2005-06-15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 15, 2005
INDEX
Area Variance No. 22-2004 James W. Newbury 1.
Tax Map No. 307.00-1-46.2 & 47
Area Variance No. 45-2005 Ruth Kouba 14.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-57
Sign Variance No. 43-2005 Kevin Hotaling for Shindigs, LTD 20.
Tax Map No. 295.8-1-2
Area Variance No. 41-2005 Gary Schneider
29.
Tax Map No. 308.10-2-59
Area Variance No. 48-2005 Jeffrey M. Clark
34.
Tax Map No. 240-1-49
Area Variance No. 49-2005 William Reese 43.
Tax Map No. 302.8-2-41
Area Variance No. 50-2005 Edith Baker 50.
Tax Map No. 279.15-1-10
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD
AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING
MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID
MINUTES.
0
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 15, 2005
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
CHARLES ABBATE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY
ROY URRICO
ALLAN BRYANT
LEWIS STONE
JOYCE HUNT
CHARLES MC NULTY
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
LAND USE PLANNER-SUSAN BARDEN
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. ABBATE-Before we get started, a couple of administrative matters here. Number
One, I’d like to welcome Mrs. Joyce Hunt as our permanent ZBA member. She brings to
us a lot of experience, but most important, perhaps, she brings to this band here a little
class, which is important. Secondly, I’d like to invite Stu. Stu, one of our Planners,
asked for a couple of seconds before we start our meeting. So if the audience will be
patient with us, Stu, would you give your little presentation, please.
MR. BAKER-Good evening, and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ll take but a moment or
two of the Board’s time. As you may recall, back in December I came to the Board and
spoke to you about the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal Training program
and provided Board members with materials to begin that. To date, I’ve received
completed sections from both the Chairman and Joyce Hunt, and I’m here this evening
in part to, A, remind the Board that the materials are there and I’m happy to help
provide you more as you complete each section, and, two, I’d like to present this
Certificate of Completion to Chairman Abbate. It reads as follows. Certificate of
Completion is hereby granted to Charles A. Abbate to certify that he has completed, to
satisfaction, the New York Municipal Insurance Reciprocal Land Use Training program
for local government officials signed on this date, June 15, 2005, by myself. Mr.
Chairman, congratulations, well done.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. You can’t believe how humbled I am, and I appreciate that,
Stu, very much. Thank you.
MR. BAKER-I should also point out that he was actually the first person, both Board
member or Staff member, to complete all sections.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
MR. BAKER-Again, I’d like to encourage Board members to take a look at those
materials, and as you complete the quizzes on the sections, I’d be happy to review them
and return them back to you. So, thank you very much for your time.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Anytime. Okay. Mr. Secretary, if there is any Old
Business, would you be kind enough to read it into the record.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2004 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES W. NEWBURY AGENT(S):
VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S): JAMES W. NEWBURY ZONING LC-10A
LOCATION 62 CORMUS ROAD APPLICANT HAS A 52.52 ACRES PARCEL WITH
24.34 ACRES IN QUEENSBURY. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-LOT RESIDENTIAL
SUBDIVISION OF 6.48, 8.44, 4.31 & 5.11 ACRES RESPECTIVELY. PART OF THE
PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS IN THE TOWN OF LAKE LUZERNE. CROSS REF.
SUBDIVISION NO. 13-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 3/10/2004
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 52.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
307.00-1-46.2 AND 47 SECTION 179-4-030
MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s a couple of letters regarding this project and why we got it
back again, and I’ll read that into the record now. First of all, there was a Planning
Board resolution on 4/26/05, and that was basically a negative dec on the SEQRA
regarding this project. So that’s not within our purview, as they were granted lead
status at that time. There’s a memorandum from April 22, 2005, and this, again, was
regarding the Newbury project, and this was Subdivision No. 13-2003. The applicant has
submitted new information for the above referenced application. The new materials
include a revised subdivision plat, proposing four lots along with a stormwater
management report. As the Planning Board will recall, this project involves an Area
Variance to create lots that are less than the required 10 acres in the LC-10 Acre zone
within the Town of Queensbury, along with the proposed subdivision of this property.
The Town of Queensbury Planning Board has accepted SEQRA Lead Status for the
project. That application was presented to the Planning Board on April 26 for SEQRA
th
review, and that was the letter that I’d previously referenced.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2004, James W. Newbury, Meeting Date: June
15, 2005 “Project Location: 62 Cormus Road Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 52.24-acre parcel into four lots, however, only 24.34
acres exist within the Town of Queensbury. The remaining 27.9 acres are in the Town of
Lake Luzerne.
Lot #1 Lot #2 Lot #3 Lot #4
Queensbury 6.48 ac. 8.44 ac. 4.31 ac. 5.11 ac.
Luzerne 6.78 ac. 5.66 ac. 6.33 ac. 9.13 ac.
Total Acres 13.26 ac. 14.10 ac. 10.64 ac. 14.24 ac.
Relief Required:
1) 3.52 acres of relief from the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 1.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
2) 1.56 acres of relief from the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 2.
3) 5.69 acres of relief from the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 3.
4) 4.89 acres of relief from the 10-acre minimum lot size requirement for Lot 4.
All relief per §179-4-030 for the LC-10A Zone.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 13-2003: SEQR Negative Declaration determination for 4-lot subdivision, Planning
Board 4/26/05.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 52.24-acre parcel into four lots. Being only 24.34
acres exist within the Town of Queensbury, lot size relief is required for all four lots.
When looking at the lots with the geopolitical boundaries removed, all four lots would
meet the minimum requirements for size and width. Note: the 27.9 acres existing in the
Town of Lake Luzerne are in the Residential Countryside zone, which has a 10-acre
minimum lot size requirement and a 300-foot minimum lot width requirement. It has
not been identified if the applicant is required to obtain relief from the Town of Lake
Luzerne Zoning Code.”
MR. ABBATE-I See we do have a representative for Area Variance No. 22-2005. Would
you please be kind enough to speak into the microphone and for the record identify
yourself and your relationship with this Appeal, please.
MR. STEVES-Yes. My name is Matt Steves with Van Dusen & Steves, and I represent
James Newbury on the application.
MR. ABBATE-If you are ready to proceed, do so.
MR. STEVES-Yes. As your Secretary has read in, this is property on the west side of
Cormus Road, of approximately, or exactly 52.24 acres, and all the property fronts on
Cormus Road, which is a road in the Town of Queensbury. All the lots are over 10 acres
in size, if you look at it without the Town line, and I know from experience, as you
know, we can only look at, in this Town, what’s in the Town of Queensbury. I talked to
your attorney at length, and they said that they realize that there is a State Statute that
would allow not to have to do this, but they said just to make sure everything is fine, we
will do it this way and we have no problem. We have been to the Town of Lake
Luzerne, and have obtained an approval. I have a letter from the Town of Lake Luzerne,
and they passed Lead Agency on SEQRA over to the Town of Queensbury Planning
Board. They wanted to have that SEQRA determination made once the Queensbury
Planning Board has made their determination on the subdivision, and if that is granted
an approval, they are set to sign off on the subdivision. As far as the 10 acres in the
Town of Lake Luzerne, in talking to their Zoning Administrator and meeting with their
Board, because of the fact that this property, unique situation, doesn’t have any road
frontage in Luzerne, their own stipulation was you won’t need a variance provided that
they’re 10 acres in total, and that the portion of Lot One and the portion of Lot Two and
subsequently also continue into Queensbury and front onto Cormus Road. In other
words, if we made 10 acres lots in Queensbury and didn’t need this Zoning Board, then
we would have to put in a road from somewhere to get into the back and then create
other lots, and we don’t want to do that. That’s not the intent. The intent is to use the
existing road. All the lots will be 10 acres in size. We’ve performed the two foot
contours, as the Staff has stated. We’ve begun a stormwater plan, test pits, perc tests.
It’s all set for going back to the Planning Board. This was back on your agenda at one
time, and you couldn’t hear it until such time as the SEQRA determination was made,
and the Planning Board, at that time, wanted some additional topography, and they
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
wanted the stormwater report that has been presented to the Planning Board, and
SEQRA determination has been made as a negative declaration.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Do any members of the Board have any
questions?
MR. MC NULTY-I guess a couple.
MR. ABBATE-Please, Chuck.
MR. MC NULTY-If this Board were to deny this, is it physically possible that you could
create two lots in the Town of Luzerne and two lots in the Town of Queensbury and put
a road in?
MR. STEVES-I guess with a lot more disturbance than we’re doing at this point.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. That would be my next thing is that the disadvantage would be
the fact that you’d be adding a road to the whole process.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thanks.
MR. STEVES-Which is, engineering wise, possible. There’s no question there. If you
look at the grade on the division line between Lots Two and Three, it is quite possible,
but it’s just not practical. I mean, when you look at the lots, what they really are, they’re
10 acre lots that meet all the requirements. They just happen to have a political
boundary that crosses in the middle of them.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions from members of the Board? Please? No other
questions from members of the Board? Okay. Then what we’ll do is this. We’re going
to meet the obligation of the Public Officer’s Law, Section Three, for a fair and open
process, and we’re going to open up the public hearing for Area Variance No. 22-2005,
and at this point, this Board invites public comment 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 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 monitor the
time. Do we have any members of the public wishing to comment on Area Variance No.
22-2004?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
THOMAS & PATRICIA WASHBURN
MR. WASHBURN-Thomas Washburn, Cormus Road.
MRS. WASHBURN-And I’m Patricia Washburn, and we’re at 107 Cormus Road, which
is the very last house. So we’re at the end of the street.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Please continue with your comments.
MR. WASHBURN-My first comment is the way this piece of property was purchased,
okay, Mr. Newbury purchased an existing 15 acres with the home on it, originally
bordering on Queensbury’s road, okay. The additional parcel on this drawing then was
purchased, I think it was around eight acres in Queensbury, and the additional property
in Lake Luzerne, for a nominal fee, he bought this property. I have a hard time trying to
find any hardship to Mr. Newbury in trying to change zoning requirements in the Town
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
of Queensbury, which are 10 acre zoning in our area. The rest of us comply with this.
We are 10 acres. We own 10 acres at our home. We purchased another parcel up there
that borders this property, again, is 10 acres in Queensbury. We own 20 acres now. In
trying to meet this requirement, which Mr. Newbury’s asking you to do is breaking this
six acres for one piece here in Queensbury, five acres point something in Queensbury
and adding this all on to Luzerne. You’re going to be setting a major precedent here that
other property owners in Queensbury, which do own property in Queensbury and
Luzerne. You’re going to be opening everything up here for other people to take and do
this same situation. My feeling is the property that’s in Luzerne is Luzerne’s. That’s this
piece. He bought that knowing exactly the way the situation is in Queensbury, 10 acre
zoning in Queensbury in order to take and have a lot, and he went ahead and bought
the other piece because it all surrounded his existing parcel, and he bought it for a very
nominal fee. So what he’s asking here for you is going to be a hardship for us, because
you’re going to increase our traffic flow. You’re going to almost double the size of our
one small street, even though it’s 10 acres and you can look and say, well, it’s 10 acres.
Well, it’s 10 acres, and we don’t have to be on top of each other, but we’re almost going
to be on top of each other. The last thing is, on those pieces in Luzerne, on the two that
are going to be closest to me, those two lots will not be acceptable for a home in
Queensbury. The houses are going to have to be set in Luzerne. The Town of
Queensbury, what kind of, what are you going to have to take and say, the homes that
are built, how they’re built, what the setback requirements are, once they’re in the Town
of Luzerne. That’s my case.
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you a question, please?
MR. WASHBURN-Yes, sir.
MR. BRYANT-How much of your 20 acres is in Luzerne?
MR. WASHBURN-None, none of mine.
MR. BRYANT-So all your 20 acres are in Queensbury?
MR. WASHBURN-Yes, it is, but I’ll give you a prime example. Mike Brandt, my next
neighbor. Mike Brandt owns everything in Queensbury. Once it drops over the top,
comes over the other side, that’s all Luzerne. Mike could be asking for this. I’m just
giving an example. If you allow something like this to maybe go forward, because this
is asking an awful lot, going from 10 acres in Queensbury to say I’m going to give you
five, but we’re going to have 10. We’re going to have 13. What’s in Luzerne shouldn’t
even be a question mark for you people. We should be concerned with what is in
Queensbury, what are zoning has, we are 10 acres, and the reason being 10 acres in our
area is the topography. It’s wooded. It’s mountainous, and so it’s only acceptable for a
house in just certain locations in where we are.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so much for your information.
