 CLEVERDALE ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT. SECOND GARAGE
AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT ONLY ONE GARAGE IS
PERMITTED PER DWELLING. CROSS REF.: NONE FOUND WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 12/9/09 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: YES, LG CEA LOT SIZE: 0.12
+/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-29 SECTION: 179-3-040
THOMAS & STELLA KOLECI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2009, Thomas & Stella Koleci, Meeting Date:
December 16, 2009 “Project Location: 315 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes the demolition of a 911 square foot seasonal cottage and
construct in its stead a 1430 square foot seasonal home.
Relief Required:
Applicant seeks relief from front and rear yard setbacks as well as relief from the Floor
Area Ratio requirements of the WR zone per §179-3-040.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor changes to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
move the house to the west in order to avoid the need for a front line variance to the
east. However, this action would lead to an increase in relief needed for the frontline
setback to the south. Concerning the FAR relief requested, the applicant could
reduce the size of the project by 298 square feet in order to be FAR compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 9 feet or 30%
relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the east property line may be
considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 22.7 feet or
76% relief from the 30 foot front setback requirement for the south property line may
be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for a 27.8% FAR
or 298 square feet of additional FAR relief from the requirements for this zone may
be considered minor to moderate relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
Additionally, the project does propose a compliant waste-water system and storm-
water controls that do not currently exist on site.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The limitations of the lot appear to
be a contributing factor for the need or variances.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
None Found
Staff comments:
The applicant states on the application that this is a seasonal dwelling and it is
understood that this new dwelling is also for seasonal use. If the home has a heating
source this structure will be considered a year round home.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
The applicant is proposing a new wastewater system and stormwater controls as a
component of this project.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. URRICO-I also have the Warren County Planning Board reviewed this project and
their recommendation is no action. Default approval due to lack of quorum of the Board.
No action was taken.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Mr. Koleci.
MR. KOLECI-Yes. Okay. Before we get into this, and I hope it doesn’t go as deep as
the other problem, I want to hand these out, basically to show what’s adjacent,
immediately adjacent, to my parcel, so that I’m really not, I’m going to benefit the area,
and not hinder it. Basically also I would like to add, right now our parcel, we can’t use it.
There’s some pictures up there, and we want to replace it. Now, up in this area, every
parcel needs a variance, and that’s why I’m here. So, I think maybe the best thing to do
is get into this, and see what we can do.
MR. OBORNE-Do you want the Board to ask you questions?
MR. KOLECI-Yes, sure. I’m open to it.
MRS. JENKIN-I have a question. Where do you park?
MR. KOLECI-I park on the side there. Where my shed is, there’s room for two, three
cars there.
MRS. JENKIN-On the grass?
MR. KOLECI-On the grass, yes. It’s all permeable. It’s all good ground.
MRS. JENKIN-Will you have room afterwards?
MR. KOLECI-Yes.
MRS. JENKIN-There still would be room? That’s where you park your cars?
MR. KOLECI-Yes. That’s why I did considerable planning on what I was going to do.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. KOLECI-And as my increase in the area, which is minimal, for the lot size, I’m going
up, within the legal limits. So I’m not really spreading out.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, as far as the test pit that needs to be done for the septic out
there, I mean, you’re pretty far from the lake at that point. Have we done anything
recently up there, as far as other new construction in the neighborhood? I just don’t
remember, I mean, looking at his picture.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. There’s a few up there. Shishik comes to mind.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s the last one I remember.
MR. OBORNE-And he is putting in an Eljen system. So, obviously it’s a smaller system,
a little bit more high-falutent, so to speak.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But that’s all above grade, too, the Eljen, right?
MR. OBORNE-Absolutely.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. OBORNE-I believe, I’m pretty sure the soil logs have been submitted.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean, on his drawing he just had proposed deep test, you
know, but I would assume they would be applicable. I mean, they’re not going to run into
any difficulties at that point.
MR. OBORNE-Well, you should have a reference drawing A-2 as part of your packet,
and the date is 9/9/2009. It’s something that we requested and it was submitted, and it
does have your soil log, separation distances.
MRS. JENKIN-So, the holding tank, that doesn’t mean that that has to go within the 100
foot distance?
MR. OBORNE-Correct, it’s just the leach.
MRS. JENKIN-It’s just the leach field.
MR. OBORNE-Right.
MRS. JENKIN-Thank you.
MR. OBORNE-And again, that’s my understanding.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s the public source of water up there? Are they all on a group
system?
MR. OBORNE-You’re on lake water?
MR. KOLECI-Yes. We’re on lake water.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Everybody drawing off the same system in the neighborhood?
MR. KOLECI-Yes, it’s been that way for years.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what I thought.
MR. KOLECI-Ever since, well, it goes back to when Alger Mason got the property.
Originally it was Ripley and then him, it goes back to the land grant of King George.
MR. CLEMENTS-Maybe I wasn’t paying attention here, but on this, right here you say
you’re getting your water from the lake.
MR. KOLECI-Yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-So is there a house out behind you that has a well?
MR. KOLECI-There is a house that they, to keep a well driller busy, he spent his spare
time up there drilling a hole, okay, and somehow or other, whether he hit water or
because of the depth of the hole, he’s storing water. There is a well, but that falls, I fall
within the legal limits.
MR. CLEMENTS-That’s where you have the 50 feet and the 100 feet that are on this?
MR. KOLECI-That’s right.
MR. CLEMENTS-Okay.
MR. KOLECI-All Codes, that’s their statement.
