2005-05-23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 23, 2005
INDEX
Area Variance No. 32-2005 Veronica Poutre 2.
Tax Map No. 308.12-2-25
Area Variance No. 34-2005 Louisa Lippard
6.
Tax Map No. 309.6-1-59
Area Variance No. 39-2005 Mark & Ann Marie Reynolds 12.
Tax Map No. 289.10-1-9
Area Variance No. 29-2005 Sam Bhatti d/b/a Quality Inn 17.
Tax Map No. 302.5-1-51, 52.12 & 52.13
Area Variance No. 36-2005 Western Reserve, LLC
27.
Tax Map No. 300.00-1-19
Area Variance No. 38-2005 Robert Wall 42.
Tax Map No. 239.17-1-7
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTH MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
MAY 23, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, ACTING CHAIRMAN
CHARLES MC NULTY, SECRETARY
ALLAN BRYANT
ROY URRICO
JAMES UNDERWOOD
LEWIS STONE
JOYCE HUNT, ALTERNATE
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR-MARILYN RYBA
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE-A bit of new news is this. Effective this date, the following statement will
be incorporated in all our variances. Final approval plans in compliance with this
variance, subdivision, site plan, etc., must be submitted to the Community Development
Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and
Codes personnel. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits,
are dependent upon receipt. Thank you very much. Now, this evening, I would like to
introduce our Executive Director for Community Development, Mrs. Marilyn Ryba. She
has requested permission to state a few words, and I said absolutely so. Marilyn, would
you please come to the table.
MRS. RYBA-Good evening. Thank you, Mr. Abbate, and Board members. As you
stated for the record, I’m Marilyn Ryba, the Director of Community Development
Department. Just a couple of things. One is the statement that Mr. Abbate just read.
Staff had some discussion this morning about ways to make it more clear to applicants
the importance of approved plans, and we thought it would be helpful to have that
statement included in resolutions by the Zoning Board as well as the Planning Board,
and that way there isn’t any confusion that, what we try to do to speed things along is
the Building Department will look at a building permit and sometimes people get
confused because they’re looking at that in advance of the receipt of the approval, and
we just want to make sure that we have everything we need, so that both Building
Department and Planning and Zoning are working together and communicating. So
that’s really what that’s all about. The second thing is, I did send a memo out on Friday,
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
and I understand there was some misinterpretation, and I’d like to make some
clarifications. My memo, for the sake of the public, just referred to asking that Board
members communicate with Staff first before showing up in our offices, and it’s really
quite simple. What I’m looking to do is the best job I can, and I’d certainly encourage
communication. I want anyone to call. That’s fine. Right now we’re really at our
busiest time of year. So we want to be able to serve you the best we can. We want to be
able to provide any research that you might need. We want to be available. We want to
have office space, having the meeting space available for us to get together, so that we’re
not disturbing other Staff people who have work to do, and that’s basically it. Also we
want to avoid the appearance of any kind of impropriety that, if we have a number of
people who show up at the same time, that there is the appearance of a meeting, and we
certainly don’t want that. So there’s no hidden agenda here. It’s just, pure and simple,
that’s all I’m asking, and I certainly do encourage anyone who has questions, concerns,
to be in touch with Staff, to phone, e-mail, and certainly don’t mind you dropping in.
It’s just, we may not be available. We might be out somewhere and we’re just trying to
serve you the best we can. That’s all. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Secretary, is there any Old Business?
MR. MC NULTY-I think the only Old Business you’ve got, Mr. Chairman, is the Sam
Bhatti application that’s on the top of the current agenda.
MR. ABBATE-Is Mr. Bhatti, or Counsel representing Mr. Bhatti, here this evening? I
must indicate that, in fact, I did receive a call this evening. Counsel has indicated that he
or is client, I don’t recall what it was, would like to switch the calendar around, and I
suggested, I stated, quite clearly, I don’t make the schedule, and I don’t make
recommendations how particular applications are to be scheduled because I don’t want
to give anyone the perception of impropriety, give one advantage, disadvantage. So I
suggested, I have no problems with it, providing you talk to the Zoning Administrator,
and you and he work out the differences. I haven’t heard anything. I’m going to
assume that Bhatti, indeed, will be here this evening. When, I don’t know. So since
Counsel and the appellant for, I believe, it’s Area Variance No. 29-2005 is not here at the
present time, I will hold this application in abeyance. Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2005 SEQRA TYPE II VERONICA POUTRE OWNER(S):
VERONICA POUTRE ZONING MR-5 LOCATION 51 WISCONSIN AVENUE
APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF AN ABOVE-GROUND POOL (24 FT.
DIAMETER) ON THE PROPERTY 10 FT. FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND
10 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM PLACEMENT OF POOL REQUIREMENT
IN THE REAR YARD ONLY. LOT IS A CORNER LOT AND POOL WILL
ACTUALLY BE SITUATED IN THE FRONT YARD. CROSS REF. BP 99-189, BP 93-
500, BP 92-416, AV 13-1999, AV 57-1992 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT
SIZE: 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.12-2-25 SECTION 179-4-100; 179-5-020
VERONICA POUTRE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2005, Veronica Poutre, Meeting Date: May 23,
2005 “Project Location: 51 Wisconsin Avenue Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes placement of a 24 ft. diameter above-ground pool behind the existing
house 10-feet from the rear property line.
Relief Requested:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
The applicant requests relief per § 179-5-020 C2, “pools may be erected only in the rear
yard”. And, 10-feet of relief requested for the rear-yard setback for pool placement 10-
feet from the rear property line, where 20-feet is required.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
AV 13-1999: 3/17/99
BP 99-189: 5/6/99, 1456 sq. ft. mobile home.
BP 93-500: 9/8/93, Storage shed.
AV 57-1992: 6/17/92
BP 92-416: 10/14/92, mobile home.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes placement of a 24-foot diameter above-ground pool behind the
existing house and 10-feet from the rear property line. This is a corner lot, bounded by
2-roads, (house fronts) Wisconsin Ave. and Central Ave., §179-4-100, “The lot will be
treated as if it had no side yards, but only front and rear yards, for zoning compliance
purposes.”
The proposed pool will be located behind the house and will be placed in the rear-yard
for practical purposes, but considered front-yard per zoning. A fence currently exists on
the property, which will visually shield the pool from adjoining property owners.
However, the lots are relatively small in this MR-5 zone, with this lot being .21-acres.
There may be potential negative impacts to the neighbor to the rear by locating the pool
10-feet from the property line.”
MR. MC NULTY-I think we’ll find that the applicant will make an amendment. The
initial description that I read, I believe it was the advertised description, and before the
meeting she indicated to me that, at that time, the pool was proposed to be 10 feet from
the front property line. It has since been moved. So that would be an issue for us to
clarify with her. No Warren County.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Mrs. Poutre, would you please approach our
table here and speak into the microphone and be kind enough to, for the record, to
identify yourself.
MRS. POUTRE-My name’s Veronica Poutre. Originally, we planned on putting the pool
in the front towards the back, since I learned that we have two front yards, we decided
to put it, it’s going to be behind the house. The road on Central Avenue is going to be 30
feet back. So it’s going to be behind the house. I’m looking for a 10 foot variance for the
rear yard, instead of the 20 feet, so that it won’t be in the front yard at all. It will be right
behind the house.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anything else you’d like to add?
MRS. POUTRE-I also went to all my neighbors and asked them if any of them would
have a problem with it. I got signatures from every neighbor on the street. No one had
a problem with it. I brought that in with me also.
MR. ABBATE-You did request that it be submitted into the record.
MRS. POUTRE-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Great. Thank you. Is there anything else you’d like to add?
MRS. POUTRE-No, I think that’s it.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Do any members of the Board have any
questions for Mrs. Poutre?
MR. STONE-Is there a pool there now?
MRS. POUTRE-No.
MR. STONE-I’m confused, because I looked at the house at the corner of Wisconsin and
Central, which has a 46 on it, Central Avenue. Are you?
MRS. POUTRE-I’m 51 Wisconsin Avenue.
MR. STONE-I know you’re 51 Wisconsin.
MRS. POUTRE-There’s no pool in the yard right now.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. POUTRE-We had a 12 foot pool in the yard last year, but it’s no longer there.
MR. STONE-Because the only property I saw at the corner, and this is the southeast
corner, correct?
MRS. POUTRE-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, the drawing didn’t look like anything that I saw when I went
out there today. I could be confused. Maybe I wasn’t in the right place, but I certainly
did see a stockade fence in the front yard, in violation of Town Code.
MRS. POUTRE-I have, I forget his name, but back a couple of years ago, a gentleman
from the Town came up and asked us to take the fence down, because it was six foot in
the front yard. We explained to him that it was there for at least six, seven years. He
checked into, to see when the zoning had changed for the six foot fence. He said that it
changed after we already had put the pool up. So he said that we were fine, that we
didn’t have to take it down.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other Board members have any questions?
MR. URRICO-Mr. McNulty indicated there would be a change from what the
application shows. It seems to be the same. Because I have 30 feet, and 10 feet.
MRS. POUTRE-Yes. The side road, Central Avenue, we originally wanted it in that
corner, in the back there, but when I went to the Town, they said that I couldn’t put it
there because that was considered my front yard. So that’s when we changed it and
made it, it’s 30 feet back from Central Avenue. So it’s going to be right behind the
house, and the street, the people behind me live on Minnesota, and instead of the 20 feet
that is required, I’m just asking for the 10 foot. Otherwise, I wouldn’t be able to fit the
pool in there.
MR. MC NULTY-The point I was making is the description that’s on the agenda, which
is probably essentially what was advertised, says it’s going to be 10 feet from the front
property line and 10 feet from the rear property line.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MRS. POUTRE-It was changed after that.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other comments from the Board members? All right. If there
are no comments, I am going to open the public hearing, and to meet the obligation of
the Public Officers Law, Section Three, for a fair and open process, the public hearing is
now open for Area Variance No. 32-2005. This Board invites public comments on the
appeal. In the interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your comments to
only the facts and information given this evening. Would those wishing to be heard
please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify
yourself and your place of residence, and you will be timed to five minutes and, Ms. G
will monitor the time, please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. ABBATE-Apparently there are no individuals wishing to speak. However, in the
interest of fairness, I will keep the public hearing open until just prior to voting.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, we do have the statement and signatures that the
applicant mentioned.
MR. ABBATE-We do, it’s a matter of record.
MR. MC NULTY-As a matter of record. The statement says, “I reside at 51 Wisconsin
Avenue. I’m putting a 24 foot diameter pool in my back yard. Here’s a list of my
neighbors who do not have a problem with us installing the 24 foot diameter pool.”
And there is a list of, I believe, 14 names showing addresses on Minnesota, Wisconsin,
Luzerne Road, and Steven Road, as addresses.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Secretary, are those signatures or just list of names?
MR. MC NULTY-No, these are signatures.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MRS. POUTRE-I actually went door to door and explained and offered them to come
and look.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I would now request ZBA members to offer their commentary, and
I respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves
with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the
evidence relied upon should be specifically stated, and this is necessary in the event of a
judicial review.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question for the Secretary. How many names?
MR. MC NULTY-Fourteen.
MR. BRYANT-Fourteen total?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes.
MRS. POUTRE-I would have had two more. There is two houses on that street no one
lives in. They’re vacant. Otherwise, I would have checked with them also.
MR. BRYANT-Are all the neighbors on the list basically surrounding your house?
MRS. POUTRE-From one end, from Luzerne and Wisconsin, both sides of the road, all
the way to the very end of Wisconsin, which is a dead end, and I went to the
neighborhood behind me, and the neighbor across, diagonally from me also. The name
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
on there that’s on Stevens Road, he is the owner of one of the properties. So I went to
him to make sure.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Am I assuming, Mr. Bryant, that you’ve given up your time, I don’t have
to call on you now? Or was that just a simple question? Okay. Would Mr. Urrico
please take the first portion of this.
MR. URRICO-We’re required to weigh this with five tests that the Zoning Board is
asked to look at as criteria for accepting or denying this variance. One of them is how
would you benefit from the granting of this Area Variance, and I think you’ve stated
how you would benefit from it, and that seems to satisfy me. The effect on the character
of the community or the neighborhood would be a question on my mind, but I think 14
names signed to a list certainly supports your position. As far as feasible alternatives to
the variance, I don’t think you have much room. So the question is whether a pool is
something you have to have or not have, you know, that is a feasible alternative not to
have a pool. In this case I think is something that would enhance your property and
also your lifestyle. The relief is substantial, according to the Ordinance, but I think part
of that is because of the position of the house on the corner lot, and I don’t think this’ll
have any adverse effect on the environment in the area as well. So I would be in support
of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mrs. Hunt, please?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree. They say is the difficulty self-created, but
most of these are. It’s something you want, and I have no problem with the pool.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Corner lots always kind of trigger these things because you end up
with two front yards, and certainly if you drive around all the States Avenues, most all
these lots are tiny lots, and there’s nothing you can do about that. We’ve issued plenty
of permits for pools in the past, and it’s always a pleasure to see somebody come in and
do a best fit thing as you’ve done here. So I don’t have a problem with your request.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I’m conflicted. The property that I looked at today, on the corner of
Wisconsin and Central bears no relationship to the drawing I have in front of me, and I
just don’t even know where it comes from. Central is very clear. This is Central. This is
north this way, I believe. I went to this thing, I drove around this property. The house
is actually parallel to Central. I have no problem with the pool. I mean, I think, in terms
of the relief that you want, assuming that this drawing is correct, but it’s not what I saw
when I went. So I would reluctantly vote no on a technicality. I have no problem with
you trying to put a pool on that property, but I cannot, in good conscience, having seen
what I saw, say yes.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, to sum it up, I guess I don’t have a problem with this. I
approach it like I do all these, with the idea that nobody has an inalienable right to have
a pool on their property. Some properties just aren’t suited to pools, and unfortunately
a lot of times corner lots fall into this category. However, in this case, with the pre-
existing stockade fence screening the pool in the area, and given the layout of the
property, as has already been mentioned, there’s probably little other place to put the
pool, at least little other better spot to put the pool than where it’s proposed, and it
doesn’t appear to me that it’s going to infringe on a neighbor, whether it’s the current
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
neighbor or a future neighbor. The other that swings me in favor is the fact that the
applicant has gone door to door, not so much that she got a bunch of people to say they
agree with her, as much as this kind of assures me that the neighborhood got good, fair
notice that she was proposing to put a pool in, and people had a chance to show up
tonight, if they had a problem with it, and absent people here objecting, I think we can
go with, I can go with my judgment, at least, that I don’t think this is going to have an
adverse effect on the neighborhood. So I’d be in favor.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, could someone help me? I mean, nobody saw what I saw,
or what I thought I saw today? I mean, I was there this afternoon, and I drove from
Luzerne Road, down Wisconsin, came to this corner and the house has no relationship
to this drawing.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’ll be happy to respond. I didn’t see what you saw, Mr. Stone. I’m
sorry.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I thought I was, I’m sure I was in the right place, but as I say, I
have no problem with the pool. I just don’t, I have problems with the document.
MRS. POUTRE-Right. There is a diagonally from me that does have a stockade fence
with a 15 foot pool in their yard. I’m just guessing maybe, it’s kind of, not on the
opposite side of the street, but it’s like diagonally. So I’m just maybe thinking. I mean, I
do have, in my backyard, I have it marked out.
MR. STONE-Are you on the southeast corner of?
MRS. POUTRE-Minnesota is on this side of me, I’m Wisconsin. I’m like right there on
the corner. There’s a single wide trailer on this side of me. There’s an empty lot next to
that, and then, you know, houses down.
MR. STONE-I, obviously, looked at the wrong thing, but I, following this, no problem.
Obviously I looked at the wrong thing, but I was sure I was following the drawing.
MRS. POUTRE-I’ll be more than happy to be home any time you want to come back up
and look.
MR. STONE-That’s fine. Don’t worry about it.
MR. ABBATE-I really don’t think that’s necessary.
MR. STONE-No, it’s not.
MRS. POUTRE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, would you be kind enough, please, for your comment.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with the majority of the other Board members, particularly with
Mr. McNulty in pointing out that all your neighbors are in favor of the project, and I’d
go along with it also.
MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you. Well, I guess it’s up to me, now. As far as I’m
concerned, it’s a reasonable request. Placing myself in the appellant’s position, I would,
in all probability, seek what you are seeking. I think your request is reasonable, and if
my numbers are correct, I believe that we currently have probably six individuals in
favor of your application. In view of that, I am closing the public hearing. The public
hearing is closed.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I am going to be seeking a motion. Before I ask for a motion, may I
respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the
variance, against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State statutes spell out
five statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an
Area Variance. Having said that, may I please hear a motion for Area Variance No. 32-
2005.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2005 VERONICA POUTRE,
Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
51 Wisconsin Avenue. The applicant proposes placement of a 24 foot diameter above-
ground pool behind the existing house 10 feet from the rear property line. The applicant
requests relief per Section 179-5-020C(2), pools may be erected only in the rear yard, and
10 feet of relief requested for the rear yard setback of pool placement 10 feet from the
rear property line where 20 feet is required. I think we said the benefit cannot be
achieved by any other means feasible to the applicant. There doesn’t seem to be any
place on the property where it could be put, other than there. There will not be an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, and that’s
been attested to by the 14 people who have said they had no problem with it. The
request is substantial, but there really is no other viable alternative. Whether the request
will have adverse physical or environmental effects, I do not think it will, again, because
of the agreement of the neighbors, and whether the difficulty is self-created, well, I guess
every difficulty is self-created, but it certainly is a reasonable request, and I therefore
request that we approve Area Variance No. 32-2005.
Duly adopted this 23 day of May 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 32-2005 is seven in favor and zero against.
Is there any challenge to the tally? If there’s no challenge to the tally, Area Variance No.
32-2005 is approved.
MRS. POUTRE-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MRS. POUTRE-I appreciate it.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2005 SEQRA TYPE II LOUISA LIPPARD OWNER(S):
LOUISA LIPPARD ZONING SFR-10 LOCATION 19 HARRIS STREET
APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 8 FT. BY 8 FT. (64 SQ. FT.)
DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS.
CROSS REF. BP 91-590 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.19
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.6-1-59 SECTION 179-4-030
LOUISA LIPPARD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2005, Louisa Lippard, Meeting Date: May 23,
2005 “Project Location: 19 Harris Street Description of Proposed Project: The
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
applicant proposes a 64 sq. ft. deck with stairs on the side of the existing structure,
which will serve as the entrance to the house.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 3-feet of side setback relief, to site the proposed deck 7-feet from
the property line, the minimum side setback in the SFR-10 zone is 10-feet, per § 179-4-
030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 91-590: single family dwelling.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 64 sq. ft. deck with stairs on the side of the existing single-
family residence, which would serve as the front entrance to the house.
This is a .19 acre lot, 8,276 sq. ft. lot, a nonconforming lot in SFR-10, where the minimum
lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. There are several of the same size lots to the East of this parcel.
The one to the immediate East, which would be the only lot affected by the proposed
deck is a vacant parcel. Will this deck effect any future development of this adjoining
lot?”
MR. MC NULTY-No Warren County.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Would the petitioner of Area Variance No. 34-3005 please come to
the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record, identify yourself.
MS. LIPPARD-My name’s Louisa Lippard.
MR. ABBATE-Please proceed. Well, at this point, what we do is give the applicant, the
appellant, an opportunity to briefly state their case.
MS. LIPPARD-Like I said before in the application, this is the only entrance into the
house. The existing steps that are there now are deteriorating beyond repair. I don’t
have the safe access into the house, because when I open the door, I have to step back
onto the steps that are barely six inches wide, and that’s about it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, thank you very much.
MS. LIPPARD-I have pictures here, if you want to see the damage to the stairs.
MR. ABBATE-If you wish. If you wish to pass it among the Board members, please feel
free to do so.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I know I’m confused on direction tonight, but I think the lot
is to the west, the vacant lot. Is that correct, Staff?
MRS. BARDEN-Sorry.
MR. STONE-I’m a little confused, but I thought it was.
MRS. BARDEN-I’m sorry. There’s not a scale on what I have.
MR. STONE-Well, it does say North down here.
MR. ABBATE-We’re not going to make a big deal out of it.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. STONE-We’re talking that little thin strip of wooded area?
MS. LIPPARD-Yes, it is to the west.
MR. ABBATE-Would the appellant agree that Mr. Stone is correct?
MS. LIPPARD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Then we’ll proceed. Since you have concluded, basically, your
presentation, I’m going to ask if any members of the Board wish to comment or have
any questions for you. Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any questions or comments for
Mrs. Lippard.
MR. STONE-I have a question. That is a small vacant lot between you and the big
property to the west?
MS. LIPPARD-Yes. It’s owned by the same person.
MR. STONE-It’s owned by the same person as the big one?
MS. LIPPARD-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay. As a single lot, or two lots? I’m just curious.
MS. LIPPARD-He can answer that.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I can verify that.
MR. STONE-That’s fine.
MR. BRYANT-Why aren’t you just repairing the existing stairs? Why are we building a
deck?
