2005-03-16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 16, 2005
INDEX
Area Variance No. 10-2005 Jelenik Construction Co., LLC d/b/a 1.
One-Stop Self Storage
Tax Map No. 309.5-1-5
Area Variance No. 16-2005 David J. & C. Gay Jarvis
8.
Tax Map No. 289.18-1-25
Area Variance No. 20-2005 Wally & Kate Hirsch 13.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-45
Area Variance No. 17-2005 Russell Pittenger & Linda Whittle 17.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-44
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 03/16/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 16, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, ACTING CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO
JAMES UNDERWOOD
CHARLES MC NULTY
LEWIS STONE
MEMBERS ABSENT
PAUL HAYES
ALLAN BRYANT
CODE COMPLIANCE OFFICER-BRUCE FRANK
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JELENIK CONSTRUCTION CO., LLC
D/B/A ONE-STOP SELF STORAGE AGENT(S): PAUL F. TOMMELL, L.S., P.C., CLARK R.
WILKINSON, P.E. OWNER(S): FINCH PRUYN & COMPANY, INC. ZONING: LI
LOCATION: SHERMAN AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO
SELF-STORAGE 35 FT. BY 140 FT. SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT. CROSS REFERENCE: SPR 3-2005
LOT SIZE: 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 309.5-1-5 SECTION: 179-4-040 B & C
CLARK WILKINSON & DAVE JELENIK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2005, Jelenik Construction Co., LLC d/b/a One-Stop
Self Storage, Meeting Date: March 16, 2005 “Project Location: Sherman Ave. Description of
Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of two 35’ x 140’ self-storage buildings
comprised of 60 storage units on the south side of Sherman Ave between Oak Tree Circle and
Arbutus Drive. Relief Required: Applicant requests relief from the minimum parking
requirements (proposes zero parking spaces where 12 are required for the proposed use), per §
179-4-040 (B & C). Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 3-2005: to be
reviewed 03/22/05 pending this application. AV 10-2004: tabled 01/19/05, relief from the drive
isle width and parking requirements for 4 self storage buildings totaling 10,200 sq. ft. Staff
comments: The applicant proposes to construct two 35’ x 140’ self-storage buildings comprised
of 60 storage units. The applicant proposes no parking spaces for the buildings, when one
parking space is required for every 5 units, resulting in a requirement of 12 spaces. The
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
applicant has incorrectly listed 11 parking spaces as the requirement. Note: After their review
of this application, the Town of Queensbury Fire Marshal’s office has no concerns.”
MR. MC NULTY-And there was no Warren County. It’s a Type II action.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank, you, Mr. Secretary.
MR. WILKINSON-For the record, my name is Clark Wilkinson, with Paul F. Tommell, LSPC,
and to my left is Dave Jelenik of Jelenik Construction. We’re here tonight. Again, back in
January we were in front of this Board. There was some public comment. There was also
concern with the Fire Marshal with circulation on it. The site has been redesigned and
reconfigured, eliminating four buildings down to two. Also rotating them 90 degrees from that
time to make circulation better. It also, by rotating them 90 degrees, it reduced the amount of
building that would be visible from the road. An additional modification on this plan is that
we’ve pushed the entire development towards the rear of the site as much as possible and still
maintain or be within the setback lines, and the reason for doing this is to try to utilize and save
a row of existing trees along Sherman Avenue. Again, this is in reference to some of the
comments from the public and also concerns of this Board at that time. We’re here tonight,
again, to request a variance for parking requirements. There is one per five required, and
because the use of this site is virtually a drive-in, you stop in front of your unit, you unload or
load your car and you drive out, the need for parking is questioned from me, in zoning, and
because we don’t have an office space on this site to stop in the office and actually do any
paperwork or payment or anything like that, an additional reason why they’re not necessary on
this site. So we’re here tonight to request that variance, and I’d like to answer any questions
from the Board.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Let me please make a short statement which will lead into a question, if
you’ll be patient with me. Based on full disclosure, and for the record, I wish to disclose that
Mrs. Burton telephoned me at home and she and I discussed procedures, and I made it quite
clear to her that I will base my decision based upon the evidence that will be found in the
record, and I informed her that based upon full disclosure, I had a legal and moral obligation to
inform this Board, as well the public, that in fact she and I did have a conversation. That’s my
statement. Let me lead into the question that I have. It’s obvious, if you look around the room,
that Mrs. Burton is present. My question to you is this. Would you agree to re-open the public
hearing?
MR. JELENIK-No, sir.
MR. ABBATE-You would not. Thank you very much. All right, ladies and gentlemen of the
Board, do you have any questions for Area Variance No. 10-2005?
MR. MC NULTY-I have a couple.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I guess one thing that strikes my mind, regarding the public hearing, and I’m
not sure what the actual rules are, but it strikes me that this is a fairly significant change from
the previous application. The location, or the orientation of the buildings has been rotated 90
degrees. There is, what, two buildings now instead of four that were originally proposed, and I
wonder if that isn’t almost sufficient to say this is really a different application, and certainly it
can be described as a substantial compromise on the part of the applicant, trying to answer
complaints of the public, but I’d just throw that question out. I don’t know what the answer is
to it. The other question I have, perhaps for Staff, I know that the rules apparently say five
parking spaces per, or one parking space per five storage units on this site. Is there any separate
requirement of parking for an office? If there were an office on this site, would they be required
to have additional parking spaces because there was an office there?
MR. FRANK-I believe so, but I don’t think that’s what the proposal is, though.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. MC NULTY-Because that makes a difference in, I think, partially in their argument.
They’re saying that there isn’t an office there so it reduces the need for parking spaces, but I
don’t know what the total background requirement is for this type of facility. I know if there’s a
regular business office somewhere else in Town that’s just a business building type office, then
there’s a requirement of X number of parking spaces per square footage or whatever.
MR. FRANK-That’s correct. I mean, for different type of uses, for example in a retail use, or a
restaurant use, you have to provide a certain amount of parking spaces for the employees and
then for the public. So what you’re proposing, or what you’re suggesting may well be true.
There may be an additional amount of parking required for the office, but I don’t believe that’s
the case here. So I don’t want to come up with a hypothetical when it’s not really warranted.
MR. ABBATE-I’d like to address on Mr. McNulty’s well thought out first comment about this
public hearing. I’m well aware of the fact, and I was well aware of the fact a year or perhaps
even three years ago, of the stipulation of opening and closing a public hearing and quite
frankly I needed no reminding. We are constrained, Mr. McNulty, by the law. Our hands, at
least this Board, by law, demands that we comply strictly and operate strictly within the
boundaries of the law, and it is with regret that I must conform to the right of the applicant to
state that he does not want a public hearing. At the same time, I can inform an individual or
individuals who have something to say that they have the option of submitting to the Planning
Board, during that section of the site review, their feelings. That is one of the reasons, by the
way, Mr. McNulty, and I’m glad you brought it up, that I made a slight change in our
procedures when I indicated that the public hearing, will, in the future, remain open until just
prior, the vote on this Board to either approve or disapprove an appeal. Now, gentlemen, if you
have any other questions, please, feel free.
MR. JELENIK-Mr. Abbate, I’d just like to address this, and the only reason why we neglected or
have not asked to have it opened again is because we, quite frankly, think that this procedure is
meant to be addressed at the Planning Board, the site plan review. We’re simply asking for
relief for zoning. We welcome them to bring their petition, because this is only Step One for us.
We need to go back to the Planning Board for site plan review, which at that time, they will be
able to submit their petition. They will be able to speak openly at that, and that’s the only
reason why we’ve said no now. Not because we don’t want to address it here. We just don’t
feel this is the proper venue for this.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, don’t misinterpret my remarks. You have a right to say no. That is
your legal right, and we will abide by that.
MR. JELENIK-Well, it just seems that you and the other Board members seem a little bit miffed
at the fact that we do not want to open this, and I just don’t want that, in any way, to affect your
decision on what we’re actually asking for, for the zoning relief.
MR. ABBATE-I can assure you that all members of this Board, without exception, will base their
decision on the evidence that is found in the record, I guarantee you.
MR. JELENIK-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, comments? Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-Well, I’m just looking at our Zoning Code, and it’s very specific about one space
per five storage units. It does not say whether it has an office or not. It doesn’t say anything,
except that one per five storage units, and I have not heard a good argument as to why you
should be an exception.
MR. WILKINSON-The argument to take exception is it’s not understood clearly what the need
of those spaces, those one space per five units is four. With the amount of traffic that’s
generated in a very small facility like this, it would be, at best, probably about three people in
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
there at any given time, and with the amount of pavement that’s required with the 24 foot
aisles, that’s required between the buildings, that’s required to circulate the fire apparatus and
things that we, you know, try to design around, with the amount of space and with the fact that
three people would have units in different locations, there’s plenty of opportunity for people to
pull up, park, and they want to park right near their site and be able to unload two or three,
even if there’s two or three cars, because there’s so much pavement out there that’s required
with all the aisles and things that there’s plenty of space for people to get their vehicles in,
unload, get it done, right near their units and get out. So it’s really questioning the need and the
intent of the zoning and why they’re required under the zoning.
MR. URRICO-But the Code is there.
MR. WILKINSON-The Code is clear. The Code is clear.
MR. URRICO-And we haven’t been asked, we’re not here to change the Code.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. URRICO-We’re here to make exceptions.
MR. WILKINSON-But I’m questioning it. That’s why I’m asking for the variance.
MR. URRICO-Well, the question would be addressed to the Town Board, not to us.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct, but that’s why we’re asking for the variance because.
MR. URRICO-But that exception could be made on every one listed here. We have, I don’t
know, there must be about 30 or 40 different.
MR. WILKINSON-I disagree. I mean, you could make some kind of argument, maybe, and
what typically happens with self-storage centers or self-storage sites is that when the parking
spaces are there, the first thing that happens is you start loading them up with something such
as mobile homes, campers, and things like that, and because they’re not being used by the
general public that comes in and uses the facility. So you want to get some bang for your buck.
So therefore you want to say, okay, well, I’ll lease out that space and let something store there.
We don’t want that to occur here either for a number of reasons, the least of which is because
we don’t want it to be unsightly for the people across the street.
MR. URRICO-Our charge is to provide you with minimum relief, and this strikes me as being
maximum. Zero is pretty much optimum, not minimum.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Stone, please?