MR. GARRAND-That one and a half foot, is that included in the survey, the strip of land
between the road and the structure itself, is that included in the survey? Because
according to the deed, there is a deeded one and a half foot strip of land to the Town.
MR. OBORNE-No. I think that what we’re basing our quantification on is the Van Dusen
and Steves survey. So, as far as the one foot strip, that’s not shown on here. Is that on
Cleverdale?
MR. GARRAND-Yes, it’s on Cleverdale Road.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. OBORNE-Okay. No, that’s not included. So if it was I guess it would be less relief,
but it isn’t, so it’s more relief.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any other questions at this time? Okay. Why
don’t I open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter?
Why don’t you come up.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. Initially, we are not
opposed to the variances being requested. We just have a couple of considerations for
the Board. Regarding Floor Area Ratio, obviously it’s a planning tool to provide an
adequate area to accommodate requirements necessary to support development and
prevent exceeding the capacity of the site. If the variance is granted, additional
mitigation should be provided to compensate for increased pressures. When the
application was being read in, they referenced stormwater management. We did not see
that on the plan. We recommend that they be required to install stormwater
management, preferably through rain gardens. We missed that on the application. We
apologize for that. Second, we support the proposed construction of the new wastewater
treatment system, consisting of an absorption bed with Eljen in-drain systems. However,
we think there are a couple of aspects that should be reviewed, regarding the design.
First of all, all rooms that could become bedrooms in the future, such as dens,
expandable attics, porches, should be considered as bedrooms. There’s a den on the
second floor. So we recommend that the system be designed for a three bedroom
residence. Calculations should be required for the absorption areas. This is an
absorption bed, and not your typical trench design, and that lacks some side wall areas.
So we just think calculations should be submitted prior to the building permit, and that’s
our comments. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Any
correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-I think there was one letter. We do have one letter. It says, “Considering
the size, only 911 square feet, and condition of the existing building, it would seem that
the owner’s application to demolish this aging structure and build new is a reasonable
request. The addition of 519 square feet is not at all objectionable and it would finally
allow the owners a more comfortable use of their property. In addition, demolition of the
old and building of a new structure would greatly enhance the appearance of the
neighborhood. I have no objection to the owner’s application before the Board tonight.
Thomas A. Burke, 67 Mason Road, Cleverdale” That’s all.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Question for you, Keith. Now this is currently a seasonal dwelling.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s going to be on a slab, but it’s going to have a little crawl space
under it for mechanicals, I assume.
MR. OBORNE-Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All buildings have to be constructed to year round usage, I would
assume, in the Town of Queensbury. I know you’ve got to have two by six walls and
insulation like you’re going to live in them all the time anyway. Is there a sense that, as
designed, the septic system, that’s going to be functional in the wintertime because it’s
above grade? I mean, I don’t know how that comes into play.
MR. OBORNE-It’s my understanding that the applicant is using this as a seasonal
dwelling.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. OBORNE-They certainly can build a seasonal dwelling in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But I would think in the future if the property were to change hands,
if someone thought they were going to live there year round, they might be setting
themselves up for difficulties. With that system, I don’t think it’s designed for very cold
climates to be functional in the wintertime. It is and it isn’t.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. OBORNE-New York Building Codes has vetted that as a system that works. The
applicant is an engineer also. He would probably have better reason to use that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. No, I mean, I was just concerned, you know, it’s a pretty tight
fit out there.
MR. KOLECI-I’ll alleviate your concerns about it. We use that seasonal. We’ve been
going up there for the seasons, you know, long weekends and everything, and we’ve
been doing this for years, and now we can’t, and with reference to that den on the
upstairs, my son is in the area, and he likes to go up there, and upstairs he will have a
bedroom, and he’s not going to sit with us. Maybe I’ll call it a living area, okay, Chris,
you know, I mean, I realize that, you know, there’s a lot of items. Engineering is a study
of proved assumptions, but not all those assumptions happen, and in this case, I have no
intention of making that a bedroom, because I don’t want to support that many people.
We don’t have people up here anyway.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s what we worry about, though.
MR. KOLECI-Right, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would assume that there would be enough space there for it to be
designed for three bedrooms, if that was the request going forward.
MR. OBORNE-If there’s not a closet.
MR. KOLECI-There’s no closet.
MR. OBORNE-It’s not a bedroom.
MRS. KOLECI-We only go in, he’s got the garage.
MR. KOLECI-The past few years, yes, and, people, we’re very well received there.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Okay. Do you guys have any questions you want to ask?
MRS. JENKIN-I guess I do want to qualify whether the system could be designed for
three bedrooms? Do you know?
MR. KOLECI-No. Sensibly it can’t be used as a three bedroom. I mean, you know,
we’re not providing a gypsy caravan there.
MRS. JENKIN-If the house is sold, someone else might. You aren’t doing it.
MR. KOLECI-Yes, well, I don’t think they’ll let me sell it. I’m going to put my son on the
deed anyway. It’s his.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have any questions?
MR. URRICO-What about Mr. Navitsky’s question about the stormwater management?
MR. KOLECI-Well, now the new Code, they want gutters on the buildings, and so we’ll
direct the gutters to a stone pocket or stone channel, which is, that’s an approved
method of dissipating stormwater, a little geo textile fabric, and you’ve got a workable
system.
MR. OBORNE-Let me add to that, if I may. Chris is right. This is more of a discussion
that Tom and I had also about how to direct the water. Usually, as you know now, over
the years, I like to have trenches coming off of the roof, and we had discussed that, and
for some reason I thought it was in the plan, and I put it in my notes that it was. So I just
want to make that you understand that it was more of a discussion. If you could, as a
condition of approval, have him put some stormwater controls on that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
MR. KOLECI-That would be in building, in the building permit process to be indicated.