MRS. HUNT-Could you just point out your property on this map?
MR. WASHBURN-Yes. This is Cormus Road. This is my home dwelling, and this is my
second parcel.
MRS. WASHBURN-I think that the relief that Mr. Newbury is requesting is absolutely
excessive, especially the two lots that are going to be encompassing and surrounding
our property, and we’re very concerned that once these houses are allowed to be built in
Luzerne, will we be calling the Town of Queensbury to make sure that everything is
being complied with? No. It’s not going to be in Queensbury. It’s going to be in
Luzerne, and that bothers us, because our property is totally, three sides of it is
surrounded by this Luzerne/Queensbury, these two narrow strips. Also, the relief
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
requested is substantial as far as the width of those two lots, Lots Three and Four.
They’re very, very skinny, skinny narrow pieces. They in no one comply with the
minimum width requirement. I think that they arrived at the number by adding it all up
or something, but they’re extremely skinny lots, and basically what he’s asking is to
have a right of way through Queensbury, to build two houses in Luzerne, and I just
think that’s.
MR. WASHBURN-That’s not going to benefit Queensbury.
MRS. WASHBURN-That’s not what we have 10 acre zoning in Queensbury for.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so very much for your information. We appreciate it.
MRS. WASHBURN-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-Are there any other public comments on this? Yes, sir, please.
TOM BARROWMAN
MR. BARROWMAN-Tom Barrowman. I live on the Luzerne Mountain Road, 956
Luzerne Road. I’m wondering, first off, before I have something to read here, I’m
wondering what constitutes a hardship case. Maybe Mr. Newbury’s representative can
identify that or maybe you people can identify that. The only thing that I see, well, I’ll
stop for a second.
MR. ABBATE-Our position basically is this. We’re not going to identify what constitutes
a hardship. Rather, it’s incumbent upon the applicant to describe to us what he or she
considers a hardship, and based upon that information, then we’ll make a, hopefully, an
intelligent decision.
MR. BARROWMAN-Okay. My comment, then, the only thing that I can see related to
that hardship thing is monetary, as far as that goes, that when the Zoning Board
originally zoned that land, there was careful consideration that maps the terrain. I’m
sure they didn’t go up there on the mountain and look at the terrain and say, well, we’ve
got some in Lake Luzerne. We could use that, and so we’ll do it at 10 acres, and then,
you know, if somebody wants to buy some land, we’ll use a little bit from Lake Luzerne
and therefore we can build some more lots up there. I don’t think that’s the way it went.
I think you took care of your own business and Lake Luzerne took care of their own
business. At that time, the Zoning Board did not consider combining land with adjacent
towns. Mr. Newbury has enough land to divide into the two parcels under the current
regulations, the zoning rules apply to everyone. Changing the zoning would set
precedence for other projects which could be proposed by any landowner on the borders
and within the Town, for purely financial reasons. We are strongly against changing the
zoning for purely financial gain and not hardship. I checked on your website, and did
my homework and saw on your website a list. Can a reasonable return be realized if the
land is used as zoned? The answer is yes. You could sell 10.
MR. URRICO-Excuse me, sir, but I think you were looking at the Use Variance rather
than the Area Variance.
MR. BARROWMAN-Okay.
MR. URRICO-Okay. There’s a little different criteria for that. The hardship does not
apply to this.
MR. BRYANT-Hardship doesn’t really apply in any of this, this type of variance.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. BARROWMAN-Okay. Lastly, then, if none of those apply, making cuts in the road
will increase the runoff down the mountain. I’ve been up there for 38 years and
maintained my driveway, and every time it rains, I have to replace the bottom where it
joins the road. I think Mr. Washburn woke me up to the fact, the last time I was here,
that, hey, aren’t you going to say something. So I have to go down and re-plow it every
time. They’ve tried, a couple of times to fix it, but it’s only increased in the problem. So
if cuts are made in that road, I’m going to be some place on Wednesday nights an awful
lot now, because it’s just getting worse and worse, and I can see that as only a problem
continuing. I guess that’s all I have.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir, very much. I appreciate that.
MRS. HUNT-Could you show me on this map where you are, too? This is Luzerne.
MR. BARROWMAN-Okay.
MR. MC NULTY-This is your Town line right through here.
MR. BARROWMAN-Right. Right here, right where it comes around the point here.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. BARROWMAN-Luzerne Mountain Road.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Are there any other public comments concerning Area
Variance No. 22-2004?
ANNETTE DELAHOYD
MRS. DELAHOYD-My name is Annette Delahoyd, and I live not far from here on
Hiland Drive, off the Rockwell Road, and I’m just here as a concerned citizen. I see a lot
of changes. I’ve lived through a lot of changes, and I’m just concerned, at this point in
time, that the Zoning Board of Appeals and our Town Planning Boards, everybody start
making some serious thoughtful judgments, because I think Queensbury is just, you can
only make so many changes to a Town and then it loses its character and its charm and I
just, I’m here as a concerned citizen. I’m not for changing these things arbitrarily to
meet someone’s personal needs. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome, thank you. Do we have any other comments from
the public? Yes, please.
LYLE WASHBURN
MR. WASHBURN-Lyle Washburn, 107 Cormus Road. I live with my parents. I’d just
like to state that I’m opposed to Mr. Newbury’s subdivision. I don’t believe that it
would be beneficial for our neighborhood. As my father stated, it would increase traffic,
etc. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Any other public comment?
STEVEN BROWN
MICHAEL O’KEEFE
MR. O’KEEFE-My name’s Michael O’Keefe. I live at Four Cormus road. I’m right down
the hill from the proposed property. It’s a pretty steep grade. I live on the down side of
that hill. I would be opposed to changing any of Queensbury’s zoning at this point. The
zoning was pretty clearly stated when they bought the property, as I understand. So I
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
don’t think that there should be any changes for one person. I’d be concerned about
water table runoff. I am at the bottom of that hill. The traffic all has to go by my house
to get to there. There’s a piece of property across the street from me, and it would be the
same situation where part of it, I believe, is in Queensbury and the other half of it in
Luzerne. So I would be curious, if this was to go through, what the owner of that
property may be able to do with that. Those were my concerns. I’ve studied a little bit
of it. I don’t know all the facts, but I just wanted to have my say. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much. Any other public comment, please? Yes, sir.
STEVEN BROWN
MR. BROWN-My name’s Steven Brown. I live on 57 Cormus Road. I just wanted to say,
I think the reason you see such a big turnout, it’s not a ton of people, but it’s basically
everyone that lives up there, we all feel this way, just because it’s really going to affect
our every day lives. It’s such a rural area where we live, just to give you one example,
the United States Postal Service won’t deliver to us. I think their motto is “We Deliver”.
Not to us. It’s very, very rural, and I don’t know who came out with, you know, the
zoning where it has to be 10 acres when they did that, if it was hundreds of years ago, or
maybe it was just 20 years ago. I don’t know who those people were, but I think they
were very, very wise, and to be up there, you really get a feel for why it has to be 10
acres, and, you know, most people, you know, not just in the Town of Queensbury, but
in the United States, today, 10 acres is a gigantic lot, and if you were up there, you’d
realize that you really do need a minimum of 10 acres to have a home. That’s all I’ve
got. Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Do we have any other public comments? Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have three pieces of correspondence.
MR. ABBATE-Please read them into the record.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This one was received on June 10, 2005. It’s addressed to the Town
of Queensbury and the Zoning Board. “To Whom It May Concern: In response to the
above referenced public hearing notice and as owners of the properties in the immediate
vicinity, we request that the following statement be read into the meeting. One, we will
be out of town on the proposed date and will be unable to attend the meeting. Two, we
are distressed that we were never notified of the SEQRA meeting held in April, therefore
deprived of an opportunity to voice our opposition. Three, the minor change to
combine two proposed lots, resulting in a total of four lots, is essentially the same plan
which we vehemently protested at the last public hearing. Four, none of the lots qualify
for the 10 acre restriction in the Town of Queensbury, and, Five, the character of the area
and the increased traffic flow would detrimentally affect Cormus Road.” The second
piece is from the Washburns, and I’ll read that in quickly. “In 1982, the Town of
Queensbury designated our area as 10 acre zoning. This is clearly shown on the map at
the Town’s Planning Office. It would be a great injustice by this Board to allow this area
to be reduced to less than 10 acres for one individual’s financial gain. Mr. Newbury
knew the zoning requirements when he purchased this property therefore any hardship
is self-induced. The tract of land Mr. Newbury owns that is in Luzerne should have no
bearing on Queensbury Town zoning for the purpose of making 10 acre lots. To have
any change in the zoning in this area would be a huge injustice to all those who have
complied with the current zoning laws. This type of change will have a large impact on
all those who live in this area now and will set a precedent for future development.”
And the last is a petition signed by many of the applicants who did, you know, either
had written letters or who had spoken this evening, also, and that’s by nine people total.
MR. BRYANT-What does the petition say?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-“We, the undersigned, oppose the subdivision on Cormus Road.
The zoning requirement for 10 acres within the Town of Queensbury should remain
intact.”
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Would you like to respond to some of the
comments?
MR. STEVES-Certainly. Again, I just want to reiterate that these are 10 acre lots. We
understand about the political boundaries. There is, as one of the members has already
asked, is there another way? Yes, but it’s not as in character with the neighborhood to
do it in the opposite way. You do have the potential here for five lots with 52 acres.
We’re asking for four lots, all to comply with the zoning. They do all comply with the
lot width requirements. We’re not asking for any of those variances. This is coordinated
review with the Town of Luzerne. So when they are talking about does the Town of
Queensbury have the right to look at Luzerne, maybe if the people were building in
Luzerne, they would be going through the Luzerne Building Department, but as far as
the subdivision requirements, stormwater, the SEQRA, that was given to the Town of
Queensbury, and their Town Engineer has reviewed the entire submission and has
signed off on the stormwater plan, in the entirety of the property, including Luzerne.
That’s what happens when you have Lead Agency on SEQRA. They review the entire
project, not just what’s in Queensbury. So, to answer that question, the Planning Board
and your Town Engineer has looked at it in its entirety. We don’t think it’s a good idea
to, you know, we can have two portions of the property that are 10 acres each in
Luzerne, with 50 foot wide strips and long driveways that come back out onto
Queensbury. You’re effectively getting the same thing. You would have two 10 acre
conforming lots in Queensbury and two 10 acre conforming lots in Luzerne, and you
would end up with four homes, and I want to reiterate there’s three new homes, one of
them is an existing home. So, either way you look at it, or slice and dice it, that’s the
reality. You’re going to have four homes. The configuration here is more conducive to
the lay of the land and to the surrounding properties, and as far as changing zoning,
people were mentioning, we’re not changing zoning. We’re not asking for a re-zoning.
We’re asking for the relief for the amount of land in Queensbury. When you look at the
total amount of property, 24.34 acres in Queensbury, and 27.90 acres in Luzerne, that
gives you two houses in each Town. We’re asking for the one existing house that’s in
Queensbury, one new house to be built in Queensbury, and two to be built in Luzerne.
Another requirement that’s going to be on the, is on, and has been noted to the Planning
Board, that there will be no further subdivision allowed on this property. If we get a
variance in the Town of Queensbury, and you don’t look down the road and say, okay, I
want just the variance in Queensbury to allow smaller lots, then I can use the density in
Luzerne again to get two more, and that’s not what we’re looking to do, either. I want to
make everybody aware of that. We’re looking for four lots. There will be no further
subdivision. That note will be on all the maps, and it won’t be any more of a detriment
than it would be to have two 50 foot right of ways going back to two houses in Luzerne.
MR. ABBATE-Did I hear you correctly that the Planning Board has conditioned their
approval?
MR. STEVES-They haven’t gone through Preliminary yet. We brought that up to them
when we went through SEQRA, and we told them that because Luzerne wanted them to
continue out onto Cormus Road, that we would put that in there, and that is in the
minutes of the Planning Board, and I’ll put it in the minutes of the Zoning Board.