MS. LIPPARD-Because the landing on the deck is not wide enough when I open up the
door. I have to step back. I’m afraid if somebody comes to the door, they try to open it
and they slip off the steps, I’ll be sued. They were built, when they were built, they
weren’t built properly. There was too much water in the concrete and they just, it’s just
falling apart, and it’s cheaper for me to use pressure treated lumber to go over top of it
than to replace it with the concrete.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying that the stairs, the concrete stairs are deteriorating, other
than surface.
MS. LIPPARD-On the edges, it’s just coming apart. There used to be a lip on the top of
there that’s just fallen off.
MRS. HUNT-What is the size now, of the concrete?
MS. LIPPARD-I think it’s four by four.
MR. ABBATE-Gentlemen, ladies, do we have any other questions or comments for Mrs.
Lippard? Okay. If there are none, then we will go to the public hearing, and again, I
state, to meet the obligation of the Public Officers Law, Section Three, for a fair and open
process, the public hearing is open for Area Variance No. 34-2005. And again, this
Board invites public comments on the appeal. In the interest of time, please be crisp,
organized, and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this
evening. Would those wishing to be heard please come up to the table, speak into the
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of residence. Your
statement will be limited to five minutes. Ms. G, please start the timer. Sir?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MURPHY
MR. MURPHY-My name’s Mr. Murphy. I live to the west of Ms. Lippard, and the lot, I
own right up to her, you know, the back door there, and I have no problem at all with
her building a deck there. It’s a 50 foot lot. I was quite surprised that the guy was
allowed to build on it to begin with. As far as I can see, I’m the only one that it would
affect. So I don’t know what else to tell you.
MR. STONE-But that is your very big property?
MR. MURPHY-Yes.
MR. STONE-And it’s all one lot?
MR. MURPHY-Yes. Well, actually, there’s four separate lots there. There’s four
separate deeds, but it’s considered.
MR. STONE-That was the question. There are four separate deeds, but you are the
owner of that lot.
MR. MURPHY-Of all of it. Yes.
MR. STONE-Fine.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Are you through with your presentation?
MR. MURPHY-I guess, yes.
MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you very much. We appreciate that. Do we have any other
questions from the Board members for appellant no. 34-2005?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one to bring up, just to get it on record, since one of the things
we’re charged with is granting the minimum variance necessary. You said that, right
now, the flat surface on the top of you stairs is not large enough, but if somebody comes
to the door, if you open the outside door, they have to step back onto the step.
MS. LIPPARD-That is correct.
MR. MC NULTY-And you’re asking for a deck that’s eight feet by eight feet. Do you
really need the full eight feet out from the house to accomplish that, or could you do
with something like five feet?
MS. LIPPARD-I’d prefer to do the eight, just for the fact that it gives me a little bit more
room when I’m coming in carrying groceries or carrying items into the house, and plus
it’ll have a railing on it, so I won’t have to worry about dropping things or falling off.
It’ll just give me a little bit more room, easier access into the house.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. So it would be more convenient if it were the eight feet?
MS. LIPPARD-Yes.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I’d just make that point. I checked the 36 inch door in my
house, and it appears to me that you could get away stepping back on a five foot deck
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
and still not have to step off the step. So it conceivably would be possible for the
applicant to put in a compliant deck.
MR. ABBATE-Your point is well made, Mr. McNulty. Do we have any other comments
from the Board? If not, I would now request ZBA members to offer their commentary,
and again, I would respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we
concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record, and may I please start
with, Chuck, you have the honor, Mr. McNulty.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, there’s obviously several things to consider in a variance. One’s
the benefit to the applicant, and certainly there’s a definite benefit in having at least five
feet so that somebody doesn’t have to try to step back and accidentally fall off the top
platform if they’re trying to go into the house. The applicant’s also indicated it would be
more convenient, when moving groceries and other items into the house, if there was
more than the minimum five feet. So, eight feet certainly is a benefit to the applicant.
Considering whether the difficulty is self-created, certainly up to at least a five foot deep
deck could say that maybe it’s not self-created, it’s an existing condition that needs some
attention. The additional three feet that the applicant’s requesting, I guess you could call
self-created, at least to some degree. On the other hand, detriment to the neighborhood,
it strikes me that an eight by eight deck there it probably would contribute to the
appearance of the neighborhood rather than being a detriment, and the only potential
drawback would be if, for some time in the future, the neighbor decided to sell off the
lot adjoining this property then conceivably somebody could be faced with building a
structure on the adjoining lot and have a deck that was a bit closer than it’s supposed to
be in that neighborhood. On the other hand, this is a deck not an addition to the house.
So it wouldn’t be a big wall. I think, considering all that, I’d come down on the side that
the benefit to the applicant probably outweighs any potential detriment to the
neighborhood. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I think Mr. McNulty has gone through the mental gyrations that all of us
probably have gone through on this one, and I think he has come down on the same
side, or I’ve come down on the same side that he would come down on. Obviously, the
benefit to the applicant is strong. The neighbor has indicated no problem. Yes, you
could probably get away with a five foot wide deck, and therefore a four foot, but I think
it’s so minimal, particularly considering the lay of the land, and I agree with Mr.
McNulty that this would be more attractive than less, and I would certainly be in favor
of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with both the other members of the Board. I
think that, you know, on these small lots, you’re always caught between a rock and a
hard place, and it’s better to build something that’s really usable and useful. You could
make a minimalist porch out there, but it’s nice to have a little extra room to step around
and not have to act like you’re doing a gymnastics routine when you back up. So I’d be
in agreement with it.
MR. ABBATE-I thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I agree somewhat with what’s been said. However, I just want to
revisit what Mr. McNulty said, relative to some future date where that lot may be sold
off.
MS. LIPPARD-Could I comment on that?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. BRYANT-When we’re all done you can. Where someone may have to build a
house and the deck would be a little bit closer than desirable. So I think I’m going to fall
on the negative side of this application.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Bryant. Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with those in favor of the application. I see this as
minimal relief on a very small lot. I see the reason for it, and I think it’s a good plan.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mrs. Hunt?
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I have to agree with the majority. I think it’s a modest request,
and I think it’ll be a nice addition to your house, and I’m in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, and I come down with the majority. I feel like this is a
reasonable request. I think the benefit to the applicant outweighs any of the other
basically minor technicalities, and if my count is correct, I do believe we probably have
six to one in favor. At this particular point, I am closing the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to now ask for a motion, and again, I’d like to respectfully
remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance
against the impact on the area as well as the fact that State statutes spell out five
statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an Area
Variance. Having said that, may I please hear a motion for Area Variance No. 34-2005.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2005 LOUISA LIPPARD,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis
Stone:
19 Harris Street. The applicant is proposing a 64 square foot deck with stairs on the side
of the existing structure which will serve as the entrance to the house, and they’re
requesting three feet of side setback relief to the site. Proposed deck is seven feet from
the property line, and the minimum side setback in this SFR-10 zone is 10 feet. Again, as
has been mentioned, the person most affected by this project has signed off that he has
no problem with the additional square footage being added to the present stairs that are
there. It’s been identified that the stairs are in a faulty condition, and that it would be
much appreciated to have a reasonable sized platform to step off from when opening the
door, so you don’t fall backwards off of there as it presently exists. The benefit to the
applicant obviously being that they’ll have a safe way to get inside and outside of their
home, so, at this point in time, I would move that we approve this.
Duly adopted this 23 day of May 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 34-2005 is six in favor and one against. Is
there any challenge to the tally? If not, Area Variance No. 34-2005 is approved.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, the applicant wanted to explain something.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. I’m sorry.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MS. LIPPARD-In reference to Mr. Bryant saying future development on the lot, if that
lot were to become available for sale, I would be the first one to be buying it. So it
wouldn’t really affect.
MR. ABBATE-You don’t want me to make that as a stipulation.
MS. LIPPARD-No, I don’t.
MR. ABBATE-So I’m going to say on the record that the appellant has stated she does
not want me to make the stipulation because, effective this evening, I have a new
paragraph I can include, but since you are uncomfortable with that, I won’t do it. Thank
you very much.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-And your application is approved.
MS. LIPPARD-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I do believe, and correct me because I don’t have it in front of me. I do
believe, Mr. Secretary, if I’m correct, Area Variance No. 36-2005 is on the agenda next?
MR. MC NULTY-That’s on the agenda next.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. I have a suggestion, gentlemen and ladies, would you
like to take a short break at this time, before we go into 36-2005?
MR. MC NULTY-We can.
MR. ABBATE-All right. May we take an approximately five minute break. The
scheduled applicant, Area Variance No. 36-2005, will be heard next.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, do you want to proceed with this one, then, or do you
want to give them the option of delaying until their attorney shows up?
MR. STONE-They don’t have an attorney either, do you?
MR. ABBATE-All right. Yes, Mr. McNulty, I think, makes a lot of sense. I’m going to
talk to the applicant of Area Variance No. 36-2005 and give you an option. We will
continue without your attorney, or, your choice would be to table this.
MICKIE HAYES
MR. HAYES-We’d prefer to wait, if somebody else could move in front of us, if that’s
possible.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem with that. That’s fair enough.
MR. HAYES-And if he does not show up, we’ll do it anyway.
MR. ABBATE-Area Variance No. 36-2005 goes to the back of the room.
MR. HAYES-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. You’re welcome. Okay. Mr. Secretary, would you please be kind
enough to read into the record Area Variance No. 38-2005.
MR. URRICO-He’s represented by Lapper, too.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Secretary, this applicant is represented by the same attorney.
MR. MC NULTY-So he is. Mr. Chairman, do you want to leave that one and move on to
the next?
MR. ABBATE-All right, Mr. Wall, if you’re here, would you stand up and be
recognized? Is Mr. Wall here this evening?
ROBERT WALL
MR. WALL-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll start from the beginning again, you’re late. So I’m asking the Secretary
to read into the record your Area Variance 38-2005, and, Mr. Secretary, since Mr. Wall is
here, I understand, Mr. Wall, you’re represented by Jon Lapper.
MR. WALL-Yes, correct. Robert Wall, and I’m the owner of 23 Antigua Road.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, sir. Your attorney is not here this evening. You
will have two choices. We will continue, without your attorney, or, at your request, we
will table it, or hold it to the very end. It’s up to you. I want a decision now, please.
MR. WALL-Okay. We’ll hold it to the end.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have any problems at all, and I don’t want you folks that I said
hold until the end, it’s not going to be until one o’clock or midnight. I’m going to give
you a reasonable period of time, and if your attorney doesn’t show up, you are not on
the hearing this evening. Okay.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Abbate, there’s two corrections. I think you twice referred to this
application as 38-2005, and it’s 39-2005.
MR. STONE-No, it’s 38.
MR. BRYANT-Thirty-eight.
MR. URRICO-I’m sorry. I’m trying to get ahead here.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I don’t have a problem with that. That’s fair.
MR. WALL-Okay. Great. Appreciate it.
MR. ABBATE-Sure. Well, we will hold in abeyance, again, the second one for this
evening, or the third one.
MR. BRYANT-We’ve got one more left.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2005 SEQRA TYPE II MARK & ANN REYNOLDS
OWNER(S): MARK REYNOLDS ZONING WR-1A, CEA LOCATION 4 JAY ROAD
EAST APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 260 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
AND FROM CONTINUATION REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. AV 58-2004
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.74 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
289.10-1-9 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-4-070 179-13-010 (A1, B & E)
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MARK REYNOLDS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2005, Mark & Ann Reynolds, Meeting Date:
May 23, 2005 “Project Location: 4 Jay Road East Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes a 380 sq. ft. deck with stairs on the Southeast corner and the lakeside
of the existing house. A 120 sq. ft. portion of the deck was previously constructed; the
applicant is seeking an additional 260 sq. ft. of deck area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests 17.7-feet of shoreline setback relief (per § 179-4-
??
070), 58-feet is required in the WR-1A zone (this is the average of the
shoreline setbacks of the 2 adjoining properties), 43.8-feet is existing,
40.3-feet is proposed.
17-feet of side setback relief (North side) (per § 179-4-030), where 8-feet
??
is existing and 8-feet is proposed, this is an existing condition.
Relief from the continuation requirements (per § 179-13-010), for an
??
existing nonconforming structure.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
The most recent history on this parcel was AV 58-2004: For a 923 sq. ft. deck, denied
7/28/04.
Staff comments:
The applicant was before the Zoning Board in July, 2004, with a similar proposal for a
923 sq. ft. deck; the variances requested were deemed substantial and were denied by
the Board.
The applicant has, with this application, significantly reduced the size of the deck
structure, and with that, the amount of relief requested. The deck will no longer extend
past the existing structure on the (front) lakeside (essentially squaring-off the house on
this side); however, it will extend 3.5-feet closer (40.3-feet) to the lake on the Southeast
corner.”
MR. MC NULTY-There was no Warren County.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Reynolds, would you please be kind enough to speak into the
microphone and for the record identify yourself.
MR. REYNOLDS-My name is Mark Reynolds. I’m the owner of 4 Jay Road East, Lake
George, New York.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and, sir, would you present your case, and what I mean by that is
the Board would like to hear exactly how you feel about your application, please.
MR. REYNOLDS-Last July, when we came before the Board, it was a learning
experience for me. Never going before a Board, it was a pretty frustrating experience.
We were, that evening, talking about negotiating the size of the deck according to the
lake. It seemed as though a few of the members were interested in discussing some of
those issues of how close we needed to be to the lake, how small of a deck we needed.
One of the concerns that we had with a shorter deck on the front of the house was, if you
put any kind of lawn furniture up on a deck and the deck is eight feet or less, there’s
very little room for tables or movement of people and such. We thought if we moved
the deck a little closer to the house so that it wouldn’t be any closer to the lake than the
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
existing house structure, that it would be more attractive for the Board. It wouldn’t give
us as much living space, but it would give us an opportunity to present another
application before the Board that might be a little more reasonable.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and you feel comfortable with what you have stated for your case?
You feel you’ve justified your position for it, is that correct?
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes. Well, I think if you look at some of the side setbacks, the
neighbor to the, I guess it would be the northeast corner, which would be Mr. John
Bernhard, John’s house is about 90 feet from the lake, which isn’t really to our
advantage, as far as a setback is concerned, but the deck that we’re proposing isn’t going
to interfere with his view of the lake, and I’ve presented a letter from John that he has no
objection. I would hope that someone could read it into the record. The neighbor to the
southeast side is about 30 feet from the water where we’re 40 feet. The deck isn’t going
to obstruct their view in any way. It would add a little more enjoyable living space for
us. It would help the property blend in with other properties on the lake. Typically,
most homes have a deck lakeside, and we’d like to be a part of that group.
MR. ABBATE-All right, sir. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen of the Board,
do any of you folks have any questions of Mr. Reynolds?
MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff, but they can confirm it. The 17 foot setback
where 8 foot is existing, that’s just technical, isn’t it? I mean, he’s not touching that side
of the house.
MR. BROWN-Is this the side setback issue?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Could you ask the question again.
MR. STONE-Well, I mean, he’s not doing anything to that side of the house, so it’s a
very technical, just because it’s a continuation of a pre-existing, so we have to at least
acknowledge it.
MR. BROWN-Well, the new deck coincides with the existing side of the house, correct?
MR. STONE-The opposite side of the house.
MR. BROWN-The opposite side of the house. Okay.
MR. STONE-Yes, it’s the one away from the north property line.
MR. BROWN-Let me pull the plan so I can answer your question for the record, here.
MR. STONE-Sure.
MR. STONE-I mean, I just don’t recall hearing that kind of statement before.
MR. BROWN-Yes, that’s correct, it’s an existing condition. I’m not quite sure why it’s
noted in here. There’s no changes over there.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s all set.
MR. STONE-Okay. Well, I was just going to say for the record at the moment, that I
think Mr. Reynolds listened, and we always like when people listen to us, in terms of
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
our denial, and I know you were not a happy camper that night, but I think you’ve done
a nice job of listening, and that’s about where I stand.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Reynolds, comments?
MRS. HUNT-I have a question.
MR. ABBATE-Please do, Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-The deck that’s before the concrete stairs, how wide is that?
MR. REYNOLDS-The existing one now?
MRS. HUNT-I guess it is, yes.
MR. REYNOLDS-It’s about four feet, maybe, three and a half.
MRS. HUNT-So then that’s going to join with this new?
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes. Actually we’re going to build above it.
MRS. HUNT-Okay.
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes. For whatever reason, that landing was there. It should have had
a rail or something, but that’s the way we bought it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other comments or questions? All right. If there
are no comments or questions, then what I’m going to do is open a public hearing, and
again, I bring to the attention of folks that to meet the obligation of the Public Officers
Law, Section Three, for a fair and open process, the public hearing is open for Area
Variance No. 39-2005. Again, this Board invites public comments on the appeal. In the
interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your comments to only the facts
and information given this evening. Those wishing to be heard please come up to the
table, speak into the microphone, and for the record identify yourself and your place of
residence. Your statement will be limited to five minutes and, Ms. G will please monitor
the time. Do we have anybody in the audience who would like to address Area
Variance No. 39-2005?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, we do have about four pieces of correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Secretary, would you be kind enough to read what you have into the
record, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. On top here I have a note from John and Kathleen Bernhard.
They say, “We are the immediate adjacent Glen Lake lakefront neighbors of Mark and
Ann Reynolds, who we understand are petitioning the Town for relief from the Town of
Queensbury’s lakefront setback requirements in their hope of building a deck on the
southerly side of their home. Please take notice we have no objection to granting a
variance from the Town’s lakefront setback requirements in order to accomplish this
improvement and that we encourage approval of same. Thank you for your attention to
this matter. Please advise if we an be of assistance. Very Truly Yours, John and
Kathleen Bernhard” And we have a faxed note from Mary Deltry. She says, “Dear Mr.
McNulty: I have received notice of a request for a variance by Mark and Ann Marie
Reynolds to construct a deck on their property at 4 Jay Road East, Glen Lake. I am the
owner of the property adjacent to theirs at 2 Jay Road East. Since I am unable to attend
the hearing on May 23, 2005, I would like it stated for the record that I have no objection
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
to the construction of said deck. I feel that the addition of a deck would enhance the
aesthetics of the property and would not in any way be a detriment. Sincerely, Mary E.
Deltry” One from Richard and Susan Rourke. They say, “I am 100% in favor of deck for
Reynolds home. Everyone else has a deck. It is up in the air, I can’t understand any
objections to people enjoying their home 100%! I hope their request is granted. Richard
& Susan Rourke 19 Jay Road – 2 doors away” And finally, a note from Donald and
Marilyn Higley. They’re at 23 Jay Road. They say “We’re in favor of Mark and Ann
Reynolds’s request for an open deck on the shoreline side of their house. They have a
need to access the lakeside of their home and this will enhance their property. It is not
on the ground so will not interfere with the lake itself. Donald and Marilyn Higley 23
Jay Road Lake George, NY 12845” That’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a question of the applicant. Mr. Reynolds,
unfortunately I was not here at the July 28 meeting last year. The application before
th
requested relief of 22 feet shoreline relief, and then there was some notes in the Staff
comments that there was an actual measurement taken, which was 32’ 5” required. Can
you tell me why there was a discrepancy, and if the 17.7 foot shoreline relief is accurate.
MR. REYNOLDS-Initially the first application that we put before the Board, the
measurements were taken by me with a walking wheel. The shoreline is irregular in
nature, okay. We didn’t do it from an actual survey, trying to keep the costs down, and
there were some errors made, unintentional, on my part, not understanding the process,
not exploring the possibility of getting some professional help to do that. I didn’t think
the process was that complex. This time around, we went and got a survey. We actually
had a draftsperson draw up the plans, and use, you know, actual measurements from
the survey itself.
MR. BRYANT-So these dimensions are derived from the actual survey?
MR. REYNOLDS-Yes, sir.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Any other comments from the Board members? If
not, I would now request the ZBA members to offer their commentary, and I
respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates that we concern ourselves
with the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the
evidence relied upon should be specifically stated and this is necessary in the event of a
judicial review, and having said that, Mrs. Hunt, you have the honor, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I was here last year for the frustration. I think that you’ve
proven that, while we may have felt that the feasible means were available last year, you
have certainly come now with only 40% of what you had previously asked for. I don’t
think there’ll be an undesirable change to the neighborhood character because of your
neighbors saying they approve of it. I don’t think the request is substantial, since you
have really come down quite a bit. I don’t think there will be any adverse physical or
environmental effects, and I think the only reason it’s self-created is because you want a
deck, and I think that’s understandable. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. This is a much better application than the previous one. I think it
shows a lot of work on your part, and I, for the same reasons that Mrs. Hunt gave, I
would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Urrico. Mr. McNulty, please.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. MC NULTY-Given that this is essentially squaring off the house and not building a
huge extension towards the lake, I think probably sum total, I’ll come down reluctantly
in favor. I’d rather not provoke things intruding towards the lake, but at the same time,
it strikes me that this may actually create an improvement for the lake, because, absent a
deck, it’s going to encourage more feet on the dirt near the lake, which could promote
erosion and that sort of thing. So I think to some degree in some of these lakefront
houses, providing a reasonable sized deck may actually be a plus for the lake, even
though they may extend towards a lake a little more than what we would like. So I
think there’s obviously a benefit for the applicant. I think there’s a potential benefit for
the environment, and I can’t identify any genuine detriment to the neighborhood in this
case. So, I’ll be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I basically concur, but let me tell you why. Obviously, Mr. Reynolds
is adversely effected by his neighbor’s property to the north. I mean, normally we
require a 50 foot setback from the lake, or the average, and when one guy is 98 feet, that
really skews the average. So, in my mind, we’re talking a variance of 10 feet. While I
don’t like getting that close to the lake, when you consider that the house is already at
43.8, and without the addition of the deck, we’re talking another three feet, I agree with
Mr. McNulty. I don’t think I like to get closer to the lake, but I think the project certainly
benefits the applicant, and I don’t think it adversely affects neither the neighborhood nor
the lake, and I certainly would be in favor of it, and I’m very pleased that Mr. Reynolds
has come back to us, after listening, because we always appreciate people listening to us.
Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I have to say that I somewhat disagree with a few of the statements.
I think it’s relatively substantial. It’s about 30 plus percent, whatever, but, that being
said, what Mr. Stone and what Mr. McNulty have said relative to the improvement to
the property, that fact that your neighbors have come forward and said that it would be
an improvement to the property, I would be inclined to be reluctantly in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I was essentially going to make the same argument that Mr. Stone
did so well. I would also have to agree that, you know, when we’re looking at
waterfront property, it’s a 50 foot setback in general, and if you’re going to move three
feet closer to the lake and you’re already 43 feet out, 40 feet is plenty of distance from the
lake. I don’t think there’s going to be any detriment to the watershed whatsoever. So,
I’d be in agreement.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. I concur wholeheartedly with the rest of the Board members,
and if my count is correct, it would appear to be close to seven to zero. I am now closing
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask the Board for a motion, and again, I respectfully
remind the members that we have the task of balancing the benefit of the variance
against the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State statutes spell out five
statutory criteria that must be carefully considered in deciding whether to grant an Area
Variance. Having said that, may I please hear a motion for Area Variance No. 39-2005.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2005 MARK & ANN MARIE
REYNOLDS, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Joyce Hunt:
4 Jay Road East. The applicant is proposing a 380 square foot deck with stairs on the
southeast corner and the lakeside of the existing house, and a 120 square foot deck was
previously constructed. The applicant is seeking an additional 260 square feet of deck
area. Specifically, they’re requesting 17.7 feet of shoreline setback relief per Section 179-
4-070. It’s 58 feet as required in the WR-1A zone, in this instance because of the average
of the shoreline setbacks of the two adjoining parcels, 43.8 feet is existing and when
finished this project will be located 40.3 feet from the lake itself. It also needs relief from
the Continuation requirements for an existing nonconforming structure. As mentioned
by the applicant, this would give him a useable sized deck. It would not be any
detriment to the watershed being located over 40 feet back from the water.
Duly adopted this 23 day of May 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 39-2005 is seven in favor and zero against.
Is there any challenge to the tally? If there’s no challenge to the tally, Area Variance No.
39-2005 is approved. Thank you, sir.
MR. REYNOLDS-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2005 SEQRA TYPE II SAM BHATTI D/B/A QUALITY
INN OWNER(S): SAM BHATTI AGENT(S): JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS
ZONING: HC-INT LOCATION: 543 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT HAS
CONSTRUCTED A 38 ROOM MOTEL AND ASSOCIATED PARKING,
STORMWATER CONTROLS, LIGHTING, LANDSCAPING, AND UTILITIES.
RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE FLOOR AREA RATIO, ACCESS DRIVEWAY
WIDTH, PARKING, AND SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RELIEF
IS REQUIRED FROM THE TRAVEL CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT SETBACK
REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. BP 2003-1005, BP 2003-965, BP 90-010, BP 90-009
SPR 12-2004, AV 19-2004 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 13, 2005 LOT
SIZE: 1 ACRES, 0.83 ACRES, 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-51, 52.12, AND
52.13 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-4-040(B, C), 179-4-060
TOM JARRETT & JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2005, Sam Bhatti d/b/a Quality Inn, Meeting
Date: April 20, 2005 “Project Location: 543 Aviation Road Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant has constructed a 38-room motel with associated parking, storm
water infrastructure, lighting, landscaping, and utilities. Relief Required: Applicant
requests the following relief: 1) 12% of relief from the 30% maximum Floor Area Ratio
(FAR) requirement. 2) Front setback relief: a) 37.5 feet of relief from the 50-foot
minimum requirement (canopy). b) 30.2 feet of relief from the 50-foot minimum
requirement (deck). 3) 1.08 feet of side setback relief from the 50-foot sum of both sides
minimum requirement. 4) Access driveway width requirement: a) 6 feet of relief from
the 24-foot minimum requirement. b) 5 feet of relief from the 24-foot minimum
requirement. c) 4 feet of relief from the 24-foot minimum requirement. d) 3.5 feet of
relief from the 24-foot minimum requirement. Additionally, even though none has been
requested, 67.7 feet of relief is required from the 75 foot minimum edge of road right of
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
way setback requirement of the Travel Corridor Overlay District for Aviation Road, per
§ 179-4-060. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2004-945:
pending, construction of a new office/manager’s apartment addition to the Econolodge
Motel. SP 12-2004: 03/23/04, reconstruction of hotel office, and alterations to the
building exterior along with the associated lighting (Econolodge). AV 19-2004: 03/17/04,
setback and FAR relief for a new office/manager’s apartment addition to the Econolodge
Motel. BP 2003-1005, 12/22/03, demolition of single-family dwelling. BP 2003-965:
12/18/03, 36 unit, 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building. SP 20-2003 Mod: 11/18/03, building exterior
modification to a 36 unit, 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building. SP 20-2003: 06/24/03, construction
of a 36 unit, 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building. AV 85-2002: 11/20/02, front setback and FAR
relief for a 36 unit, 8,000 sq. ft. hotel building (Quality Inn). AV 55-2002: denied
08/21/02, relief from front and side setback, FAR, permeability, town road frontage, and
parking requirements for the construction of a 46-unit motel building and additions to
the existing Econo Lodge Motel. AV 25-2002: withdrawn in April 2002 and resubmitted
as AV 55-2002 on 6/26/02. BP 90-009: 01/25/90, construction of a 21’ x 145’ motel. BP 90-
010: 01/23/90, demolition of an 18’ x 120’ motel. SV 22-1990: 03/28/90, Imperial Motel.
SP 66-89: 12/19/89, expansion from 31 to 48 motel rooms. AV 136-1989: 11/15/89, relief
of permeability requirements. AV 86-1989: 07/26/89, density increase and side setback.
Variance # 1241: 04/22/87; to construct 12 additional units. Variance # 1087: 06/18/86;
setback relief for addition of swimming pool. Variance # 1045: 12/18/85; setback relief
for addition to motel. Variance #263: 10/27/72; relocate a motel in R-5 Zone, various
setback and sign requirements. SV 85 & 86: 03/19/69 move of signage due to road
widening.
Staff comments:
The applicant received an approval for front setback and FAR relief for a 36 unit, 8000
sq. ft. hotel building in AV 85-2002. The applicant is currently requesting front setback
relief for a portion of the canopy (canopy built somewhat larger than that approved;
however, the additional portion requiring relief is setback further than that portion
previously approved). The deck addition on the east side of the building also requires
front setback relief. However, the relief required is much less than that approved for the
closest portion of the building in AV 85-2002. The deck addition also requires a small
amount of side setback relief. Even though it is of a minor significance, it should be
noted that the building (not counting the deck and canopy expansion) was constructed
at a 7.3-foot setback, even though the approval was for 6 feet.
The FAR relief approved in AV 85-2002 was for 5% greater than the 30% requirement.
An additional 3% FAR relief was granted in AV 19-2004 for the changes to the
Econolodge building (total FAR approved for entire property was 8% above the
requirement). The construction of 2 additional motel rooms and the basement facilities
results in the need for 4% more FAR relief above the 8% relief previously approved
(actual relief required for this application is for 12% above the 30% requirement).
The additional relief from the 75-foot minimum setback requirement of the Travel
Corridor Overlay District for Aviation Road was never identified by staff in any of the
past requests for relief. This additional required relief might be considered more
technical in nature than significant, as the state right-of-way at this location is extremely
wide due to the previous location of Aviation Road.”
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. I’d like to apologize for any inconvenience to
the Board. The Lake George Town Board called a special meeting tonight that I had to
attend, and galloped out of there, and fortunately didn’t get a ticket on the way over, but
I’m sorry to have to put the Board out.
MR. STONE-Are you apologizing to your clients, too, three of whom have been waiting
patiently?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. LAPPER-The answer is it depends how it goes tonight. For the record, Jon Lapper
and Tom Jarrett. I guess to begin with we made an attempt, after we heard the Board at
last month’s meeting, to modify this application to reduce the request for relief, and
foremost had the canopy pulled down within days of the meeting because that was a
safety issue, and the Board was, of course, correct in requiring that that be done first. In
general what we did was, by reducing the meeting space in the basement substantially,
we reduced the need for parking relief, because these are now, with the exception of a
small conference room, it’s now ancillary use as game room, storage and exercise room.
So it doesn’t bring anyone else on site, other than providing more amenities for the
existing guests. So it minimized the parking requirement, and that was one of the larger
variances that we were previously asking for. In terms of the Floor Area relief, the
basement space that’s finished, or that would be finished, would still be considered floor
area, under the Floor Area Ratio in Queensbury, but our argument is that, because it’s
basement space, there’s no visual impact because you don’t see it. So it’s allowing space
that has to be there structurally anyway to be finished, mostly for the convenience of the
guests, but also the small meeting room will be helpful to the applicant. So we’re
hopeful that you will view this as minor variance. Even though it’s not just a tiny
percentage, the extra four percent, it really is invisible. Let me just ask Tom to go into
some detail on the changes.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I think Jon explained it pretty well. What we’ve done is taken the
two large conference rooms in the basement that were originally proposed and modified
those to one small meeting room that is sized for roughly, we’ve shown 12 people in the
room on your diagram. Could probably accommodate between 10 and 14 people
comfortably. The remaining area in the basement would be, the remaining areas that
were conference rooms originally in the original application would now be storage, on
the west side, along with a game room, and then adjacent to the meeting room would be
an exercise room. We’ve essentially eliminated over 500 square feet of living space and
reduced that from the Floor Area Ratio, as you see in your calculations, and as Jon
explained, by reducing the meeting room size considerably down to something that
primarily motel users would take advantage of, we do not feel there’s any additional
parking required to support this room, and the chance that you have local people
attending a meeting, several people would be able to park when there’s diversity against
the maximum motel parking in the evening. The diagram on the board shows you the
previous application for two meeting rooms. The top diagram shows the original
application. The bottom diagram shows the revised application. The gold color
represents meeting room space. The gray represents the modified space to storage and
exercise room and game room. I think that covers what I wanted to present. We can
open it up to questions.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Please, if you have any questions, any members of the Board,
please ask.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. The rearrangement of the rooms, as far as the two conference rooms.
Now you have an exercise room. That was strictly for the parking issue, right? Okay.
That doesn’t really address the Floor Area Ratio. Nothing has changed. Those are not
storage rooms of consequence. You do have one more storage room, but it’s.
MR. JARRETT-One room, and it reduces the Floor Area Ratio somewhat, but not as
significant as you requested last meeting.
MR. BRYANT-So primarily we’re still up around the total overall relief, because you
already had two variances relative to Floor Area Ratio. So this would now bring it up to
like 12%?
MR. LAPPER-That’s absolutely the case, in terms of the numbers, and our only
argument is that in the test of the benefit to the applicant versus the impact or burden on
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
the neighborhood, that because it’s invisible underground space, there wouldn’t be any
negative impact on the neighborhood, and parking would be the issue.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand, but the argument on the other hand is the fact that
these rooms just didn’t fall out of the sky. They weren’t planned. They weren’t on the
original plan.
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. BRYANT-And they all of a sudden appeared, and now we have to deal with it. So,
I mean, that’s where the problem is.
MR. LAPPER-You’re completely correct, but it was always going to be there as
basement space. So, like if you have a house, if you finish your basement eventually or
don’t finish your basement, I mean, it really doesn’t affect the neighbors. So, you’re
right.
MR. BRYANT-No, but it does affect the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. LAPPER-Right, but the balancing test is, does it hurt the neighborhood and our
argument is that it doesn’t, but we’re not disagreeing with you in terms of the
percentage.
MR. URRICO-The canopy was never taken down, was it?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-It’s down. It didn’t go down the next day, as Mr. Bhatti said.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. There was some structural steel, but it came down pretty quickly.
We wouldn’t be here otherwise.
MR. JARRETT-It actually started within, I believe, two days of the meeting, and there
were some glitches in the process and it didn’t come down for a full 10, 12 days I guess,
something of that nature, and you have a letter in your file, I believe, that documents
that.
MR. STONE-From the Fire Marshal.
MR. JARRETT-From the Fire Marshal.
MR. STONE-Yes, there is.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions or comments?
MR. STONE-I guess the only question, I have a lot of questions, but the owner of the
property, there was some claim made by counsel the last time you were here that he was
unaware of this. You want me to believe that, that he was unaware that this project
manager did this all on his own without any consultation with Mr. Bhatti?
MR. LAPPER-When we were talking about that, it was really, there were other site
changes, elevation, parking, lighting, mostly the site plan changes. I’m not sure whether
Sam understood it or not, in terms of the basement space, but I’ve been involved with
negotiations with the contractor that there were certainly some things that were done on
site that somebody should have been consulted, and so there was a problem between
him and the project manager.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. STONE-When I drove there yesterday, the island in the middle, which part of it is
attractive, part of it looked like it was an encumbrance as far as traffic moving around
between the one motel and the other motel.
MR. JARRETT-Well, I think I would have to agree with you, that there are some parts of
that site that are attractive and some parts that are not currently attractive, and we have
proposed to the Planning Board modifications to that site to bring it not only into as full
a compliance as we possibly can, but also to make it more attractive and more in line
with the original approval from the Planning Board and this Board, obviously.
MR. STONE-Thank you for your candor.
MR. JARRETT-I would like to think that we will bring it into compliance with your
desires.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other comments from members of the Board? If we have
no other comments, the public hearing is open for Area Variance No. 29-2005, and this
Board invites public comments on the appeal. In the interest of time, please be crisp,
organized and limit your comments to only the facts and information given this evening.
Would those wishing to be heard please come up to the table, speak into the
microphone, and for the record, identify yourself and your place of residence. You will
be limited to five minutes, and, Ms. G., please monitor the time.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-My name is John Salvador. I’m a resident of the Town of Lake
George. I had an interest in this project, because I think we’ve gotten ourselves into a
situation that’s totally uncalled for, and it’s primarily because of procedure. This facility
is, in accordance with the New York State Sanitary Code, what we call a temporary
residence, and it is regulated by the New York State Department of Health, and the New
York State Department of Health, in Part 71, defines a temporary residence, shall mean a
property consisting of attractive land and any tents, vehicles, buildings, rooms,
campsites or other structures and installations, temporary or permanent, pertaining
thereto, any part of which is utilized or maintained primarily for overnight occupancy
by people with or without stipulated agreement as to the duration of their stay, who are
provided at least with some part or portion of the use of the property’s facilities with the
consent or implied permission of the owner/operator/or leasee thereof. Further, a permit
is required to operate a temporary residence. No person shall operate a temporary
residence or cause or allow the same to be occupied without a permit to do so from the
permit issuing official, and the permit issuing official is the Director of the Glens Falls
New York State District Office of the Department of Health. No persons shall construct
or enlarge for occupancy or use a temporary residence or any portion of a facility thereof
or develop and improve a property for occupancy and use as a temporary residence, or
convert a property for use or occupancy as a temporary residence without giving notice
in writing of his intent to do so to the permit issuing official at least 15 days before the
proposed date of beginning of such construction, enlargement, development,
improvement or conversion. It goes on to say that they will issue an approval of the
plan, and then of course upon completion of the work they issue a Temporary
Occupancy permit. Some of the things that the New York State Department of Health is
primarily interested in, now we confine ourselves with zoning issues, building issues,
that sort of thing, but the Department of Health is interested in the following: Fire
safety, fire prevention and confinement, fire alarm systems, exits, extinguishing
equipment, housing, maintenance, location, grounds, toilet facilities, kitchen, dining and
service, and by the way, this applies to employees as well. If you have a lunch room
there, it’s inspected by the Department of Health. Hand washing facilities, the storage of
toxic materials, insect and rodent control, weed control, and then they have a section,
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
Additional Provisions for Hotels and Motels, and that’s the handicap access provisions.
They regulate that also. So, I think the Department of Health’s scope of approval is a bit
broader and different than what our Town gets into, and they rely, the Department of
Health relies on the applicant getting a building permit, a CO for the building, but the
operations that go on in that building, and by the way, the inspection takes place every
year, and if you’re non-compliant, you don’t get your permit to operate, and as I read
the deficiencies that have gone on there, they should never have been able to open.
They don’t have a Temporary Occupancy permit for this facility, at least not that I’ve
heard of. So I would encourage that any conditional CO that we have granted be also
conditioned on the fact that they get the New York State Health Department approval to
operate a temporary residence. They have a district office in this area. They must
regulate some thousands of facilities from Saratoga to north Warren County. Thank
you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador, for your input. Do we have any other public
input? I would now request the ZBA members to offer their commentary, and again, I
respectfully remind the members that precedence mandates we concern ourselves with
the evidence which appears on the record to support our conclusions, and the evidence
relied upon should be specifically stated, and this is necessary for an intelligent, judicial
review, and I would request Mr. Urrico take the honor, please.
MR. URRICO-Well, we have four variances, three of which I think are relatively
insignificant, in terms of how they’ve changed from the original project. The building to
the front property line, I understand why that’s there. It’s the old Aviation Road, and
where the property line falls is too, basically a road that doesn’t exist any longer, and
reality doesn’t change this project very much. There’s also the building to the front
property line from the Econo Lodge side, the same situation, and the side property line
does not bother me, it’s 7.92 feet of relief. However, when we originally approved this
project, and it was with a substantial input from the community which was very
concerned about the size of this hotel, it was 12% smaller in Floor Area Ratio, and I
know we got to this point through a set of circumstances, but I still think we owe it to
the community to maintain that Floor Area Ratio. So I would be against this project, this
Area Variance. The overall variance, I would be in favor of three of them, but I would
not be in favor of the Floor Area Ratio section of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Urrico. Thank you so much. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-This is a very complicated issue, obviously. I believe we have been mislead
from the beginning, in terms of this being a separate business, and while that is not
necessarily part of our variance, it bothers me. I want people who appear before me to
be truthful, to tell it to me like it is, not how they want us to think it is. We have two
businesses. They’re very different in character, yes, they’re both motels, but one is an
inside corridor, one is an outside corridor, and that makes them very, very different, in
my mind, and I don’t think that we were ever told that. Therefore, I approach this thing
with a very jaundice eye. I admit that, not capricious and arbitrary. I deny that at all,
but I certainly raise a lot of questions in my mind as to why we need so much relief to do
something which could have been done without that much relief. I think I share Mr.
Urrico’s view that the Floor Area Ratio is large. Remember, just for the record, I want
the public to know this, too. We’re not talking 12% of 30. We’re talking 12 like the 30.
It’s 42 percent, and sometimes when we start talking about percentages, some people
may say, well, it’s 10% of 30%, which is 3%. No, this is 12 on top of whatever the
number is, and that makes it a very big number. So, having said that, I’m going to do
what a lot of my fellow Board members have done. I’m going to listen with an idea that
I’m not completely happy with the variance request that’s before us.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. McNulty, please.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. MC NULTY-This is a difficult one. I think, as with the two previous speakers, I
don’t know as I have any great deal of problem with most of the regular setbacks. It’s a
unique piece of property. It’s been indicated that, with the Old Aviation Road having
gone through part of it, it makes it an oddball setup, and, yes, there’s always the
possibility, some time way in the future, that that road might be reactivated, but if it is at
that time, whoever decides to do that will be aware of what exists. So I’m not too
concerned about infringing on that possibility with granting the side setbacks. The Floor
Area Ratio, I am torn both ways. I think the basic purpose of that is to prevent
somebody building something far larger than should be built on a piece of property, and
in one sense, what’s sitting there now, the physical dimensions haven’t changed much.