The whole thing, if I may interrupt, right now, you know, we don’t want to really waste a
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
lot of time, okay. Time is against us, our age, number one. Number Two, there’s only
certain months you can do work up there, sensibly, and we don’t really want to be a
burden to other people, you know, in the height of the summer when everybody’s up
there having a bunch of noise and everything else that’s going on with it. So, you know,
we’d like to really get started on this. I mean, you know, that’s why we’ve done perc
tests up there, and done a lot of preliminary work, and we can’t use the place now. In
fact, we emptied it. It’s almost ready.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anybody else have a question?
MR. CLEMENTS-I’ve got one for the rest of the Board. Does anybody remember what
the square footage was of the one that we did that was about, it’s in there now about
three or four doors down from there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-That was Shishik.
MR. KOLECI-Shishik, Serge, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Last summer. I think it was pretty similar, wasn’t it?
MR. OBORNE-Yes, it’s very similar.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s almost the same thing, with the open loft up there, the same
idea.
MR. OBORNE-Yes. I think you granted more relief, percentage wise, for that.
MR. KOLECI-Yes. He got a lot more percentage wise. I’m only getting, what, four
percent or something.
MR. CLEMENTS-He did. That’s why I asked, because I know that he had brought in
something that was larger before and we asked him to re-do.
MR. OBORNE-It was huge, yes.
MR. KOLECI-Yes. No, I’m asking for, what, about four percent over.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anymore questions?
MRS. JENKIN-No questions but a comment. My concern in that area, because of the
homes in the area that people would be putting up very large homes, tall homes,
because you said you were going up, and making it not conducive to the rest of the
neighborhood, and I think that the house plan that you have put forth here definitely does
fit in with the neighborhood.
MR. KOLECI-Yes. Thank you. Yes, you know, I tried, you know, right now at this point
to come up with something sensible.
MRS. JENKIN-That fits.
MR. KOLECI-That fits, and it wouldn’t have been a detriment to the neighborhood, and
as you can see, some of the renovations and new construction that’s been done there,
these are immediately adjacent to my parcel. They’re not skipping houses and, down
the road, right around me, they’re all good, clean looking houses, and then there’s that.
MR. OBORNE-No, I was pointing to the house behind you.
MR. KOLECI-Yes. The thing is that lot is probably nicer than a lot of the lots in the
center there. That’s probably one of the nicest lots.
MRS. JENKIN-It could be.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I’ll poll the Board members. I’ll start with you, Joyce.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MRS. HUNT-Yes. My first reaction was that you were increasing the size by about 63%,
64%, but it was really very small to begin with.
MR. KOLECI-It was small.
MRS. HUNT-And the pictures you gave us showing the homes around you, your new
home will be much more in keeping with the neighborhood.
MR. KOLECI-Thank you.
MRS. HUNT-And so I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I think I gave my comments already. I think that it’ll be a very, very
positive change in the neighborhood. I think the house will be definitely better than what
it is, and I think that you need to have that. So I would be in favor of the variances.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George?
MR. DRELLOS-I would be in favor of this application. It’s a cottage style house, fits in
with the neighborhood very well, and it gets rid of the house that’s there, which is kind of
an eyesore now and unlivable. So it’s a good application. I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think I’d agree with the rest of the Board. I don’t think it’s
substantial. There are some other ones, I know there’s one other one up there that we
downsized that I was talking about before, and I think it’s about, around the same square
footage as this one. So I’d be in favor of this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I think when you take into account the criteria, I think rather than an
undesirable change, we’re talking about a desirable change here. I think the applicant,
because of the benefit sought, there probably would not be another way for him to get to
this point, even though it appears excessive proportionately, in the percentage wise,
because of the size of the property, it’s certainly not reflective in terms of what the
building’s actually going to do, and I think the Area Variance seems substantial also
because of that size as well. The physical or environmental conditions are minimal, if
any at all, and I think the alleged difficulty is created because of the size of the property.
So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I often wondered, when I was up there, whether it was your house or the
house next door, around August, you know, you could smell things emanating from that
area, but, that aside, I think it’ll be an improvement. Any new septic system in that place
would be an improvement, because a lot of those septic systems are just not up to par.
MR. KOLECI-Yes. A lot of, well, there’s a lot of them up there that are old, conforming
use, and I can tell you, there’s people up there that have systems that they don’t even
know where they are.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. To finish up, then, I’ll agree with everybody else. I don’t
really have a problem with this one, even though it’s asking for more relief than we
usually grant in some cases. I think we’re sort of in a situation like we are at
Takundewide, you know, where we sort of adopt, you know, what’s a reasonable size
that can be accommodated on site, and as long as the septic’s going to work, I mean, I
don’t really have a problem with it. no one wants to keep the old camp that was in long
need of replacement, and it’ll allow you to use it and utilize it, and hope you get lots of
years of enjoyment out of it. So, does somebody want to take this one?
MRS. JENKIN-I could do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2009 THOMAS & STELLA KOLECI,
Introduced by Joan Jenkin who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
315 Cleverdale Road. The applicant proposes the demolition of a 911 square foot
seasonal cottage and construct in its stead a 1430 square foot seasonal home. The
relief required, the applicant seeks relief from front and rear yard setbacks, as well as
relief from the floor area ratio requirements of the WR zone per 179-3-040. In making
the determination, the Board shall consider the balancing test of the five considerations.
Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of the Area Variance.
Actually, the demolition of the existing home and the building of the new home will be
actually a desirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Whether the benefit
sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to
pursue other than an Area Variance. Because of the lot size and everything in the same
area is nonconforming, there is no other way to actually achieve the building of this new
home. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. Again, because it’s a
nonconforming, it’s a small lot, to build anything in this area, it would be fairly, the
request is fairly substantial, but it can’t be avoided. Whether the proposed variance will
have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. It will actually be a positive effect, and environmental
conditions will be improved by the new septic system and the stormwater controls that
you’re going to put in. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. Because they
cannot use the home now, and they want to still use it as a seasonal home, it has been
self-created, but they need to do this. One condition for the granting of the Area
Variance will be to include the stormwater management in some form, some acceptable
form. So I move to approve Area Variance No. 68-2009.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Jenkin,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. You’re all set. Good luck.
MR. KOLECI-Okay. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II ALEX & LINDA ALEXANDER
AGENT(S): DELWYN MULDER OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: MDR LOCATION:
667 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 24 FT.
SECOND GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE REQUIREMENT THAT ONLY
ONE GARAGE IS PERMITTED PER DWELLING. CROSS REF.: WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING: 12/9/09 LOT SIZE: 3.19 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.10-1-52
SECTION: 179-5-020D
DELWYN MULDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2009, Alex & Linda Alexander, Meeting Date:
December 16, 2009 “Project Location: 667 Ridge Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 576 square foot two stall detached garage.
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from Section 179-5-020 D for a second garage.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts to nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
pursue expanding the existing garage in order to accommodate additional vehicles.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional
garage or 100 percent relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 04-764 Septic Alteration
BP 04-661 Pool
BP 04-531 1,044 sq. ft. residential alteration
Staff comments:
The applicant’s agent states that family members are incapable of clearing snow and ice
from automobiles. Further, it is stated that the automobiles will be secure if parked in a
locked garage.
The parcel currently has a two car attached garage
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. UNDERWOOD-So, Mr. Mulder, anything you want to add?
MR. MULDER-The only thing I would, just to add a little more information to the
application. Alex Alexander is a pilot for Continental Airline, and he flies out of Newark
and he’ll be gone, they fly. They don’t, it’s not an eight to five job, so he’s gone quite a
bit, and his wife and two daughters, who I happen to know, are left home alone, and
wintertime’s are very tough on them, and they would like to have a garage. They feel
that that would alleviate a lot of their snow and ice issues.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you guys have any questions at this time?
MRS. JENKIN-Your house is currently for sale, or not yours, but the house is currently
for sale?
MR. MULDER-No, not that I know of.
MRS. JENKIN-I thought I saw a For Sale sign in front of it.
MR. OBORNE-There is a realty sign in front.
MR. MULDER-Okay. I’ll stand corrected.
MR. URRICO-Has there been any consideration given to expanding the current garage
to accommodate additional vehicles?
MR. MULDER-I spoke to them about expanding the original garage. I think the problem
is you have the old farmhouse, and to expand the garage is, it’s going to take away from
the charm, if you will, of the house that’s there, if nothing else, and I think if they
expanded, you can’t expand the garage in the one direction because there’s a pool in the
back, behind it, with a fence, and I also believe expanding it out front may, if I remember
correctly, put you within that 75 foot setback from the road, on Ridge Road, 75 foot
setback.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree. I would think it would sort of overwhelm the house if
you wanted to put that garage on there, that 24 by 24. Any other questions from you
guys?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MRS. JENKIN-This is a metal garage, is it?
MR. MULDER-No, it’s a wooden garage. It’s a prefabricated wooden garage that they’re
proposing .
MR. UNDERWOOD-Like T-111 on the outside, it kind of looks like that metal siding.
MRS. JENKIN-Yes, it does. That was my problem with it. It really isn’t in keeping with
the character of the home. Because the home is a historic home, and the garage doesn’t
look like that.
MR. MULDER-I have no comment on that. This is the garage. They’ve seen the garage.
It’s offered by Garden Time, and it’s a prefabricated garage. I’m looking at it. It has two
by four wall construction, and with a floor, I think it’s two by six, floor joists.
MRS. JENKIN-Do you have a color photo of that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you got this one, Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. That’s not in color.
MR. MULDER-Yes. This is the garage, except it’s (lost word) color.
MRS. JENKIN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Do you know what the plans are for the current garage, if this gets
approved, what we’ve done with that?
MR. MULDER-It’s going to stay a garage. They have four cars, and it’s a two stall now,
and there’s always at least three cars there. The garage they have now, they went
through this house from top to bottom when they bought it and renovated it, and they
have all the plans with the Town. One of the things that they were required to do is to put
sheet rocking on the interior walls of the garage, and by doing that, they can barely open
the car doors the way it is, the garage is so small.
MR. OBORNE-They have three-quarter inch sheet rock because of fire retardant, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Fireproof. Okay. If there’s no more questions, I guess I’ll open up
the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence?
MR. URRICO-I did not see any correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
MR. URRICO-I take that back. “In reference to the attached application, I have no
objection to the granting of this variance as described.” It’s Peter J. Cartier, 704 Ridge
Road.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll close the public hearing, then.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess I’ll poll you guys. I’ll start with you, George.