MR. STONE-I understand the applicant’s request, and I applaud your last statement. I didn’t
hear you willing to stipulate, however, that there will be no vehicles stored on the property, and
that would go a long way, in my mind, to possibly allow what you’d like to do.
MR. WILKINSON-And we’re willing to even put that on the drawing as part of the approval
because that’s our intent is to not have vehicular, campers, boats, whatever, parking.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I appreciate that. I hear Mr. Urrico saying that it is 100% relief, and
we’re always reluctant to do that, but on the other hand, logic and commonsense kind of say to
me, if you’re not going to store any vehicles on it, and there will be at least space for a car to
come in and terry, if you will, while stuff is put in and out, I probably could go along with it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. McNulty, please.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. MC NULTY-Now, as I mentioned before, I think the applicant has made a significant effort
at meeting a lot of the concerns of the neighbors. They certainly have reduced the number of
buildings dramatically. Changed the orientation, making an effort to leave a buffer between the
property and the residential neighborhood, all of which is great. So on the one hand I’m
inclined to act favorably. On the other hand, I am still constrained by two things. One is
probably not the applicant’s fault, but one of the complaints I have about our Zoning Code is,
we don’t know why that requirement for a parking space is there, and this comes up several
places in the Zoning Code with a variety of things. The requirement is there. There’s no
explanation as to why. So we’re kind of fumbling around blindly making assumptions which
may or may not be correct. The other thing that constrains me on this one is this is a new
purchase of a piece of property, and if there’s ever an opportunity to build something
conforming on a piece of property, it’s when it’s vacant and it’s newly purchased, and the
applicant, in this case, has an option of finding a different piece of property somewhere for this
particular use that would allow him to build what he needs in a conforming manner. So, I think
for that reason, I’m going to be a no vote, and we’ll just have to see where the other members
come down, but I’m going to be a no, because I think it’s clearly a self-caused problem and as I
say, I think there’s an easy solution as to find a different piece of property. So that’s where I am
at.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, a point. May I ask you to remind the applicant and the audience
that to approve any motion tonight we need four votes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. I’d be delighted to do that. Ladies and gentlemen, the
applicant as well as the public this evening, to approve this application this evening, we do
require four out of five votes.
MR. WILKINSON-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, may I address Mr. McNulty?
MR. ABBATE-You certainly may.
MR. WILKINSON-One of the things that I’d like to this is the fact that although, yes, you are
correct, that this is a newly purchased lot, the existing lot is in a zone that allows this use, and
there’s not many lots in this Town that has this zoning on it that are available for this purpose to
start with. That’s statement number one. Statement Number Two, that this is an existing lot of
record, that actually does not conform to the minimum zoning required either, which is another
reason why we would request trying to leave more pavement out, because it’s a little thinner
that it’s supposed to be, doesn’t have the adequate frontage, but it has adequate depth. That’s
another reason why. If we add this parking in, now it reduces the amount of building product
you can get, and with the price of land and the price of things going on, it doesn’t make the
project as feasible with the more parking you have to put in and things like that, and again,
being thinner, that was one of the reasons why it was it was initially looked at facing the
buildings the other way. It created other problems, and that’s why, in the redesign, we refaced
them to utilize the thinness, cut down on the number of buildings, change the dimensions
slightly and be on our way and hopefully have a viable project. So I just wanted to address that
to you and let you know those things as well.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Before I go to our next Board member, I’d like to make one slight
correction, if you will, and you can chalk it up to a senior citizen. I indicated that Mrs. Burton
was in the audience at the present time. Well, apparently she wasn’t. She walked in
afterwards. So I apologize, but she is here now. Just to clear that up. Mr. Underwood, could
we have your comments, please?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. We’ve had previous applications for these storage centers
throughout the Town. I know we discussed one last year down on Dix Avenue. There is one
on the other side of, I can’t remember if it’s Sherman or, Luzerne Road I think is where the other
one is that’s just on the other side of the Northway that’s also there. These storage units are
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
kind of fact of life in many communities. I mean, they’re springing up all over the place, and I
think if you spent any time driving around, usually when you pass by these places, you don’t
see an awful lot of traffic generated at them. That’s been my experience. Whether it’s a
Saturday, you might see a few more cars around, but generally on weekdays it’s pretty quiet,
unless somebody, it’s not the type of storage center where people are driving over there every
day to pick up some little object that they left behind there. They’re generally for the purpose of
long term storage. I would imagine that since the plan has been changed so dramatically, it has
made a difference on the ingress and egress out of that site, and I would have to agree with the
applicant that for the most part there’s just a few people generated at these sites at any given
moment, you know, to assume that everybody’s going to show up all at the same time on any
given time would be kind of like hitting the lotto or something like that. So, even though it’s
going to be a grand request for 100% relief with no parking places there, I think the nature of
what you have there suggests that when people pull in, they pull in for a short period of time
unless they’re cleaning out their thing and they’d be there for a longer period of time, but in
general I think people do not spend hours and hours over here banging, moving things around,
making lots of noise. I think that the change in the plan also kind of puts the noise away from
the neighborhoods to the north, on the other side of the road there, and I think with the
vegetative buffer up there, that’s also going to be a grand improvement, as far as cutting down
on noise and traffic and things like that. In general, I would be favorable towards your request
for this relief at this time, and I think that as far as the neighborhood goes, you will be able to
bring your points to the attention of the Planning Board when it comes up for Planning Board
review, and they would probably be willing to make some, you know, further requests for a
modification at that time, but I think at our domain, we’re strictly looking, here, at the relief for
the parking requirements, and I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. I guess it’s me next. All the members of the Board
have made some valid arguments. I remind the applicant that this Board, by law, is charged
with granting the minimum relief required. I do believe that it’s self-created. However, that in
itself should not destroy an application. I have no problem with that. I think Mr. Underwood’s
arguments were well made. I believe there has been some dramatic changes, and based on
those changes, I would support the application. Now, does the appellant wish to comment
before I ask the Board for a vote?
MR. JELENIK-Yes, I would.
MR. ABBATE-Please.
MR. JELENIK-Mr. McNulty and Mr. Urrico, you obviously are not leaning in my direction here.
So what would the minimum, from zero, I just asked Clark a question and tried to figure out
what would the, you know, the minimum requirement would be, let’s say, under the law, five
spaces, and we’re asking for zero. Since the Zoning Board’s job is to grant the minimum relief,
that’s correct, right?
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct.
MR. JELENIK-Zero would be the maximum relief. Somewhere between zero and five, is that
possible for us, Clark has said he might be able to squeeze three, maybe four, if he really, you
know, we’re going to need to get a little less pavement on the property in order to do that. So
are we creating another area for us to come and ask for relief again by doing so?
MR. ABBATE-Are you making to this Board a reasonable alternative?
MR. JELENIK-I’m requesting.
MR. ABBATE-And that is your reasonable alternative?
MR. JELENIK-Yes.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and spell it out one more time, please, to make sure it’s clear on the record.
What is your alternative?
MR. JELENIK-Okay. Our alternative would be to have less paved area, which would then
create, you might want to finish this for me, but I’m heading in the right direction, you know, I
don’t necessarily, as the applicant, want zero, but zero, to me, seemed to be the most logical
thing for this particular project because of its use. I don’t want to be rejected by the Planning
Board here. So if we can, Clark says to me he can definitely make it three, we want to propose
that we could squeak three out of this and that would be our, you know, that would be
somewhere in the middle here I’m hoping, you know. Like you said, we have a really deep,
narrow piece of property, which I’ve spent quite a bit of money redesigning in order to make
this thing work and reduce the amount of spaces and buildings, and I’m here to try to turn this
into a project, and, you know, if a couple of parking spaces is going to hold up an expensive
business proposition for myself, it seems prudent for me to try to ask you for, you know, give
me the number that would be reasonable for everyone here to say, okay.
MR. WILKINSON-And one of the questions I have in reference to that is, if we were to delineate
parking spaces, would the Board mind if they were to remain, “green” like using grass paver
type of things, or delineating, to try to at least provide some area for parking, but also try to
maintain the pervious area, because, I mean, to me, that should be the goal of any good
designer is you’re trying to not pave any more than you have to do.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Your proposal is on the record and I’ll be more than happy to check with
my members here and see whether or not, how they feel about it, and I’ll start with Mr.
McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, two things. One question your were talking about providing three
parking places. Now the requirement is 12.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. MC NULTY-So it’s not three versus five.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s correct.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes. It’s three out of twelve.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. MC NULTY-I think I’m going to stay where I’m at, again, based not just arguing about
parking places, but the idea that it’s a fresh slate, and I would like to see something conforming
in there.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stone, we’ll go right down the line, if you don’t mind.
MR. STONE-I’m only troubled, I mean, I wasn’t troubled by going down to zero. I am trying to
determine, and this goes to other things in which I’m active in the Town, I’m trying to
determine what constitutes a parking space, besides size. Does it have to be paved? Does it
have to be delineated? Does it have to be there? Can it be ground that, obviously with parking
eventually it becomes non-permeable. I recognize that as we compact the earth, but how do we
further define a parking space, other than one parking space shall constitute an area of not less
than 162 square feet.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. STONE-Do we have an answer?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. FRANK-I think in the past, what we’ve determined any area to be driven on or parked on
is going to be compacted.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MR. FRANK-And I’m not saying an engineer can’t come up with the way around that. I know
there’s a lot of modern materials that they utilize. I think from a Town Code standpoint, the
way it’s been interpreted by the Zoning Administrator, if it’s going to be parked on, it’s going to
be considered impermeable because it’s going to be compacted.
MR. WILKINSON-Correct, and that’s one of the reasons why I’m limited to three, because I
know where my calculations are with the total impervious.
MR. STONE-You’ve got four percent left.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s all I’ve got.
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. WILKINSON-And being a small lot, there’s not a lot of space there for extra parking
spaces.
MR. FRANK-I guess I’m a little confused. Maybe you can explain it to me. You’re down to 30%
right now, which you’re proposing. So anything in addition to that, you’re going to go below
the required minimum permeability.
MR. WILKINSON-I believe that I have enough area in there that I can make it work with three
parking spaces because there’s a couple of spots that were very wide on the turns that have a
little extra pavement there.