It’s just the utilization of the space within the building, but I think that is another aspect
of the Floor Area Ratio is it’s not just the size of the building, but it’s the total use of the
building, and while the total use might not be so important when we’re looking at a
lakefront camp, there I think we’re more concerned with the total size of the building,
but in this case, the motel, the total use is going to translate into cars in and out, people
milling around and what not, and certainly 12% more than the 30 that is allowed by
Code is fairly significant. I think what Mr. Stone, I’m going to listen to what the other
Board members have to say and what their reasons are, but at this point in the process,
I’m leaning towards, I think slightly on the negative side.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-The day after we had our last meeting, I did go down and review
the files to see what actually transpired through the whole building process here, and I
think that resulted in Dave Hatin’s letter, basically, and in my conversations with John
O’Brien down in the office there, too, he informed me that, you know, I doing his final
inspection, that there were pipes down in the cellar for hook up of a possible toilet, but
nothing that was ever shown on plans. There was a letter, on April 5, 2004, to SD
Attelier, which are the architects on the project, and they basically sent a letter to Dave
Hatin saying that the changes to the basement design are not the responsibility of the
architect or the sub-consultants, and the changes were not approved by those architects,
and I think that’s the first time that that came up, but, you know, I think when Mr. Frank
went in to do his inspection of whether or not the variances that had been granted were
done properly, this is when it was discovered that this whole process came about, sort of
surreptitiously. I would have to agree, somewhat, with what Mr. McNulty said. I think
that if you really look at the building from what was proposed and what we granted
relief for initially, the footprint of the building hasn’t really changed. It’s the same thing.
You are plus two rooms upstairs, and I’m willing to agree that I don’t really think that
that triggers anything that’s going to have a massive change in the parking lot or the
arrangement to the parking lot. I think that the fact that the canopy came down
relatively quickly, albeit except for the steel, that relieved the questions that we had
about ingress and egress of fire equipment, and I think if you’re looking at the relief, it is
a net gain in relief, but it’s inside the building. It’s internal, and I think compared to
what you proposed last time, I think you did take into account the comments that I
made about turning it into a game room or something useful for the people using the
place. The size of the conference room that you have proposed down there now is
pretty small. I don’t think you’re going to be seeing any massive conferences with 14
people in capacity in a room, and I still think that we all have to feel a bit of bitterness,
based upon the fact that this was done kind of under the table and not up front to begin
with, but at the same time, the amount of relief for the canopy off of the Travel Corridor
Overlay, I don’t think is a problem either. The driveway lanes and things of those, Steve
Smith has basically signed off as far as those go, too, but I would think that, at this point
in time, we need to move on. So, I mean, I can accept the fact that you have enough
parking there for what you’ve proposed, and we’ll just take it with a grain of salt.
Hopefully we won’t have anymore problems in this area. I know we have some
pending things going on in the other Econo Lodge on the other side there. So hopefully
they can follow the book this time.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Underwood, could you give me some sort of a hint where you might
come down on this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would approve it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Well, I, too, feel, I’ve been taken. How 36 rooms became 38, I don’t know,
but I do feel that a lot of changes have been made, as far as the basement, and I agree
with Mr. Underwood, it’s very reluctant, but I would approve it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mrs. Hunt, thank you so much. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to say, I appreciate the
reconfiguration of the basement to relieve the parking issue and the fact that you moved
on the canopy as quickly as possible, and after a few days we did see some activity
there, and that’s much appreciated. That being said, I think at the last meeting, I
indicated that, and after reviewing the minutes confirms that, that the only issue that I’m
concerned with is the Floor Area Ratio, not so much, it is substantial, and I don’t want to
take away from that. The additional 12% is a substantial request, but more in the fact
that this is the third time we’re going back to the table, and you’ve already gotten two
other variances that were approved relative to Floor Area Ratio, and I remember Mr.
Salvador coming to the table and mentioning that these things just didn’t fall out of the
sky. It took some planning to run some wires, and you have electricity and you have
ventilation and you have these other things, and I have to agree somewhat with what
Mr. Underwood says. We feel somehow betrayed because this all, and I also understand
that, you know, if we had said, well, we’re going to change everything to storage, how
would you monitor that? How would you enforce that? That would be, you know,
impossible, primarily. So, frankly, that’s what sticks in my craw, and that’s the Floor
Area Ratio, and I can’t get away from that. I don’t know what the solution is, but I’m
going to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. I note here that Mr. Stone and Mr. McNulty took a position that
they would prefer to hear the other Board members, which is a correct position, by the
way, a fair position, and I would ask Mr. Stone or Mr. McNulty if they would care to
expand on their questionable position prior to this, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I would like to hear from the whole Board first.
MR. ABBATE-You want to hear from me. I think that’s the end of the Board.
MR. STONE-I think that’s what I meant.
MR. ABBATE-There has been unquestionably, in my mind, an attempt at
disinformation, initially. However, there is what’s referred to as a standard of fairness,
and I firmly believe that when an applicant has proposed feasible alternatives and then
comes back, in good faith, our actions should not be punitive, but rather demand
compliance. Substantive due process, if you will, demands that we apply a standard of
due process which guarantees and ensures that there is a fair hearing. It is my opinion
that while I was initially upset and I beat on counsel, and he knows that, I am not going
to allow my emotions to take over from my better judgment. I feel I have a duty and
responsibility to uphold the standard of fairness, and I think that the applicant has come
before us now, this evening, and has made an honest attempt to rectify, if you will, those
things that might have been perhaps to me irritable. So, based on the standard of
fairness, and based upon the information this evening, I will support the application.
MR. STONE-Thank you. I’ll go first, only because I’ll leave it up to you. Having
listened to everything, and recognizing that we can’t wave a magic wand and say
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
everything is all right, and we’ll ignore the fact that there are space in the basement that
will be finished in one way or another. I’m still inclined to say no, until I get a full
rendition of what is in the building, not just the drawing up there. I don’t believe we
have that. Is that the old one or the new one, Roy?
MR. URRICO-It’s the one that was in the package.
MR. STONE-I didn’t get it.
MRS. HUNT-I didn’t get that.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, it’s in the package.
MR. STONE-I didn’t get it.
MR. BRYANT-It’s folded, that’s why.
MR. STONE-Okay, but, that notwithstanding, you know, putting a, I remember about 13
years ago, when I appeared before this Board for a variance, and I had a nice set of
plans, and things were labeled. One was labeled a game room. It’s a big open space in
my house, and the architect or the designer put game room, and I had to defend that it
wasn’t a game, I wasn’t going to have casino games of chance in there. Now I’m not
suggesting you are, but labels, I guess I need more assurance that this is going to be
what counsel and Mr. Jarrett are saying. Words are easy, and I’m just concerned that by
saying okay to something which is 42%, approximately, of what it should be, or over, is
just too much. So right not I’m inclined to say no.
MR. LAPPER-I could come up with maybe a suggestion.
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, I would prefer you wait until I ask Mr. McNulty, please, to
make his remarks.
MR. LAPPER-Certainly.
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve been thinking, while everybody’s been talking. I’m still coming
down on the negative side. I think, as Mr. Stone said, I guess two or three things bother
me. One, is that the total Floor Area Ratio strikes me as being significant. Second, we’ve
been through this before. We gave an approval. What currently exists is not a reflection
of what we gave as an approval previously. That bothers me. The other thing that I’m
looking at, I don’t know whether somebody was deliberately deceiving or whether this
is just the way things happened, whether the project was poorly managed, I have no
idea. I’m just looking at the total effect that we approved one thing, what we got was
something different. I see no thing so far that tells me that I can expect anything else to
happen this time. If we approve what’s requested now, what we get in the final
analysis, if it’s got the same kind of quantum shift that we got from the previous time,
then I’m really going to be bothered, and I’m looking ahead I guess a little bit beyond
even this application. There’s going to be work done on the Econo Lodge which is still
the same owners, same general piece of property, I’m not sure, title may be different, but
the same piece of property, and I’m just not convinced that if we approve, or if I approve
this current request, that that’s what I’m going to see as the final result. So, I would
rather see the Floor Area Ratio go back to what we originally approved, so I’m going to
be negative.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Counselor, I believe you wanted to
comment.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Just very briefly, Mr. Chairman. Certainly Tom and I appear before
this Board, and a lot of other Boards, and our credibility is a real important issue for us,
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
and if we had been involved in this process during construction, we certainly would
have told the owner what the approvals said and didn’t say. I wasn’t involved in those
approvals, but in terms of where we are now, and realize that credibility for the
applicant is an issue, one thing I would propose, in response to Mr. Stone’s comments
that, in terms of verifiability, that we could either make a condition or approve the three
small ones and then come back and look at the other one, after there’s games and
workout equipment and the walls are put up, or invite everyone back for a site visit or
Bruce Frank, what have you, in two months, to just, to show that the rooms have been
subdivided and that there are games and exercise equipment, but just in terms of the
bigger picture, we made the point that you really can’t see it and that some of the Board
members acknowledge that, but on top of that, it just makes it a better facility for the
community, a motel that has some games, some exercise equipment. It just makes it a
little higher class place, and the issue that I think Mr. Stone mentioned about the interior
versus the exterior corridor, Tom assures me that that was something that was discussed
in the original approval process.
MR. STONE-Well, it was, you’re right, and that’s why I thought it was one project.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, and I think that what Sam put on the record last time, and I wasn’t
involved, was that this came out so nice that it didn’t, it was no longer an Econo project.
It got to the second level of the Choice hotels, and that was sort of an, because of the
level of finish, and I can’t comment, other than what Mr. Bhatti said.
MR. ABBATE-Let me make this statement. I mentioned earlier, I stated earlier, my
position. I indicated that I’m a firm believer in the standard of fairness. I’m a firm
believer in substantive due process. However, as Acting Chairman, I must be impartial
and I must yield to what I consider to be the majority feeling of the Board, and I’m going
to do that, and there are several options, Counselor, that you could take. I’m not going
to suggest any. You know what they are, and I will give you an opportunity to submit
to this Board for consideration any options that you may have.
MR. LAPPER-I guess what I would think is that they are going to still have to work on
the other side, and perhaps the best answer is to ask you to approve the setback
variances. We can withdraw the Floor Area Ratio at this point, and see if we can come
up with a smaller, with a different game plan that asks for less relief.
MR. ABBATE-All right, sir, then I’m going to suggest that, before, unless I hear any
different of opinion from the Board, that before this Board considers any portion of your
variance, 29-2005, you, perhaps, should consider tabling this, making whatever
modifications you feel that are appropriate, and submitting those modifications to the
Zoning Administrator.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I want to ask Staff a question. Is this a possibility? Are
we talking about real life physics? I mean, without removing part of the building, are
they going to be able to come into compliance with the old Floor Area Ratio formula?
MR. BROWN-I think the offer on the table is to withdraw any request for relief from
Floor Area Ratio, which, what that does, that holds them to having no finished space in
the basement, other than storage space, no game room, no conference room. If any of
those spaces are found in the basement, they’re in violation of the requirements, because
you haven’t granted them any relief.
MR. BRYANT-Well, that’s not the way I understood it. Counselor, maybe you can
clarify it. Are you saying, because isn’t the Econo Lodge and the Quality, that’s all one
project.
MR. LAPPER-That’s correct.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. BRYANT-So when you recalculate, when you do whatever you’re going to do in
the Econo Lodge, and you recalculate the Floor Area Ratio, you’re going to do some
kind of magical voodoo and come up with close to what the old figure was, and we’re
not going to be talking about additional relief. Is that it?
MR. JARRETT-The original calculation that we came to this Board with last year was
exactly the same building size. It just had no use in the basement other than storage,
and I think that’s what your Zoning.
MR. BRYANT-No, there were two other rooms added, too, right?
MR. JARRETT-No, actually, there was 37 approved by, I thought this Board, but the
Planning Board, and one room upstairs in the first floor was designated as a meeting
room. That’s what got moved downstairs, and that’s where the additional room, as a
motel room, was proposed. So there’s actually no additional rooms upstairs on the first
or second floors. It’s just the basement area that was converted into useable space.
MR. BRYANT-Well, my question is, when you do the Econo Lodge, is it possible to
come back to the old Floor Area Ratio?
MR. JARRETT-We would eliminate the uses in the new building, in the basement, which
would bring us back to the 38% Floor Area Ratio that was previously approved, and
that’s what Mr. Lapper’s referring to when he says he’s going to withdraw the
application for a Floor Area Ratio variance.
MR. BRYANT-Now how is that really enforceable, though? I mean, Mr. Lapper pointed
out, it’s in the basement. Nobody sees it, nobody knows. If the tree falls in the woods
and nobody’s there, did it really fall.
MR. BROWN-A process that occurs annually, if not more frequently than that, in our
Building Department, is an inspection by every commercial business by the Fire
Marshal’s office. So they’re going to be in this building, once a year if not sooner, top to
bottom, and they can certainly be put on notice that the basement is to contain nothing
other than storage and utility spaces, and if they find anything other than that, they can
bring it to our attention and we can pursue it as an enforcement.
MR. ABBATE-That appears to me to be a reasonable approach.
MR. URRICO-I thought I heard Mr. Lapper say something about, we’d be able to visit.
MR. LAPPER-That was in terms of the verifying what was there, that if the Board did
agree to grant those variances, the question is how can we make sure that they’re not
meeting space, that they’re really a workout space and game rooms, and I was just
suggesting that they’d have to buy all sorts of equipment and that in 60 days it would
probably be in there and we could have a visit to show that it wasn’t meeting space,
because that was the issue.
MR. URRICO-They would go ahead with what’s there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, if it was approved.
MR. URRICO-If it was approved. What if it wasn’t approved?
MR. LAPPER-If it’s not approved.
MR. URRICO-We separated it from the variance.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. JARRETT-If we withdraw it or it’s not approved, then we would go back to just
storage space. There would be nothing placed in the basement, and that would be
verifiable by the Fire Marshal’s office.
MR. STONE-And then you have the right to come back.
MR. JARRETT-Certainly.
MR. STONE-Seeking some relief.
MR. JARRETT-If we withdraw it, especially, we’d have a chance to reconfigure it and
come back for seeking the variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Counselor, is that your position, that you wish to withdraw this
application? If so, would you please state it on the record.
MR. URRICO-No, they want to withdraw the.
MR. LAPPER-Just the Floor Area Ratio relief.
MR. ABBATE-Withdraw the FAR, the Floor Area Ratio.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-That part of the application that triggers Paragraph One. Is that a
reasonable way to put it?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I think, if, in your approval motion, if that’s the direction you go, if
you don’t include any Floor Area Ratio relief approval, then that covers it as well. You
just don’t acknowledge it, but the applicant stated on the record he’s withdrawing that.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, that’s what I thought, you’ve stated on the record you’re
withdrawing. Is that correct?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Should we clarify whether there is a problem with the rooms
upstairs, or the cellar or both combined together? I mean, is that something that they
need to address? Because we’ve been talking, primarily, about the underground.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We can address any concerns that any Board member of this Board
feel that they have, and if there are concerns, I think we should address them right now,
so that the applicant understands what our concerns are and may address those
concerns later on. So if any members of the Board have any additional concerns, I think
it would be fair to bring those to the attention of the applicant, so they can address those
issues. Are there any concerns from any members of the Board?
MR. ABBATE-It strikes me that if the Floor Area Ratio is off the table at this point, then
what they do with the upstairs rooms is up to the applicant. They’ve got to do
something with the structure of their rooms to comply with the Floor Area Ratio, and we
probably don’t have to worry about determining whether one’s a meeting room or one’s
a guest room. That can fall to the applicant and the zoning codes people.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. ABBATE-So then, Board members, this is a question to you, if I now moved, in view
of the fact that they have removed the Floor Area Ratio, taken it off, I’m addressing this
to all the Board members. If I move for a motion, would anybody object? No? Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Just one more question, Mr. Chairman. By not using the basement, does
that take care of the additional percentage on the Floor Area Ratio totally?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because the upstairs was approved, whether it’s a meeting room, as
Mr. McNulty said, whether it’s an upstairs meeting room or an upstairs motel room.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and that didn’t affect the Floor Area Ratio?
MR. LAPPER-No.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Fair enough? Okay. Again, may I ask for a motion, and respectfully
remind the members of the task of balancing the benefit of the variance against the
impact on the area, and the fact that we have State statutes that spell out five statutory
requirements that each Board member must consider in deciding whether or not to grant
an Area Variance. Having said that, may I please hear a motion for Area Variance No.
29-2005. The public hearing is closed.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2005 SAM BHATTI D/B/A
QUALITY INN, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Allan Bryant:
543 Aviation Road. The applicant has constructed a 38 room motel with associated
parking and stormwater infrastructure, lighting, landscaping and utilities. The
applicant is requesting three variances. One for a setback relief, 37 and a half feet of
relief from the 50 foot minimum requirement due to the canopy, 30.2 feet of relief from
the 50 foot minimum requirement, due to the deck. Second variance would be 1.08 feet
of side setback relief from the 50 foot sum of both sides, minimum requirement, and
then the fourth variance consists of four different parts, six feet of relief from the twenty-
four foot minimum requirement, five feet of relief from the 24 foot minimum
requirement, four feet of relief from the 24 foot minimum requirement, and 3.5 feet of
relief from the 24 foot minimum requirement. Access driveway width relief.
Additionally, 67.5 feet of relief from the 75 foot Travel Corridor Overlay as well. In
doing so, the applicant must be processed through the balancing test which balances the
benefit to the applicant with the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
community. In doing so, the Board of Appeals considers whether the benefit can be
achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. Well, there was a time when this
could be achieved through a feasible alternative, but not at this point. Is there an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, at this point, I
would say no, although it’s really borderline, because the neighborhood did consider the
hotel as, it was a part of a controversial project, but it should be noted there are no
attendees from that community here tonight to offer objection. Whether the request is
substantial. Part of the request here is substantial only because it’s due to a road that no
longer exists, but has to be considered as part of the variance request, and so I think, in
that respect, the request is not substantial. There will be no adverse physical or
environmental effects, and, yes, this difficulty can be considered self-created. Mr.
Chairman, I move that we approve this Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2005, by the following vote:
rd
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I may be wrong, but I thought in delineating the four foot
reliefs, the word driveway width was not mentioned in the motion. I mean, that’s what
you meant, but I don’t think the words were mentioned.
MR. URRICO-I said access driveway width relief.
MR. STONE-I didn’t hear it.
MRS. HUNT-I didn’t, either.
MR. STONE-But it’s okay. It’s in, that’s all.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 29-2005 is seven in favor and zero against.
Is there any challenge to the tally? If not, Area Variance No. 29-2005 is approved.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2005 SEQRA TYPE II WESTERN RESERVE, LLC
AGENT(S): JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S): WESTERN RESERVE, LLC
ZONING RR-3A, SR-1A LOCATION WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD, MOUNTAIN
HOLLOW WAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT THE 13-UNIT
APPROVED RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT PROJECT AND SUBDIVIDE THE
PARCEL SO AS TO BE ALLOWED TO SELL THE 13 UNITS AS INDIVIDUAL
SINGLE-FAMILY TOWNHOUSES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK,
PERMEABILITY, AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF. SB 16-
2003, AV 52-2001, AV 22-2002, SP 46-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 11,
2005 LOT SIZE: 34. 53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-19 SECTION 179-4-030, 179-
4-090
JON LAPPER & MICKEY HAYES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2005, Western Reserve, LLC, Meeting Date: May
23, 2005 “Project Location: West Mountain Road, Mountain Hollow Way Description
of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to convert the 13-unit previously approved
residential apartment project and subdivide the parcel into 14 lots (13 townhouse units
and 1 common lot) so as to sell the 13 units as individual single-family townhouses.
Relief Required:
Lot 13 – 24.97-acre (26.15 total lot size, minus 9,885 sq. ft. for total building footprints of
13-units).
Lot 13 (25-acres) will include 23,681 sq. ft. drive surfaces and parking spaces, stormwater
management and wastewater management infrastructure for the 13-units, and open
space.
HOA will be formed for roadway, stormwater management and wastewater
management maintenance, and common lot ownership.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
Lot 13A—1230 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13B—1230 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13C—800 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13D—523 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13E—523 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13F—800 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13G—800 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13H—523 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13I—523 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13J—800 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13K—800 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13L—523 sq. ft. lot
Lot 13M—800 sq. ft. lot
Per §179-4-030, Lots 13A – 13M will need variances:
50% minimum permeability requirement,
??
30-foot minimum front setback,
??
30-foot minimum side setback (sum),
??
20-foot minimum rear setback.
??
Per §179-4-090, Lots 13A – 13M need variances:
40-foot minimum road frontage requirement.
??
Per §183-31, the Planning Board has been empowered to modify the minimum lot area
and minimum lot width requirements of the Zoning Ordinance. Thus, these variances
are not being sought by the applicant at this time.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 16-2003
SP 46-2003
AV 22-2002
AV 52-2001
Staff comments:
This is part of a previously approved subdivision/cluster development, that the Board
approved, SB 16-2003 for 4-multiplex buildings of 13-units total. The applicants propose
to sell these 13-units as individual townhouse units. The owners of these “lots” will
form a HOA that will share ownership and various maintenance responsibilities of the
common lot.
The relief requested is substantial for each lot created, however, the overall plan is a
cluster subdivision, which minimizes the total amount of impervious area and
maximizes open space while conserving the sensitive areas on-site.