MR. DRELLOS-Yes. I think, being this is in a rural setting. It’s on three acres, kind of
goes with the old style like a farmhouse, always was a detached garage, in this case,
years ago, and that’s just the way they were built. So I would be in agreement with this
application. I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I don’t think this request is too outlandish. I don’t see the undesirable
change it’s going to cause in the neighborhood, given the location of the garage and the
size of the lot. So I’d agree with Mr. Drellos.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Brian?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I think it meets the criteria. I think that they need it. The garage
that they have is very small. I don’t necessarily know if I’d pick something that looked
like that, but I guess beauty is in the eyes of the beholder, but I’d be okay with this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I think my basic problem with this request, and I’m probably going to be in
the minority on this, but we have this brand new Code, and they had an opportunity to
set a minimum amount of acreage in terms of what should be a two car garage as
opposed to a one car garage, and they didn’t change that, even though we’ve had a
number of requests over the years. So the committee that reviewed the zoning code had
the opportunity to say, well, if it’s more than three acres, we can make a two car garage,
we have enough room, but they didn’t do that. They kept it the same. They didn’t
change that Code. So now we’re left, again, you know, with making that determination,
well, what constitutes enough acreage for a two car garage as opposed to a one car
garage, and we still keep getting these applications, and we keep saying, it’s okay,
because they have enough property there, but I don’t think they, I think, in making the
new Code they had the opportunity to change it and they didn’t. So, in my mind, this is
100% relief, that no matter what the reasoning is, sometimes we have to take a closer
look at it, and I think there’s an opportunity to expand that garage. There are some
designs that would make it expandable and still keep it in character with the character of
that building and that area. We’ve seen that happen. So, I’m going to say no, based on,
I think it changes the character of the neighborhood, in the sense that it changes the
Code, and that if we do enough of these, that eventually we’re going to say that de facto
standard for anything above three acres is two cars, rather than a one car garage, and I
think the benefit to the applicant can be achieved by some other method. I think the
request is substantial, and as far as the physical impact, I don’t think there’ll be one, and
the difficulty is sort of self-created. Not every residence needs to have a two car garage.
So that’s their decision. I’d be against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Well, while it is 100% relief that’s requested, it’s really a modest size
detached garage, and it is a three acre piece of property, and I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. There’s a couple of considerations that I feel are important, and I
think that the neighborhood, I think there would be an undesirable change in the
neighborhood because of the type of the garage that’s been chosen. I don’t think that is
in keeping with the home at all. It probably would be able to be seen from the road, and I
just don’t think it would fit in well in that area at all. I think there are other means feasible
that can be used to expand the garage that it’s on, or to make another addition that
would give them more room and what they need. So I would be not in favor of this
application.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’m basically in agreement that, you know, I would allow this
garage, but I would like to see some kind of screening put up between the road and the
garage. I think that’s a reasonable assumption on our part that, you know, if we’re going
to allow these things, they don’t have to be out there for everybody else to see, you
know, as if they’re saying, well, how come they got an extra one. I think in most
instances on large parcels that we have granted extra garages, when, you know, they’ve
made a good argument for them. Certainly, you know, they have the need for a garage,
and I would call the garage that’s there now a minimal two car garage, you know, as you
say, it’s hard to open the doors and even get around there. I can’t imagine trying to walk
through that garage when both cars are parked in there. It must be pretty tight. You
must have to all get in from one side only, because you’re certainly not going to open up
on the wall side. So, I would go along with it. However, whoever does this one, I would
like to see some screening on the back of there. A garage doesn’t have to be out in plain
view of passersby, and I think, you know, what you’ve tried to achieve with the home and
everything else on the lot looks nice, and, you know, maybe consider what you’re going
to do as the design on the garage to make it fit in. I assume it’s going to be white like the
rest of the buildings.
MR. MULDER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-At least at this point. So does somebody want to take this one?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MRS. HUNT-I’ll take it.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2009 ALEX & LINDA ALEXANDER,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by George Drellos:
667 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 576 square foot two stall
detached garage. The applicant requests relief from Section 179-5-020D for a second
garage. In making this determination, the Board shall consider: Will their be an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties. I think there’ll be minor impacts. I think the fact that it’s a three acre piece of
property and the garage will be quite a ways away from the road. The benefit could have
been achieved by expanding the existing garage, but I think the applicant has made a
good point that this is really the best solution. The request is substantial, 100% relief is
considered severe to the Ordinance. Whether the variance will have an adverse effect
or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and
I think there’ll be minor effects to the physical or environmental conditions, and the
difficulty is self-created, but we’re putting a condition on that there should be some
screening around the garage to screen it from the road, arborvitae or more white pine
trees, vegetative screening. So I move we approve Area Variance No. 69-2009.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
MR. OBORNE-Any specifics on that screening?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would leave it up to them, arborvitae or more white pine trees like
you already have along there. I mean, I think that would be my suggestion, just to make
it so it’s less.
MR. OBORNE-So vegetative screening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, vegetative, you know, and anything’s going to grow up and
shield it and, you know, so it doesn’t even look like it’s there.
AYES: Mr. Drellos, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Urrico
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
MR. MULDER-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2009 SEQRA TYPE: II MARGARET FOOTE AGENT(S):
MULLER & MANNIX, PLLC OWNER(S): SAME ZONING: WR LOCATION: 84
EAGAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES RENOVATION A 384 +/- SQ. FT.
EXPANSION AND OCCUPANCY OF AN EXISTING STRUCTURE AND SEEKS
RELIEF FROM THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE WR ZONE THAT ALLOWS
ONE DWELLING UNIT PER 2 ACRES. CROSS REF.: SP 39-02; TB RES. 287, 09
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: 12/9/09 LOT SIZE: 6.03 +/- ACRES TAX MAP NO.