MR. FRANK-I understand where you’re coming from. Keep in mind that if you were to
squeeze in parking spaces in that area, you still would have to keep a 24 foot wide drive aisle to
the nine foot wide parking space.
MR. WILKINSON-Absolutely.
MR. FRANK-Just for the record.
MR. WILKINSON-Absolutely, and I’m also considering parallel along the edges so that it
minimizes the amount of pavement or impervious area outside it, but still calculating that into
what the maximum coverage is, and that’s another reason why it’s difficult on this site to put
more spaces in, and still get a really good, viable project.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-It’s better, but to me it still comes way short of the requirement. We’re talking
three spaces as opposed to twelve which are required. That’s still a big relief.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m basically in favor of the project.
MR. ABBATE-All right. The members and the appellant have had an opportunity and offered
their commentaries, and now it’s my duty to ask for a motion, and if my calculations are correct,
and we must have a majority of four out of five votes, it would appear that we lack the votes for
approval. However, I will ask a member of the Board.
MR. JELENIK-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-By all means, go right ahead.
MR. JELENIK-Since we don’t have a full Board here tonight, I don’t have the option of more
votes, obviously. Do we have the option to table this and come back at another time?
MR. ABBATE-Is that based upon an open public hearing as well? Because this is two times now
we’ve had once, you were here once before. Now you want to table it tonight. Now as
Chairman I have prerogatives of going for a vote.
MR. JELENIK-Two other things we could do. I could look at another re-design and possibly see
if, you know, Mr. Stone made a good point as to what is a parking space? You know, someone
needs to maybe clearly define that for me so I can say, wait a second. Why don’t we use the
grass area that’s outside the paved area and use some other kind of permeable paver stone that
grass can go through, then I’d have enough for 12 spaces. Can someone tell me that, that that’s
possible to do? Or do I ask for additional relief because I’m over the percentage of area that I
need to be?
MR. ABBATE-That would be an area you should discuss with the Zoning Administrator and
not the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, I will.
MR. WILKINSON-But we’d still have to come back in front of you, and that’s the question.
MR. ABBATE-Are you asking to table your appeal?
MR. FRANK-Are you requesting a tabling?
MR. ABBATE-Are you requesting to table your appeal?
MR. JELENIK-Could we have two seconds here?
MR. ABBATE-You can have as much time as you wish.
MR. JELENIK-I don’t think we’re going in the right direction, so why would I want you to push
it to a vote?
MR. MC NULTY-While they’re talking, a question about the basis for the requirement of four
votes.
MR. STONE-The majority of the Board.
MR. MC NULTY-Majority of the positions?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay.
MR. STONE-I didn’t say it quite that clearly.
MR. JELENIK-Whether they’re here or not.
MR. STONE-We are a Board of seven people, and we must have a majority of the Board.
MR. ABBATE-That is correct. That was well explained.
MR. MC NULTY-That’s the common interpretation.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-I’m certainly not going to deny anybody their legal rights, and you have a right
to request that your application be tabled. If that is your desire, say so.
MR. JELENIK-We need a couple of minutes here, to put some strategy together.
MR. ABBATE-Then may I suggest you do this? May I suggest that you recuse yourselves, sit in
the back of the room, so I can continue on with some of the other hearings, please? That way
there we will not hold up these other folks, and then you can come back to us. Fair enough?
MR. JELENIK-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Fine. As a matter of fact, you’ll find a table and chairs outside.
MR. JELENIK-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2005 SEQR TYPE II DAVID J. & C. GAY JARVIS OWNER(S):
DAVID J. & C. GAY JARVIS AGENT(S): N/A ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 35
FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 1,007
SQ. FT. CAMP AND SHED AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,781 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY
DWELLING WITH A 669 SQ. FT. DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM
SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. BP 2001-812 SEPTIC ALT. LOT SIZE: 0.57
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-25 SECTION 179-4-030
DAVID & GAY JARVIS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2005, David J. & C. Gay Jarvis, Meeting Date: March 16,
2005 “Project Location: 35 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes to demolish the existing 1,007 sq. ft. camp with a 209 sq. ft. enclosed porch and a 342
sq. ft. accessory building and construct a 2,781 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 669 sq. ft.
deck and an 864 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests 7.4 feet of
relief from the 20-foot minimum side setback requirement, per § 179-4-030 for the WR-1A zone.
Additionally, the applicant requires 6.8 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 54.6-foot
minimum requirement (average dwelling setback of two adjoining parcels), per § 179-4-030 and
§ 179-4-070 for the WR-1A zone. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP
2001-812: 10/30/01, septic alteration. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish the
existing camp and accessory structure and construct a new single-family dwelling with an
attached deck and detached garage, and requests 7.4 feet of relief from the 20-foot minimum
side setback requirement. On March 7, 2005, the applicant was informed shoreline setback
relief appeared to be needed for a portion of the deck. The applicant’s engineer confirmed the
closest portion of the deck, as submitted, is 47.8 feet from the shoreline. It appears the average
setback for the dwellings on the two adjoining parcels is greater than 50 feet after reviewing the
April 2001 aerial photograph of the area. A survey submitted on March 10, 2005 by the
applicant’s engineer confirms the average setback to be 54.6 feet. On March 15, 2005, a site
inspection was performed to verify the accuracy of the survey. The inspection revealed a
different configuration of the deck on the dwelling to the west of the applicant’s property. The
open portion of the deck closer to the shore than the enclosed deck no longer exists. The
enclosed deck now extends straight across with an open deck on top. The scaled setback is
approximately 84.5 feet, which results in a new average setback requirement of the 59.8 feet
resulting in the required 12 feet of shoreline setback relief.”
MR. MC NULTY-Type II for SEQRA, and no Warren County on this.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. JARVIS-Good evening. My name’s David Jarvis. This is my wife, Gay Jarvis. I also have
letters from neighbors along the lake that didn’t go in with the application. Some of them were
out of town. If we could give them to you.
MR. ABBATE-Not to me, sir, but if you’d give them to our Secretary, I’d appreciate it.
MR. JARVIS-Okay. I have 14 copies.
MR. ABBATE-He will read them into the record, if you wish. Are you ready to proceed?
MR. JARVIS-Yes, we are.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, are you ready to hear? Please do.
MR. JARVIS-Well, we’d like to petition to build a year round house on 35 Fitzgerald Road. Due
to the size of the lot, the shape and the grade, that brings us to the variances that we need. The
first variance, as he said, was relief on the side setback. The existing building is three and a half
to four feet off the line right now, and that’s the Martin’s property line. The new building
would be 20 feet off the line in the back. The actual front corner is the only part that’s going to
be inside the setback, or outside the setback. That would be 12 feet at that point. The existing
building right now has 502 square feet outside the setback. The new building will only have
126 square feet outside the setback, and 94 square feet of deck. The second variance is from the
lake, relief from the setback. The required setback is 59.7 feet. The existing building is only 32.2
feet from the lake, and 418 square feet of building is outside the setback. The new building is
47.8 feet from the lake, and that’ll have 20 square feet outside the setback, but on the deck there
would be 482 square feet outside the setback. So overall we’ll be removing 1,078 square feet of
building from outside the setback now, and the new building will only have 146 square feet
outside the setback, but it’ll have 586 square feet of deck outside the setback. As we said before,
we made lots of changes before we even got to this point. He read the square feet of the house,
and it sounds like a fairly decent sized house, but what we did was when we went to the Town,
we realized that there was a 28 foot height restriction, and in order to meet that, we took out the
loft that was in the house. So now we will utilize part of the basement as living space. So the
square footage is eliminating a lot of our basement and storage area, and we changed the deck.
If you notice on the plans, the deck starts one foot in on the sides of the house. That was able to
twist the building just enough to give two more feet on the setbacks. Instead of asking for 10
feet, or instead of asking for 10 feet we only needed 8 feet there, but overall, it’s a good impact
from the lake. The septic systems will be moved to the top of the hill up by the road, which is
probably 70 feet farther than where it is at this time right now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jarvis. Do any members of the Board have any questions,
please?
MR. STONE-What’s the height of your garage, proposed garage?
MR. JARVIS-We didn’t have a height on it, but we were just going to stay with whatever we
need to build inside the limits, to make sure it’s not too high.
MR. STONE-Sixteen feet.
MR. JARVIS-Sixteen feet. The garage is proposed in the plans, but not actually drawn yet.
Anything up there we can stay within the limits. There’s not a problem. There’s enough room
for the garage without setback problems, and just to make the height restrictions.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-So for the record, then, you’re agreeing to have a maximum of 16 feet to your
garage, is that correct?
MR. JARVIS-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Any other members of the Board?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I would just like to disclose to the Board that I live within the
notification area and that also Mr. Jarvis did call me early on, knowing that I was on the Zoning
Board, and asked me what the requirements for the zoning were, as far as the side setbacks, and
he also queried me as to, you know, how difficult it was, and I said, well, if you can minimize
the amount of relief that you’re requesting down to a bare minimum, you’re more likely to get
your proposal through. So that’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. STONE-Just for purposes of full disclosure, I did talk to the neighbor on the east side, Mrs.
Kane, who happened to be walking her dog when I was parked in her driveway.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Thank you, Jim. I appreciate that. Mr. McNulty, any
questions?
MR. MC NULTY-No questions.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Urrico, any questions?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any questions. The public hearing is now open. Are there any
individuals in the audience who would like to be heard? If so, please come forward to the desk
here. State your name, identify yourself, where you reside, and it’ll be on the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, we do have some correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Please, read the correspondence, Mr. Secretary.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’m going to suggest I summarize. We’ve got a total of four pieces,
though, including the three letters that the applicant gave us tonight. There are four. The first
one is signed by a Michael R. and Susan J. Martin, Donald Milne on another one, Michael and
Ann Barody on one, and Margaret Kane on another, and all of these people seem to indicate
that they’re in favor of or have no objections to this proposal.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary, I appreciate that. I would now request that the ZBA
members offer their comments, their commentaries, their feelings. We’ll start with Mr.
McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, here again, we’ve got some new construction starting. It would
be nice if it could be conforming, but we do have a constrained lot and in this case the lot’s been
in the family for a while. So it’s not a new piece of land that you’re buying, and I think the
applicant’s make a valid point that they’ve already made some compromises. They’ve tried as
hard as they could to meet their needs and still stay within the confines of what the Town
requires. So I think, on this basis, and a little bit coupled with the comments from the
neighbors, that certainly is a good indication. I don’t put a huge amount of weight on
neighbors being in favor of, because they may not be the same individuals that are always
neighbors. There may be other new neighbors that might have a slightly different opinion, but
nevertheless, with no neighbors voicing concerns, it strikes me that the balance probably falls in
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
favor of the applicant, benefit to the applicant, and relatively little detriment to the
neighborhood. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I basically concur with Mr. McNulty. I think that the applicant has done an
admirable job in trying to build a house that will provide for their means to the highest degree
possible, not to the nth degree, obviously. None of us can do that. It is better than it was.
Certainly the side setback, you’ve improved on it. The neighbor on that side has certainly
indicated that he is willing, or they are willing, if you will, to see your new house constructed.
The prime concern that I quite often get involved with is distance from the lake. You are within
the 50 feet, which is the magic number, forgetting the required amount, but the relief is very
small from the 50 feet. The fact that neither neighbor who are the basis for the need to be 54 or
whatever the number is, 58 or 59 feet, now, because of the location of their homes, don’t seem to
have a problem, therefore, I don’t have a problem.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement with the other two Board members that have spoken. I
believe when you measure this application against the Area Variance criteria, I think, the benefit
the applicant can receive by this is certainly he’s tried ever feasible, they have tried ever feasible
means to comply, and I think they’ve done a good job in that area. I don’t see any undesirable
change in the neighborhood character or nearby properties. I think the request, the only request
that bothered me, not bothered me, but I was concerned about was the side setback, but being
that neither neighbor really voiced an objection, and it’s still relatively within a modest
variance, I think it’s still okay. I don’t see any environmental or physical adverse effects, and
although this is self-created, I think I understand why it’s self-created. So I would be in favor of
it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in agreement with everybody else. I think it’s a reflection of
the tapering aspect of the lot as it goes toward the lake. The amount of relief for the deck on the
front is pretty minimal, and I don’t think it will have any negative effect on the lake. So I’d be
in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir, and I will agree with my fellow Board members. I do believe that
it’s a wise decision that we will soon be making. Does the appellant wish to comment? If not, I
will call for a vote. Do you have any comments?
MR. JARVIS-Nothing.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, now if you want to close the public hearing, it would be the
appropriate time. Before you vote, you might as well go ahead and close the public hearing.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Based upon the recommendation of Staff, I will this
evening close the public hearing. Thank you, so much.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And now I’m going to request a motion from a member of the Board, based on
the numbers that I have here, if they’re accurate, to approve Area Variance No. 16-2005. Do I
hear a motion, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2005 DAVID J. & C. GAY JARVIS,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
35 Fitzgerald Road. The applicant is proposing to demolish the existing 1,007 square foot camp
with a 209 square foot enclosed porch and a 342 square foot accessory building and construct a
2,781 square foot single family dwelling with a 669 square foot deck and an 864 square foot
detached garage. The applicant is requesting 7.4 feet of relief from the 20 foot minimum side
setback requirement per Section 179-4-030 in this WR-1A zone, and additionally the applicant
requires 12 feet of shoreline setback relief from the 59.8 foot minimum requirement, and that’s,
again, due to the average dwelling setback of the two adjoining parcels, per Section 179-4-030,
and Section 179-4-070 for the WR-1A zone. The relief is a reflection of the shape of the lot and it,
again, will be only side setback relief on the side facing the Martins to the south. The relief on
the front will be for the deck and that will be for that also minimum relief of 7.4 feet. I would
move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. ABBATE-Okay. As I read it, the vote for Area Variance No. 16-2005 is 5 to 0. Is there any
challenge to the tally? If not, the motion is approved, 16-2005.
MR. JARVIS-Thank you very much.
MRS. JARVIS-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Okay, folks, as I promised, we’re going to go back to Area
Variance No. 10-2005.
MR. WILKINSON-Mr. Chairman, I have one procedural question that I’d like to pose to the
Board.
MR. ABBATE-Go ahead.
MR. WILKINSON-In calculating what is required to install all 12 spaces, we would need a
variance from coverage of up to five percent, it’s approximately 4.8, 4.9, in that range. In order
to do that, procedurally, could we do that tonight and have you vote on that request to you?
Because it’s actually a change in the variance that we’re requesting.
MR. ABBATE-You’re modifying your application, quite frankly, and if you’re going to do that,
I’d request that it be tabled and resubmitted in its entirety. Otherwise it amounts to confusion.
In other words, I don’t object to doing that, but I would request that you re-do your application,
submit your feasible alternatives in that, and then resubmit it, and I’d be happy to table, if that
is your wish.
MR. STONE-Yes. It’s a matter of advertising. It was not advertised as permeability variance.
MR. ABBATE-Everybody, then, has an opportunity. Yes, we’ve got to keep everything on the
table, and everyone has an opportunity, including the public, to know what’s going on.
MR. WILKINSON-And the issue at hand is if we supply the parking spaces that are required, or
at least a significant portion of them, as I’m hearing this Board say, then in order to do that, we
would also have to request a variance on the coverage. That’s the statement that I’m putting to
the Board, in order to accomplish that.
MR. ABBATE-That would be up to you, we don’t advise. We just judge. We base our decision
on the evidence that’s obtained in the record and your application.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-You may submit that in your following application.
MR. WILKINSON-Well, based on the fact that there’s only five members present tonight, we
would like to request tabling of this decision until next Wednesday, if possible.
MR. ABBATE-I can’t guarantee that. I will check with Staff.
MR. FRANK-Well, as of now.
MR. ABBATE-Isn’t there a public advertisement involved in this?
MR. WILKINSON-Not if we don’t change the application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. It’s up to you, Staff. Let me know.
MR. STONE-Well, it is changing the application.
MR. WILKINSON-No, no, no. I’m saying the way it’s presented now.
MR. STONE-You just want to consider tonight’s application next week?
MR. WILKINSON-Correct. Next week.
MR. ABBATE-Tonight’s application in its entirety, next week?
MR. WILKINSON-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-Staff, can we do it?
MR. FRANK-I think we currently have six applicants on next week’s agenda. I don’t know if
that’s a problem squeezing one more on there. I know we’ve handled more than six in the past,
as you know. So I think it’s at the Board’s discretion if you want to table them until next week.
MR. ABBATE-Let me check with the Board. I don’t speak for the Board. I’m only an
individual. Let me check with the Board. Does any member of the Board have any objections
for Area Variance No. 10-2005 being rescheduled?
MR. URRICO-I would request that all notes be made available to every Board member that
might be present that night.
MR. ABBATE-All right. That’s a fair recommendation, that, prior to that hearing, to ensure that
every member of the Zoning Board of Appeals have the appropriate documentation. Anyone
else have any comments? Any objections?
MR. STONE-No, no objection. Just the applicant should be aware that if the, it’s coming out the
same way, and you choose to table it for your other proposal, then we’re into another
application. That’s all.
MR. WILKINSON-Absolutely. We’re well aware of that.
MR. STONE-Would that be correct, Bruce? If we’re going to talk about permeability versus?
MR. FRANK-Well, it’s definitely different relief. I hope the Zoning Administrator would make
that determination and say, yes, you need a new application.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Well, for the record, then, the applicant is aware of the options that may occur, as
a result of tabling?
MR. WILKINSON-Yes, sir, we are.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2005 JELENIK CONSTRUCTION CO.,
LLC D/B/A ONE-STOP SELF STORAGE, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
Sherman Avenue. To be heard on the 23 of March. At the applicant’s request, since there are
rd
not enough members of the Board tonight.
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. URRICO-Are we tabling because there are not enough members on the Board tonight?
MR. STONE-Yes, you ought to say that.
MR. WILKINSON-That is our request.
MR. ABBATE-It’s the applicant’s request, and there’s no reason to deny it. I think that’s a
reasonable assertion that you have certain rights, and we don’t have any problems with that.
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. ABBATE-So be it.
MR. JELENIK-Thank you, sir.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2005 SEQRA TYPE II OWNER(S): WALLY & KATE HIRSCH
ZONING: WR-1A LOCATION: 145 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES
CONSTRUCTION OF A 900 SQ. FT. 20 FT. HIGH 3-CAR GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED
FROM THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SPR 14-05, BP 2004-872,
BP 2004-862, BP 2004-819, AV 2-2005, AV 27-2004, SPR 45-2001 LOT SIZE: 0.78 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.17-1-45 SECTION 179-4-030
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; WALLY HIRSCH, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2005, Wally & Kate Hirsch, Meeting Date: March 16,
2005 “Project Location: 145 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes construction of a 900 sq. ft. two-story detached garage at 20 feet in height. Relief
Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height requirement of
the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): AV 2-
2005: denied 01/19/05, 7 feet of height relief for a 900 sq. ft., two-story, detached garage. BP
2004-872: pending, 900 sq. ft., two-story, detached garage. BP 2004-862: 11/29/04, 2,142 sq. ft.
single-family dwelling. 2004-819: 10/29/04, demolition of 1,342 sq. ft. camp. SP 45-2001
Modification: 08/17/04, site excavation/removal of earth and associated regarding. AV 27-2004:
06/16/04, demolition of 1,342 sq. ft. camp and construction of a 3,805 sq. ft. single-family
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
dwelling with an 816 sq. ft. detached garage. AV 27-2004: tabled 04/21/04, same as current
application except for 19 feet of shoreline setback relief requested. SP 45-2001: 04/24/03,
extension of approval to 03/30/04. SP 45-2001: 01/15/02, clearing and grading to facilitate
driveway, parking, accessory structures, and future septic area. Approval includes 10,000
cu.yds. to be cut and 5,000 cu.yds. of fill to be placed to a finished elevation of 135’. Staff
comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 900 sq. ft. two-story detached garage at 20
feet in height. AV 2-2005, denied on January 19, 2005, was for the same size garage, but at 23
feet in height.”
MR. MC NULTY-SEQRA Type II, and no Warren County.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. The gentlemen, apparently, for Area Variance No.
20-2005 is at the table. Would you be kind enough, please, to identify yourself.
MR. HIRSCH-My name is Wally Hirsch.
MR. HALL-And I’m Ethan Hall from Rucinski-Hall Architecture.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then would you please tell us your story.