If the Board looks favorably on this application, potential buyers of these units will own
their building footprint (townhouse) and share common ownership of lot 13. A detailed
HOA should be submitted with the plan, to provide information pertaining to
maintenance of this common lot, including stormwater management and on-site
wastewater treatment, as well as maintenance of the private drive and shared parking
area. Consider specifics including what type of passive recreation will be allowed on the
lot, and how sensitive areas (pond area and areas of lupine) will be protected.
The Planning Board in their SB 16-2003 approval made the condition of no further
development or subdivision of lot 13, this stipulation should be reiterated for this
modification.”
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
May 11, 2005 Project Name: Western Reserve, LLC Owner(s): Western Reserve, LLC
ID Number: QBY-05-AV-36 County Project#: May05-45 Current Zoning: RR-3A, SR-
1A Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to convert the
13-unit approved residential apartment project and subdivide the parcel so as to be
allowed to sell the 13 units as individual single-family townhouses. Relief requested
from setback, permeability, and road frontage requirements. Site Location: West
Mountain Road, Mountain Hollow Way Tax Map Number(s): 300.00-1-19 Staff Notes:
Area Variance: The applicant proposes to construct four buildings on proposed lot 13
where there would be 13 townhouse units. The applicant previously received approval
for lot 13 to be 13 apartment rental units and at adjacent resident requests proposes
townhouse units that will be available for sale. The lot configuration changes where the
owners of the units also own the footprint of the building and the association will own
the land around the footprint. Therefore the townhouse unit requires a zero setback
variance. Staff does not identify an impact on county resources based on the
information submitted. Staff recommends no county impact. County Planning Board
Recommendation: No County Impact” Signed by Bennett F. Driscoll, Warren County
Planning Board May 13, 2005”
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir.
MR. BRYANT-I would like to state for the record that while I was making my site
inspection today, I ran into Mr. Hayes, and I think it’s ex parte communication. There
was none. So I just want to cover that issue.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Obviously we recognize the individuals at the
table, but I would request that both of you, individually, speak into the microphone and
identify yourselves, please.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Mickey Hayes. Very simply, of course
this application received a lot of neighborhood objection. Ultimately, the Planning
Board unanimously approved it because it cleaned up this former industrial site, and
I’m sure that you’ve all been to the site, because I know that you go to every site, and I
assume that you recognize that this is an incredible change from what was there, that all
the yards of concrete and steel and concrete trucks and everything that was on the site
has been removed. What’s really unique about this application is that absolutely
nothing whatsoever would change from what’s approved right now by the Planning
Board. When you look at the site, it will be absolutely identical, so this is really a
technical variance, if you will, because there’s absolutely no change on the
neighborhood, because those identical buildings that are already under construction will
be built, all of the site amenities, the parking, the landscaping, will be exactly as
approved by the Planning Board and the Town Engineer. Every time we did something,
the neighbors were always objecting. Every time we proposed something, but in the
record, many of the neighbors said they were opposed to this part of the project because
they didn’t like the rentals, that they thought that would affect the character of the
neighborhood, because people that rent don’t take as good care of their property as
people who own. We pointed out that in a rental situation it would be the applicant
who would be responsible for maintenance, and of course they would keep it up as they
do their other properties, but in this case what we’re proposing now is that it would be
townhouses. So it would be sold for single-family ownership and presumably people
that purchase their properties and own them take even better care of their property than
tenants who don’t have as long term an interest. So, my point of this is that it’s both
absolutely no impact on the neighborhood, because there’s no change, but also that this
should be viewed as more positive by a reasonable neighbor, because they already said
that they would prefer to have single-family ownership. With that, the technical nature
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
of this is that, if you’re going to have a multi-family project, and it’s all next door to each
other, if you’re doing apartments, you don’t need a variance, but if you’re going to
subdivide it into footprint lots so everyone can own their own townhouse, then you do
have to have relief, and that’s what we’ve asked for here. So we hope that you will view
this as the simple application that it is, or that we believe that it is, and I’d ask Mickey if
he wants to make any comments at this point.
MR. HAYES-No, unless they have some questions. I’d be glad to answer them.
MR. BRYANT-I have some questions.
MR. ABBATE-Have you concluded your argument for your case?
MR. LAPPER-I presume that we’ll need to rebut some of the neighbors, but in terms of
our principal case, yes.
MR. ABBATE-And you’ll have that right. Mr. Bryant, I believe you had a question.
MR. BRYANT-Actually I have a couple. Going back to our April meeting, 2002, Mr.
Hayes, you and I had an exchange where I asked you, we’re not talking about selling the
unit, building the unit and then selling it, and you said, no, this is strictly rental
properties, and we talked about recouping our investment over a period of years, and
then we go to the Planning Board meeting, where they actually approved the final plan,
and they talk about the fact that this lot, there should be no future development or
future subdivision on proposed multi-family lot number 13. So my question to you,
primarily, is why are we going from, I understand it’s a technicality. I understand that
argument completely, but I mean, why do we have a change in attitude about.
MR. HAYES-About changing it to sale, for individual sale?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, exactly.
MR. HAYES-Well, basically, to be honest with you, I know you’ve driven by the site
many times, we have construction signs on there. Basically it’s been the interest from
the phone calls off the sign that’s peaked our, because the market, this was basically a
market driven decision, to be perfectly honest with you. It’s a more profitable thing for
us to sell these than retain them in our own ownership. That’s basically the whole
answer.
MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying there’s more demand for these individual units as
opposed to rental units?
MR. HAYES-The rental market is very strong in this area as well, but the maintenance
free environment of the people that expressed interest, the average age is in the high
50’s, where people do not want to have to take care of a facility, mow, rake, plow. That
market seems to be gigantic with the aging of the population I would guess. A lot of
people have equity in their homes and they like to sell them and downsize and not be
necessarily tied to a piece of property and the maintenance of that property. So this is, I
guess, why there’s such a watershed interest in this type of facility.
MR. BRYANT-So can we look, then, for the other Hayes properties, I think you’ve got
the complex, to become condos all of a sudden?
MR. HAYES-They have to be constructed in a way that, which Staff could probably
answer that better, to be actually designated by New York State Code to be individual
units with the fire protection and such. There’s different criteria. So, probably not.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. LAPPER-Let me answer the second part of that, that condition 13, or about Lot 13
being subdivided. My recollection is that that was talking about no more development
on the site, that it wasn’t about whether or not it would be separate lots, although the
word “subdivision” was used, it was about.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I’ve gone very carefully through the minutes, and there’s really
no clear indication why they came to that conclusion, and I can’t really, I read through
them a couple of times. There’s 48 pages of minutes on your hearing, and there’s really
no clear indication how they came to that conclusion.
MR. LAPPER-And I don’t exactly recall, but I’m assuming that it was about
development density, that kind of thing, and, you know, that wouldn’t change, of
course.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other questions from other Board members, please?
MR. MC NULTY-I’ve got one. I’m not sure whether it’s for Counsel or whether it’s for
Staff, or what, but let me throw it out. There’s other townhouse complexes in the Town.
Did they get variances? I’m wondering why we need to give variances for these. Isn’t
there another mechanism for somebody to develop a townhouse complex without
individual variances?
MR. BROWN-There are other methods, and I think that the reason that this specific
project needs the variances it needs is the unique nature of the lots, which in this case are
basically the footprint of the building.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, but that’s the definition of townhouse, period. If it’s a condo,
people own from their inside wall of their inside wall, but they don’t own the land
under it. Townhouse you own the building and the land directly under it.
MR. BROWN-For instance, Dixon Heights, if you’re familiar with Dixon Heights, that’s
considered a townhouse development. Each one of those units up there owns a portion
of land, either in front, in back, or in front, on the side and in back, depending on if
you’re a middle or end unit. There’s also some common land associated with that
development. That also received variances for zero lot line setbacks between the units,
not dissimilar to some of the variances before you tonight. So, to answer your question,
can you do this type of development with multi units in one building without variances?
No, you can’t.
MR. MC NULTY-All right.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Any other questions or comments from the
Board, please? Okay. Since there are no other questions from the Board members, I am
going to open the public hearing, and again, I just wish to remind everyone that we
must have a fair and open process, and based upon that, the public hearing is open for
Area Variance No. 36-2005. Again, we invite public comments on the appeal, and again,
I remind you that in the interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your
comments to only the facts and information given this evening. Those wishing to be
heard, please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the record
identify yourself, your place of residence, and your statement will be limited strictly to
five minutes. Ms. G., please monitor the time.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
KELLY CARTE
MR. CARTE-I have a couple of submissions to the Board, please.
MR. ABBATE-Of course, you can present anything you wish.
MR. CARTE-Look these over if you would. For the record, Mr. Chairman, my name is
Kelly Carte. I’m the neighbor and landowner to the immediate south and west of the
property. I’d like you to take a look at those pictures that I’ve submitted there. I think
the old saying, a picture is worth a thousand words, hopefully, since I only have five
minutes here, they’re worth more than that. Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, and to a degree
Mr. Bryant, expressed misgivings on this last thing about the motel units there,
misgivings about being mislead on the property, on the proposition, needing more
assurances that what the applicants are proposing is the truth. We’d like to thank the
Board for ruling, back three years ago on this proposal, when they ruled on denying the
density requests that the applicants proposed, even though it was clearly stated at the
very beginning that the applicants had to have 98 units to make this thing financially
viable to them and clean up this terrible waste area that all of the neighbors but one
were opposed to them doing, and then they had to have 75 when they didn’t get 98, and
then they had to have 45, and then they had to have 32. Now we’re down to, the last
thing with the Planning Board was 25 units. I don’t know where the had to have went,
but I, for one, am rather incensed by this type of action here, where they’re trying to tell
you that they have to have this to make the thing viable, and now we’re going from 98 to
25 and apparently it’s still viable here. There are many things that have taken place on
this proposal and this construction project here over the time that it’s been being worked
on. Several of them, as you can see from those pictures there, are behind where you can
see. They’re behind the tree lines. All the work is being done up on the side of the
mountain here, and all the land that’s been cleared, all the trees taken out, all the mess
made back up there, where is this, on the site plan? I will be the first to admit that I
don’t have the latest one that they were actually working from. I saw the one that was
proposed and accepted at one o’clock in the morning here, on that last meeting. If you
want to know why some of these things took place, it’s because it was one o’clock in the
morning and actually several of the Board members were telling me that they were too
tired to listen, that they wanted to go home. One of them appeared to be asleep. That’s
why some of these things may be in there that are questionable, but nowhere that I see
anything delineating what’s being done up on the area behind here, to mitigate the
water that we’ve been talking about all along in this project here, and what’s the
problem with the water. There’s nothing about the three holding ponds that they’ve
built up there to catch the water from running down there and washing away the side of
the mountain there. There’s nothing about erosion. There’s no erosion control there.
There’s nothing about destroying part of the wetlands that are on this area here. Even
though it’s been said that the DEC does not consider it wetlands, certainly I don’t
believe that the Corps of Engineers has been up there to determine whether or not these
are wetlands here, because I had a specific run in with the Corps of Engineers on a
building lot, and be assured that they told me that 10 square feet of wet ground is their
jurisdiction. I understand that, on Kings Court, on Potter Road there, that the Corps of
Engineers was called in there to determine whether that depression that they were
required to build as a catch basin on the side of Potter Road was in compliance or not
with the Corps’ guidelines, but I saw nothing where the Corps had been called in there
to determine whether the big catch basin, which we wanted to call a pond, and
everybody kept referring to as a dug hole and a catch basin, is on the land that we’re
talking about here now. Why is this catch basin any different from Kings Court?
Where’s the fence around the catch basin to keep the kids from getting in there and
drowning? They had to have a fence around the one on Kings Court when there’s no
water in it. Mr. Nace, back to the water issue here specifically. Mr. Nace stated, at the
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
Planning Board meeting, that the pond could be filled in down to one-third acre in size,
and he stated that the water would only rise nine inches, after a 50 year rain.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry, sir, but I regret to say that your time is limited, and I must insist
on that, because it’s only fair to the other folks who have to be heard this evening.
MR. CARTE-If one of the other ones was to give me their time, would I be allowed to
speak?
MR. ABBATE-I would leave that up to my fellow Board members. I wouldn’t want to
speak on their behalf. So, let me ask, are there any other individuals, any folks from the
public, who would like to be heard on Area Variance No. 36-2005?
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-I would like to be heard.
MR. ABBATE-All right, Mr. Salvador. Would you please come to the table. I’m sorry,
sir, I’m going to have to limit you to your five minutes.
MR. SALVADOR-Good evening. My name is John Salvador. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman.
I understand that someone from the public can return for additional comment at the end
of everyone else speaking.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I don’t object. I’m just deferring to my fellow Board members.
MR. SALVADOR-Mr. Carte is welcome to return to the microphone after everyone else
has commented for five minutes. Is that correct?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, I think he’s allowed three minutes, I think we agreed on.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me say, it is and it isn’t. If I recall, and members of the Board
correct me, it seems to me that we agreed that once an individual has spoken for an
initial five minutes, then they would come back for three. Am I correct? Didn’t I say
that?
MR. BRYANT-If they had new information.
MR. ABBATE-But they must have new information. Isn’t that what I basically said,
guys? Help me out. I will defer to my Board members. I don’t rule. I’m only a
figurehead. Whatever they say, I basically will go along with.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that’s what we agreed on.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. BRYANT-Five and three.
MR. ABBATE-So, to clear the air, you are entitled to five minutes. Would you give him
credit for that, please, and the gentleman who wishes to be heard again may come back
to the Board, but he will be restricted to a total of three minutes. Continue, please.
MR. SALVADOR-Thank you. I promised Messrs Hayes, this evening, that I would
support their application, but I have a qualification in that regard, and that is that we
should forgive them because they know not what they do. When I see the words HOA,
Homeowners Association, I just wonder if everyone appreciates what’s involved.
There’s a comment here that, in Staff notes. It says, the owners of these lots will form an
HOA that will share ownership. That’s not true. The owners don’t form an HOA. It’s
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
the sponsor that forms the HOA, and that would be, in this case, Messrs Hayes. To do
that, they must form a Homeowners Association as a not for profit corporation, and that
must be formed under the Not For Profit Corporation laws in the State of New York. A
Homeowners Association, as the result of approvals from this Town, must conform to
the requirements of 13 NYCRR Part 22, which are regulations promulgated by the
Attorney General’s Office of the State of New York, and they involved the issuance of an
offering plan in accordance with Section 352E of the General Business Law. Now this is
a very, very complicated process, a very lengthy process if it’s done right. I think others
have found that a mere 13 units is difficult to make work if you have to do this sort of
thing. These are the regulations. This tells you what has to be included. This is the
specification for what’s required in the Offering Plan. That has to be completed. There
are included here, advisory opinions of the Attorney General with regard to this. This is
a set of manuals that are issued, giving you instructions on how to do this, and all of this
must be done and filed before a shovel goes in the ground, and the basis for all of this
filing are Town approvals. They don’t go anywhere without Planning Board approvals,
that’s required, and this sort of thing, a townhouse is called a realty subdivision. You’re
selling a security in shared ownership, and that’s why disclosure is required. It’s very
complicated. To do it right, believe me, it takes something, and so I just hope they
understand what they’re offering here. Others have tried this. Hiland Park, you know
the situation they’re in. They come here before your Board and to tell you, we don’t
have a Homeowners Association. That can’t be. That can’t be. We were promised an
HOA at Indian Ridge. Never happened. The Town had to take the set aside land. The
homeowners were supposed to protect that, the buffer zone, if you will. The roads are
Town roads. The water supply comes from the Town. They each have on-site sewage
systems and no cumulative impacts were evaluated for so many septic systems in close
proximity to each other. So, we don’t get what we were promised in those projects. It’s
very difficult. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. We appreciate that, and to ensure a fair and
open hearing, I will invite the gentleman who requested additional time, sir, if you wish
to come up, please do. Or do we have anyone else in the audience this evening who
would like to come up and address Area Variance No. 36-2005? If so, please approach
the table, speak into the microphone, identify yourself and your place of residence.
ROBERT RAYMOND
MR. RAYMOND-My name is Robert Raymond. I live immediately to the south of this
development. A couple of things I’d just like to address first. Comments made by Mr.
Stone and by Mr. McNulty, regarding, for all intents and purposes, bait and switch, are
appreciated. The honesty is appreciated. Let’s, I would like to hope that those
statements are heard by the rest of the Board and followed accordingly. What is the
benefit to the applicant in this particular matter? In my opinion, it eliminates his
liability, and when I say the owner’s liability, as was experienced in the housing
development behind Queen Victoria’s Grant, off Peggy Ann Road, where the Town had
to come in and spend thousands and thousands of dollars to correct the water problem
that was there. What is the impact on the neighbors? There will be a continued increase
in the traffic. What is the safety of the neighborhood? As it stands right now, with what
Hayes brothers are saying is a pond, where’s the fence around that body of water,
whether it’s a pond or it’s not a pond, whether it’s a catch basin or isn’t a catch basin.
Where is the safety there? What’s the feasibility of this? Why should we even be
looking at that? Let the project stand as it was approved in the past, against and above
our objections as neighbors. It’s there. We can’t tell them to take it down. We can’t
have the Board tell them to take it down. We have, for all intents and purposes, learned
to live with it. Why not just leave it as it has been approved? Are there going to be
significant setback variances? Absolutely. And I’ll tell you, I cringe when I think of how
much time and money and efforts are spent to change that. The continued erosion that’s
gone on with the clear cutting that’s gone on in the woods, the additional eyesores that
we see, and I’m just wondering, if the water continues as it is, are they going to go up on
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
the mountain and dig some more “catch basins” up on the mountain above that? I’m
also a little bit upset with the Hayes’ and their operation. Since, I’d say probably the last
two months anyway, there has been pumps, generators, whatever, running 24 hours a
day, heavy equipment running 24 hours a day. Do you know what it’s like at three
o’clock in the morning to wake up to a beep, beep, beep when a piece of heavy
equipment backs up? I just think that the intent of the Hayes’, right from the very
beginning, was to sell this property. There is not, nor has there ever been, a sign on that
property that says For Rent. So Mr. Hayes’ statement that everyone is calling because
it’s For Sale, I wonder why, because there is nothing there that says For Rent.
Additionally, why is it that every other development that I’ve seen go up in the Town of
Queensbury has to have their roads in before the development is done, before they start
digging the first, before they start putting the first foundation in, their roads are there.
Why aren’t they in in this development? Why? I don’t know. I hope that this Board
looks at that, over the objections, as far as selling it is concerned, I think the whole thing
is that this developer has come in and duped the Board from the very beginning, and I
don’t think it’s right that they should be able to do that at this point. With that, I would
like to grant the remainder of my time to Mr. Carte when he comes back up.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir.
MR. BRYANT-I have a question for you. I’m not sure that I understand what you mean
by bait and switch. What is being switched for what? Because apparently when they
came before this Board, their application was rejected the last time. They went to the
Planning Board and they got whatever they got approved approved.
MR. RAYMOND-I guess what I was referring to when I said bait and switch was Mr.
Stone and Mr. McNulty made comments about the truthfulness of the applicants. For
prior cases that came in front of this Board tonight, coming back, the back door, if you
will to amend what’s already been approved. Am I correct, Mr. Stone? Is that what
your statement was?
MR. STONE-Well, I wouldn’t have used the term bait and switch, but I think that’s what
I meant. I can’t speak for.
MR. RAYMOND-Mr. McNulty, is that what you meant?
MR. BRYANT-I understand what they meant in those circumstances. I’m just not
following the, maybe I’m missing something here, because what’s built is actually
what’s.
MR. RAYMOND-Is my time done now, or am I responding to questions? I think I’ve
been responding to questions.
MR. ABBATE-You’re going to be extending his time. If you are unsure or
uncomfortable with what has been said so far, then by all means, make yourself
questions and ask whatever questions you have to ask.
MR. BRYANT-I’m asking the questions.
MR. ABBATE-That’s what I’m saying, make yourself comfortable.
MR. BRYANT-I’m not comfortable because I don’t understand what Mr. Raymond’s,
what point you’re trying to make, because what’s built has been what’s approved. I
don’t understand where we’re going here.
MR. RAYMOND-What is their application asking for today? Their application is asking
so they can sell those 13 units. Am I correct?
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. RAYMOND-What was their original approved plan? What was their original
submission?
MR. BRYANT-Well, they never got a variance here. We rejected their application.
MR. RAYMOND-To do what?
MR. BRYANT-To build 45 units, or whatever it was.
MR. RAYMOND-I guess, Mr. Bryant, what’s standing on the ground now? What is
there? Is it property that’s for rent or is it property that’s for sale?
MR. STONE-No, that was not, the thing that was before us was for more units, rental or
otherwise, than the property was zoned for. We denied that, and as I remember very
clearly having said to you and Mr. Carte and others, that even if we turn this down, they
can still build 26 or whatever the number was, and don’t hold me to the number,
without coming to this Board. That’s exactly what they did. The Planning Board is the
Board that’s been responsible for everything that’s happened. I’m not blaming them,
but that’s their call.
MR. BRYANT-I’m glad you said that, Mr. Stone, because I think that’s where the
confusion lies.