MR. STONE-Mr. Steves, you’re talking about, it could be possible to have two
conforming lots in Queensbury, and two conforming lots in Luzerne, and run driveways
from Luzerne onto Cormus Road. You know of no reason that that can’t be done?
MR. STEVES-It wouldn’t be as suitable.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. STONE-Coming from a legal standpoint.
MR. STEVES-Legal? No. As far as a Planning, It doesn’t make planning sense.
MR. STONE-I understand.
MR. STEVES-But as far as a legal, no, there’s no, we can do that.
MR. STONE-So, in other words, those 50 acres of land could eventually, I mean, could, if
we don’t do anything, still have four lots turning on to Cormus Road?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely, without any action from this Board.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Steves, the current plan is to have all four homes on the Luzerne side?
MR. STEVES-No. There is one existing home that is on, inside Queensbury.
MR. URRICO-And that will remain where it is?
MR. STEVES-It will remain where it is.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. STEVES-One new home to be built in Queensbury and two new homes to be built
in Luzerne.
MR. URRICO-Which lot would that be?
MR. STEVES-Lot One would be built in Queensbury. Lot Two currently exists in
Queensbury, and Lot Three and Four would be built in the Town of Luzerne.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. STEVES-And they would all conform to the setback requirements of those
municipalities.
MR. BRYANT-I want to touch on something that the neighbor said, and you’ve already
mentioned down the road in the future, what you could do with the Luzerne property,
etc., but if we grant this variance tonight, that would give you four nonconforming lots
in the Town of Queensbury.
MR. STEVES-But they’d have to be land hooked permanently to the land in Luzerne.
MR. BRYANT-How can we be guaranteed that that’s going to happen?
MR. STEVES-I’m telling you we’re going to put it on the mylar for the subdivision. It’s
going to be on the approval minutes for both Towns. It’ll be filed that way, and it’s also
going to be a deed restriction in all the deeds.
MR. ABBATE-Well, the only thing I can say to that is this, that we have no authority to
enter into another domain.
MR. STEVES-No, but I do, and I can stipulate that that will be done. You don’t, as a
Town review Board, but the applicant can stipulate that all he wants. He owns the
property.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-What you’re basically saying is that you’re willing this evening, in the
event it is approved, you’re willing to condition this?
MR. STEVES-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Could you show me where, if we did not grant you that relief, where
would these two building lots be?
MR. STEVES-You’d just leave this here, a lot here 10 acres, a lot here 10 acres, a 50 foot
right of way and then split back into two lots in the back. Long flag shaped lots. You’d
have 10 acres here. You’d have 10 acres here.
MRS. HUNT-Are you going to increase the number of curb cuts on Cormus? Would it
be the same number either way?
MR. STEVES-Yes. The same number either way, but they’re more spread out in this
application. The other two would have to be right next to (lost word).
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions from members of the Board? If not, then
I’m now going to request that the members of the Board offer their commentary. I
would respectfully remind the members that precedent 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. This is necessary for any
intelligent judicial review, and I’d like to start out with, if I may, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I recognize that when you break these four
lots down, if there were no political boundaries, that you would have 10 acre lots, and I
understand that.
MR. STEVES-Correct, and the State also, when I mentioned that with your attorney, the
State if two municipalities have a coordinated review and have the same zoning, then
the State treats the lot as one lot.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, I also acknowledge you’ve got a lot of neighborhood dissent
on the project. That being said, I’m a little uncomfortable with it, unless we can be
assured or have some kind of guarantee that these lots will remain in perpetuity in this
configuration. I realize that you’re, ultimately you can build four houses and four
independent lots, and you don’t even have to come to this Board. So, it’s a, you know,
it’s, this is the best of both worlds, to have this type of configuration as opposed to a
major road going to the back of the property and the other two lots.
MR. STEVES-Or two flag shaped lots with very narrow frontage, correct.
MR. BRYANT-All right. So, from that standpoint, if we could have some sort of
guarantee that you could, you keep these lots in this configuration forever and ever
regardless of their location and what Town, then I would go along with the project.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, Mr. Bryant, I remind you that whoever takes the motion, one
way or another, can include that as a condition. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Thank you. I’ve got mixed feelings on this. As we’ve
discussed, I think the neighbors would obviously prefer there be no development.
That’s probably not a realistic or practical viewpoint. As the applicant’s pointed out, he
can end up with four lots, whichever way this pie is cut, and that probably is what’s
going to happen one way or another. We’re going to end up with four lots. The
additional traffic probably won’t be great. It helps a little bit that both Towns have 10
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
acre requirements in their Towns, but at the same time, on the other side of the fence,
we’re charged with granting the minimum relief necessary to provide what the
applicant needs, and in one sense, the minimum relief would be no relief, because the
applicant himself has already stated that he can get four lots out of this piece of property
without any variance. The disadvantage is the shape of the lots, possibly the monetary
impact on the developer, and there may or may not be a little bit more blacktop involved
with providing an access road. The other factor I’m looking at is not so much precedent,
because when we’re dealing with Area Variances, there isn’t a precedent. If we’re
dealing with an Appeal that’s before us, there is a precedent, but the State’s made it
fairly plain that in the case of Area Variances, we deal with each case individually, and
we really shouldn’t look back at what we did before, in terms of being fair to everybody,
or whatever, we take each case as it comes. Nevertheless, it bothers me a fair amount to
be granting a variance for four substandard lots that are roughly half the size of what
the zoning calls for in this area. So balancing the benefit to the applicant, and the
detriment to the neighborhood, I’m going to come down opposed, based mainly on the
fact that I don’t want to grant a variance for four half-sized lots in this zoning district.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-Well, I basically concur with Mr. Bryant’s arguments. Listening to the
question that I raised, four lots can be built on this property of Mr. Newbury. The fact
that they are on one side of the line or the other side of the line is something that has
troubled me for a long time, because I think we place too much reliance on Town lines.
It has cost this area heavily, as far as I’m concerned, in terms of things, and I could go
on, editorialize for a long time, but I won’t. I think four homes can be built up there.
Mr. Steves has stated for his client that they will stipulate in any way, in any manner, in
any document you can conceive, that there will be four 10 acre lots in this subdivision.
That’s enough for me. I don’t see that we’re abrogating the zoning requirements of
Queensbury. I think we are being practical. We’re being logical, and we’re using some
commonsense, because there will be four 10 acre lots up there, no matter what this
Board does, and if it seems that it’s going to be a better project, from the environmental
standpoint, then I’m all for it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m still sitting on the fence on this one. I would have to agree with
some of the comments from both sides that have been presented in their arguments so
far, but I think that we need to consider, in totality, what we’re looking at, and that is, on
a small road like Cormus Road, the 10 acre zoning that’s been put into place to ensure
that the development is spaced out and that people do have their privacy. I think that
the people that have lived up there for years made that argument pretty distinctly this
evening. The reason for that is to prevent the proliferation of, you know, multiple
housing or, in the case of last year when we were overturned when we presented
something very similar to this further down, over on the side of the mountain up there,
where they were proposing, you know, more houses built on smaller lots, and in essence
what I believe to be sort of spot zoning. If you’re going to have 10 acre zoning, it should
be 10 acre zoning, it should be 10 acre zoning, and I do buy the argument that Mr. Steves
made that, you know, you can build four houses up there nonetheless, but I think I’m
going to wait and decide here, because I still feel that what’s being proposed is, you
know, building on substandard lots. You can have them count land going up or down
the mountainside up there to get at your 10 acres, but I think that what they’re looking
at is to create some space in between the buildings that are going to be done in the
future. So I’m going to wait to decide.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I just want to remind everybody that we’re faced with a balancing
test, and that’s that the Board of Appeals shall balance benefit to the applicant with the
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the community, and there are five criteria
that we have to base our decision on. The benefit to the applicant, whether there is an
undesirable change in the neighborhood, whether the request is substantial, whether
there are any adverse physical or environmental effects, and whether the alleged
difficulty is self-created. That’s what we’re basing our decisions on. As far as me, as far
as this decision, Number One, I would be more comfortable if we had counsel here
tonight, just on the record, because in a case where we’re crossing geo-political lines,
and dealing with possibilities of a future involvement of the Town of Queensbury, I
have a hard time making a decision if I don’t know what the legal ramifications are.
Number Two, as far as this particular application, what I see here is that the benefit to
the applicant could possibly be achieved by some other feasible means, and we haven’t
seen that tonight. We haven’t seen what that feasible means might be. Whether there’s
an undesirable change in the neighborhood, well, you said there could be four lots up
there, there’s going to be four lots up there, but if one of those feasible alternatives
creates another pathway to the other two lots, then it minimizes what we see as four lots
there. It might actually lessen the impact. If it’s going to impact the neighborhood,
maybe it won’t be as great if there are two means getting into there, rather than one
means to get in there. As far as the request being substantial, well, here’s where the geo-
political lines, I think you have to think about practicality and commonsense, and I think
either side is 10 acres, 10 acre zoning. Only four lots would be allowed if either side had
control over this lot, this property. So I don’t think we’re giving anything away there.
As far as adverse physical or environmental affect, I don’t see any, and the difficulty is, I
don’t know if it’s self-created as much as it’s created by the Town lines drawing in the
middle of it, but at this point, I’m not ready to say yes on this. I would come down
against it at this point.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Okay. Well, I was struck by the area going up, I had never been up there,
and it really is very different from anything else in Queensbury. It’s beautiful, and at
first I had mixed feelings, but listening to everyone, what strikes me as being so standing
out is that the benefit can easily be achieved by another means, and that the request is,
that the alleged difficulty is definitely self-created. They seem to be standing out in my
mind, and I don’t know that we have to second guess about what would happen if we
denied the variance, and so I’m going to say no, I will not vote for it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mrs. Hunt, thank you. I, too, am concerned. Mr. Urrico raised the
issue of a balancing act, and what does a balancing act really mean, and he pretty well
spelled it out that we have to balance our decision, what kind of an impact would it
have on a neighborhood. Would it possibly change the character of the neighborhood?
Would it be detrimental? Would it be advantageous? He also raised another issue,
although he didn’t mention this, I will. It’s the Home Rule Act. That’s an Act which
forbids, other than an owner, an intrusion over political boundaries. As I indicated
earlier, we have no authority to rule, or even suggest to rule, or decide on another
domain, which is included in what’s known as the Home Rule Act. I, too, would feel a
heck of a lot more comfortable if Town Counsel was here, but I’ll go back to the human
equation. We make a decision based upon not only the spirit of the law, but the intent of
the law as well, in this case the intent of the Ordinances. Public opinion, obviously that
is those folks who are going to be immediately impacted, have spoken this evening and
have also submitted a petition basically saying, and these are my words, hey, guys, you
know, if this happens, this is going to really disrupt, change the character of the
neighborhood, and there were a variety of reasons why there was this kind of a
perception, and I don’t mean to say that the perception is wrong, because if there’s a
perception, and the neighbors feel about it a certain way, then they have a right to feel
this way. Another member of the Board indicated that there are four lots, and invariably
there probably will be four homes there, but the question is, do we compound this
problem, and we’re not setting a precedent. I think Mr. McNulty said it right. We only
set precedents when we deal with Appeals. If there’s an opportunity to build four
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
homes, that, in itself, should suffice. At the present time, I hesitantly will say that I don’t
suspect, Mr. Steves, that there may be support this evening, but for a standard of
fairness, I will be happy to do a call and go back to those folks who were unsure of what
they wanted to do, before we have an actual count, for your sake. I’d like to go back to,
if I may, Mr. Underwood.
MR. STEVES-May I make any comments first?
MR. ABBATE-You can make whatever comment you wish.
MR. STEVES-I’ll be very brief, and I understand, okay, but backing up, is it possible to
create it? Yes. Four lots that do not need a variance, but I’ve been in front of this Board
many a times and say, but if we do it that way, it is not good planning, it is not in good
character of the neighborhood, and that’s the exact case here, and when somebody
brings up the fact whether or not this is self-created, my client did not establish the
political boundary. How can he be a self-created here to have property that’s in two
municipalities? That is not a self-created hardship. In no way, shape or form is that a
self-created hardship.