MR. HALL-Basically Wally asked me to get involved with this project after it was denied at the
last Zoning Board meeting. We looked at the prior application, took a look at it, to see what we
could do to minimize the impacts. We redesigned the structure of the garage. It was originally
designed with a steel beam running down the middle with a floor framed above it, with I
believe a 12 on 12 pitch on the roof. We have redesigned that to utilize storage trusses to
eliminate the posts in the garage, thereby allowing us to drop that down some. We also
minimized, or we reduced the pitch of the roof slightly to bring us down a little bit farther, and
we changed the layout of the site to, we basically took the site and flipped it over. It’s going to
put the garage on the other side of the site and allow us to sink it into the bank a little bit
farther, further reducing visibility from the road for the driveway and for the garage. So we’ve
knocked three feet out of the height of the building and we’ve actually set it a little bit deeper
into the bank. So we’re hoping that that is a reasonable alternative.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do we have any questions from any of the Board
members?
MR. STONE-The hill which is rapidly disappearing. Is it going to disappear totally, or exactly
what is, I know it’s between two properties or on other property we’re going to hear tonight. I
don’t know who’s property it’s on. What is the status of the hill there?
MR. HIRSCH-Well, Niagara Mohawk, I had a pole there, and somehow Niagara Mohawk and
the phone company were having a disagreement with who was in charge of what, and they
finally got their act together, got it out. Ellsworth Excavation is our contractor, and he’s going
to be starting up shortly to take it down. The level of our lot will be, and actually I believe
Pittengers to the other side will be basically at the road level.
MR. STONE-Okay. So that whole hill will go?
MR. HIRSCH-Yes. It was just, NiMo had us tied up.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Anyone else have any questions for the Area Variance No. 20-2005? Any
members of the Board? If not, then I will open up the public hearing. Is there anyone here this
evening wishing to be heard on Area Variance No. 20-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
LINDA WHITTLE
MS. WHITTLE-Hi. I’m Linda Whittle, and I own the property with my husband Russ Pittenger,
just south of the Hirsch’s property, and we’re in support of the project. This has kind of been a
long haul for us, but the end is in sight. We’re all looking forward to restoring the site, and, you
know, we think Wally and Kate are doing a reasonable project here that’s going to wind up
looking really great. So we’re adamantly in support of their efforts.
MR. ABBATE-And you are the next door neighbor?
MS. WHITTLE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so very much.
MS. WHITTLE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Before you go, any Board members have any questions? Thank you very much.
MR. STONE-We’ll ask her on the next application.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, would you come forward again, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, we do have one letter.
MR. ABBATE-Please, would you read that into the record.
MR. MC NULTY-This is a note from Pamela and John Cembrook. They’re at 121 Birdsall Rd.
“In our absence, please consider this letter a statement of approval for the Hirsch variance at
145 Birdsall Rd. We are the property owners of 121 Birdsall Rd., which is 2 lots south of their
property. We have reviewed the project plans along with the proposed height variance. We
have no reservations and by this letter show support for this project. Thank you for your
attention. Sincerely, Pamela and John Cembrook”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. One more offer. Anyone in the audience wishing to
be heard on Area Variance No. 20-2005? Gentlemen, I’m requesting that members of the Board
now offer their commentary. We can start with Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The last time this proposal came in, I was basically in favor of it, and I
would be in favor of it for the same reason as last time. There are two obvious garages just to
the northeast of this proposal that do stick up in the air quite a bit further than this will, and I
think that the last time I made the argument, as the applicants have done quite conclusively,
that they’ve set this thing down into the ground. The over height variance I think is a reflection
of what you’ll see from the lake side there, which is going to be a minimal view since you
would have to look through the house, unless you’re kind of standing over further to the
southeast of the house there to actually view it. I think that a reasonable attempt has been made
to get the height of this building down. Although we would be granting four feet of relief from
the 16 foot height requirement, originally they came in at 23, and I think they have made an
honest attempt to lower the building down. The structure, as they plan it, is very appealing.
It’s not just your average square box garage with a pitched roof on it that looks like every other
one in Town, and I think it compliments the house that they’re building there at the present
time. To do anything less would be kind of a minimalist garage, and that may be to some
people’s taste, but in this neighborhood I think it fits in.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with Jim, basically. He took the words out of my mouth. I really
think they’ve made the effort to conform and this is a better height than the previous
application. I think it makes a difference.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I don’t agree. This is better. There’s no question 20 feet is better than 23 feet. The
Zoning Code in the Town of Queensbury specifies 16 feet. All of a sudden we keep getting
requests, and you’re the first of three in the next two weeks, to be at 20 feet. I don’t understand
it. A garage has always been a comfortable size for most families to have at 16 feet. We just
heard an applicant. We just spent a lot of time on a man who wants to start a business, and
there are many others in Town who sell storage space. So, there is available storage space
around the Town of Queensbury not too far away to store all of the utilities, the equipment, the
toys that people, particularly people who live on lakes have, and I have no problem with that. I
happen to live on a lake, too, but I just don’t understand why we have to defy the Code by such
a large degree, 25% in this particular case. That’s a large number, no matter how you talk 4 feet,
but it’s still 25%. I, and I’m certainly probably not going to change my tune for the next
application, but I do listen to each and every one of them. I just don’t understand. The
argument that you’ve made in your request is for storage. Fine. There’s ways of storing
equipment not on the property. Therefore, I would have to say I would vote no.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-I’m going to have to echo Mr. Stone, for somewhat similar reasons, but maybe
a little bit different. On the one hand, on this particular piece of road, I like the appearance of
the garages that are there now. I think what’s proposed in this application and I presume the
one that’s coming up are going to be similar, and on the one hand I’d be in favor of them. I
think they’re going to look nicer, probably nicer than a 16 foot garage would look, in these
situations, but, as Mr. Stone has pointed out, we’re starting to get a lot of these in and looking
just at Birdsall Road Extension there’s, what, two or three garages there now that are over 16
feet. We’ve got another two requests here before us tonight. It strikes me at that point we’re
changing the zoning, and that’s not something that this Board is supposed to do. Consequently,
I think the appropriate place, although it’s much more difficult, but the appropriate place for
these kinds of requests collectively is before the Town Board saying, hey, let’s change the
zoning in some of these areas, if people need a higher garage, but in this case, if this were an
isolated application, and I think, if I remember right, the last time you were before us I was in
favor of your proposal, and others voted against it, but thinking about it tonight, and looking at
the additional proposal that’s coming in, it just strikes me that procedurally, we’re not
supposed to be changing the zoning simply because we think the zoning’s unreasonable, and it
may well be unreasonable, but that’s the job of the Town Board, not this Board. For that reason,
I’m going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. I would echo Mr. Underwood’s and Mr. Urrico’s
feelings in that I would support the application. However, Mr. Hirsch, you may or may not be
aware, I’m not sure that you were here. We require four out of five votes. In the interest of
fairness, the last applicant who came before us has requested that their application be tabled
pending a full Board. I would be remiss not asking if you desire the same thing.
MR. HALL-I believe we do.
MR. ABBATE-Then let me hear it. You are requesting that your application be tabled?
MR. HALL-That is correct.
MR. ABBATE-Until when?
MR. HALL-The next available slot. I understand you have seven at the next, and I think
another one is certainly.
MR. ABBATE-Which is the 23 of this month.
rd
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. HALL-The 23 of March.
rd
MR. ABBATE-So then your request is that your Area Variance No. 20-2005 be tabled, pending a
full Board, until the 23 of March of this year. Is that correct?
rd
MR. HALL-That is correct.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before you act on that, I can see the handwriting on the wall.
You’re going to have one more application in the same situation in a few minutes, and that
would make nine for that meeting.
MR. ABBATE-The problem that I encounter is this. The standard of fairness. I think I would be
remiss allowing one application to do it and not another. I would be probably subject to a lot of
criticism on that. While I personally agree with you, Mr. McNulty, I don’t like the idea of being
here until one or two o’clock in the morning. My main concern is one of fairness.
MR. STONE-Well, I think the thing that you can do, Mr. Chairman, is not necessarily commit to
the 23. I mean, you may have troubles next week. I understand that there are a few people on
rd
the Board who may not be here next week.
MR. ABBATE-That’s correct.
MR. URRICO-I mean, we do know in advance there’s at least two or three who may not be here.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point. I’m interested in everybody’s opinion. I’m interested in
looking out for your rights as well. I would have no problems if we could advance it, perhaps,
until the following meeting, not the 23 of March, but the first meeting in April, for that reason.
rd
Would you object to that?
MR. HIRSCH-If that’s our alternative. What is the date on that one?
MR. ABBATE-What’s April’s meeting? The 15? The 15 or 16 of April. It’ll be on a
ththth
Wednesday.
MR. FRANK-Two members we know won’t be here next week.
MR. STONE-No. How many applications for?
MR. FRANK-That’s not going to be a problem. We only have seven so far.
MR. STONE-For a total, for April?
MR. FRANK-That’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. What’s that date in April?
MR. MC NULTY-The 20 is the first meeting.
th
MR. HALL-The 20 is the third Wednesday.
th
MR. ABBATE-Is that what you wish, the 20?
th
MR. HIRSCH-That’ll be okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2005 WALLY & KATE HIRSCH,
Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
145 Birdsall Road. Tabled to the 20 of April.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 20-2005 is tabled until the 20 of April 2005. Thank you,
th
gentlemen.
MR. HIRSCH-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2005 SEQRA TYPE II RUSSELL PITTENGER & LINDA
WHITTLE OWNER(S): R. PITTENGER & L. WHITTLE ZONING WR-1A LOCATION:
139 BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 24 FT. BY 30 FT.,
20 FT. HIGH DETACHED GARAGE AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT REQUIREMENT. CROSS REF. SPR 45-2001 LOT SIZE: 0.86 ACRES SECTION
179-4-030
RUSSELL PITTENGER, LINDA WHITTLE & SKYLER PITTENGER PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 17-2005, Russell Pittenger & Linda Whittle, Meeting Date:
March 16, 2005 “Project Location: 139 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction of a 720 sq. ft. two-story detached garage at 20 feet in height.