309.17-1-3 SECTION: 179-3-040
DAN MANNIX, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Area Variance No. 70-2009, Margaret Foote, Meeting Date: December 16,
2009 “Project Location: 84 Eagan Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes converting an existing commercial structure into residential housing. The
parcel currently has a single family home on premises.
Relief Required:
Applicant seeks relief from the density requirements of the WR zone that allows one
dwelling unit per 2 acres.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the
neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of
this area variance. Minor impacts on nearby properties are anticipated as a result of
this proposal.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,
feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The applicant could
consider expanding the existing single family dwelling.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional
dwelling or 100% relief may be considered severe relative to the ordinance.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.Minor impacts on the
physical and environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-
created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 09-0412 384 sq. ft. residential addition Pending
BP 03-0983 Septic alteration Approved 12/2/03
BP 03-0849 576 sq. ft. commercial interior alteration to garage Approved 11/13/03
SP 39-2002 Winery Approved 10/15/02
BP 88-0203 Garage Approved 12/1/88
Staff comments:
The property was approved as a winery in 2002 (Site Plan 39-2002). It has been
ascertained that the project was not developed to its full extent.
The structure that the applicant proposes to renovate and expand was the proposed
Wine Tasting building component of the business. The expansion totals 384 square feet.
The structure is intended to be occupied as a residential dwelling and has a separate
wastewater system that is currently used in conjunction with the previously proposed
Winery and barrel storage structure’s floor drains. The Zoning Board may wish to place
as a condition of approval that the winery drain(s) associated with the storage unit be
decommissioned in order for the wastewater system be a stand alone system for the
proposed residence.
SEQR Status:
Type II”
MR. URRICO-And then the Warren County Planning Board reviewed this application and
found, their recommendation was no action, but it’s a default approval due to lack of
quorum of the Board. No action was taken.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys want to fill us in?
MR. MANNIX-Good evening. Dan Mannix with Margaret Foote and David Bogue. Ms.
Foote just wanted to read something to you from her comments first, and then we’ll get
into a couple of things I think might need to be changed.
MARGARET FOOTE
MS. FOOTE-Obviously I’m nervous. I’m not used to being in these situations in this
capacity, but I just wanted to read something that I wrote down, just to get you to
understand where I’m coming from. I’m not seeking any personal financial gain from this
variance. Previous zoning was Light Industrial up until September, and at that time, the
building had, back in 2004 I believe, it was for a wine tasting retail room. Before that it
had been a hair dressing salon, and my understanding is it had been inhabited at one
time, too. The new proposed occupation of it or use of it was for a single family dwelling,
which will afford David’s son the opportunity to live on his own. He’s disabled, and he’ll
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
have the security of us next door. It’s perfectly compatible with the property as it was
changed, which is three acre Waterfront Residential. There’s no water.
MR. MANNIX-Or any of the other properties on that side of Eagan Road.
MRS. JENKIN-Why is it considered?
MS. FOOTE-We thought that was all we needed to do, so we went and asked for it to be
changed. It wasn’t changed in the zoning to residential. It was left Light Industrial. So
then when they came back, they came back with three acre Waterfront Residential,
which we were told was fine, and we filed the permit, and this is what they said we had to
do.
MR. UNDERWOOD-At least you can hear the boats on the river from there.
MR. OBORNE-In order for you to put a residence on that parcel, it had to be re-zoned
Waterfront Residential. The properties that are adjacent to it are Waterfront Residential.
So it’s logical.
MS. FOOTE-Well, actually they’re not. The one to the left of me is residential one acre.
They’re all, except the ones to the right. The four acre you did make Waterfront
Residential also, and there’s no waterfront.
MR. OBORNE-And I think just the whole intent was to get it so it’s a residential lot, so
you can put an additional residence on it. You still would have to come before the Board,
regardless.
MR. MANNIX-Just a couple of things to point out, if you haven’t noticed in the
application, the former owner that had the wine business, it’s actually a two car garage,
it’s not a wine storage area. We may have a picture of it as well. It’s clearly a two car
garage. There’s nothing inside to tell you otherwise. There’s no bathroom facilities.
There’s a drain because two prior owners used to like to wash, (lost words)liked to wash
his cars in the winter. There is a utility sink as well. So the impact from that on the new
approved modern septic system is very minor. It’s not utilized by these folks to wash
their cars or anything. It just happens to be there.
MS. FOOTE-I have the picture actually from the realtor report from the Town, which
shows you all of the buildings that are on the front of the property.
MR. GARRAND-How many total buildings are on the property now, residences?
MS. FOOTE-Just the one.
MR. MANNIX-One residence.
MS. FOOTE-It’s a log cabin, and then there’s this property, but there’s other buildings.
MR. MANNIX-Well, there’s a barn, there’s a former horse barn that’s on the property that
has a number of stalls in it. There’s, I believe, a shed as well.
MS. FOOTE-There’s a shed, which was a pool shed, but we filled the pool in. There is a
two car garage behind, which you can see in one of his pictures there. That’s an old
picture. There’s no pool anymore. You can see that the, the one in the front you can see
is the pool, then the cabin, which is a log cabin, and then the little house that we call a
cottage, and then over to the left is a 12 stall horse barn because it was horses. The two
lots were, at one time, back in the 80’s, were 10 acres, horse farm, and it got split by the
Fisher’s and the Richardson’s, and the Richardson’s took the property next door, the four
acres, and built a home, and then they put a mobile home on there. So that is two
residences on that four acres, to the left of my property, and then to the right of my
property there’s now a house that was put in that little pie shape there, and all to the right
is all residential. To the left was changed under the new zoning to Waterfront
Residential.