MR. BRYANT-Can I just respond to that? Because in reality, it is self-created, because of
the way that you want to divide the lots, but I just want to go back to something one of
the Board members said, I don’t recall who, relative to the four divisions, the four lots,
and ultimately, regardless of how this thing plays out, there are going to be two houses
in Queensbury and two houses in Luzerne. Whether you’ve got two 10 acre lots in
Queensbury and two in Luzerne or you have four split up lots, you’re still going to have
two houses in Queensbury and two houses in Luzerne. The different is going to be, in
the alternate plan, is to have a road, and I’m assuming it’s going to be a road that meets
certain specifications of the Town or whatever, that’ll go back to the Luzerne lots, and so
that they’ll have access.
MR. STEVES-Well, that was my next statement is also the fact here we started with five
lots because there was 52 acres, and then because of where the political lines fell, being
24 and 20, you know, thereabouts two and two, we came back to the four lots, and as
you know, this was originally presented in ’03 to Luzerne and back and forth to the
Planning Boards here in Queensbury, and changed the configuration of the lots, the
location of the driveways, and we had, obtained a negative declaration on SEQRA
because this is the way your Planning Board wants to see this subdivision. Now they
wouldn’t have granted a negative declaration on SEQRA, get a signoff on the
stormwater, unless this is the configuration that they want to see it in, as far as your
Town Planning Board. Now, if we meet the requirements of what they see as the plan
for Queensbury, I look at this to the Zoning Board as saying, this is what your Town
Planning Board wants to see. This is what your Town Engineer has signed off on, and
now we’re back here because of the configuration of the lots, is the way we were guided
by your Planning Board.
MR. ABBATE-Well, let me bring this to your attention, that the criteria of the Planning
Board is much different than the criteria of the Zoning Board of Appeals. We are
basically charged with, as a quasi-judicial Board that we are, and the Planning Board is
not, we are more charged with maintaining order in terms of following New York State
Statutes and Ordinances and so on. So our criteria is somewhat different.
MR. STEVES-We didn’t just come into this design on a random basis. It’s because of the
review process with the Town of Luzerne Planning Board, the Town Staff in the Town of
Queensbury and the Town of Queensbury Planning Board and C.T. Male.
MR. ABBATE-I understand. A moment for an interruption. I think our Staff wants to
say something.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, quickly. The Planning Board looked at SEQRA only. In looking at
SEQRA, when they declared the negative declaration, was whether or not this parcel
could support four lots. They have not looked at the subdivision yet. They will look at
the subdivision after tonight’s meeting, if the variances are granted.
MR. STEVES-Well, they have, this plan was in front of them for SEQRA.
MRS. BARDEN-They have not approved the subdivision.
MR. STEVES-I didn’t say they did approve it. I said they looked at it. It’s been in front
of them.
MR. ABBATE-Let me use the word, the Planning Board reviewed.
MR. STEVES-That’s correct.
MR. BRYANT-Let’s go back, then.
MR. ABBATE-Let me continue here. Mr. Urrico, would you like to, have you taken a
position yet?
MR. URRICO-I thought I did earlier.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. I just want to make sure. Mr. Steves, I could call for a
motion, but we have, in the past, offered the appellant an opportunity to go with a
motion or perhaps table your request. It’s up to you.
MR. URRICO-Jim didn’t make up his mind.
MR. STEVES-What was your ultimate position, Mr. Chairman?
MR. ABBATE-Excuse me. I apologize. I overlooked one of my favorite, Mr.
Underwood. I’m sorry.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m still going to come down against it.
MR. ABBATE-You’re still going to come down against it. Okay. So, Mr. Steves, this is
where we’re at. You can either.
MR. STEVES-What was your ultimate position at this time?
MR. ABBATE-My ultimate position is as follows. It’s quite simple. I believe we have a
responsibility to the community. I believe we have a responsibility to those folks who
reside in this community, and I believe there is some merit to a couple of the arguments
that were made by the public. By golly, we purchased this land. It was 10 acres, and I
do believe there is a perception by those folks who are immediately going to be
impacted, not me, I don’t live there, but I listened to what they said. They believe
they’re going to be immediately impacted in an adverse manner, and I have to take that
into consideration, based on what Mr. Urrico said is a balancing act.
MR. STEVES-Understood. I do understand, but it seems to me that, as Mr. Stone said,
looking at it in commonsense approach, that would be like saying that I’m asking four
lots, because I can’t get them any other way, and if the only way I can get four lots is to
come here and that would then, or you granting a variance would impact something
that couldn’t happen otherwise.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, well, you see, a commonsense approach is a nice term. Because it’s a
catchy term, but let me try something else. There is a perceptional approach. We’re
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
talking about folks who own property there, who feel, if I’m wrong, I want the public to
tell me, who feel as I interpreted what they said, that this may change the character of
the neighborhood. This may have an adverse effect on the neighborhood.
MR. STEVES-What, 10 acre lots?
MR. ABBATE-Listen, but that’s your perception.
MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I think we’re engaging in an unnecessary debate at this
point. We have several options on the table here.
MR. ABBATE-You’re right. So there are several options. He’s absolutely correct, Mr.
Steves, we can call for a motion.
MR. STEVES-I understand the options. I can call for a motion or I can table this, and the
question I have on tabling is with this Board. If I was to come back to this Board, what
something different would you like to see?
MR. ABBATE-The burden of responsibility is strictly, you have to come up with viable
alternatives, feasible alternatives.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, I think the applicant, though, makes a valid point. I
think, basically what we’ve heard here is generally a negative approach on the Board,
and unless he were to come back with a subdivision proposing two homes instead of
four, it would be my guess that probably he would not get a vote of approval from this
Board. That being the case, unless I’m off the mark, there’s probably no percentage in
tabling this and prolonging the agony.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. McNulty, I think you’re absolutely correct. I do. So, what I’m going
to do.
MR. STEVES-I still have the right to table if I would like.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, of course. No one will deny you that.
MR. STEVES-Maybe Mr. Newbury’s counsel would like to be here next time, and maybe
your counsel would like to be here next time. The only thing this does for us is, a project
that’s been going through Planning Staff and Planning Board for two years to get you
something that they like for SEQRA, and now I have to go back to the drawing board
with them, but let’s do that.
MR. ABBATE-So you then, for the record, Mr. Steves, you wish to table?
MR. STEVES-I’ll table this and we’ll come back with the application. Can we table it to
next month’s meeting?
MR. ABBATE-That’s up to Planning, that’s up to the Zoning Administrator. We have no
control over what’s on the agenda.
MRS. BARDEN-That’s fine.
MR. ABBATE-That’s fine with you. No problem? Okay. It’s no problem with us as
well. Okay. So we’re going to then table, at the request of the appellant, Area Variance
No. 22-2004, and thank you, Mr. Steves, and thank you to the public.
MR. STEVES-Thank you for your time.
MR. ABBATE-The public hearing, by the way, at this point, is closed.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. BRYANT-You’ve got to vote on a tabling. No, he tabled it voluntarily.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, he tabled it voluntarily, that’s correct.
MR. STEVES-You don’t need to make a vote on that, right?
MR. ABBATE-No, you’re tabling it, that’s fine.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-Is that correct, the applicant can table it without? He can withdraw it.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, he can, but I’ll tell you what, if the Board is more comfortable, let me
try it this way.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2004 JAMES NEWBURY, Introduced
by Charles Abbate who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
62 Cormus Road. Tabled for up to 60 days.
Duly adopted this 15th day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stone, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. McNulty, Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-And what is the count, please?
MS. GAGLIARDI-Four to three.
MR. ABBATE-Four to three.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, five to two.
MR. BRYANT-Five to two. Okay. Area Variance No. 22-2004, by a vote of five to two, is
hereby tabled for a maximum of 60 days. Okay.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-One question, will the neighborhood be notified of the
applicant’s next meeting?
MR. ABBATE-Absolutely.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-Check the Town’s website, too. The agenda will be on the website.
MR. ABBATE-Yes. It’s www.queensbury.net, and that will give you information as
well.
MS. GAGLIARDI-Excuse me, Mr. Chairman, don’t you usually leave the public hearing
open until you approve or deny?
MR. ABBATE-I think she’s absolute right. I indicated earlier we closed the public
hearing, but since it’s going to be coming back to us, the public hearing is not closed.
Thank you, Maria. Appreciate it.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MRS. BARDEN-Can I ask you a question. Would you like, this application is on the
agenda for the Planning Board on the 28. Would you like them to look at the
th
subdivision and give you some feedback on that, or do you want that?
MR. ABBATE-Feedback? You know, that’s an excellent idea. Feedback would probably
do us all justice.
MRS. BARDEN-They can look at the planning configuration.
MR. ABBATE-Sure. Absolutely. As a matter of fact, any time we can have any
information at all that will help us make an intelligent decision, I encourage you to do it.
Please.
MRS. BARDEN-They already have done the SEQRA.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much. Okay.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2005 SEQRA TYPE II RUTH KOUBA OWNER(S):
RUTH KOUBA ZONING SFR-1A LOCATION 165 MONTRAY ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION TO CREATE
LOTS OF 0.30 AND 0.37 ACRES AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE MINIMUM LOT
SIZE REQUIREMENTS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.61
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-57 SECTION 179-4-030
RUTH KOUBA, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2005, Ruth Kouba, Meeting Date: June 15, 2005
“Project Location: 165 Montray Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
has a .67-acre lot and proposes a 2-lot subdivision of .30 (lot A) and .37 (lot B) acres
respectively.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the minimum lot size requirement, to create lots of .30
and .37 acres, where 1-acre minimum is required in the SFR-1A zone. Lot A requires a
variance of .70-acre; Lot B requires a .63-acre variance.
Additional relief from the minimum lot width requirement, where 150-feet is required,
54-feet of relief for Lot A (96-feet avg. lot width), and 23-feet of relief for Lot B (127-feet
avg. lot width).
All relief required per §179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 11-2005, pending.
Staff comments:
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
The lot is a preexisting nonconforming lot, .67-acres in the SFR-1A zone and 147.5-feet
avg. lot width. The applicant will retain lot B and proposed new development on that
lot will meet the setback and permeability requirements for the zone.”
MR. ABBATE-Would you please speak into the microphone and for the record identify
yourself, your place of residence, and your relationship with this appeal.
MRS. KOUBA-I’m Ruth Kouba. I live at 165 Montray Road, and I’m the owner of the
property, and requesting to divide the property so that I might be able to build a home
that’s all on one level. Right now I have stairs. I have two driveways to take care of
because the garage is down underneath the house. I bought the home a few years ago,
and thought I’d spend my remaining years there. My next birthday I’ll be 68 and I’m
finding the stairs and the driveways and everything are a little bit much at this point.
The legs are saying, I don’t want to do this anymore.
MR. ABBATE-If said to you I understand what you’re saying.
MRS. KOUBA-The Golden Years they call them. I have no idea what the procedure is. I
haven’t done this before. So I don’t know whether you ask me questions or I have to
present things.
MR. ABBATE-Very simple. You just tell us what you would like, and then the Board
members will ask several questions. It’s very informal. Please make yourself as
comfortable. There’s no cross examination. You tell us why you feel that you really
would like this home. It’s a lovely home, the blueprints, and you’ve already told us part
of it, and if you feel that you’ve told us everything, then the Board members will just
say, all right, Mrs. Kouba, would you explain this to me, and it’s very informal, and we
go from there, and if you have any questions at all, don’t hesitate to ask. Please.
MRS. KOUBA-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Have you concluded your little argument with us?
MRS. KOUBA-Pretty much, yes. I thought that I’d be able to put a shower in there
instead of having a tub, and I found out that it’s a cast iron tub, and in order to do that,
they literally have to take the wall out and the bathroom apart. So, trying to put up a
garage on the first floor, I found, became, it would be too much. I couldn’t afford it.
Neither could I take the bathroom apart and renovate it, and I had also hoped when I
moved in there, that I’d be able to get my laundry up on the first floor. So I’m finding
my best laid plans have not materialized. They have become too expensive. So, when I
look at the kitchen window that I’m in now, the house is very nice. Over in that lot, I
can picture this home that would accommodate all the things that I’m hoping for in my
old age.
MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you, thank you very much.
MRS. KOUBA-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do any of the Board members have any questions of Mrs. Kouba?
MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I’d just like to reveal that I had ex parte communication
with the applicant.
MR. ABBATE-All right. That’s fine. Thank you. Any questions from any of the
individuals?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. BRYANT-Let me understand what we’re trying to do here. You live in one house,
and you’re going to subdivide the land, build a house on the other lot. What are you
going to do with the original house?