Relief Required: Applicant requests 4 feet of relief from the 16-foot maximum height
requirement of the WR-1A Zone, § 179-4-030. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance,
etc.): SP 45-2001 Modification: 08/17/04, site excavation/removal of earth and associated
regarding. SP 45-2001: 04/24/03, extension of approval to 03/30/04. SP 45-2001: 01/15/02,
clearing and grading to facilitate driveway, parking, accessory structures, and future septic
area. Approval includes 10,000 cu.yds. to be cut and 5,000 cu.yds. of fill to be placed to a
finished elevation of 135’. BP 98-516: 08/24/98, 480 sq. ft. boathouse with sundeck. SP 39-98:
07/21/98, 480 sq. ft. boathouse with sundeck. Staff comments: Applicant proposes construction
of a 720 sq. ft. two-story detached garage at 20 feet in height, and requests 4 feet of relief from
the 16-foot maximum height requirement for a detached garage in the WR-1A zone.”
MR. MC NULTY-SEQR Status is Type II, and there’s no Warren County.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please identify yourselves for the record.
MR. PITTENGER-My name is Russ Pittenger. With me is Linda Whittle, my wife, and my
youngest son Skyler. We live in Saratoga Springs at 19 George Street, and we own the property
on Birdsall Road, 139.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. We would certainly like to hear your appeal.
MR. PITTENGER-Thank you very much. I have a new found respect for the Board. It’s
unusual for me to attend a hearing like this and not get paid for it. I also wanted to say that we
were trying to keep up with the Hirsches, but I’m not going to refer to them. In fact, I don’t
really even know them.
MR. ABBATE-Is that for the record?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. PITTENGER-No, that’s not for the record. That was supposed to be a joke. I appreciate the
Board hearing our proposal, and I’d like to ask them to consider this as an independent
proposal. I can appreciate that when numerous projects come up and trends start, that the
Board has to recognize that, but what we have on our site is, I would ask you to evaluate our
proposal on its merits, one way or the other. I mean, what we are seeking here is we have a
situation that we really are living out of our cars. We could certainly rent a storage unit, but for
our purposes, to build a garage, we do have a seasonal cottage. The garage footprint would be
the same size as our cottage, which is different from any other proposal that you’ve heard
tonight. The fact that ours is under, that our cottage is under 16 feet, and we really don’t have
any desire, in the foreseeable future, to build a year round home there, we know that that may
happen, but we’ve lived there for, since 1992 in the summer, and we anticipate keeping that on
into our retirement years, without any desire to live there in the wintertime. A 16 foot height of
a garage allows for some storage above, but with the depth of the floor and the depth of the
rafters, you really have a limited head room only in the center, and it really would be
inaccessible for us, except to pass materials up. The fact that our vehicular access is limited, we
really cannot drive to the camp. Everything we have has to be carried up and down, and we’re
happy to do that, in our proposal to have the hill removed, which is really how we started this
whole project, to put in a septic system which would go in after the final hill is done. That
would really give us a comfort level knowing that, even though our septic system has been dye
tested and it’s certainly functioning well, that it would allow us to move the septic dispersal
area quite a distance from the lake.
MS. WHITTLE-And there are hills and there are hills. We removed a hill, but we still have
enough hill, a lot of hill.
MR. PITTENGER-There’s no question, and I think what our desire is that for efficiency it would
make sense, that with a, what we consider to be a minor increase of 25% in the height, it would
allow us to access the second floor and walk around in there and do some storage. I guess
that’s all I have to say.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Any questions from the Board members, please?
MR. STONE-Yes. I do appreciate that your application is different. I’ll say unique but few
things are, but it is different. There’s no question. I do have a couple of questions that I’d like
to pose, not necessarily to be answered, but maybe rhetorical. I’m looking at our Code, and I’m
sure, Mr. Pittenger, you’re as familiar with our Code as anybody who’s ever appeared before
us, but we call a garage private parking. That’s the definition, an accessory building or
structure, attached or detached, use primarily to shelter no more than three automobiles,
provided that such garage may be used to shelter only one commercial vehicle. Automobiles.
That’s what a garage is. That’s what our Code says it is. Yes, we know garages get used for
storage and so on and so forth. I also have a question about your statement that you made in
terms of will the variance have an adverse effect. We’ve already established that the hill is
going. I gather when Mr. Hirsch said the hill is going, that whole thing that sits between the
two properties will be leveled, I gather.
MS. WHITTLE-It doesn’t sit between the two properties, though. What you saw in the picture.
MR. STONE-Well, I don’t know. I couldn’t find the line.
MS. WHITTLE-It’s very different, though, because what you’re seeing there really is our
property. That’s right there. What you saw before which was that, you know, that big hill that
had the pole sitting on it for so long, that is on the Hirsch’s property.
MR. STONE-Okay, but what is remaining? Is that your property? There is still half a hill, let’s
say half a hill there.
MS. WHITTLE-No. I mean, there really isn’t, though, on our property, half a hill. That’s what
you’re looking at is our property, in that photograph.
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. STONE-Well, as I say, I couldn’t tell where the line was. It’s hard enough to figure out the
numbering on Birdsall Extension, although more and more people are putting numbers on
there. I appreciate that. I thought I saw a hill, and I thought it was at least between the
properties, or on your side of their property.
MS. WHITTLE-Well, as you can see, you can’t see our camp, because it goes down another 30
feet.
MR. STONE-I know it’s down below, covered by snow.
MS. WHITTLE-Well, it does drop down. We have a hike.
MR. STONE-Anyway, those are my concerns, that a garage is for vehicles. You’re talking you
need it because of storage. It just gives me some cause for concern, but I’m willing to listen to
everything that’s said.
MS. WHITTLE-We do, though, in all honesty, Mr. Stone, we do live very Spartan like existence
when we are there, I kid you not, because there is, it’s very tiny, you know, I couldn’t live there
year round, nor do I really, you know, want to, but it’s very small.
MR. STONE-Anyway, those are my concerns until I hear what the rest of the Board has to say.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. FRANK-Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to make a comment on the definition that Mr. Stone
had read in part. Just to make the record clear, I think the key word is “primarily”. I mean,
you read it yourself. I mean, obviously people use the garages primarily to park automobiles in
there, but that’s the primary use of the garage. There’s other uses. I don’t think garage uses are
confined to storage of automobiles and storage of other stuff. A lot of people have workshops
in a garage. There’s other functions in a garage, and that’s all allowed by Code.
MR. STONE-I thank you that, Bruce. As you know, we are looking at all of these definitions,
and that’s probably one that I haven’t noticed, the top ten list, was it on the Top Ten list that
we’re playing with at the moment, but it’s certainly one of the definitions that we have a lot of
problems with some of our definitions.
MS. WHITTLE-I understand.
MR. ABBATE-So basically Staff is stating that a garage is not an exclusive use for automobiles?
That there are other purposes?
MR. FRANK-Well, there’s other purposes of course, which are allowed.
MR. ABBATE-Which are allowed. Okay. Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Just for the record, I was going to point that out as well. So Staff should not only
be the only one that is asked to clarify that. I see the word “primarily” as being a substitute for
the word “only”. It doesn’t say “only”, it says “primarily”.
MR. STONE-Agreed. Agreed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Anyone else on the Board have any questions for Area
Variance No. 17-2005? If there are no other questions, then I’m going to open the public hearing
and invite the public to come forward and present their comments concerning Area Variance
17-2005. Are there any folks in the audience who would like to be heard?
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WALLY HIRSCH
MR. HIRSCH-My name is Wally Hirsch and I am the next door neighbor and, for obvious
reasons, I am in favor of it. I am also in favor of it for the reasons that the area is a lake side
property. There are other things stored in garages. There’s all sorts of water toys that have to
be stored away and what not. The alternative to a higher garage, and for Mr. Pittenger or
myself or anybody else would be storage sheds on the property, and I am not sure the size, but I
know there’s a limited footprint allowed, and that would be, I think, for any of the neighbors it
would be a less attractive alternative to a garage of slightly over the allowed limit.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much, sir. Would anyone else in the audience like to be heard?
MR. ABBATE-If not, would the appellants please come back to the table.
MR. MC NULTY-We do have one piece of correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Would you please read that into the record, Mr. Secretary.
MR. MC NULTY-This, again, is from a Pamela and John Cembrook. They say, “In our absence,
please consider this letter a statement of approval for the Pittenger/Whittle variance at 139
Birdsall Rd. We are the property owners of 121 Birdsall Rd., which is directly next door. We
have reviewed the project plans along with the proposed height variance. We have no
reservations and by this letter show support for this project. Thank you for your attention.
Sincerely, Pamela and John Cembrook”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do you have any comments based upon that public
statement that was made?
MR. PITTENGER-Yes, I do. The relief that we’re asking for in the height is remarkably the
same as the opportunity that we would have to increase the square footage. In other words the
720 square foot footprint could be a 900 square foot which is allowed in the zone. We would
benefit by having more efficient and more cost effective storage by raising the height and
thereby reducing the impervious, and I think that’s important. The other thing is that we really
haven’t built anything, well, we really haven’t, the seasonality of the camp is such that we use it
in the summertime only, and when we do build something there, we want it to be
architecturally pleasing. So we were looking for something, having the additional height allows
us to be a little bit more flexible in the architectural character without just tacking on fake
dormers that really wouldn’t do anything. So this really would be more of an architectural type
building and we are looking to have it more of a barn or have an integrity to it itself, which is
why we were looking for to maintain close to a 12/12 or 10/12 roof pitch, to give it some more
architectural character. I guess that’s all.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. I would now request that the members of this Board offer their
comments.
MR. STONE-I was going to suggest that Mr. Pittenger and Ms. Whittle might ask their son if
he’d like to comment, and I appreciate that he’s there, and sitting at the table, and has a right to
be heard.
MR. S. PITTENGER-I think that it makes sense that we could make the ceiling higher, because
in our attic in Saratoga, the ceiling is, and under where the slope gets too low where you can’t
walk under it, we really don’t put anything there because it’s like it doesn’t make sense to go
out of our way to put it somewhere that it’s difficult to get to, and it would make more sense if
we were to things up there.