MR. MANNIX-And just to recap, and the structure itself, it’s already set up with heating,
with a bathroom, with a kitchen area, with the previously approved septic system, and a
living room. The only portion that the addition is for is to put a bedroom in, and it’ll
accommodate some appliances in the kitchen area. The sole purpose for doing this,
again, is to allow Mr. Bogue’s son to live independently. He’s 39 years old. He’s under
disability. He works part-time and can’t afford living on his own. Mr. Bogue has always
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
paid for his apartment when he lived on his own. There’s been a number of health and
safety issues with him living away from family members for any length of time. The idea
of allowing him to come back to the property and putting an addition on the existing
single family dwelling was considered, but it’s a log home. It’s extremely difficult to do.
Second, and more importantly, as I said, the young man is 39 years old. You’d have to
put on another bathroom, another living room, another bedroom, to allow him some
semblance of living independently, and not under his father’s rule, and I think that’s
probably the most important thing here. It’s not done with any intention of renting it or
having any kind of income. It’s solely to provide him an opportunity to live independently
and come and go as he pleases to a certain extent I guess.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from you guys?
MR. URRICO-An alternative could have been subdividing the property, right?
MS. FOOTE-I asked people, and this was.
MR. URRICO-I mean, either way you would have had to come for a variance.
MR. OBORNE-Yes, I don’t think there’s enough road frontage for a subdivision.
DAVID BOGUE
MR. BOGUE-Well, if you look at the way the property and the buildings are structured,
the property has morphed over a number of years with a number of different owners, and
I think certainly there were things that were done, you know, in terms of putting patios or
putting a shed on, and then that encroached on the other building. So you really couldn’t
get a clean line anywhere among these buildings, and we had explored that, in talking
with a number of people. We still would have had to be back here and this solves, we
believe, a number of different issues, and the first and the foremost was trying to give my
son some housing and keep him close to us, but it also is in keeping with the
neighborhood. We’re putting on nothing more than a 10 by 12 bedroom on the end of
this cottage. We had the building inspectors review the plans and everything and they
said that, you know, it was all in keeping with the existing structure, and frankly it’s an
upgrade. I mean, since Margaret and I moved in to the property, we’ve done a
substantial amount of work in improving all of the buildings on the property and trying to
bring the property, it’s an improvement to the neighborhood. So this would just be in
keeping with that.
MRS. JENKIN-Is the horse barn used now?
MS. FOOTE-We have combined two families, and our kids, David has three and I have
two, and as they move different places, they store, the stalls are filled. If you need
anything, we might have something.
MRS. JENKIN-What a wonderful place to put. Now the bathroom, you said there is an
existing bathroom in it.
MR. BOGUE-There is, yes.
MRS. JENKIN-And you’ll be improving on that will you?
MR. BOGUE-There’s no improvement really necessary in the cottage.
MS. FOOTE-We have a sink to put in.
MR. BOGUE-Well, we’ll put a new bathroom sink.
MRS. JENKIN-But there’s already a shower, everything that’s necessary.
MR. BOGUE-Shower, toilet, closet, yes.
MR. CLEMENTS-So basically all you’re adding is a small bedroom.
MS. FOOTE-A bedroom, and then the back of the bedroom will be for the furnace, and
then we hope to put a washer and dryer into it, for him.
MR. BOGUE-Just a small utility room, which keeps the building, in other words, we have
24 feet of siding on the house, and we’ve designed it so that the front part will be a
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
bedroom, and then there’s a five foot utility room that will go across the back of that. So
the building doesn’t change shape at all. It just gets a little bit longer.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from you guys? All right. I guess I’ll open the
public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any correspondence, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Okay. This says, “I am writing in response to a letter I received regarding
a zoning variance request by Ms. Margaret Foote on 84 Eagan Road. It is my
understanding that she’s planning to place an addition on a building on her property. I
am writing to inform you that I support her application and find no reason why she should
not be able to do so. There will be no foreseeable impact on anyone in the
neighborhood. Please consider her application for the zoning variance in a favorable
way. Thank you. Sincerely, Edward Bogue, 79 Eagan Road” “I am the owner of 145
Eagan Road in Queensbury. I received a notice that Margaret Foote, a neighbor of
mine, who lives on 84 Eagan Road, wishes to put an addition on a building on her
property. I’m writing to inform you that I have no opposition to her request for a variance
to accomplish her planned addition. In fact, I see no impact whatsoever to the
neighborhood. I know her purpose is to provide housing for a disabled person, and I find
this to be a positive undertaking. Thank you. Sincerely, Brian Bozelle, 145 Eagan
Road.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Whatever happened with the winery, it never came to fruition?
MS. FOOTE-The vineyard is still there and I haven’t had time to do much, but the
vineyard’s still there, so I, there’s some grapes left that I guess there was about an acre
and I‘d say there’s about a half an acre due to my not being able.
MRS. JENKIN-So how long ago were all the grapes and everything producing?
MS. FOOTE-They weren’t ever. They never.
MRS. JENKIN-They just put it in and it.
MS. FOOTE-Right. Yes, it’s sad.
MR. BOGUE-It just never got off the ground at all. Margaret makes terrific jam now.
There’s nothing to produce anything with.
MS. FOOTE-That’s out of the front yard there’s concords.