MRS. KOUBA-I have to sell that home in order to take the money from it to put into the
new home that I’m proposing.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and as an alternative, I realize that you want to build a house that’s
suitable to your needs, but couldn’t we just get rid of that house and build a new house
on the single lot? Because you understand that the lot is already substandard.
MRS. KOUBA-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So now what you’re asking is to make a substandard lot into two
substandard lots, which are really substandard, and my question is, can’t we eliminate
the existing house, demolish that and just build a house that suits your needs?
MRS. KOUBA-If I demolish that house, there’d be no money from it to do anything
with.
MR. BRYANT-So this is strictly financial, is what you’re saying?
MRS. KOUBA-No. It’s, in order to do what I would like to do, to have everything on
one level, I would have to sell the house that I’m in now in order to build the home that I
picture over in that lot.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Just a quick question. I see you submitted a couple of petitions, or a couple
of statements by, I gather, neighbors in the area, and I would like to say, I’d like to know
what you told the people they were signing, and what you were going to do.
MRS. KOUBA-Number One, I told the people they didn’t have to sign it.
MR. STONE-I understand that.
MRS. KOUBA-I felt that if I came before the Board to ask for this and my neighbors
weren’t aware of what I was trying to do, I didn’t want to come in here and be very
embarrassed and find out my neighbors were up in arms, and we don’t want you to do
that. So what I did was go out in the neighborhood. I have the petition.
MR. STONE-We have copies of it.
MRS. KOUBA-And what was, I actually read the petition to them, what was on top of it.
I showed them what I, the lot itself, with my home, and what I have planned on doing,
or hoping to do, and I also showed them a picture of the house, so that they’d be aware
of what I was trying to accomplish.
MR. STONE-No, I understand, but did you tell them that you were going to have to
subdivide this substandard lot?
MRS. KOUBA-Absolutely.
MR. STONE-Okay. I just wanted to be sure you did.
MRS. KOUBA-Absolutely.
MR. MC NULTY-Are you familiar with most of the lots in that particular area?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MRS. KOUBA-Yes, I am, and most of the homes that are there, like the home I’m
presently in, have been there 40, 50 years, and their lot size, some of them are even
smaller than what I’m proposing.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. That’s what I was after. Looking at this zoning district, even
though it’s one acre zoning, at least it strikes me that the northern two-thirds of that are
basically quarter to third acre lots.
MRS. KOUBA-Yes. The homes have already been established in that area.
MR. MC NULTY-Right. So on the one hand what you’re proposing seems extreme,
because as has been pointed out, you’ve got a substandard lot, and you’re looking to
make it even worse. On the other hand.
MRS. KOUBA-Right, because now the laws have pretty much changed, and the zoning
and everything has changed, as differently than what it was when those homes were
built in that area.
MR. MC NULTY-Right, than what the subdivisions were made, so what you’re really
proposing is two lots that are roughly the size of most of the existing lots in that
immediate area.
MRS. KOUBA-Definitely.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, Mr. McNulty, that’s a darn good observation, by the way. You’re
absolutely right. It was explained rather well. Initially, it would appear as if it would be
quite a change, quite a request, but in reality it’s not.
MRS. KOUBA-Well, I took something from the Town that they were nice enough to give
me, that had a map on it that showed the homes in that, around the area. I think I put
that in the packet, and it showed a lot of the homes around there and the sizes of the lots
that are there, with the homes already established, and some of them are definitely
smaller even than what I’m proposing right now.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Do we have any other members of the Board that wish
to ask Mrs. Kouba any other questions?
MRS. HUNT-Now you have, I think, over 30 signatures here. Did you get the people
who are on either side of your lot?
MRS. KOUBA-Yes, absolutely.
MRS. HUNT-You did get those.
MRS. KOUBA-Absolutely. In fact, some of it was even out on 9, and I went all over.
They gave me a list of all the names of the people that would be notified within the 500
feet, and I have to say, I really, I spent three days doing it, and I met some wonderful
people. I have great neighbors, and I have two sons that graduated from Queensbury.
I’ve been in this area since December of 1974, except for a few years in Maine, and I love
the neighborhood. I don’t want to leave the area. This is why I thought if I could do this
right alongside of the house I have now, it would still enable me to be able to get out,
and I try to walk around the neighborhood, and my neighbors are great. I know if I had
a problem of any kind, I know they would be there for me.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Is there anyone else on the Board that has a question or comment?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. URRICO-Mrs. Kouba, without this subdivision, would you be able to stay in that
house?
MRS. KOUBA-I have an appointment with the doctor on Monday. I don’t know
whether, I’m hoping he’s going to say arthritis, but I don’t know if I need a knee
replacement. The stairs, I bring my groceries in from the porch on the first level there,
but then I have to take the car down around and I still have to do the stairs, and it’s not
working very well, and the driveway in the wintertime, with the two driveways, I’m not
going to be able to take care of anymore, and I’ve been doing it myself because it’s very
costly. If you get two or three snowstorms in one week, you could put $100, $150 out to
clean those two driveways, and I just can’t afford that. So I don’t know how to answer
your question really. I don’t want to leave the area, and I want to stay in the area, is the
only way I know how to answer that.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Well, if we have no other questions, I’m going to open up the
public hearing for a fair and open process, and we’re going to invite public comments on
this appeal, and in the interest of time, please be crisp, organized, and limit your
comments to only the facts given this evening, and those wishing, the public that is,
wishing to be heard, please come up to the table, speak into the microphone, and for the
record please identify yourself. You will be limited to five minutes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
EARL MILESON
MR. MILESON-My name is Earl Mileson. I live at Number 10 Twicwood Lane, which is
adjacent, quite close to this property that Ruth is talking about. I’d just like to say that
I’ve seen the plans that Ruth has presented to you gentlemen, people, and I approve of
them from an aesthetic standpoint. I go by this property a number of times each day,
and I would be very happy if she were to do this. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Do we have any other members of the public wishing to
comment on Area Variance No. 45-2005? All right, if there are none, would you please
come back up to the table. Now, I would like to request comments from the ZBA
members, and again, I respectfully remind them that we concern ourselves with the
evidence which appears on the record this evening.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Before you do that, I’ll just read in, there were 34 names on that
letter, and they were all on Oakwood, Montray, Cedarwood, Twicwood, and in the
immediate vicinity of the area. They were all in favor of this project.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. May I start with comments please with Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-All right. Thank you. Well, as was said before, it seems like a lot of relief
is being requested, but it’s certainly not out of line with what is in the neighborhood,
and I think that Mrs. Kouba has talked about the benefit would be hard to achieve by
another means, that this house is not suitable and that she needs another house. I
certainly don’t think there’ll be any undesirable change to the neighborhood character or
to other properties, and as I said, while the request is substantial, it’s certainly not out of
line with what is in the neighborhood. I don’t think it will have any adverse physical or
environmental effects, and while it’s self-created, I think most of these requests are, and I
would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Mrs. Hunt. I think the applicant has demonstrated to me
that she has passed the test that we’re obliged to look over. Again, as Mrs. Hunt said, I
think Mrs. Kouba has demonstrated to me that this benefit cannot be achieved by any
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
other means feasible to her, to the applicant. I don’t see a change to the neighborhood.
Most of the adjoining properties are at least as, the same size, some of them quite a bit
smaller than the property, even after it’s going to be subdivided. So I don’t think this
would destroy the character of that neighborhood. In fact, I would think it would blend
right in, and as far as the request being substantial, it’s substantial regarding the zoning
code but not substantial, Zoning Ordinance, but not necessarily in terms of the
neighborhood itself. I don’t see any adverse effects and the difficulty may seem to be
self-created, but I think it’s self-created for a good reason. She’s trying to make a bad
situation better. I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly if we were going to consider this in the context of the
whole community, we might be concerned, but, as has been mentioned by my other
Board members, the density in this neighborhood is similar to what’s being proposed for
this subdivision here. I didn’t see an awful lot of other lots up there that could have
similar occurrences occurring in that immediate vicinity. So I’m not that concerned that
it’s going to alter the neighborhood or set in motion some major change up there where
everybody’s going to ask to split their lot and build another house in the back. So in this
instance, I think that you’ve made a good case for yourself. The neighborhood doesn’t
seem to have any real concerns about what’s being proposed here either, and although it
is asking for an awful lot of relief, I’d go along with your request.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. Underwood. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I find myself coming down on the other side. I’ve listened to Mrs. Kouba,
and I certainly appreciate your concerns. I happen to be even older, and I understand
what you’re facing, but I do think that the variance is forever, and I think maybe we’re
losing sight of that fact when we consider your situation, which I truly understand, but
we have one acre zoning in the Town. We put it in more as a wish than anything else.
We want the Town of Queensbury to have certain lot sizes in certain parts of Town. I
happen to live in a part of Town where we have mostly substandard lots, and I would
hate to see any of them further subdivided, because I think it would fly in the face of the
goal of the community, and as I say, I recognize that you have a hardship, and therefore
it certainly would be in your benefit, but I don’t think anything else comes down on that
side, and I would have to be opposed.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I can agree that, as we’ve said, looking on the face of it, comparing the
request to the existing zoning, it’s a substantial request, and I’ll agree with Mr. Stone
that we should not put too much weight on the immediate applicant, whoever it is,
situation, because the variance goes with the land. On the other hand, looking at the
general neighborhood in that area, most of the lots are of the size that the applicant is
requesting be approved, and I’m at a lost to explain why whoever zoned that area one
acre did so, because most of the neighborhoods in that area, most of the lots, had to pre-
exist the last two re-zonings. So obviously somebody wished they were one acre lots. I
don’t know why. It’s not on the lake. If it were on the lake, I could understand it, and
I’d be inclined to go negative on this, but given the existing situation there, and absent
seeing any environmental reason to push hard for one acre lots, it strikes me that the
request would make the lots in question more conforming with the neighborhood, and
might indeed tend to change the character of the neighborhood more if they were left
the way it is. So, for that reason, I’m going to be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I’m going to agree with Mr. Stone in this case. I think that a variance is
forever, and we have a substandard lot at this point, and now we’re going to create two
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
substantially substandard lots. Some of the comments that the other Board members
related to the general area, most of the lots, the majority of the lots being that size. Well,
I don’t think we know that for a fact because Mr. Brown is not here with his computer to
show us all the different lots around and give us the actual dimensions, what percentage
of the lots are substandard or smaller, or in the same range as the new subdivision. I
can’t, in good conscience, vote in favor of the application for that reason. I just don’t
know if the neighborhood is, will support that kind of situation.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mr. Bryant, thank you. I’m going to, and I go along with the
comments made by Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, and Mrs. Hunt. I’m
going to add a couple of things, too, and that is that I think, Mrs. Kouba, you did
everything right, and you did everything that was honorable, and in basing my decision
to support your application, I’m going to take into consideration what’s known as the
spirit of the law, and the intent of the law, and another equation which is called the
human equation, and so based upon that, I will support your application. Now, I’m
going to, before I ask for a motion, I’m going 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. Now, I’m going to
ask for a motion. May I please hear a motion for Area Variance No. 45-2005. I will close
the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2005 RUTH KOUBA, Introduced
by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
165 Montray Road. The applicant has a 0.67 acre lot and proposes a two lot subdivision
of .30 acres, Lot A, and .37 acres for Lot B, respectively. In asking for this motion, the
applicant, to me and to enough Board members, has demonstrated a benefit cannot be
achieved by any other means feasible to her, the applicant. There is no undesirable
change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties. In fact, some Board
members have stated that there actually might be an improvement in the character of the
neighborhood in that it would be more conforming to some of the other lots that are in
that neighborhood. The request is substantial, in that this is an area that’s 1A zoning,
and as such, this is a substandard lot, and it’s also being subdivided into further
substandard lots, but again it has also been indicated that most of the properties nearby
are not one acre, in fact are substandard as they stand. The request will have no adverse
physical or environmental effects, and the alleged difficulty probably would be
considered self-created. I move that we pass this motion.
Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, before you take a second, I object to the wording in the
motion relative to most of the properties in the area. We don’t know that for a fact. We
can’t substantiate it, and I don’t think it should be included in any shape or form.
MR. URRICO-Well they’re not one acre.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant, your objection is duly noted.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Is there a second, please?