MR. STONE-Thank you for taking part in the proceedings.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. I’m going to ask the ZBA members to offer their
comments. I’m going to start with, please, Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I’m going to stay where I was. This is a tough one for me because this is
a unique section. The property lines go across Birdsall Road Extension. So a taller garage built
on the lake side of the road is not going to block somebody’s view, which I believe is probably
one of the reasons for the requirement of a lower garage near lakes, but nevertheless, I’ve got to
go back to what I said before, that there’s two or three garages that exist now in that section that
are higher. I think if we continue to approve these, we are changing the zoning. Personally, at
least in this particular section, I think the zoning probably should be changed, and I think
there’s enough area there that it could be without it being labeled spot zoning, and I recognize
that that’s a much more drawn out and painful process to get that accomplished, but
nevertheless, I still feel that if we approve all these, that the Board itself is going to be in effect
changing zoning. So, I’m going to be opposed for now. I might add, for the benefit of the
applicants, I’m going to be absent next month. Just so you’ll know, you’ll lose one negative vote
next month.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Thank you for forewarning me, Mr. McNulty. I
appreciate that. Hopefully I’ll be forewarned in the future. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I think Mr. McNulty has hit the nail on the head. I think it’s a very good
application. I think you have made a very good argument for a higher building, but as Mr.
McNulty says, a higher building starts to get into changing of zoning. Because we’ve got the
one next door. We’ve got one next week, and all of these are independent. We know that, and
we don’t talk about precedence, but we are aware of what we do, and we are aware that the
Town has got a Code that says 16 feet, and while Mr. McNulty says, well, maybe it should be
20, it’s not. The other thing that disturbs me, your argument that yours is a seasonal residence
is a very good argument, except the area is changing, and most of the homes aren’t going to be
seasonal in a very short time. I mean, we’ve certainly seen it up where I am on Lake George.
More and more homes, particularly with our current reval which has hit most of us, I think
we’re going to see a lot more year round living on these things. So the 20 feet is going to have a
different effect on the people who are living there. I really think that the telling thing for me,
and I’m conflicted like Mr. McNulty is. I would love to say yes, but I’m concerned about the
25%. You make light, to some degree, of 25%, but 25% is a large number, and I think, I would
just have to say no on the simple basis that it’s just too much relief, not because it’s not a good
project, but it’s just too much relief.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Underwood?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in favor of this project for the same reasons that I was on the
neighboring parcel. I think it’s an attempt to build something of value in the community, as
opposed to just some more generic crap that we’ve seen going up all over most of the world in
this day and age. I think the fact that it is set down in the ground, it’s going to be blocked.
You’re not really going to see much of it from the lakeside. The people who drive in on this
private road will see it. There doesn’t seem to be any negative response from the neighbors
about it, and I think that, in this instance, even though we’re going to grant relief for an over
height building, in due respect, the fact that it is set down somewhat into the ground as one
previous application was also, negates that height and doesn’t make it seem as though it is
sticking up like a sore thumb higher up into the air. So I would be in favor of the application.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Urrico.
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with Mr. Underwood, and it’s interesting that the criteria that
we are asked to stick to or use as a guide, one of them specifically says whether benefit can be
achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. It doesn’t say applicant and the community,
it says the applicant, and to me the applicant has demonstrated this is feasible to them.
Whether it’s due to the nature of their height or whatever, it’s means feasible to the applicant,
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
and I don’t see this creating an undesirable change in the neighborhood character. As Mr.
Underwood’s suggested, because of the way the building would sit down, this would not have
the impact of other similar heights, maybe in a more wide open location, and the request of
25%, I don’t see it as substantial. I see it as modest, given the situation, but 25% is 25%, but
we’ve given relief of 25% on heights before in other locations. Whether request will have
adverse physical or environmental effects. I don’t see that, and, yes, the difficulty is self-created
as it’s been explained. Now, I do want to say something about my two esteemed colleagues
who I respect greatly, but I also feel that in being concerned about changing zoning by granting
relief, I think sometimes that’s an unreasonable straightjacket being placed on the applicant. To
ask them not to be able to seek relief because it might change zoning and affect the zoning, I
think, is asking a lot of that applicant. We’re supposed to judge things on an application by
application basis, and if it turns out that we’re doing this in bulk, yes, maybe that indicates to
the Town Board that the zoning should be changed, but I don’t think that the applicant should
be punished for it, and that’s just my feeling.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico.
MR. STONE-May I make one comment before you go?
MR. ABBATE-Please, do, Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-There has been some reference to this being below grade, and I see some drawing
here that’s got rocks on one side. I would be helped, if we end up considering this at a later
time, I would be helped by an elevation plan of the whole property, to know where this thing is.
I mean, I see this says existing grade and proposed grade, and some rocks, but I don’t know
where it is. I really don’t.
MR. PITTENGER-Mr. Stone, if I could say, looking at the photograph that’s being displayed,
there’s a green port-a-john, and the tree line directly to the left of that is our south line. So the
edge of the garage would be approximately.
MR. STONE-South. Give me, which way?
MS. WHITTLE-As you’re coming in.
MR. PITTENGER-It’s our south line.
MR. STONE-Away from the lake?
MR. PITTENGER-No, perpendicular to the lake.
MR. STONE-Perpendicular, okay, perpendicular to the lake. Okay. See, that helps. Now I
know which way. North, south, east.
MR. PITTENGER-Okay. If you notice where that little jog is in our property line, that occurs
approximately about 10 feet right where that arrow is. It’s this side of that port-a-john. So
really, the right hand side of that port-a-john would be the south face of the garage, and the
grade there would be lowered approximately eight feet. So your question that you had for
Lynn earlier, about the hill that’s left, is that area that you see in that photo from approximately,
a little bit higher than where the pointer is, that is coming down to, the garage is setting down,
those existing trees on the south line would remain. So indeed while we’re asking for four foot
of height, we are lowering the finished floor of that by approximately eight feet. So indeed if
the Board was so inclined to consider variances only for those garages that we’re lowering the
grade eight feet to ask for four feet in height variance, I think that might not be setting
precedence for indeed the net height of the building would be coming down from the 16 foot
elevation were it placed at that grade, if that’s any help.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. STONE-Yes. It does help me, because I mean I’ve heard the reference, and you’re helping
me show how it physically is. Now, the lake is, that’s that south line where that, coming this
way?
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. STONE-Okay. So the lake is to the right side of the picture?
MR. PITTENGER-Directly in front. In other words, this, we’re standing at the road, and the
lake is, we’re looking due west.
MR. STONE-Okay. Because the south line is the long line and not the?
MS. WHITTLE-Correct.
MR. PITTENGER-Correct.
MR. STONE-Yes. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Does that change your vote, Mr. Stone?
MR. STONE-Well, it certainly helps me.
MR. ABBATE-It doesn’t change your vote, however.
MR. STONE-If the application talks to, and the motion talks to this being below, down, the way
it was described by Mr. Pittenger, I probably could be persuaded.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I would like, for the record, to ask Mr. Stone, is he supporting the
application or not?
MR. STONE-Yes, I would support the application, with the motion reading, and I don’t want to
write it, but the motion reading that, in fact, what Mr. Pittenger said and where it’s going to be
and the fact that there is going to be land between the lake, if you will, and the garage. That’s
what you’re saying? That’s what I’m trying to figure. If we’re going to lower it eight feet, what
are we lowering it into?
MS. WHITTLE-There’s still. There’s so much.
MR. PITTENGER-The eight foot berm would remain on the south side, and it would lower it
from the lake view, but it would be graded out and then our slope. We’d have about 30 foot
slope that drops down from there. So it’s set back approximately 30 feet from the top of that
edge, so that really the building, it would be as if this was the edge that pitches down, the series
of steps to the lake, the garage would be here with the existing grade to the south which would
be a berm. So it would really be screened. You would see this.
MR. STONE-All right, but the grade that I’m looking at, the driveway, that’s not going to, is that
whole thing going to be lowered?
MR. PITTENGER-Approximately from here, yes, at an angle going back.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Now is this reflected in your application, under relief required, this conversation
that we just had? Does it change the information in the relief required?
MR. PITTENGER-Not at all.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. ABBATE-Not at all?
MR. PITTENGER-No.
MR. ABBATE-Then I’m assuming that Mr. Stone has now supported your application, and
based upon that, guess what, it’s my turn. I would like to echo Mr. Urrico’s point of view. I
think he submitted a rather well spoken justification for your application, and I, too, would
support it as well. Now, at the present time, as you know, we require a four out of five vote for
approval, and it would appear, unless my administration is incorrect, and I stand corrected, that
we do have four for approval. So I will now request Mr. Stone hopefully will come up with an
approval.
MR. STONE-Well, help me one more time. As I face the lake, from the road.
MR. FRANK-I’m on the road, right now, in this photograph.
MR. STONE-Yes, you guys are on the right of Hirsch, right?
MR. PITTENGER-No, we’re on the left of Hirsch.
MS. WHITTLE-The Hirsch’s house is being built, you can see there.
MR. FRANK-You can see the Hirsch’s dwelling.
MR. STONE-Then I looked at the wrong house, and I apologize.
MS. WHITTLE-You can’t see our camp.
MR. STONE-I know the camp. I realized it was down there, but I’m looking, I couldn’t tell,
quite frankly, because the numbers seemed to be.
MS. WHITTLE-It’s a challenging site, believe me. It’s hard. I understand.
MR. STONE-Because some guys had 121, and then I went up and I got to Hirsch at 145, and you
were 139, but I wasn’t sure which way I was going, quite frankly. Anyway, I will try to make a
motion. I’m still not totally happy, but I think you’ve done your best to convince me.
MR. FRANK-And if you’re going to make a motion to approve or deny, would you close the
public hearing.
MR. ABBATE-We’re going to close the public hearing right now. I have a note right here. It
says close public hearing as per Bruce. So the public hearing is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. STONE-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2005 RUSSELL PITTENGER & LINDA
WHITTLE, Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
139 Birdsall Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 720 square foot two-story detached
garage at a total of 20 feet in height. The applicant, therefore, requests four feet of relief from
the 16-foot maximum height requirement of the WR-1A zone, 179-4-030. In requesting this
variance, the applicant has stated that the garage actually will be lower than existing grade by
approximately eight feet, and therefore, the increase in height of four feet will be less
deleterious to the appearance of the garage and its property. Certainly the benefit to the
applicant is being able to build a garage, which will be used for a variety of things, including
storage of equipment, and automobiles. While there is a feasible alternative in that the footprint
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
of the building can be increased from 720 to 900 square feet, this would be a detriment to the
appearance of the project because the applicant has proposed a very attractive building that
would minimize the box like nature of a detached garage, and although the request may be
considered substantial, in the fact that it’s four feet on sixteen feet, I think the other positive
effects negate that aspect, and I, therefore, would move that we approve Area Variance No. 17-
2005.