MR. STONE-Yes, that’s correct.
MR. RAYMOND-Then why is it, if it’s the Planning Board, why are they here?
MR. STONE-They are here because they want zero setback, as I understand it, basically.
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me just a second, please. This Board is a quasi-judicial Board, and
each of the members have the right to ask questions. The public does not have the right
to challenge what this Board has to say. So I would suggest that the tone be lowered a
little bit, and if I see, for a moment, that you are challenging what members of this Board
have to say, I’m afraid I’m going to have to tell you, your time is up.
MR. RAYMOND-Understood, and I apologize if I was coming across as being
challenging. I’m not trying to, I’m just a little bit emotional over this.
MR. STONE-I didn’t take it that way, Mr. Chairman. I thought it was a legitimate
question. Yes, an emotional question, but I think we all understand, looking at the head
nods that I had around the table, we know what we did, and what we’re being asked
tonight.
MR. ABBATE-I can unequivocally remember that the vote was seven to zero, and I’m
looking at Jaime right now, and I ranted and raved at him, if I recall that particular
evening. It wasn’t a very pleasant evening, but the Hayes brothers were rejected seven
to zero. Am I correct on that, folks?
MR. BRYANT-No, I think there was only four that voted. It was four to zero.
MR. ABBATE-Is that what it was?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. BRYANT-You had a bunch of recusals and stuff.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-I think, one other thing maybe for the benefit of the people that are
commenting, I hate to say this, because it’s kind of passing the buck, but I think most all
the concerns you’re raising are Planning Board issues. The only thing before this Board
tonight is whether or not the applicant should be allowed to have zero lot setbacks to the
units they’re proposing to sell. We can’t decide whether or not they should have
apartments or townhouses. That’s not before us. It’s just simply, if they have
townhouses, should they have zero setbacks. The erosion, clear cutting or not clear
cutting, temporary or permanent protection around the retention ponds, is all, they are
all Planning Board issues that we can’t rule on.
MR. ABBATE-That’s well stated, Mr. McNulty, and I guess, when I indicated my little
irritation, I should have invoked the fact that there were a number of comments that
were made that simply are not within our jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, we can’t even
address those issues because, as Mr. McNulty stated, they are Planning Board subjects
which we have no authority over.
MR. RAYMOND-Very good. I appreciate that, and I will close by saying that I hope the
Board looks at the neighborhood and sees how many others of those units are in that
neighborhood, and if Mr. Bryant is who I think he is, he lives in that neighborhood. So,
there are no other zero clearance, zero setbacks in any of that area. So I would
appreciate it if you would vote accordingly.
MR. ABBATE-And before you go, I want you to know that we do sincerely appreciate
input from the public, your input included. We truly do.
MR. RAYMOND-I absolutely believe that you do, and that’s why these public hearings
are for us, to express our opinions. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Are there any other folks in the audience?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’m new to the neighborhood, and I’d like to give my five
minutes to Kelly Carte to finish his statement.
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem with that? Do any Board members have a
problem with that?
MR. STONE-No.
MR. BRYANT-No.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. CARTE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be brief, here, on this, because I
realize that several of the things I was pointing out and some of the pictures that I
showed you are not necessarily in your purview, but I would like you to have the
background to know what has been going on here, and to consider that in your
deliberations here. The stated purpose that the applicant is saying for converting these
things, and I guess that I think that’s what Bob Raymond was referring to as far as bait
and switch. I wouldn’t necessarily call it that, but to obtain this approval for apartment
complex, over everybody’s objection, even though we had stated, what about
townhouses and what about setbacks and what about all this stuff, what about
subdivision of this lot, and were told that you’d need to subdivide the lot if it was going
to be apartments, and now, lo and behold, they’re back again, doing exactly what they
didn’t want to do before. That’s the bait and switch, I think, that he was referring to. I
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
just want to leave the Board with this situation. You saw the pictures. You saw, the
significance of the one showing the pond behind the buildings, is that, in as dry a year as
we’ve had, a spring, and as little runoff and the snow, that pond, about four or five
weeks ago, after a two day mild rain, was within two or three feet of the level of the
foundation of those three buildings that they built there. It is my firm opinion, and the
opinion of most of my neighbors that I’ve talked to, that they seriously misjudged the
water situation on this property, which we have been pointing out all along, and are
now here to try to recover from that by turning this into something where they don’t
have the liability when we get a normal year, normal spring or a heavy spring runoff,
and the pond overflows and floods the foundations of these buildings. If they’re
allowed to convert it to townhouses, and form an Association or whatever, they walk
away Scott free. If they can get it done before next year, if they can get this whole thing
done, while it’s still dry, they walk away Scott free and have no liability for the problem
when the water starts pouring in to the basement and we feel that, with as much
information as we’ve presented to this Board and more importantly to the Planning
Board, that the Town would have no recourse but to take over and try to do something
with this because we’ve been warned. Everybody has been warned time and again here
of the water situation, and everybody seems to want to ignore it. They did not make
their engineer present any figures on the water coming off the mountain or anything like
this, and I’ve clearly shown that the figures he did present were erroneous. You say you
don’t, you know, this isn’t necessarily you, all you’re talking about are the setbacks, but
the setbacks allow them to go to the Planning Board for the rest of the approval they
need to convert these things to townhouses, and if you do, they’re home Scott free. I’d
just as soon let them do what they said they were going to do, own the thing, take care
of it, and when the water starts pouring in and there’s absolutely nothing they can do,
because the pond is the lowest ground on that property, then, you know, so be it. I
mean, I don’t know what they would do, but I’d like to see them do it, rather than the
Town and us taxpayers have to do it, or the people that they sucker into buying these
places.
MR. STONE-A couple of comments. As I read Staff notes, and I certainly will ask Staff,
the question that I said was before us, isn’t before us. Zero lot line setback, it’s not
before us, as I understand Staff notes. We are concerned with setback from the road,
from things like, at least that’s what I thought, under 183-31, that it said the lot lines are
not before us.
MR. LAPPER-Lot size.
MR. STONE-Lot size?
MR. URRICO-At this time.
MR. STONE-Okay. I thought it said, lot width. I’m sorry. My fault. What I would also
suggest to you, you gave us some very dramatic pictures, no question. I would ask you,
have you given those to Staff at the Town yet? I would do that.
MR. CARTE-Mr. Stone, I gave pictures much more dramatic than that to the Town, to
the Planning Board and the Planning Staff, while this application was going on, and
most of them were ignored.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. CARTE-So, you know, it’s, I’ll give it to them again, and I’ll give these same
pictures to them again on Thursday night, if you pass it here, but keep in mind, they
have the, they’re asking for relief here for things that they could have gotten without
relief, could have addressed had they done this initially, instead of looking for the rental
aspect of the buildings. They’re wanting you to relief from all these things, and yet, if
they had addressed this the way that we wanted, which is ownership, you know, at the
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
Planning Board meetings, all this stuff would have been addressed at that point in time.
So now they require relief.
MR. BRYANT-But, question, Mr. Carte. When you say, initially, if I recall the
arguments, okay, there was a lot of resentment against the fact that these were rental
units.
MR. CARTE-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Well, now they want to reverse that and not have them rental units.
MR. CARTE-But, Mr. Bryant, does it make a difference what you call them when they
look the way that they do and they’re arranged on the lot the way that they are? I mean,
the actual ownership of it, does that change the appearance of the thing and the fact that
there’s nothing like that in the neighborhood?
MR. BRYANT-Well, there’s nothing that we’re going to do in this discussion, or the
discussion they’re going to have Thursday at the Planning Board, that are going to
change the way it looks.
MR. CARTE-It’s just that they’re asking you for relief for what they could have gotten,
had they gone about it the honest way in the beginning, and now the buildings are
standing and now they have to come and look for these.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. My question to you, because you were the most vocal in the last
couple of meetings. They didn’t go about it that way, and we got rental units that were
originally designed as rental units, and now they want to sell them as townhouses, but
aren’t we accomplishing what originally you intended to accomplish? I mean, you
wanted units that were owned by individuals.
MR. CARTE-We wanted a regular subdivision, Mr. Bryant. I mean, you know, the
rental and/or townhouses were forced on us. If they wanted to build another 13 units on
half acre lots, we would have been happy with that, but that wasn’t the case, and now
we have the rentals, and I would just as soon they, as I said, I firmly believe that, if this
is allowed to take place, the taxpayers will end up taking care of the problem with the
water in there, instead of the Hayes brothers.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. CARTE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And again, I reiterate, thank you so much for your input. We really do
appreciate it.
MR. CARTE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Are there any other public comments concerning Area Variance No. 36-
2005? If there are, would you please? Mr. Salvador? Is this new information?
MR. SALVADOR-Additional comment.
MR. ABBATE-Additional comment. Three minutes, please, Ms. G.
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Just because they’re sold as townhouses doesn’t mean they won’t
be rental units. We have many people in our townhouse complex that purchase the
place just to rent it.
MR. BRYANT-There are a lot of single-family houses that are rental units, too.
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. SALVADOR-Yes. Right. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Are there any other individuals that would like
to be heard concerning Area Variance No. 36-2005? If not, Counselor, would you like to
comment on any of these statements that were made?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. I’d like to clarify the record on a few points. When the Hayes did
come before this Board previously to seek a density variance, that was because of the
extensive work that had to be done to remediate the site, which was legitimate, was
expensive, and took a long time to do, but because they were denied by this Board, they
were able to go back to the seller and renegotiate the price down, saying that they
couldn’t get what they thought they were going to get, in terms of development
potential. So they reduced the price and they were able to make the project work with
fewer units, and as you pointed out, Mr. Chairman, they went with just exactly what the
Zoning Code allowed, which includes multi-family units. There was nothing
disingenuous. When they got this done, they had it approved for apartments. They
have apartments all over the Town of Queensbury, both that they constructed new and
that they purchased existing, but at the same time, the market has changed since then,
and the value of townhouse units has gone up, and they changed their mind, and it
doesn’t affect the site at all. This is an example of, you try to do something you think the
neighbors are going to be happy with, I mean, even the people that spoke against the
project tonight acknowledged that they previously asked for this to be single-family. So
here the applicant comes before you thinking that maybe the neighbors will be happy
because it’s single family, and, you know, they’re not happy with that either. They
simply changed their minds based on market conditions and getting phone calls of
people saying, gee, those look like townhouses, are they for sale. In terms of the issue
about the pond, I mean, the site plan was approved by the Town and the Town
Engineer. The pond has not been completed. There’s a lot more site work that has to be
done, in terms of reducing the size of the pond, but in terms of the impact of spring melt
and runoff, those are design engineering issues that have been approved by the Town,
and it’s being constructed to the approved plans, otherwise we would have heard from
the Planning Department. In terms of the issue of maintenance and liability for the
Town and the taxpayers, that’s just incorrect, because under New York State, the new
home warranty requires a six year warranty on all structural items, and a flooded
basement is certainly under a six year warranty. So, they don’t, the idea that this is
somehow to try and, that there’s a problem, which there’s not, and then that they’re
trying to runaway, so that they can leave flooded basements. I mean, that’s just not
correct. They’re liable. If that was a problem, they have to fix the problem, but again,
this was all approved by the Planning Board, and as Board members have pointed out,
the majority of the issues that have been brought to your attention tonight are Planning
Board issues, not the simple variance. I could go into a lot more detail. This was, you
know, unfortunately a very lengthy process with a few of the neighbors being very
vocal, but it all got approved, and this request tonight only makes it a better project. So
it’s not any kind of a bait and switch. Having single family ownership should be viewed
as more positive on the neighborhood.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Counselor. I appreciate that. Does your client have
anything else they wish to add before I ask, request ZBA members to offer their
commentary?
MR. HAYES-No, but I’ll be glad to answer any questions you have for me.
MR. ABBATE-We’re beyond that. I would now request ZBA members to offer their
commentary, and again, I respectfully remind each of the members that precedence
mandates we must only concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the
record to support our conclusions and this is critical in the event there is a judicial
review, and the honor goes to Mr. Stone, please.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. STONE-Well, I was going to start out by saying that Mr. Lapper, in his opening
presentation, speaks whole and qualified truths, re: no physical change. I couldn’t
argue with a word that you said in the very beginning, nor can I argue with the position
that you’ve been taking all evening. This is, again, it’s the kind of thing we get into
when we have appeals. They’re very technical. This is a very small point. You want to
take 12, 13 units, whatever this number is, and say that the people own the land
underneath. Normally, a house, a piece of property, a structure, a building, has to
conform to certain setback requirements. You’re asking that, in this case, they don’t.
You’re also saying, and I hear Mr. Salvador, and I think Mr. Salvador makes some very
good sense. I strongly advise the Hayes’ to look into this HOA situation. I’ve heard him
speak that way before, and certainly Mr. Lapper is more than qualified and more than
willing, I assume, to handle the legal aspects of developing a Homeowners Association,
or whatever it’s called. I think this project, and there are all kinds of questions and
we’ve heard all kinds of comments by the public, now and before and all this other
thing, but right now, we have a very small technical issue before me, for which I have no
problem.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Stone. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll take a little bit different tact here. I think that we’re, again,
looking for a variance for a simple change, as Mr. Stone has suggested, but it’s a little
more complicated than that. As approved originally by the Planning Board, this was
going to be a rental unit which would be owned by the Hayes brothers, and I think that,
despite the fact that it appears, you know, at this time to be a simple item for us to
discuss and dispose with, I think that we have to also consider the, you know, what I
would consider to be some serious deficiencies on the site. I’m a geology major, and I
don’t think you have to have any background in engineering or anything else to walk
out on the back of that site and stand at the level of the cellars on that building and
despite the fact, even if there is a six year warranty that goes with the building, I think
that the pictures were very expressive of the attempt further up the mountain there to
make holding pools and things like that, but I think that what you need to really
consider is the fact that there’s some serious flaws at the present time, and I think that,
really, it would be premature on our part to decide this without some review by the
Planning Board first of all for their signoff that this is actually a kosher thing that’s going
on up there. The houses are well constructed, but I think that, you know, there are
issues with the groundwater, and the runoff that comes down, and I think it’s probably
just a matter of time before there’s a big rain event, and one can just imagine what the
result of that is going to be, given the fact that, you know, they are so close to the level of
that pond, and I think the pond, it’s a reflection of possibly the fact that when it was
used by Ashton Cement, they washed all their sand, they dumped all the fines back in
the pond, I think Craig, or Bruce or one of you guys, when you went down there
initially, two or three years ago, that stuff is kind of like quick sand, that fine sand,
which doesn’t allow for a very fast perc rate into the ground. As a suggestion, I mean, I
don’t know if you could make the pond deeper. You could probably take a drag line in
there and do that, but one of the problems you’re going to run into eventually is with
more impermeable areas created on property on site there, in August it’s not a problem
because the pond will absorb into the ground, but at certain times of the year, you’re
always going to be in a crises situation, and although I hate to think of it happening,
there’s probably a pretty significant chance that something could happen with the pond
overflowing and inundating the site there where those town homes are. So, I would
think it would be in our interest to have the Town Engineer and your engineer get
together. I think that they need to address the problem of those ponds up the hill there
and that should be done, and all that stormwater prevention ought to be completed
prior to any sale of those buildings, because to do that prematurely would be, you know,
sticking your foot in your mouth.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. ABBATE-Would you give me a hint, Mr. Underwood, as to what your position
might possibly be, no commitment?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that we should refer it to the Planning Board, to get their
signoff on it, as to whether they think this is a significant change. I know that their
language said that the approval was made with the condition of no further development
or subdivision. There doesn’t appear to be any further development, but the stipulation
should be reiterated for any modifications, and this would be a modification of the
original site plan, as proposed and as accepted by the Town. So I think that that needs
to be dealt with, prior to our making our decision.
MR. ABBATE-So may I assume, then, that under the present set of circumstances you
would not be in favor of approval?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I wouldn’t make a decision until I had their assurances that they
thought it was adequate. If it were, I would signoff on it immediately.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Okay. Thank you. Well, I have to agree with Mr. Stone. I don’t think,
though these issues might be important, that they’re really what we’re supposed to be
discussing tonight and voting on, and personally, I have lived in a townhouse complex
for 14 years now, with a Homeowners Association, and we’ve had our ups and downs,
but it has worked very nicely, and as the problems came up, they were handled, and I
think these problems have nothing to do with whether you’re selling them or you’re
renting them, and I would approve the proposal.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, ma’am. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-You caught me on a fence. I, on the one hand, agree with Mr. Stone. I
think that the thing that’s before us is relatively simple. Do we allow the requested
setbacks or don’t we. But at the same time, part of our responsibility is to look at
questions like will it affect the nature of the neighborhood, what’s the impact on the
neighborhood, what’s the benefit or detriment to the neighborhood, and certainly some
of these, at least temporary environmental issues that have been brought up are a
concern, and may have an impact on the neighborhood, may have an impact on the
developer, if for some reason they have missed the potential disasters that some of these
things may present. So I don’t think we can totally dismiss those either. As far as the
specific request, I guess I would be in favor. Considering the site conditions and the
issues that have been brought up, I think I also would be inclined to agree with Mr.
Underwood. I think basically what he was suggesting is this Board tabling the issue
until some of these issues were cleared up and I guess that’s where I’m going to come
down, is being in favor of having a little more assurance that the current site conditions
are taken care of, from the viewpoint of impact on the neighborhood, because the actual
environmental conditions, erosion and what not, are Planning Board responsibility, not
ours, but I think the results of errors in those things will have an impact on the
neighborhood, and therefore do fall to us. So I’d suggest tabling.
MR. ABBATE-Are you suggesting, Mr. McNulty, that if there was a proviso, that you
would be more inclined to support, or stipulations?
MR. MC NULTY-No, I’m not inclined to go with stipulations because I think that just
passes the buck to Staff to have to enforce it, and I think it’s going to be more
straightforward and simpler, where we can, if instead we say, no, we won’t give
approval until we see these things have happened or we’ve got assurance, and in this
case I think it’s just simple assurance from Planning Board, and/or Staff, or someone at
the Conservation District, whoever it turns out to be, that says, okay, the things on site
are reasonable, contingencies have been planned for and such.
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. So if I interpret you correctly, what you are suggesting is
that, before you make a decision, you would like to see authentication, either by Zoning
Board or building inspectors, etc.? Is that what you’re indicating?
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, somebody who has the responsibility to look at this.
MR. ABBATE-In other words, you need a document that specifically states, this is
exactly what’s going to happen. You would feel more comfortable, so to speak?
MR. MC NULTY-Or some kind of assurance that someone had looked at it and either
determined that what is there now is fine or that corrective actions have been taken.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Your position is well taken. No problem. I think we have, next,
Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Using the test for this specific request, as far as the benefit to the
applicant, I think there’s a yes and no answer to that. The applicant already has
approval to develop this property with apartments, 13 units at this site, and so they
already have a benefit. Changing that, yes, the benefit, can the benefit be achieved by
any other means, they already have those means. So I think the question here is a yes
and no answer, actually. As far as the undesirable change in the neighborhood
character, to me, we already have approval of 13 units, apartment units, and we’re
changing them to 13 townhouses. I don’t see how switching those is going to change the
neighborhood character one way or the other. It’s already been approved. The request
is substantial because of the definition of a townhouse, which swaps out the property
surrounding it to the common areas, and therefore the relief seems substantial, but
we’ve had situations like this before, especially with commercial properties, where the
property owner leases the land, the parking nearby, and therefore ends up with a zero
setback relief situation. This is more technicality, rather than substantial to me. As far
as the request having adverse physical or environmental effects, there’s a potential for
that. We recognize that potential, and I think that is a Planning Board issue that they’ll
have to address when they take a look at it. I also think the difficulty is self-created.
They’ve changed, and that’s what’s created the situation, but I would come down on the
positive side for this application.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you very much. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve got to tell you that my thoughts are all
around the spectrum on this one. You make some very good points, Mr. Lapper,
relative to the perception of the project. On the other hand, Mr. Underwood makes a
good point, that the Planning Board, and you addressed the development issue, but they
approved this application with, assuring that there be no future subdivision of the lot,
and this is a subdivision of the lot. I think, after reading the minutes, and I’ve got to tell
you, I spent most of the day reading the minutes on this thing, going over all the various
nuances. Here’s what I think happened. Mr. Hayes and I had a discussion, and a very
detailed discussion in our last encounter in 2002, where we talked about specifics of
what it cost to clean up, recycling the concrete that was there, what it cost to move the
trees and the junk cars and the refrigerators and all that other stuff, and we talked about
all that, and I think what happened, when we got into it, we found an iceberg of
concrete underneath the ground, and it cost a ton more to remove than we anticipated
now we need to, rather than go X number of years to recoup our investment, we need to
recoup an even larger investment that we didn’t anticipate and I think that’s what we’re
going to do. I’ve got to go along with Mr. Underwood, and I think the Planning Board
created this. There are environmental issues, but, frankly, that lot has always had
environmental issues, way before the Hayes brothers even thought about buying it. It
was always a dump, and it was always a dangerous place for kids to play. Going
through the minutes, there was a big discussion by the neighbors, that kids are going to
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
get hurt back there, and all the water and all the other problems. So I think the Planning
Department, or the Planning Board created this situation, and I think that they should
review it and make recommendation to us, as to how to proceed. I think that that’s a
logical way to proceed.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Bryant.