MRS. HUNT-Second.
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-If my count is correct, I do believe the vote for Area Variance No. 45-2005
is five in favor, two against. Is there a challenge to this tally? If there is none, then Area
Variance No. 45-2005 is approved.
MRS. KOUBA-I thank you all very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome.
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 43-2005 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED KEVIN HOTALING FOR
SHINDIGS LTD OWNER(S): MITCHELL A. COHEN ZONING HC-INT.
LOCATION 1161 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 50 SQ.
FT. FREESTANDING SIGN ON ROUTE 9 AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE
MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE.
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 8, 2004 LOT SIZE 0.6 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 295.8-1-2 SECTION 140-6
KEVIN HOTALING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 43-2005, Kevin Hotaling for Shindigs, LTD, Meeting
Date: June 15, 2005 “Project Location: 1161 State Route 9 Description of Proposed
Project: Applicant proposes erecting a 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign, 24.6-feet high, and 11-
feet from the front property line.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from the minimum front setback requirement of 15-feet, per
§140-6. The applicant desires to locate the sign 11-feet from the front property line,
requiring 4-feet of relief from the front setback.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2004-212: Permit never approved
NYC Italian Ices for 36 sq. ft. freestanding sign (4/21/04), sign placed on property
illegally.
Staff comments:
The applicant requests to maintain the 11-foot front setback that currently exists for the
“NYC Italian Ices” sign, and replace with a larger and taller freestanding sign, “Shindigs
Gelato” in same location. The existing sign is 13.35-feet high, and the proposed sign
would be 24.6-feet high. The fence that will abut this property (Great Escape) is
proposed to be a wrought iron picket style, and will be 6-feet high.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
June 8, 2005 “Project Name: Kevin Hotaling for Shindigs LTD Owner: Mitchell A.
Cohen ID Number: QBY-05-SV-43 County Project#: Jun05-32 Current Zoning: HC-
Int. Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to install a 50
sq. ft. freestanding sign on Route 9 and seeks relief from the minimum setback
requirements and maximum height requirements of the Sign Ordinance. Site Location:
1161 State Route 9 Tax Map Number(s): 295.8-1-2 Staff Notes: Sign Variance: The
applicant proposes to construct a 50 sq. ft. free standing sign. The information
submitted indicates the sign is to be 11 ft. from the front property line and 12 ft. from the
side property line where 15 ft. is required. The applicant has indicated that there is an
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
existing sign in this location. The applicant also proposes the sign to be 24 +/- ft. in
height to be above the proposed Great Escape fencing. The data provided is not
consistent within the application, specifically the size of the proposed sign. The
information submitted does not indicate if The Great Escape fencing is a solid fence or if
there are alternatives to the fencing. Staff recommends deny without prejudice
requesting clarification of the application for size of the proposed sign, the number of
allowable signs, the height requirement, and identify the fencing type. County Planning
Board Recommendation: No County Impact Warren County Planning Board
recommends No County Impact.” Signed by Bennett F. Driscoll, Warren County
Planning Board June 10, 2005.
MR. ABBATE-I see we have a gentlemen here. Would you please speak into the
microphone and for the record identify yourself and your relationship with this appeal.
MR. HOTALING-My name is Kevin Hotaling. I’m the President of Shindigs, LTD, and
I’m here to represent the appeal for the Sign Variance.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. If you’re ready, would you proceed.
MR. HOTALING-Sure. I believe you all have, I hope you all have a copy, I’ve made
several copies of this. This is an existing sign that’s been there a long time, and
unfortunately I’m in the position of last year, instead of just changing the sign copy out,
the previous leasee actually changed the sign itself, and he made a nicer sign, but he
didn’t go through the process of a Sign Variance. The actual State right of way comes
within, actually up to and across the sidewalk where it is on Route 9. We’re located in
what used to be Ellie’s Café and New York City Ices, directly across from The Great
Escape. My wife and I are new to the area, in that we live actually south of Albany
about 60 miles, and we’ve had different careers, and we decided to take a career change
actually. So this is a new venture for us. Right now we’re a little bit struggling in that,
in trying to get the business going and that, but we’ve worked hard in trying to clean up
the property, make it respectable and that. We painted the property and that, and we
were trying to offer something different in the area than what’s been there. This existing
sign has been there in the same spot. He just changed the sign out. They didn’t move
the sign back. One of the reasons is if the sign was moved back, it would be blocked
partially from the building where it is right now. I’ve included, also, a couple of
pictures. On the second to last page, I think you have a copy of it. This is how the
existing sign looks right now, and these are the dimensions for it. It’s really 36 square
feet. I also took the liberty of trying to show, to the best I could over here, what, where
The Great Escape would have their particular fence going up or so. I had some of my
employees go out and try to hold up a four by eight sheet of plywood at six feet high, to
see where that would actually go and how it would affect the current sign in its location,
and, you know, when I saw that, I wanted to also put in for, it’s really not a variance, but
to elevate the sign from what it’s current position is up in the air, to make sure it’s
visible for patrons from the road above where The Great Escape is going to be putting
their fence, and that, around the property. On the last page I’ve shown you a proposal
of what I’d like to try to do. The new business name is Shindigs, and the reason that we
call it Shindigs is we try to have a good family atmosphere there. I play guitar and sing.
I go around, we have a wonderful pizza maker there, and we’re going to try to have a
grand opening this weekend. So it’s Shindigs Gelato for the Ice Cream side, and
Shindigs Restaurant Pizzeria on the restaurant side of the property. The changes I’m
going to make are, requesting, are currently within Code. I wanted to add a two foot by
seven foot addition to the sign, which would make 14 square feet, with the current 36
square feet that’s below on the sign would maintain the regulations for the Town for 50
square feet for signage, and the regulation is for the height of the sign can be no higher
than 25 feet from the ground, and I’d like to put it at 24 feet 6 inches. It’s currently 13.3
feet or so. So the sign size and the height are going to be within regulations. The only
variance I need is for the setback requirement. It’s at, currently where I measure the, I
went out and sited it with a site, and drew a line down, and it’s currently about 11 feet
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
from where the State currently has a right of way to, which is actually beyond the
sidewalk currently there in front of the property. I have attended earlier this, I believe it
was last week, the meeting with the County, and the County has approved it, saying
there was no impact on the County, just for the record.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much.
MR. HOTALING-Sure. Do any of the Board members have any questions, please?
MR. STONE-I have a question of Staff. Are these two buildings on one piece of
property? The question I’m asking, like, there are two freestanding signs on one piece of
property.
MRS. BARDEN-They’re on one piece of property.
MR. STONE-And there are two freestanding signs.
MRS. BARDEN-Yes, one for each business.
MR. STONE-I understand, but it’s one piece of property?
MRS. BARDEN-Yes.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Any other members of the Board have any questions of Mr.
Hotaling?
MR. BRYANT-Can I ask you, do you own the property? Do I understand you lease it or
you own it?
MR. HOTALING-Currently we’re leasing this year. We have, the current owner is
Mitchell Cohen, and we have entered into a long term lease, renewable on an annual
basis, depending if we survive our first year, to be honest with you.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. So at some point the Zoning Administrator, Code Enforcement
Officer, came to you and said that this sign is not a valid sign? Give me a little bit of the
history. What happened?
MR. HOTALING-Okay. I had put in for copies to be changed on the existing signs on
the property. Like it was said, there’s one tax parcel, there’s two buildings on the
property. The restaurant had a freestanding sign that I just wanted to change the copy
on. So that wasn’t an issue.
MR. BRYANT-So you applied for a permit for this freestanding sign. Is this the, I don’t
see any application for a permit listed.
MR. HOTALING-Yes. I put an application in for a permit for all four signs that are on
the property right now.
MR. BRYANT-And did they notify you at that time that this sign was, there’s a problem
with the sign?
MR. HOTALING-Correct.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. HOTALING-Craig Brown had notified me that a previous leasee had put in an
application for this sign, and instead of just changing the copy out of the existing sign,
they took the sign down, and made a sign that was internally lit, and kind of changed
the look of the sign, but put it in the exact same spot as the sign that was there before.
When they went to do that, they were told that it didn’t meet the setback requirement
because of the State right of way that goes on the property and such, and they never
went through the process of getting the variance. So what I’m trying to do right now
with the current Board.
MR. BRYANT-Why aren’t those applications listed in the parcel history, just out of
curiosity? I mean, they had actual Sign Variance, they had sign applications. Wouldn’t
that be listed in the parcel history?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Only variances and things that they’re deciding.
MR. BRYANT-No. They also, building permits or any other kind of permit or any kind
of application, even if it’s been denied, is generally listed in the parcel history. So I’m
not really understanding, I mean, did the Code Enforcement Officer notify the former
tenant that the sign was in an improper place?
MR. HOTALING-I understood from Craig that when they went and, the former leasee
erected the sign without having the proper approvals, they went back, Craig had gone
back several times to try to contact him, and by the time that they were finally going to
be hooking up, the season was over, and now the new season came on, I’m a new leasee
now, and I found out through Craig that the sign that was erected last year did not meet
the Code.
MR. BRYANT-And your response to it then was to put in this sign application for a
bigger and taller sign?
MR. HOTALING-My response was to put an application in to have a variance for the
setback, instead of being 15 feet, which is the regulation, to keep at wherever this
existing sign is, at 11 feet. The additional changes, as far as the size of the sign and that,
are within the required, within the regulations for the Town.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that. Is it a possibility to put a sign on the building? I
mean, you know, a lit sign, perpendicular to the building, as opposed to this?
MR. HOTALING-Yes. In fact, I misspoke earlier to you. I put in four sign applications,
three to change copies, of which two were with the restaurant, one was a freestanding,
one was on the building itself, and those were approved. I put in a new sign application
for actually the side of the building here, which was, did not have a sign on it currently.
I believe there was a sign there in the past, when I talked to the previous owner, but
there currently wasn’t one. So I put an application in for a sign on the side of the
building or so, and then I put an application for this particular sign that didn’t meet the
regulation for the setback.
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think you understand my question. My question is, you’re going
to spend all this money on this new sign, it’s going to be a bigger and taller sign. Could
you conceivably, probably for less money, put a sign off the top of the building there,
perpendicular to the building, so you see it on both sides of the road, that’s lit? I mean,
without having to go through this aggravation?
MR. HOTALING-Well, I have an approved, my application for that sign that you’re
describing, I have approved already from the Town. So I do have a sign that’s approved
to go up on the side of the building already.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. BRYANT-It’s lit? I’m not talking about the side. I’m talking about the front of the
building that faces the road. Couldn’t you have a perpendicular sign off the building,
going both ways? It would be cheaper than putting a new freestanding sign, couldn’t
you do that, and then avoid all this aggravation?
MR. HOTALING-Yes. Actually, for me, it’s going to be fairly cheap for me to just
change the copy out for this sign, and to go up is going to be really another couple of six
by’s to extend and bring the sign up. So I’m essentially going to use the sign that’s there,
but change copy on it, and just raise it up. I did think about doing that, but then again, if
I came up the front of the building as you’re describing, I think you’re describing sort of
the front of the building coming off, that would be, to me, a building sign, because it’s
attached to the building, too, and I already have a permit that’s approved for the side of
the building.
MR. BRYANT-And one final question. You gave a simulation of the fence and so forth
and so on by using sheet rock or whatever you use. We know that the fence is going to
be rod iron, that you’re going to be able to see through the fence. It’s not like it’s going
to be solid or.
MR. HOTALING-I understand that. I mean, all I had was, I had a four by eight sheet.
So I didn’t have a rod iron fence to hold up and interpolate out. So I did the best I could,
as far as, my concern was the height of the fence. Although it’s rod iron, you’re going to
be able to see through it, it’s still not, if you see through something that’s rod iron, it’s
still not something that’s plain and always visible for it. So, my concern was that at six
feet, potentially could cover half of the sign right now. So, as long as I was going for the
Sign Variance for the setback, I wanted to also change the size and raise it so that it
could be seen. That’s all.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Do any other Board member have any questions?
MRS. HUNT-I just want to get it straight. You’re only asking for four feet of relief?
MR. HOTALING-Correct.
MRS. HUNT-The sign size and height are compliant?
MR. HOTALING-Yes.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Any other members?
MR. STONE-The sign in front of the other building, which I know we’re not talking
about, but it seems to me that’s even closer to the road, to the right of way. Has that got
approval?