MR. OBORNE-And just as an aside, a winery, I have a little experience with it, because
of my agriculture background, it’s very labor intensive. It’s one of the most labor
intensive agricultural activities there is. You’ve got to cut everything back every year.
MS. FOOTE-Yes, but my understanding, I read a lot of the stuff, the hearings and things,
and they had vineyards out in the western part of the State. So I think they thought they
could do.
MR. OBORNE-There are certain varieties that you certainly can plant, that’s for sure.
MS. FOOTE-No, but I mean, these people that had it had some experience, but I don’t
think they had the time.
MR. OBORNE-Exactly.
MR. URRICO-It’s becoming very popular along Lake Champlain, too, on the Vermont
side of Lake Champlain it’s becoming very popular.
MS. FOOTE-The wine growing’s not dead. I’m going to try when I retire.
MR. DRELLOS-Keith, can I ask you, now this is commercial, that building, is that what it
was?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, it was Light Industrial now, prior.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
MR. DRELLOS-So a winery is considered Light Industrial?
MR. OBORNE-No, they had to get a Use Variance for that.
MR. DRELLOS-So that would go away, obviously, with this? Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I think it just expired because they never acted on it.
MRS. JENKIN-Well, it sounds like your property has a lot of potential. If you don’t do the
wine growing, you could actually board horses. You could do all kinds of things.
MS. FOOTE-Lovely piece of property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Do you guys have anymore questions regarding, anymore
comments? All right. Then I guess what I’ll do is I’ll poll the Board and I’ll start with you,
Brian.
MR. CLEMENTS-I think this is a good project. It’s not a big change to what exists there
now. I think it’s a reasonable request, and I don’t think it would have any impact to the
neighborhood. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joan?
MRS. JENKIN-Yes. I also agree. I think that there’s, it passes all the criteria that we’re
supposed to agree to, and it is a good project, and it sounds like it’s a wonderful solution
for your son. So I would definitely be in favor of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-George?
MR. DRELLOS-I would agree. This is one of these projects that you just feel good
about, that fits, and meets all the criteria, and I would be in favor of this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Rich?
MR. GARRAND-I think this one definitely passes the balancing test. I would be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Joyce?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. You’re not adding a
new building. It’s very admirable reason that you want to do this. I’d be in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I actually cringed when I saw this because the second principle residence
on a piece of property which is probably the rarest kind of variance that we provide, but
in actuality we’re talking about adding some space onto a building that’s already there.
So I don’t have any problems.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. As far as I’m concerned, it’s like utilizing what you already
have, and if you can accommodate a handicapped person, that’s great. It’s not going to
be any burden on anybody. It’s going to relieve you, let you still live your own lives at the
same time, which is what it’s all about, too. So I’d be in favor of it. Does somebody want
to do this one? Anybody not done one?
MR. CLEMENTS-Yes, I’ll do it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Sure.
MS. GAGLIARDI-I think, Mr. Chairman, you need to close the public hearing.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2009 MARGARET FOOTE,
Introduced by Brian Clements who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
84 Eagan Road. The applicant proposes converting an existing commercial structure
into residential housing. The parcel currently has a single family home on the premises.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
The relief requested is applicant seeks relief from the density requirements of the WR
zone that allows one dwelling per two acres. In making the determination, the Board
shall consider, Number One, whether an undesirable change will be produced in the
character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the
granting of this Area Variance. Minor impacts on nearby properties are anticipated as a
result of the proposal. Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be
achieved by some method feasible for the applicant to pursue other than an Area
Variance. The applicant could consider expanding the existing single family dwelling.
However, this looks like it would be a more reasonable request and less impact on the
neighborhood. Number Three, whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The
request for an additional dwelling or 100% may be considered severe relative to the
Ordinance. However, it’s on a six acre parcel. Number Four, whether the proposed
variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical and
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. Whether the alleged
difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I move to
approve Area Variance No. 70-2009.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MS. FOOTE-Thank you.
MR. BOGUE-Thank you all very much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. We have like one other thing to do tonight. Let me remind
you guys, if you have the Marshall notes, we did not deal with Marshall tonight. I don’t
know what the reason was, but they were on the agenda. So I’m sure we’ll have them
next month. So hang on to those. Hang on to your stuff. I just passed out that thing
from Town of Clifton Park. That was given to us tonight. We didn’t have a chance to
read it.
MRS. JENKIN-So is there no meeting next week?
MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s no meeting next week. So we have to do, Keith passed me
a thing we’ve got to do officer voting tonight. So, does anybody want to be Chairman?
MR. GARRAND-I nominate Jim.
MRS. HUNT-Second.
MOTION TO NOMINATE JAMES UNDERWOOD FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2010, Introduced by Richard Garrand who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos,
Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
MR. UNDERWOOD-Vice Chairman. Anybody want to be Vice Chairman? I’ll nominate
Rich to continue on.
MR. DRELLOS-Second.
MOTION TO NOMINATE RICH GARRAND AS VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE ZONING
BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by James Underwood whom moved for its adoption,
seconded by George Drellos:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/09)
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Garrand
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I guess we need a Secretary. Do you want to continue on?
MR. URRICO-Sure.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I’ll nominate Roy to be Secretary.
MR. CLEMENTS-I’ll second it.
MOTION TO NOMINATE ROY URRICO AS SECRETARY OF THE ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Brian Clements:
Duly adopted this 16th day of December, 2009, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mrs. Hunt, Mrs. Jenkin, Mr. Drellos, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess we’re done for the evening. George, are you
leaving us?
MR. DRELLOS-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
James Underwood, Chairman
37