MR. LAPPER-Would you like me to respond, Mr. Chairman?
MR. ABBATE-No. Not yet, not until I complete. I agree with everything that’s been said
by every Board member. Each individual made a significant point and a significant
contribution. After hearing all of the comments of the Board members, what rings in my
mind, basically, is due process, and a standard of fairness, and in particular, I ask
myself, is the applicant acting in good faith, and listening to the testimony this evening, I
have no reason to believe they are not. Now certainly there are problems, and I think
Mr. Bryant hit it right on the head and perhaps some other members, that this was
generated by the Planning Board, not the applicant, and when a Board, whether it’s this
Board or the Planning Board, makes a decision that causes nothing but chaos, I am
extremely reluctant to punish, if you will, the appellant when they come before us.
Unfortunately, Counselor, I could ask for a vote, and I’m not quite sure I know how it’s
going to come down because several of the Board members have raised some great
issues, and are in doubt. Mr. McNulty raised a great issue that he would feel more
comfortable, that he would like a substantive, if you will, document, or, if nothing else,
formal testimony. There seems to be a degree of discomfort, if you will. So, you know
what the options are, and you wanted to make a statement. So, let’s do this. You make
your statement, and then, for the record, you tell me what you want to do, and you
know what your options are.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Okay. Thank you. It’s unfair for the neighbors to take photographs
of a site that’s half developed. The engineer for the applicant, Tom Nace, did a
stormwater management plan. It was reviewed by the Town Engineer, C.T. Male. It
was approved by the Planning Board. There were also DEC stormwater permits that
were acquired and that were issued for the project. So right now they have not
implemented the stormwater management plan because it’s a project that’s under
construction. Beyond that, I think, to address what Mr. Underwood said and Mr.
McNulty, and Mr. Bryant, this project, we have requested a modification, if you will, of
the approval from the Planning Board. The subdivision has to be reviewed by the
Planning Board, and the Planning Board and their engineers are going to look at this
application. So I would just say, in the interest of efficiency, your approval, I still
maintain, is a simple approval, because it doesn’t change what’s constructed on the site,
and that, to the extent that there are any engineering issues, which we believe that there
aren’t, but to the extent that there are, that is in the Planning Board’s purview. We’re on
the agenda already for the next meeting. I don’t think that it needs to go to them and
then to come back to you, because they’re not going to approve it without that anyway.
They’ll have the same correspondence from the neighbors, and their engineer is going to
look at it again, but they’ve already looked at it and approved it. So I just don’t think
you need to ask us to come back again because you can be assured that it’s not going to
get approved by the Planning Board without them looking at these stormwater issues,
but again, the approval that we’re asking you for doesn’t change anything on the site,
and that whole stormwater plan has been approved. So I would ask you to, I think that
there may be a majority in favor of approving it, and I would ask you to approve it.
Obviously, if you, if the majority feels it should go to the Planning Board first, and then
come back, that’s what you’re going to vote, but I would just, in the interest of efficiency,
ask you to approve it, knowing that it has to go to the Planning Board.
MR. ABBATE-This is what we’re going to do. Unless I hear some very strong objections
from members of the Board, I’m going to ask for a motion, and again, I’m going to
respectfully remind the folks on the Board that we have a balancing test, and five
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
statutory criteria that have to be very carefully considered in deciding whether or not
we’re going to grant this. So, if there are no objections, may I please hear a motion for
Area Variance No. 36-2005. I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2005 WESTERN RESERVE, LLC,
Introduced by Lewis Stone who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
West Mountain Road, Mountain Hollow Way. The applicant is proposing to convert
the 13 unit previously approved residential apartment project and subdivide the parcel
into 14 lots, 13 townhouse units and 1 common lot, so as to sell the 13 units as individual
single family townhouses. The applicant has asked for the following relief. The
applicant is seeking, per Section 179-4-030, for Lots 13 A through 13 M, the following
variances, 50% minimum permeability requirement, 30 foot minimum front setback, 30
foot minimum side setback, the sum thereof, 20 foot minimum rear setback, and then
per 179-4-090, Lots 13 A through 13 M need variances re: 40 foot minimum road
frontage requirement. Because this request is minimal and technical in nature, in that
creating the 13 small sized lots on their own footprint, these people will own that one
underneath them and in common the bulk of the 25 acre of Lot 13. In granting this
applicant this application, in regards to the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of
the community, we have considered whether the benefit can be achieved by other means
feasible to the applicant. Obviously selling the property versus renting the property can
be achieved only in one way. Will there be an undesirable change in the neighborhood
character or nearby properties? The buildings are in the process of being built. They
have been approved, and any change in character, if we are to believe comments made
by residents of the community, private ownership will be a benefit compared to rental
occupancy. The request certainly is substantial, if you consider each one of these pieces
of property as having to have its own lot, but other than that, it’s, again as I say,
technical in nature. I don’t believe the request will have any adverse physical or
environmental effects. The amount of traffic being produced by these 13 units will be
the same or less, actually, if these are sold as townhouses to couples, and the applicant
has stated that that’s where they’re getting the interest for selling these things, and is the
alleged difficulty self-created? As a personal aside, I don’t really understand what self-
created means, because every applicant is almost self-created, but, yes, it is self-created,
but on balance I think that this variance should be granted, and I so move.
Duly adopted this 23 day of May 2005, by the following vote:
rd
MR. STONE-I’m trying to understand if the lot size, is that part of the relief, Craig?
MR. BROWN-Lot size is not part of the relief.
MR. STONE-I didn’t think so. Well, I meant the top part, Lot 13, that’s not part of it
either. Is it? Aren’t we granting for Lots 13A to 13M, the following, at the bottom of the
Staff notes? I mean, do we have to include the?
MR. ABBATE-Check it out, Craig, but I don’t really think we do. If we do, we’ll include
it.
MR. STONE-Yes, we’ll include it, but.
MR. ABBATE-If we do we’ll include it, but there’s no sense going through a lot of
rhetoric if you don’t have to.
MR. BROWN-Yes. I think if you want to list the lot sizes, you can certainly do that. The
lot sizes are with the cluster subdivision, which is what this is proposed with the
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
Planning Board. The lot size is under their purview for review and approval. They’re in
here for reference. The reliefs are down near the bottom where it talks about.
MR. STONE-Right, that’s the relief we’re seeking.
MR. BROWN-179-4-030 for permeability, front, side, and rear, road frontage.
MR. STONE-Right. Yes, but that’s what I would suggest to read, just the lot sizes are
certainly in the application.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 36-2005 is, if my numbers are correct, four
in favor, three against. Is there any challenge to the tally? If there is no challenge to the
tally, Area Variance No. 36-2005 is approved, but I have an additional statement I would
like to make. The reason I insisted, Mr. Stone, that you cover, in duty form, the five
statutory criteria, is because I want to make it quite clear, on the record, the following.
Let the record show that the decision by this Board is based on fact, a balancing ratio,
and goes to what I consider the realm of reasonable doubt. As such, this decision, in my
opinion, is not considered irrational or unreasonable. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-I’d just like to make a quick statement to the three members who voted
against it. I just want to assure them that the stormwater issue is going to be addressed
at the Planning Board. The Planning Board is very thorough, and our engineer will be
there to discuss that.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, gentlemen.
MR. STONE-Just a quick question. Has any stormwater escaped from this property yet?
MR. HAYES-No.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2005 SEQRA TYPE II ROBERT WALL AGENT(S): J.
LAPPER, ESQ./S. BITTER, ESQ., BPSR OWNER(S): ROBERT WALL ZONING WR-
3A LOCATION 23 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A
CARRIAGE HOUSE 32 FT. HIGH. SEEKS RELIEF FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS
AND FROM COLOR SCHEME IN PREVIOUS CONDITION OF APPROVAL BY
THE ZBA. CROSS REF. BP 2004-888, BP 2003-181, AV 24-2002 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING BOARD MAY 11, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT
SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-7 SECTION 179-4-030
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ROBERT WALL, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2005, Robert Wall, Meeting Date: May 23, 2005
“Project Location: 23 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
has constructed a carriage house, which exceeds the previously approved AV 24-2002,
allowing a maximum height of 23-feet, however, the lakeside of the structure is 32-feet.
Also, the exterior of the carriage house is not consistent with the previously approved
color palette.
Relief Required:
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
The applicant requests an additional 9-feet of height relief, beyond the
??
7-feet
that was previously granted (AV 24-2002), totaling 16-feet of relief
from the
16-foot maximum height for the lakeside of the garage which is 32-
feet, per §
179-4-030.
Relief requested from a condition of AV 24-2002 specifying woody
??
green earth tones to be used for exterior, per §179-14-020.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
The most recent history was AV 24-2002, approved 4/24/2002 for 7-feet of height relief
for a 23-foot carriage house.
Staff comments:
The most recent submittal for the modification of the carriage house, 3/25/2002 indicates
a building height of 23.9-feet, however on the elevation drawings the height is reported
to be 22’-10 3/4”. On the site plan there is a note stating, “Building height relative to
Antigua Road is approximately 21’ because the carriage house is lower than the road”.
Pictures from the site indicate that the foundation of the carriage house appears to be
level with the road. This inconsistency needs to be resolved to accurately assess what
variances are needed.
Approval of AV 24-2002 was contingent that the applicant, “paint the garage in similar
colors that exist now, or a woody green earth tone, as he has described, that would
significantly aid the continued lack of visual impact of the garage from the lake or from
surrounding properties.” The as-built carriage house is white with dark green trim and
a blue tiled roof.”
MR. MC NULTY-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
May 11, 2005 Project Name: Wall, Robert Owner(s): Robert Wall ID Number: QBY-
05-AV-38 County Project#: May05-44 Current Zoning: WR-3A Community:
Queensbury Project Description: Applicant has constructed a carriage house 32 ft. high.
Seeks relief from height restrictions and from color scheme in previous condition of
approval by the ZBA. Site Location: 23 Antigua Road Tax Map Number(s): 239.17-1-7
Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant requests approval of a constructed carriage
house for the west side height of 32 ft. The applicant obtained a local variance to
construct the carriage house at 23 ft. in height and the building was to be of woody
green earth tone. The carriage house is 23 ft. on 3 sides of the building where on the
west side it is 32 ft. due to an existing 9 ft. height exposed foundation. The west side
foundation is also associated with the retaining wall to the lake. The carriage house is
also painted white with green trim to match the main house. The information submitted
includes photos and an elevation drawing of the carriage house. Staff does not identify
an impact on county resources based on the information submitted. Staff recommends
no county impact. Warren County Planning Board Recommendation: No County
Impact” Signed by Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board May 13, 2005.
MR. ABBATE-I see that there are two gentlemen at the table. Would you be kind
enough to please speak into the microphone and for the record identify yourselves.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper and Bob Wall. Mr. Chairman, members of the
Board, we’ve submitted with this application photographs of the new carriage house,
and I guess to start with, the approval required a green carriage house with white trim,
and it was painted white with green trim because it matched the house, the existing
house. The approval was granted a while ago, and obviously Bob should have come
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
back and asked, before it was painted, to switch it, but I hope that you’ll all view this as
being attractive and not a significant change. It’s hardly visible from the lake, and on
the Antigua Road side, there was already vegetative cover and they planted additional
plants. So, I think that the white, I mean, this was, the attention to detail on this carriage
house was really something special, and we feel that it’s very attractive and hope that
you’ll approve a modification in the paint color. If not, it’ll have to be re-painted. In
terms of the more important variance request, if you look at the picture of the building
from the lake, what you see is that around the parking, where obviously there’s no
foundation, this is a retaining wall, in this case the retaining wall was built of solid
granite, rather than a granite veneer, which is cheaper and more typical, which certainly
is an attention to detail and expense that benefits the neighborhood. The way that the
height would be measured here, if this were a retaining wall, a few feet out from the side
of the house, and that was the theory of our application, you would be measuring the
side of the building from the top of the retaining wall, but now it got measured from the
bottom of the retaining wall because the retaining wall is actually the side of the
foundation. This side, of course, faces the lake, and Bob has taken some photos. It’s also
really located behind the principal residence down by the lake, and our point here in
asking you not to require that this be rebuilt with a retaining wall is that there would be
no visual affect of moving the retaining wall. It’ll just be a cost effect, and there would
be no benefit to the neighborhood by doing that. That’s very nicely done, and I think it
would be imperceptible from the lake or from any residence. So this is an after the fact
variance, but the house was done very nicely, and we hope that the Board will see to
approve it. Do you want to go through the photos and we can hand them in?
MR. WALL-Sure. Actually I made a copy for each. These are actually copies of the
surrounding properties.
MR. STONE-Didn’t we have that set?
MR. LAPPER-These are new ones.
MR. BRYANT-What is the purpose of some of these photos? I’m not understanding.
MR. WALL-The purpose was the surrounding properties. One of the concerns the
Board had, at the time, was that being able to view the building from the lake, and the
size of the structure, and what I just wanted to, these are all my neighbors, and if you
look at them, obviously, each one of them, this one looks like a hotel, per se. They are
much, much bigger and massive than my building, and if you look at the last set, which
is mine, which would be.
MR. BRYANT-That’s the one that’s real light, where the lake is showing, this is yours,
right?
MR. WALL-Yes. You can hardly see the carriage house behind it, and my main
residence is the structure right in front of it, with the screen porch, which, again, is about
1800 square foot, but I just wanted to show the Board that, in fact, you know, all the
surrounding properties are, I guess, in the neighborhood of 3500 square foot to probably
7 or 8,000 square foot, and some of them are much, much smaller properties than what I
have. I have about 180 foot of lakefront, and this is the only property, actually, that
matches my lakefront, which is this particular one.
MR. STONE-And that’s in Lake George?
MR. WALL-Yes, Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-There’s a very big difference, sir. Very big difference.
MR. WALL-Well, my main house is in Lake George.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. STONE-We’re not talking about your main house.
MR. WALL-Okay.
MR. STONE-That’s not what’s on the table. I agree with you. You’re right.
MR. WALL-Right. The visual impact was the concern, I think, when we first got
approved on this, that it would be viewed from the lake. So what I’m saying is that you
can barely see the carriage house from the lake, behind my building, and I had actually
had, I think Mr. Lapper had submitted a winter photo that I had taken also, which was a
little more direct, but you can see just a little bit of the siding of the carriage house over
the roof of the main house.
MR. LAPPER-I think the other issue that the photo highlights is that there’s a
topography issue because, of course, the site drops off. I don’t know why that wasn’t
really addressed in site plan, but there has to be a retaining wall one way or another to
deal with the topography. It’s the same on all the other lots. So it’s a question of
whether it should be a few feet away from the house to technically comply with the
height, but what would the benefit be to do that?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
MR. ABBATE-Please do.
MR. BRYANT-Here’s what the real issue is. I was out there today, and came around the
bend, and you’ve basically got a three story garage, is what you have, and I went
through the minutes, and we had this discussion about, we were going to put some fill
in there and this was when King, Mr. King applied for the application. We’re going to
do some fill so that we can take a proper measurement, but that’s an amazing size
garage. It’s three stories.
MR. LAPPER-But it wouldn’t be any different if the, I mean, it can’t be filled because of
the septic system, but you’d have to retain it with a wall, like there is next to the parking
area.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I understand that, but my understanding was that you were going
to build a wall out and that’s how they were going to take the measurement, and I’m
looking at these drawings, and it doesn’t even look like the building that’s there, really.
It only shows the top two floors. It doesn’t really show any elevation. It doesn’t show
what the whole, you know, structure on that side on the lakeside is with the three
stories.
MR. STONE-I think also, gentlemen, what we’re losing sight of, at least at the moment,
that we granted height relief, which has been exceeded by a great deal, and that’s the
issue, as far as I’m concerned. I mean, I don’t care if it’s pretty. It’s a very attractive, it’s
a lovely project, but it’s wrong.
MR. BRYANT-It’s a great project, but he’s looking for 100% relief.
MR. STONE-Right. It’s wrong, that’s all.
MR. LAPPER-I’m not going to argue with you at all, Lew, in terms of the relief is more
than what was granted, but my point is that you have to have a retaining wall anyway,
and if you make the retaining wall part of the house, what’s the practical effect on the
neighborhood, if it were a few feet away, and it wouldn’t count as a measurement
towards height. What’s the difference?
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. STONE-Well, it’s very large on the road side, as Mr. Bryant says, and then there’s
the other issue which you simply say, you can re-paint it, but that was an integral part of
our variance. We put that condition on because none of us was comfortable with a
white thing that high. I mean, it was very specific. I remember the discussion we had.
We went on a long time. We said it should be like the carriage house that was there,
which, you could hardly see, even though it was a massive structure because of its
coloration. That’s what we approved, and I just don’t want us to lose sight of the fact
that your words, it was an after the fact variance, because the applicant, and I’m not
saying it was Mr. Wall because I think it was built probably by the previous owner,
which doesn’t excuse anything, but the point is, it is a massive building, and we did not
want a massive building, and we certainly wanted to reduce its massiveness, at least
with a paint job.
MR. LAPPER-Well, obviously for the applicant the paint job is a lot less important an
issue than the stone wall, but the stone wall which I think the big issue is really not
visible from the lake or from the neighbors, because of where it’s located on the site
behind the house.
MR. STONE-Yes, the wall’s very pretty, but then the garage on top of it should have
been more conforming.
MR. LAPPER-And certainly if the Board wants it to be re-painted, that’s your
prerogative.
MR. STONE-Well, that’s part of it. I said more conforming in terms of physicality, too.
That’s at least where I am right now.
MR. LAPPER-It is the same garage that was approved, the structure. Just a different
color.
MR. BRYANT-Who built the garage, Mr. King or Mr. Wall?
MR. LAPPER-No, Bob built it.
MR. WALL-But it was the same plans that Mr. King had originally done.
MR. STONE-But this was torn down and rebuilt totally?
MR. WALL-Yes. It was totally torn down.
MR. LAPPER-And that was always the plan. The other one.
MR. STONE-I understand. I thought it was. I was just getting it on the record.
MR. LAPPER-Sure.
MR. WALL-Yes, there were actually two buildings that were torn down. The original
carriage house, and then there was a bunkhouse also that was torn down.
MR. STONE-And you rebuilt that, and I’m not sure we approved that.
MR. WALL-No, the bunkhouse is down.
MR. STONE-There’s something behind the garage.
MR. WALL-The icehouse.
MR. STONE-Yes, the icehouse.
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. WALL-The icehouse remained. The bunkhouse came down, and the carriage house
came down.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just saw that other building.
MR. LAPPER-There were three and now there are two.
MR. STONE-Okay. Do we have any other members who have any comments or
questions to the applicant?
MR. URRICO-Is where the retaining wall located the only reason you need nine
additional feet of relief in height?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. WALL-And I didn’t realize, going through this, as the Board knows, it was Mr.
King that got this approval originally and stuff. If I would have any inclination
whatsoever that there would be a measurement on the west side of this building, I think
we would have addressed that early on. I had no idea, for the simple fact that there’s
two other garages that sit adjacent to me that are both, I think one was approved for 22
foot variance, and the back is 30 foot out of the ground. The other is the same thing,
which I have photos of both.
MR. LAPPER-This is the neighbor, the immediate adjacent neighbor, but I mean, this
was probably done before.
MR. WALL-That was done in ’91, ’92, and this one was done I believe a year and a half
ago this was done.
MR. LAPPER-This is right next door.
MR. WALL-And this is two doors away.
MR. LAPPER-But the issue is that if it were done as a retaining wall, rather than as part
of the garage, it would have been measured differently.
MR. WALL-If I would have known, because where we brought out the retaining walls, if
you take a look, we’re actually out, this is radiused and this retaining wall goes out four
foot, and it’s out four foot on the other side, too. So at the time, it would have been very
easy to come straight across there and then put fill in, and you know, the Board would
have measured from the top of that, but I had no idea whatsoever that that’s where it
would be measured from. Actually it took more work to radius these concrete walls
here than it would have been to come straight across and fill it with fill, and again, I’m
basing it a lot on both of my neighbors, the property’s identical, and as a matter of fact I
got Craig up there after the fact. You came up, I guess, the following week I had asked
you to come up, when you received the call about taking a look at the building, just to
show you what I had done, and I had you look at the two adjacent properties, just to
look at the way the topography goes. It’s pretty consistent on that road, and the
pictures, obviously, reveal both of them. So it may be a mistake on my part, possibly I
should have had the contractor put that retaining wall straight across and filled it, and I
guess we wouldn’t be discussing that today, but there was a lot of time and effort spent,
and a lot of thought.