MR. HOTALING-Yes. That was an existing sign there, and all I did was change the
copy on it. That was approved.
MR. STONE-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Any other questions? Okay. If not, what I’m going to do is open the
public hearing, for a fair and open process, and I’m going to invite public comments on
this appeal, and in the interest of time, I would request that the individuals wishing to
be heard be crisp, be organized, and limit your comments to only the facts and
information given this evening, and you will be limited to five minutes, and, Ms. G.,
please monitor the time. Good evening. Would you please identify yourself and your
place of residence.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
DON DANIELS
MR. DANIELS-I’m Don Daniels. Mr. Stone, I have a question that I want to answer for
you. You asked about the lot, if it’s one lot or two lots. I was the previous owner. I
bought the property in the late 60’s, and I bought the first restaurant, which was 125 foot
lot, and then I bought where the small building is, which was a 75 foot lot. Two
different buildings were on there. One was a little hot dog stand. Now it appears to be
one lot, but it was two separate buildings. Where that sign is located that Kevin is
talking about is where the original sign was. George Liapes was the building inspector
at the time, and I asked for a permit to demolish the small ice cream building, and put
up the building that’s there now, and I took that building down, and then I put this
building up. When I put that sign up, since the shape of the building is a high peaked
building, the permit that I got, the two permits that I got, was a 50 square foot permit,
and the sign was 25 feet high, the top of the sign. Coming off the front of that was a
large ice cream cone that stuck out another five feet over the top of that, so it was
actually, the top of the ice cream cone was actually 30 feet high, and that was there for,
and I put that, and I actually moved that sign to the middle of the building and I put
cabling on it to hold it, because it was tall, and it was quite a large sign made out of
wood. I had built the sign, and for several years we operated with that sign, and the
first time that I leased that ice cream shop, the girl had come in and fixed up the
building, and she was in the process of painting and took the cabling off. She rented it
in January, took the cabling off, and was painting and fixing things up, and a windstorm
broke the entire sign, the whole thing came down, which I was quite shocked when I
went by the next day and it was laying there. She put in a permit for a smaller sign,
more in the size that’s there now, and moved it, basically back to where it is now. She
put plantings around it and no longer had it in the front of the building. So for the last
10 or 12 years it’s been in that location. So that’s how it happened to come to that
location. Any other questions that you might have? By the way, I had a second permit
for a sign which I had, which was three feet by sixteen feet that was on the, whoever
asked that question, Mr. Bryant, it was on the face of the building above the little
overhang, and that used to face on there and had things about ice cream and hot dogs
and stuff, facing the road. So that sign was, at the time that I sold the property, that sign
had been taken down by a previous tenant and was put inside the building. So I don’t
know what happened to that sign, but it wasn’t, I don’t think it was up last year, but I’m
not sure, but there was, two permits were put in there. Mack Dean was the building
inspector at the time when I went through the building process and got all the permits,
and someone else asked why the sign in front of the other building was close to the road.
I was allowed to put that sign, I had 600 square feet of signage on the building at the
time when we had the moratorium, and I was reduced to 100 square foot sign on the
front of the building and a freestanding sign 50 square feet, which is the two signs that
are there, basically, now. So I went to 200 square feet from 600. So I lost a lot of signage.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Your time is up.
MR. DANIELS-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you very much for the information.
MR. STONE-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other folks, any public comments from any of the folks in
the audience this evening? Okay. If not, what I’m going to do is request the ZBA
members to offer their commentary, and if I may, I’d like to start with Mr. McNulty,
please.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. I guess this sign strikes me as perhaps fitting the definition
that’s in the Sign Ordinance that talks about variances and how a variance should be
offered only if the applicant would be deprived of a reasonable use of the sign if the
Ordinance was strictly enforced, and I think, as the applicant’s indicated, if this sign
were moved back to the proper setback, it would have to be kind of moved around to
the side of the building a little bit, and it clearly wouldn’t be as visible, at least from one
direction. He could choose which side of the building he put it on and be visible from
one direction but not the other. So I think this is a case where maybe this is what the
variance was intended for. The benefit to the applicant is clear. It strikes me that there’s
probably not a good viable alternative for him, given the current location of the building
and the sign. I would be inclined to be in favor of granting the variance, if there was a
proviso in the variance that said should that building ever be demolished or moved, that
the variance for the sign would go away.
MR. ABBATE-Understand, Mr. McNulty, and we’ll make it a point, whoever makes the
motion one way or the other, to mention the fact that we have a condition. Mr.
Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-In essence, I would agree with what Chuck said. I think that, you
know, you have a pre-existing sign here, as has been mentioned, that’s been there for
many years, in essentially the same location. What you’re asking for is to go up a little
higher, and that makes sense, given the fact that that new fence is going to come up
along Route 9 there. I would basically be in agreement. I don’t think it’s any grand
request, and given the fact that the buildings are located that close to the road, that other
sign is much closer, and I don’t have a problem with it. No one’s complained about it
before.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes, thank you. I have to agree with the other two Board members. I
mean, the size of the sign is compliant, the height is compliant, and four feet of relief is
required, and I don’t consider that excessive. I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to make it four, zero, at this point. I agree. I think the
problem is where the placement of the buildings are, not the signs, and I agree with Mr.
McNulty. Should there ever come a time when those buildings are put back at a
substantial setback, then I think the sign should also move back at that point, but these
are only replacing signs that have been there for years, and I think it’s a valid request,
and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Stone, please.
MR. STONE-I’m in agreement with everything that’s been said. My basic concern is not
with this sign, but the other one. I think the other one is dangerous. I think it’s too close
to the road. It’s too gaudy. I think it may be great as a sign to get people’s attention, but
this sign certainly 25 feet in the air and 50 square feet, as everybody else has said, the
setback is certainly not a real problem in this particular case. So I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Actually, I have a couple of questions for Staff. In the calculation of this
sign, the pedestal underneath it, would you look at the last page of the package? The
pedestal underneath, does that go in the calculation of the sign? No, it does not?
MRS. BARDEN-It does not.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MRS. BARDEN-Actually, it doesn’t even include the, the base goes up and on the sides.
MR. BRYANT-I’m talking about the red underneath the.
MRS. BARDEN-Right, the measurement is only for the copy.
MR. BRYANT-Okay, and the setback, is that determined from the base of the sign or
from the actual plane of the sign? If you look at the new sign, you’ve got the Shindig
thing happening, and that protrudes beyond the six foot sign that you’ve got now. So
my question is, would the calculation, the relief that he’s requesting, is he requesting it
to the base of the sign or is he requesting to a projected point directly below Shindig?
Do you understand what I’m saying? So if that’s the case, then he’d need additional
relief than what he’s requesting in the application. Do you understand what I’m saying?
MR. HOTALING-I understand what you’re saying, and just as a point of clarification to
you, I measured, actually not to the sign copy itself. The 11 feet goes to where the red
support is on the side.
MR. BRYANT-So then ultimately, then, the relief that we’re requesting in this
application is not correct. He needs additional relief.
MRS. BARDEN-It’s measured, it would be measured from the base of the sign, to the
closest point.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m not going to disagree with you, but I don’t think that’s logical
because you could take, he could take a 12 foot sign and go to the side of the road. So, I
think ultimately, somebody help me out here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s swapping out the sign that’s there. He’s just going to go up
higher with it.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but it’s also wider.
MR. HOTALING-There’s also the addition, Mr. Bryant’s correct. There’s also the
addition of Shindigs up on top, which is seven feet wide by two feet, to give you my 50
foot copy.
MR. BRYANT-All right, and if you measured from the base, as a opposed to the copy,
the edge of the copy of Shindigs, we’re talking, I don’t know how big the base is, but I’m
assuming the base is probably three foot wide, and you’ve got a foot and a half on each
side, something like that, I mean, it would be four feet, with a foot, and then you’ve got
another six inches. So in reality, he’s not looking for four feet. He’s looking for six feet.
MR. STONE-I think it’s from the edge of copy. I would agree with Mr. Bryant, but I
don’t have my Code book with me.
MR. HOTALING-But the clarification from the Staff was from the base of the sign? I
measured to the side of the sign that was the support, because that’s what I felt, I was
trying to measure the, it’s actually less if you go to the base because it does overhang
like a foot and a half on each side here.
MR. BRYANT-Yes, but you understand my point, is that you could then make a sign
right to the end of the road.
MR. HOTALING-I understand.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. BRYANT-And you wouldn’t be violating any setbacks.
MR. HOTALING-I understand your point.
MR. BRYANT-I mean, that’s my only point.
MR. HOTALING-Or somebody could put a pole in right there at 15 feet and go up and, I
understand what you’re saying, your point.
MR. ABBATE-Staff, do you have any problems with the applicant, with the application
itself and its request for a variance? Let me rephrase it. Do you have any problems with
the measurement, based on the information submitted by the applicant?
MRS. BARDEN-I would like to look through and see if there’s anything in the zoning
that talks about where it’s measured from.
MR. ABBATE-Of course.
MR. HOTALING-I measured from the side of the support, because I felt that was.
MR. ABBATE-I’ll tell you what, folks. While Staff is doing some research, let’s take
about a three minute recess. That way there everybody will have an opportunity to be
heard.
MR. HOTALING-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. We’re back in session again, folks, and I think you had a comment
you wanted to make?
MR. HOTALING-Yes. The seven foot sign, just for a point of clarification, for the 11 foot
setback that I had was to the side of the support posts on the side, and at seven feet,
there would be six inches on both sides. So we’re talking about six inches on that side.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I don’t think that that support column is six feet wide, when the
sign sticks out beyond that, the sign below it. If you look at your detail here, you’ve
probably got a foot on each side below the Gelato sign. So then you have another six
inches. So you probably need, or another foot and a half, at the very minimum.
MR. HOTALING-Well, I think it depends on, and I was not clear about the regulation
about measuring to the base of the sign. I measured to what I thought was the closest
part of the sign, which was the support. My point is that, that’s a six by that’s
supporting it over there on that side. So that’s five and a half inches. So you’re really
talking about a half of an inch or so that the Shindigs sign above is wider than where I
measured to, to this.
MR. ABBATE-Let me make a comment for the record. One of the major problems with
this is that it is not clear, in the Sign Variances, exactly where you measure from. There
have been a number of questions raised this evening, and some good points made, off
the record, about, we need basically new language, and I think I agree with those folks
who made those comments. So, based upon that, for myself, I would probably, based on
the unclear ambiguity, if you will, of the language, I would probably go in favor of the
applicant if you will. That kind of thing, but Mr. Bryant’s point is well made.
MR. BRYANT-Well, anyway, it was my turn to speak.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it’s your turn.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. BRYANT-And because I’m not really clear, I would have to be opposed to the
application, as it stands, and I agree with the Chairman. I think there needs to be, since
there’s nothing in the wording in the Code to determine the point, I mean, there’s plenty
of wording in the Code when you have to look at the height of a building and where you
measure from and all that other stuff, but there’s nothing in the Code that says, and it
makes commonsense to me that it would be the furthest point of the sign.
MR. HOTALING-And that’s where I measured to, sir. Yes.
MR. BRYANT-No, you measured to the base, is what you said.
MR. HOTALING-No, no. I measured, the 11 foot setback is to this side of the support,
right here.
MR. BRYANT-The Gelato sign?
MR. HOTALING-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-So the difference you’re talking about now is six inches as opposed to?
MR. HOTALING-Correct, and in fact it’s probably less than that, because that’s a six by
that’s supporting it. So, yes, I didn’t measure to the base. The base is really 13 and a
half feet.
MR. BRYANT-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mr. Bryant, your comments are well noted, and
again, for the record, I think we have another area where there is ambiguity, if you will,
in the writing of some of these Ordinances. I guess it’s my turn. I’m going to agree with
the other Board members, Mr. McNulty, Stone, Underwood, Urrico, and Mrs. Hunt, in
that they are willing to support your application, and I am, as well, and for the record,
again, one of the reasons that I’m going to support your application is because of the
unclear, if you will, foggy, if you will, clarity, if you will, writing of some of our
Ordinances, in this particular case, Sign Ordinances. At this point, now, I’m going to
close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, and 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 a number of criteria for us, and also I
want to remind the Board members that one of our Board members, Mr. McNulty to be
specific, made it quite clear, and I support his contention, that what we need is a
condition. So if there is a motion, and I’m going to remind you that, the appellant, that if
this approval is made with conditions, that final approval 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. Also,
you are also advised that the issuance, if you will, of any kind of a permit is based upon
any kind of conditions, if such are in effect a part of any kind of approval.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, this is an Unlisted Action.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, it is.