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. UNDERWOOD-Before we adjourn. Do we want to reconsider the one that we previously
talked about, because I think that we basically reinvented the wheel on this one, and I think out
of all fairness to Mr. Hirsch who came here two times now, that it’s a subject that we need to
discuss.
MR. ABBATE-We will indeed discuss it, and you’re absolutely correct. Now, if I may continue,
please. The vote for Area Variance No. 17-2005 is four in favor and one against. Is there any
challenge to the tally? If not, then I move that it has been moved and it has been seconded that
Area Variance No. 17-2005 has been approved. One final thing I’d like, in this particular case,
because we’re going to be on very soft ground, I’d like to state that I’d like the record to show
that the decision in this particular case by this Board was based in fact, based on the balancing
ratio, and it goes to what I consider to be a realm of reasonable doubt, and as such, I feel that
this decision is not considered irrational or unreasonable. Thank you very much.
MR. PITTENGER-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome. Now, I would like to ask Mr. Underwood to make his
statement concerning the previous application, the one prior to that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we re-open discussion for a short period of time here, perhaps we
can put this other one away here too this evening, and that’s not to suggest that what we just
did is an exact rubber stamp for this other project here, but I think that, if you really look into
this previously discussed project, in much the same manner of speaking, it has been set into the
ground the same amount as what we talked about here on this one that we just passed through
here. I think we should discuss if there’s a grand difference between these two proposals, as far
as the impact on the neighborhood.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood, do me a favor, please, and be more specific, and put on the
record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This would be the Hirsch proposal.
MR. ABBATE-Which is Area Variance No. 20-2005.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that they were asking for the same amount of relief. Being that it is
the adjacent property to this one, and in a manner of speaking, it’s the same thing. If you look
at the diagrams, and you see how much it’s set into the ground, you have to consider this in the
same light of what we just did here, and I think that’s important, for consistency.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. URRICO-I think before you move to open discussion again, since you’ve already tabled it,
that we may want to discuss if any votes might change as a result the previous application. So
that we don’t end up opening it up and then tabling it again.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I would agree with you. I think you’re absolutely correct, and let’s discuss
that.
MR. FRANK-Could I make a comment, Mr. Chairman, before you go any further?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MR. FRANK-I think it’s a great idea to resolve these applications one way or another, so we
don’t bog down our agendas. Because the application, the two applications were so closely
related, I can see the logic of doing so. I don’t know about the legality of re-hearing this when
you’ve already tabled it to another date. I’m not saying you can’t. I don’t know what that
answer is. So, maybe you can, maybe you can’t. I mean, you didn’t adjourn it. If you had
adjourned it, then you could open it up again. Can you still do so, I don’t know. This is a first
for me. I want to mention one other thing, too. It’s unfortunate that we got to this point now,
through better discussion about the actual application’s specifics. I’m not just up here showing
these photographs. My job is to make sure that the Board does what they’re supposed to do,
and I wanted to commend Mr. Urrico on the application of the test, showing why he was in
favor of granting, or approving the application, because on balance, using the criteria, that the
detriment to the neighborhood or community did not exceed the benefit to the applicant. I wish
every time any Board member wanted to go in favor or against, they would apply that test, and
base it on there. I hear a lot of talk about changing zoning. Maybe so, but still, apply the test.
That’s what you’re charged with doing, and when you fail to do so, you’re setting yourselves
up for a lot of potential, I don’t know what, but again, it seemed like Mr. Stone changed his
mind because he saw a way to utilize the test that made it fall in favor. I mean, I’m a little
bothered that you don’t do that every time, and Mr. Urrico did a very good job of making his
point and why it should be approved. Everybody else concurred because he already did so.
When somebody goes to the opposite end, I really think they should apply the test and say why
they’re voting no against that application, applying the test. So that’s all I encourage you to
continue to use the test. You have your little blue cards. I have that criteria right here, which is
a little different than what the applicants answer, by the way, and I think you know that, but if
you every want to borrow it, I have right here, it’s the State law right here what you’re charged
with doing. So, again, I don’t know the legality of opening up this application once you’ve
tabled it already. I mean, I’m not a lawyer. I don’t have the Town Counsel here who would be
able to answer that question for me. So I don’t know what to tell you.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to make a decision on the side of what I consider to be fair, and keep
the Area Variance No. 20-2005 remanded at that next meeting that we suggested I think was the
23 of April, was it, do you recall?
rd
MR. URRICO-The 20.
th
MR. ABBATE-Whatever the date was. I will not entertain, although it may bother me
personally, but I will not entertain, I don’t think it’s appropriate once we’ve tabled this to re-
open it again, and let me give you the justification for this. If we had denied the application, or
denied the application and then requested to be re-opened, that would be one thing, but I don’t
feel that Mr. and Mrs. Hirsch will be injured, administratively, by having their application
tabled, by their own request, I might add, to the next meeting. There will be a change of
personnel at that meeting, but that was a decision by Mr. and Mrs. Hirsch, and I don’t think it
would be appropriate, although emotionally I may want to say it’s okay, but I don’t think it
would be appropriate to open it at this time, but I’m willing to listen to any member of the
Board.
MR. URRICO-Well, the only argument I would make, and I’m not making an argument, but the
only statement I would make is that one of the reasons they chose to table it was because the
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
vote was not going to be, they didn’t have the votes, period, and with a full Board they might.
So that was the justification for it. That was the reason they wanted it tabled. It wasn’t because
of any other reason.
MR. ABBATE-And Mr. Urrico is absolutely right, because now we’re going to come to full circle
to what Bruce has stated. When an individual makes a decision to either approve or
disapprove, and then changes their mind, that does create some degree of confusion, and I
understand where everybody is coming from. Not to say that individuals can’t change their
mind, but I would agree with you that once the criteria has been met, or the five criteria have
not been met, then Board members should make a final decision at that particular time.
MR. FRANK-And I’d like to make one other comment. If you want to re-hear, open this up
again and hear it, that’s fine, and if it comes out that you approve or deny it, that’s fine, too, but
we can always find out tomorrow what was the legality of it. If it was okay, then.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’m not willing to run that risk. Your point is well made. I am not willing
to run that risk. We’ve tabled it and set it for another date, and I’ll check with the Town
Attorney tomorrow, and if he says we could have opened it up again, then I will apologize and
say maybe we should have. If he says no, you did the right thing, then I will feel happy.
MR. FRANK-Okay, and I only offered it because Mr. Urrico made a good point.
MR. ABBATE-He made an excellent statement.
MR. FRANK-The point was they requested the tabling because there was not going to be a
majority vote. Now if there’s any chance that may changed based on the last application, I see
the logic there. I don’t know the legality of it.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you raised a question, and the question leaves doubt in my mind, and as
long as there’s the slightest doubt in my mind, I’m not going to run the risk of the Zoning Board
of Appeals doing something that may end up in a court of law, that’s wrong. So I will, on the
safe side, say we will hear the case as re-scheduled on the 23 of April.
rd
MR. HALL-Mr. Chairman, may I address the Board?
MR. ABBATE-You certainly may, and please identify yourself.
MR. HALL-Again, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m a member of Rucinski/Hall Architecture. I just
wanted to point out, and, Mr. Stone, I’d like to ask you.
MR. ABBATE-Now, hang on for a second. Let me explain something to you. The Zoning Board
of Appeals, by its very nature, is an adversarial Board. Okay.
MR. HALL-We understand.
MR. ABBATE-We have the right, and reserve the right, to question and to counter question
applicants. Applicants do not have that same right to question or challenge members of this
Board.
MR. HALL-I completely understand. We’re not asking to re-open this at this time. I’m trying to
get a feel here.
MR. ABBATE-All right. As long as you understand that, because I will cut you off if you step
over the line.
MR. HALL-I completely understand.
MR. STONE-So will I. That’s okay.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MR. HALL-I just want to make a note that, you know, this project is going to be backed right up
against the project that he just approved. These two garages are going to be back to back. The
height level between the one that was just approved and Mr. Hirsch’s garage, the floor level of
these two garages are going to be almost the same or possibly a little bit lower.
MR. HIRSCH-Ours will probably be a little bit lower.
MR. HALL-On that side it will be slightly lower. It’s going to be dug into the same bank that
the prior approved one was. The result height on the Birdsall Road side will be the same. In
light of that, I would like to leave that out there.
MR. STONE-And you have.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I would suggest that you include, if you feel strongly about that, include
that in your application. When you come before this Board again, make the same statement,
because at this point right now, I’m not accepting anything. It’s in the record, but I’m not going
to accept it.
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. STONE-The only thing I would say is I would read what was said by Mr. Pittenger and his
wife and his son. Read that, look at what they said, and you know that was effective. That’s all
I can say. Quite frankly, every application, and we’ve said this for years and years, stands on its
own.
MR. HALL-As it should.
MR. STONE-And if I can be persuaded by you that you’re right and maybe I was overzealous,
but I’d like to be persuaded that way.
MR. HIRSCH-Well, I just wanted to bring it up while the conversation is still hanging in the air.
I wanted to show the elevation, if I could, that our garage, actually, will not, from the road level,
driving up it from the road, this is what it’s going to look like.
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me. Hold on, I am not going to accept this. If you have an argument to
present, you will present it at the next meeting.
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. STONE-His point is okay. That’s what they ought to do at the next session.
MR. HIRSCH-That’s fine. I just wanted to bring that up while the argument was still fresh in
the air. That was all.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Secretary, do we have anything else on the agenda?
MR. MC NULTY-I have nothing else.
MS. GAGLIARDI-You have two sets of minutes.
MR. ABBATE-We have two sets of minutes. Go ahead. Tell us what they are, please.
MS. GAGLIARDI-January 19 and January 26 of 2005.
thth
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have a motion to approve?
MR. STONE-You make it.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/16/05)
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2005 ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis
Stone:
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. ABBATE-Next one.
MS. GAGLIARDI-January 26.
th
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JANUARY 26, 2005 ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 16 day of March, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Hayes
MR. ABBATE-Any other business before the Board?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. ABBATE-Then the ZBA of this date, March the 16, is hereby closed.
th
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Acting Chairman
33