MR. URRICO-The thing is that was a big issue. That was a very big issue in granting the
approval to begin with was the height. I know it was one thing that bothered me a lot,
and so it’s not going to be taken lightly tonight. You make a good compelling argument,
but it still leaves me a little wanting, in terms of how we got to this point.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. WALL-And I guess if I look at the massiveness, one of the Board members had
mentioned, this is what it looks like from the road. This has just been all burned up, all
hemlocks and stuff planted in that. So it is the 23 foot on the road.
MR. LAPPER-I guess, to Mr. Urrico’s comment, that Mr. Wall definitely made a mistake,
and it should have been done with a retaining wall, but I don’t think that there is an
impact on the neighborhood to require it to be changed, but that’s our argument, and I
think that there were letters from all of the neighbors saying how attractive this is and
that they supported the request.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other questions? All right. Since there appears to
be no other questions, what I’m going to do is open the public hearing, and again, I’m
going to invite public comments on this appeal, and again, I’m going to state, in the
interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your comments to only the facts
and information given this evening. Would those individuals who wish to be heard
kindly come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and identify yourself. You will
be limited to five minutes, and I ask Ms. G., again, to please monitor the time.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
JOHN SALVADOR, JR.
MR. SALVADOR-I just have one question. Do I understand that a retaining wall was
constructed, Mr. Brown?
MR. BROWN-Yes. The retaining wall was constructed. Sure.
MR. SALVADOR-Was a building permit issued for it?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. SALVADOR-Is that a violation?
MR. BROWN-No.
MR. SALVADOR-Don’t we need building permits for retaining walls?
MR. BROWN-I don’t think so.
MR. SALVADOR-I think we do. They’re engineered. A retaining wall is an engineered
structure.
MR. BROWN-It’s probably a better question for the Building and Codes Department,
but I don’t know of any building permits issued for retaining walls.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m sure it’s required.
MR. BROWN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Salvador. Do we have any other individuals in the
audience this evening who would like to address Area Variance No. 38-2005?
MR. LAPPER-I think there are some letters to be read.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. Mr. Secretary, is there any correspondence in regard to Area
Variance No. 38-2005? If so, please read them into the record.
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. We’ve got, I think it’s five letters. The first one’s from Howard
and Jennifer Nadler at 15 Antigua Road. They say, “In reviewing the variance
application I feel that there is no impact to the community or neighborhood. Mr. Wall
has built a carriage house with such detail from the sweeping roof lines to match the
main house, to the beautiful native Adirondack granite stone foundation and retaining
walls. He has also painted the carriage house to match the color of the other buildings
on the property. Which I believe blends extremely well. He has also recently started a
landscape plan which includes many native trees and plants. In summary, Mr. Wall has
created a structure which blends well with its surrounding that is not ostentatious in any
way, so I strongly support his application and urges the ZBA to grant this variance.
Sincerely, Howard & Jennifer Nadler 15 Antigua Road Lake George, NY 12845” The
next one is from Dave and Claudia Montana at 19 Antigua Road. They say, “We live on
the south side of Bob and Laurie Wall. We have no objection to either the height or the
color of their new carriage house. Everything that they have done has been in good
taste. We look forward to the landscaping being completed. Dave & Claudia Montana
19 Antigua Road Lake George, NY 12845” Next one is from Joseph Nichols at 13
Antigua Road. It says, “I have watched this project for the past eighteen months. Mr.
Wall has taken a property that was overgrown with multiple buildings that were in
desperate need of repair, of which was a definite detriment to Plum Point, Antigua
Road, and all surrounding property owners. What he has constructed today is a
building design which has been tastefully done and ties to the architecture of the
original camp. The existing topography blends extremely well with the adjacent
properties. This property has now become an asset to Antigua Road with no visual
impact whatsoever to the surrounding properties. In conclusion I strongly suggest the
board approves the above area variance. Sincerely, Joseph Nichols 13 Antigua Road”
And we have a letter from Craig Brown at 47 Antigua Road. It says, “I have reviewed
the proposed issues with Robert and Laurie Wall. I strongly urge you to consider and
grant our neighbors their requested variance. Thank you for your consideration to this
matter. Sincerely, Craig Brown” And finally, a note from Susan and Martin Farber.
They say, “As owners of the residence at 33 Antigua Road in the immediate vicinity of
23 Antigua Road, we have no objection to the carriage house as constructed by Robert
Wall and support his request for relief. Sincerely, Susan and Martin Farber” And that’s
it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, the letter, Number Four, that was from Craig Brown?
MR. LAPPER-No relation.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, if the record could reflect that that was not my letter.
MR. ABBATE-Let the record reflect that the individual referred to as Craig Brown is not
the Zoning Administrator. That was for the record. I would now request ZBA members
to offer their commentary, and I respectfully remind them of the procedures that I
discussed earlier, please.
MR. STONE-Let me just make a comment.
MR. ABBATE-By all means.
MR. STONE-That all these comments that we got in these letters are good, but they’re
off point. That’s nice. It’s nice to have the neighbors like it, but we’re here to discuss
our Zoning Code and variances there from.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but I think that they’re addressing the issue of how it affects, in their
mind, the neighborhood.
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. STONE-Yes, they are. I agree.
MR. BRYANT-So, that’s one of the points.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’re at the point now in the meeting where I have asked
members to offer their commentary, and may I please start with Mr. Stone.
MR. STONE-Again?
MR. ABBATE-You know why, it’s because I like you.
MR. STONE-That’s fine. It’s a lovely project. There’s no question about it, but I, as a
member of the Zoning Board of Appeals in 2002, feel offended, by two things. One, by
the size of the building, and maybe we can excuse that if we get into this technicality. I
mean, the building was massive to begin with, and it’s still too massive, but the ignoring
of the very specific point in the resolution very strongly says, continued lack of visual
impact of the garage from lake. That’s why we wanted it painted other than white.
We’re in an area of green. We talk about Queensbury being a Town of great beauty,
natural beauty. White, only in certain times of the year, is natural, and when these
houses are used, it’s not a natural color. So I’m offended by that, and I’m certainly
inclined to resist granting this variance, but I will listen to what other people have to
say, but I am not a happy camper.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I look at this a little bit differently than
Mr. Stone. To me, I happen to agree with some of the letters that, after looking at the
constructed building and the color scheme and so on, I understand the logic behind the
original conditions, but when you actually look at it, I think that your neighbors are
correct. It does look kind of nice, but my problem is with the height. Surprisingly
enough, after going back through the minutes, I did actually vote in favor of that
resolution in 2002. It’s very surprising, because I’m very consistent. I generally don’t
vote in favor of height issues. I don’t know what the solution is here at this point, but
the request is enormous. It’s more than substantial. It’s enormous. It’s 100%. So I don’t
know what the solution is, but I have difficulties with it. That’s all I have to say.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Well, I didn’t vote on the last issue, but I do have a question.
If the retaining wall was four feet out, then there would be no need for relief beyond
what was given, the seven feet, is that true?
MR. BROWN-Well, there’s no section of the Code that requires the final grade from the
building be a certain distance from the home. We typically look for something that’s
reasonable, that doesn’t look manmade. Is four feet enough? I don’t know. It probably
would relate to the scale of the building. Is 10 feet enough? Who knows? If this is a 50
foot structure, maybe 50 feet’s not enough. So, if it was four feet away will it not require
relief? There’s no section of the Code that addresses that. What the Code says is, you
measure to final grade adjacent to the building. So if it’s, you know, if it’s one inch
away, it counts as the measurement. Is it a good rule? No, it’s not a good rule, but that’s
the way it’s written.
MRS. HUNT-Relief would not be needed then?
MR. BROWN-That’s correct.
MR. STONE-Let me just clarify that. This wall made an artificial level playing field,
wherever it was put. It made this building level from east to west?
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. BROWN-Correct, the parking area.
MR. STONE-Yes, I mean, this whole thing was, a plateau was built. How it was kept in
place is by this granite wall.
MR. BROWN-Correct. Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MRS. HUNT-So I’m really conflicted, because while it seems like a lot of relief, on the
other hand, it might not have been if this retaining wall had been put in. So I’m not
really sure. I want to hear what the others have to say.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Well, if we keep passing the buck, we’ll eventually get back to Mr. Stone.
I’m going to make a decision. Yes, I’m conflicted also, and bothered by what’s taken
place, but our former Chairman, Mr. Stone, has coined the phrase, what would happen
if you came to us with clean hands, and I’m not so sure if you came to me with this plan,
as it is, that I wouldn’t have granted approval, because it’s actually kind of clever the
way the retaining wall has been built into the side of the building. It actually makes it
look much nicer than if the retaining wall had been built away. Yes, you would have
been allowed to have your height relief without needing a variance at that point, but, to
me, this is much more attractive the way it is. So understanding that, and maybe that
wasn’t your intention, but I think what we ended up with is a pretty nice structure that
needs some variances. So, can the benefit be achieved by other means feasible to the
applicant? Yes, you could achieved the benefit by bringing out the retaining wall, but
had you asked us, what if I built this retaining wall into the side of the building, would
you grant us relief, I might have been inclined, I think I would have been inclined to say
yes, at that point, because of the way it looks, and seeing it now the way it looks, I
definitely feel that it’s a good tradeoff. Obviously, a desirable change was achieved in
the neighborhood, based on what your nearby residents have said, and from seeing it, I
definitely agree with them. The request is substantial, and I don’t see any adverse
physical or environmental effects, and certainly this is self-created. My question to you
is, would you be willing to tradeoff the color with the height relief?
MR. WALL-Most definitely.
MR. URRICO-And put in the color that was stipulated in the?
MR. WALL-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Then I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. If I may have Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I, too, am torn with this. I think, if it had been presented to me
as it is now originally, 32 feet in height, I probably would have said no, just based on the
fact that it’s 100% relief, and I probably would have said no looking at the total height,
the way it looks now. I’m also bothered that the color scheme is not what was
approved, and I think that’s definitely a sticking point for me. So, on the one hand, I’m
inclined to say no. On the other hand, given that if the applicant went back, spent a lot
of money, and built another retaining wall four feet away, dumped a bunch of dirt in it,
then he would have a legal height that would comply with the previous variance that
was approved, it seems kind of silly to require him to do that. It might or might not look
a little better because it would be a little bit more of a three-dimensional break in the
total height, but, on the other hand, the fact that it’s not just a poured cement wall that’s
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
there, but something that’s been trimmed out with stone, probably accomplishes a lot of
the same visual affect. So I guess being pragmatic about this, given what exists, and
partly the fact that it’s a different person that built it than got the variance, although that
probably is not a legitimate excuse, I can see, you know, room for a little more leeway
there than if it had been the same person that got the original variance and then just
went ahead and did what he darn well pleased anyway. So I guess where I come down
is, if the applicant will change the color scheme to match what was approved in this
particular instance, I’ll reluctantly go along with the height approval.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. McNulty, thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In looking at the project, it’s a very nice result, what you ended up
with there, and I think that, you know, taking a little extra time, making the granite wall
down below, does fit in very well with what you see that’s done well up on the lake. I
would have to agree with Mr. McNulty. I think that moving a wall four feet away just to
satisfy some need to get the height down to what it was supposed to have been would
be a little bit onerous on our part. The color of the house does match all the other
buildings on the site, but I think that, you know, that’s something that could be
considered, painting the house as was prescribed originally. The only other thing that
could possibly be done would be to plant an arborvitae hedge somewhere between there
and the lake, and let it just grow, and then you wouldn’t even see the thing eventually,
as was done on the Montana’s property next door. So I think that those are some
feasible things that could be done to alleviate the problem, but I don’t really have a
problem with it. I don’t think it’s an eyesore.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Mrs. Hunt, if I interpreted your comments
earlier, I believe you were unsure and wanted to hear what the other Board members
had to say. Are you prepared to make a decision, if you will?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I would support it with the color change.
MR. ABBATE-With conditions. Okay.
MRS. HUNT-With conditions.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll agree with Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, that
I would support the application with conditions, with stipulations, and if counsel is
prepared to do that, I will include, I don’t think you were here. I think before you make
a decision, you best hear what I’m going to say. This new inclusion will read like this. It
will almost be like a stop work order until it’s done. Final approval of plans in
compliance with this variance must be submitted to the Community Development
Department for any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building and Codes
personnel. Subsequent issuance of any further permits, including building permits, are
dependent on receipt. In effect what we’re saying, if we, in fact, based on a vote, comes
out in your favor, that there will be stipulations, and these stipulations must be
complied with first.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it doesn’t apply to this project, because it’s already complete.
MR. ABBATE-Well, wait a second. I’m talking about the painting. Didn’t several
members indicate they wanted a color scheme originally? Didn’t I hear that correctly?
Am I right? Well, that’s a stipulation, is it not?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-What are you fighting me for?
MR. BRYANT-So you’re saying you’re not going to give him approval to do what?
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. ABBATE-I don’t grant or disapprove, I just vote. What I’m basically saying is this,
and, Board members, if I’m incorrect, help me out. I’m saying that there are at least two
or three Board members who said I don’t have a problem with this, providing they
condition it upon going to the original color scheme that we indicated initially. Am I
correct, Board members?
MR. STONE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-That’s what I’m going to say.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. I understand.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, could I ask a quick question? Is it that you’re asking the
applicant to supply the Planning Department or the Zoning Department with an
updated set of final plans that the notes on their building to be changed to X numbered
color?
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely correct. That’s exactly what I’m indicating.
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. In other words, what I’m doing, I’m complying with what you
folks got together, you and Dave and Marilyn, okay?
MR. BROWN-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right.
MR. BRYANT-It’s already built, though? Why does he have to go through that?
MR. LAPPER-Maybe we could just supply the paint.
MR. BRYANT-Why don’t you just supply the color charts.
MR. STONE-Well, the only thing, I just want to get it in, is that we’re talking about the
retaining wall. We could take a saw to the top, and just take off the top. I’m being
facetious, guys. That’s another alternative.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you know, quite frankly, if I were not in a humanitarian mood, I
would probably say get a chainsaw, he’s right, and take off the top, but all we are asking
for, I do believe is rather reasonable, and I would not settle for, no, I won’t settle for a
color chart. I want colored pictures, photographs.
MR. BRYANT-How are you going to have photographs?
MR. ABBATE-Color charts don’t tell a thing. You can go down to Sears and buy one, or
get them for nothing.
MR. LAPPER-What if we agree to a date that it will be repainted by?
MR. ABBATE-I don’t have a problem with that.
MR. LAPPER-In the relatively near future.
64
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. ABBATE-As long as my other fellow Board members don’t have a problem. You
want a deadline. I don’t care.
MR. LAPPER-What could you commit to?
MR. WALL-The way the weather’s been.
MR. ABBATE-Counsel, let me say it in this way that you’ll understand. I insist on
documentary evidence, fair enough?
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Be submitted, as appropriate, to the Zoning Administrator. Now we
know exactly what that means.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STONE-Let me just amend my statement, just quickly looking at the, one of the
other things we granted was set back from the road, and that’s one of the things that gets
you into trouble, looking at this massive white structure, very close to the road, visa vie
the Ordinance, and we did grant you that at the time, with all of the other thoughts that
we had going. So that’s one of the reasons I’m troubled, but I certainly, I can support the
paint job.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. All right. May I please hear a motion for Area Variance
No. 38-2005.
MR. BROWN-Just one question, so that this color isn’t left up to my discretion or the
applicant’s discretion. It says woody green tone in the previous approval. I’m sure
that’s what.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Let me make it clear. The condition is going to be that he
comply with our original statement of insistency.
MR. BROWN-Okay. That’s fine.
MR. ABBATE-Now, may I please hear a motion for Area Variance No. 38-2005, please. I
will close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2005 ROBERT WALL,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Lewis Stone:
23 Antigua Road. The applicant has constructed a carriage house which exceeds the
previously approved Area Variance No. 24-2002 which allowed a maximum height of 23
feet. This lakeside residence structure is 32 feet. Also, the exterior of the carriage house
is not consistent with the previously approved color scheme that they were directed to
use. In asking that this Area Variance be approved, I will go through the test. The
benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. As far as the retaining
wall, it could be achieved if the retaining wall was moved. However, we feel that’s an
unreasonable request at this point in the application, and the house has already been
constructed. We feel that would be onerous to ask them to do that at this point. Rather
than an undesirable change, we’re seeing a desirable change in the neighborhood
character and to nearby properties, and that was upgraded. It was previously the
carriage house in sort of a dilapidated condition to what it looks like now, which is a
very nice, beautiful house, or a carriage house, I should say. The relief is substantial
because the retaining wall has been built into the side of the house rather than away
65
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
from the house, but it is substantial nevertheless. There will be no adverse physical or
environmental effects, and this difficulty is self-created, but in the balancing test, we
think that the benefit to the applicant outweighs the health, safety and welfare of the
community. I should also like to make this contingent upon the applicant following the
approval that was granted in Area Variance No. 24-2002, where the carriage house be
contingent that the applicant paint the garage in similar colors that exist now, which at
that time was a woody green, earth tone as was described by the applicant.
Duly adopted this 23 day of May 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 38-2005 is six in favor, one against. Is
there any challenge to the tally? If not, Area Variance No. 38-2005 is approved with
conditions, and final approval plans in compliance with this variance must be submitted
to the Community Development Department before any further review by the
Administrator or Building and Codes personnel.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. We have organizational business to attend to. Let
me ask a question. A Board member has just raised an issue. I notice there’s some folks
here. Did we miss you or did I neglect you? Okay. We have some organizational
business. It’s mandated, so I’ve been told.
MR. SALVADOR-For the Hayes and Hayes application, I said that they would require a
filing for a realty subdivision. That also requires a subdivision plat, okay, a subdivision
plat, and on that subdivision plat, the Planning Board is going to have to have approval
for what we call a substandard lot, which is what the townhouses are.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, but we do not have the authority to change zoning or modify
zoning. That’s not the duty and responsibility of the Planning Board.
MR. SALVADOR-I’m not telling you that. I’m telling you they are going to need to file,
with the Attorney General, a subdivision plat, and the specification for that is quite clear,
okay, and on that plat, they have to map these lots that they want to sell as townhouse
lots, and those are substandard lots, and they will need a variance for that. The
Planning Board can’t give them that variance.
MR. STONE-They got the variance.
MR. SALVADOR-You didn’t give them a variance for substandard lots.
MR. BROWN-Just to answer your question, if you want the answer, for cluster
subdivision, which this is what’s proposed with the Planning Board, the Planning Board
is empowered to grant relief from the lot size requirements.
MR. SALVADOR-Okay. All right.
MR. BROWN-That’s in the Subdivision Regulations, they’re empowered to do that, with
the cluster.
MR. ABBATE-We have to continue here. We’re going to attend to organizational
business this evening, and, Board members, it’s reached a point now where I have to
request a nomination for Chairperson for the Zoning Board of Appeals.
66
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MOTION TO NOMINATE CHARLES ABBATE FOR CHAIRMAN OF THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Allan Bryant who
moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-If I’m not mistaken the vote is six for and one against. The
recommendation for Charles Abbate for Chairperson will be submitted to the Town
Board. Now, I am going to use my prerogative as temporary Chairman this evening and
nominate Charles McNulty as Vice Chairman.
MOTION TO NOMINATE CHARLES MC NULTY FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-The vote as I see right now is seven to zero. The recommendation for
Charles McNulty for Vice Chairperson is submitted to the Town Board.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, Mr. Chairman? These terms end at the end of
the year. In other words, this is to complete the existing term?
MR. ABBATE-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-And there has been an indication that we do have an individual, will the
members of the Board allow me to nominate an individual for Secretary? Gentlemen
and ladies of the Board, may I please nominate Jim Underwood as Secretary for the
Zoning Board of Appeals.
MOTION TO NOMINATE JAMES UNDERWOOD FOR SECRETARY OF THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, Introduced by Charles Abbate who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-I do believe the count is seven in favor. Mr. Jim Underwood is nominated
to be Secretary of the Zoning Board of Appeals, and this nomination will be submitted to
the Town Board. All the nominations submitted in the record this evening, I’m going to
ask that the Zoning Administrator bring these nominations to the attention of the
appropriate personnel. He has agreed to do so.
67
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. BROWN-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other business before the Board?
MS. GAGLIARDI-You just have three sets of minutes to approve.
MR. ABBATE-Would you find out who was here.
MS. GAGLIARDI-March 16 was Charles Abbate, Roy Urrico, James Underwood,
th
Charles McNulty, and Lewis Stone.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 16, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who
moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Bryant
ABSENT: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty
Ms. GAGLIARDI-February 16 was Charles McNulty, Roy Urrico, James Underwood,
th
Charles Abbate, Allan Bryant, and Joyce Hunt.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 16, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone, McNulty
MS. GAGLIARDI-March 23 was Charles McNulty, Allan Bryant, Jim Underwood,
rd
Charles Abbate, Leo Rigby, and Joyce Hunt.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD
OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 23, 2005, Introduced by Charles Abbate who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
Duly adopted this 23 day of May, 2005, by the following vote:
rd
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mr. Urrico
68
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/23/05)
MR. ABBATE-Is there anything else that any member of the Board would like to bring
before we close this hearing? With the consensus of the Board, may we turn the record
off, anybody object? Okay.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Acting Chairman
69