MR. STONE-We need to do the SEQRA.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MOTION THAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM PROVIDED BY
THE APPLICANT INDICATES THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE
IMPACTS CAUSED BY THIS PROJECT, Introduced by Charles Abbate who moved
for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Stone, Mr. McNulty,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
MR. ABBATE-And I do believe, that the total is seven for, for approval. Now may I hear
a motion for Sign Variance No. 43-2005, please?
MRS. HUNT-I’ll make a motion.
MR. ABBATE-Mrs. Hunt, please.
MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 43-2005 KEVIN HOTALING FOR
SHINDIGS LTD, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Roy Urrico:
1161 State Route 9. The applicant proposes erecting a 50 square foot freestanding sign
24.6 feet high and 10.5 feet from the front property line. The applicant is requesting
relief from the minimum front setback requirement of 15 feet per Section 140-6. There
will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the
surrounding properties since there has been a sign there, and the size and height are
conforming. The benefit sought by the applicant, it would be hard to achieve by
alternative means because if the sign was setback to the 15 feet it, would be hard to see
from the road. The variance is not substantial. It will not have any adverse effects on
physical or environmental impact on the surrounding communities since the sign has
been there before, and whether it’s self-created, I think that is not a valid reason, but
along with the Sign Variance, we want to have the condition that the variance goes
along with the building, and if the building were moved, the Sign Variance would not
be in effect.
Duly adopted this 15 day of June 2005, by the following vote:
th
MR. ABBATE-We have a condition, and you understand, I remind the appellant that
there is a condition to this approval, potential approval.
MR. HOTALING-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-And for the record, you understand it?
MR. HOTALING-Yes. If the building is taken down, then the Sign Variance also is
taken away and would have to meet the setback requirements.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, and for the record the appellant agrees that he understands the
condition. Is there a second?
MR. URRICO-I second.
MR. MC NULTY-Mr. Chairman, before you call for a vote, we quoted the sign as being
11 feet from the front property line.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, sir.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. MC NULTY-But we’ve also established that probably it’s going to be a little bit
closer than that, because of the overhang. Should we make that 11 and a half or 12 feet?
Or conversely, instead of granting four feet of relief, grant four and a half or five?
Because whatever we grant is where the edge of your sign is going to have to be.
MR. HOTALING-Right. That’s probably a good idea, since we’re, there’s not a lot of
clarity about the measurement, also. I measured to the side of the support.
MR. ABBATE-All right. So, Mr. McNulty, are you suggesting that we grant four and a
half feet?
MR. MC NULTY-Depending on what the applicant wants to do, you know, whether
he’s comfortable with four and a half or whether he wants to ask for more.
MR. ABBATE-That’s a good point. Then the decision is yours. What are you
comfortable with? Because whatever we grant will be included in here.
MR. HOTALING-I believe that four and a half feet would work, because at most we’re
going to be six inches with the sign above or so, on either side, because it’s seven feet.
That’s fine.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. So we’re going to grant then, for the record, you understand, four
and a half feet?
MR. HOTALING-Correct.
MR. ABBATE-You understand that. Okay. Is there a second?
MR. URRICO-I second.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Stone, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Sign Variance No. 43-2005, if my counting is correct, is six in
favor, one against. Is there a challenge to the tally? Six to one. If not, Sign Variance No.
43-2005 is approved with four and a half feet, and you understand, for the record, the
conditions that go along with it?
MR. HOTALING-I do, sir.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. It is approved.
MR. HOTALING-Thank you.
MR. STONE-Mr. Chairman, I was just informed by my wife that she is feeling very
badly, so I’m going to excuse myself and go home. Mr. Rigby is here, he said he would
sit in for the rest of session.
MR. ABBATE-Give my best to the Mrs., please.
MR. STONE-Will do.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Rigby, would you be kind enough to join us, please. Without
prejudice.
MR. HOTALING-Thank you.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-You’re welcome.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2005 SEQRA TYPE II GARY SCHNEIDER OWNER(S):
GARY SCHNEIDER ZONING SR-1A LOCATION 41 NICOLE DRIVE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 192 SQ. FT. SHED ON THE PROPERTY AND
SEEKS RELIEF FOR A SECOND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.10-2-59 SECTION
179-5-020
KATHY SCHNEIDER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2005, Gary Schneider, Meeting Date: June 15,
2005 “Project Location: 41 Nicole Drive Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes placement of a 192 sq. ft. pre-built shed in the rear of the property.
Relief Required:
The applicant seeks to construct a second accessory structure and requests relief from
§179-5-020, for number of allowable accessory structures on the property.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
BP 2002-452: Single-family dwelling with attached garage
BP 2004-222: 320 sq. ft. deck
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes placement of a 192 sq. ft. pre-built shed in the rear of the
property. The applicant currently has a 120 sq. ft. storage shed on the West-side of the
property.”
MR. ABBATE-Would you be kind enough to speak into the microphone and for the
record identify yourself, your place of residence and/or your relationship with this
appeal, please.
MRS. SCHNEIDER-My name is Kathy Schneider, and I live at 41 Nicole Drive, and Gary
Schneider’s my husband.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Here’s what you can do. Explain to us why you feel that we
should approve your request. Very simple. Very informal. Try and be as relaxed as
you possibly can.
MRS. SCHNEIDER-Okay. When my husband and I built the house, the house was
constructed for a single car garage, but we knew we were going to need at least another,
like a two car garage for storage. So we figured, we built the house with a two car
garage, and then we figured we’d put the one shed in, and that we would have enough
storage space. We have a full basement, but then the property, it took a little more
equipment to take care of the property than we thought it was going to. We started off
with a push mower, but we ended up having to get a ride on mower, and because we
have woods, we had to get a little cart, you know what I mean, for the mower. So we
ended up with more equipment than we thought we were going to have, and as a result,
the equipment doesn’t fit into the garage, and into the shed. So the neighborhood is
really nice, and the first shed that we got, we got it built so it matches the house, the
siding and the shingles and the roof and everything. So that’s what we were going to
order the second one in, just to keep the property looking really nice. We don’t want to
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
have to store the little tractor here, or the little, or the, like the trailer’s outside now, and
also all the frames that we have to put over the trees and stuff in the wintertime, now
because we have so many trees that are young, because the property is young, we have
to store all those, and we don’t want to just store them outside or have it look tacky. So
we thought with the extra shed we could fit everything in, do you know what I mean, so
it looked good.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. That’s pretty good. You’ll also have an opportunity, as we’re
talking, if you come up with anything else, don’t be afraid to say I’d like to add
something else.
MRS. SCHNEIDER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-All right. That’s good. Do any of the members of the Board have any
questions for Mrs. Schneider? It doesn’t appear that any of us have any questions for
you. If that’s the case, then what I’m going to do is, under Public Officer’s Law Section
Three for a fair and open process, I’m going to open the public hearing, and I’m going to
request and invite public comments on this appeal, and in the interest of time, I’m going
to request that your comments be crisp, be organized, and limit your comments to only
the facts and information given this evening. Those wishing to be heard come up to the
table, speak into the microphone, and for the record please identify yourself and your
place of residence.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
WILLIAM REDMOND
MR. REDMOND-My name is William Redmond. I reside at 45 Nicole Drive, and I am
the neighbor to the west of the applicant. The current shed is on the west side of the
property. On the west side of the property, there’s a chain link fence. There’s not a
privacy fence. The privacy fence is on the east side of the property, and that was placed
by the neighbor that lives on that side. There is no wood line there. The wood line
consists of young pine trees. So my backyard and my deck is in direct view into that
back yard, and the back, the rear of the existing shed is seen from my patio. That is the
view. There’s nothing else there. The wood line in the very back of the house, I stopped
at the Planning Board, two days ago, and I saw the review, the planning site. The shed’s
going to be on the east corner of the property. The shed is going to be outside of the
wood line in the back. So in my back yard, we have a large deck in the back. We have
an in-ground pool, a large patio. That’s where we spend the majority of our time. That
new shed is going to be in direct view of our back yard and the area in which my
children play in, and the neighborhood children play in on the other side. My concern is
that with the gas powered vehicles being proposed to be stored in the shed, it could
create some type of fire hazard or an injury to a child or to a neighbor in the area. They
currently have a two car garage. That’s fine. They currently have a shed now. The shed
seems to be quite a bit bigger than the one that they currently have. Years ago, when I
put my house in, I didn’t realize that you could zone for a second shed, I ended up
putting a three car garage on because I had so much other things to store. My biggest
objection is to the view from my property, as I understand it, is a, I’ve heard two
conflicting things. Is this going to be a constructed shed, or is this going to be a pre-
constructed shed? Some of the terminology and the request was different.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s proposed as a pre-constructed.
MR. REDMOND-I didn’t see that.
MR. ABBATE-Well, come up. You can take this with you if you wish.
MR. REDMOND-Okay.
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-And I think Jim is probably right. It’s pre-constructed, is it not? Yes.
Okay.
MR. REDMOND-If the variance is allowed for this, I’m not sure if I could ask, but could
one of the stipulations be that a privacy fence be placed on the west side of the property
between my property and the applicant’s property? There’s two chain link fence, one
that I originally put there on my property and then one they installed on their property
when they built their house. If one of the conditions could be, reflecting on this, that
that chain link fence be taken down and a six foot privacy stockade fence be placed, that
would be an acceptable term, if it’s allowed. That would give us our privacy and benefit
our view of our yard, and it would allow them to have their shed.
MR. BRYANT-Is your pool above ground?
MR. REDMOND-It’s in-ground.
MR. BRYANT-It’s in-ground.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate that. Do we have any
other public comments on Area Variance No. 41-2005? If we do, would you please come
up to the table. There does not appear to be anymore public comment. So what I’m
going to do is I’m going to ask and request the ZBA members to offer their commentary
on Area Variance No. 41-2005, and again, I would respectfully remind the individuals
that we concern ourselves with the evidence which appears on the record to support our
conclusions, and, Mr. Bryant, as usual, has a comment. Yes, Mr. Bryant.
MR. BRYANT-Does she have an opportunity to rebut?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, if you wish, please.
MRS. SCHNEIDER-Okay. Bill’s property is on the right hand side of mine, and his pool
is all the way to the right hand side of his back yard, and then there’s his back yard, his
fence, my fence, exactly like his, and my shed, and the wooded area, and the wooded
area is entirely on my property. Bill chose to take down his wooded area so that he
would have a bigger yard. So I would just say that if he would like a privacy fence, and
that’s something that he would like to put on his property, that would be fine with us.
Our shed is going to be, the new shed, if you allow us to have it, would be on the left
hand side of the property that wouldn’t be visible at all from his patio because of the
wooded area directly on that side, and as far as the kids and the neighbors on the other
side, they play ball and everything in the back yard. They hit the ball over into our yard,
we just leave the ball where it is so they can see how far it went, if they got a home run
or not. So there’s no problem with them with the shed or anything like that.
MR. ABBATE-Let me say this for the public, that all of us on the Board are well aware of
the fact that we don’t hear civil cases. Would you like to comment on anything else that
was said? Do you want to offer anything else?
MRS. SCHNEIDER-I didn’t want Bill to have concerns that it wasn’t a nice looking shed.
It’s very nice. It’s well built, and it matches the other one, and it matches the house, do
you know what I mean, so it keeps in style with the neighborhood. It’s a very nice
neighborhood, and it looks, it would look nice.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now do you feel comfortable that you’ve told us everything?
MRS. SCHNEIDER-I think so.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Good. All right. Fine. I don’t believe there are anymore public
comments. If not, again, I will request our members offer their commentary. Again,
remember that precedent mandates we only concern ourselves with the evidence which
appears on the record, and may I please start with Mrs. Hunt.
MRS. HUNT-I thank you. It’s a very attractive piece of property, very attractive, and
your existing shed that you have is very nicely, it’s planted around there. It fits in. I can
understand your need for more storage, but I’m kind of conflicted because I don’t like
the idea of two storage sheds on one piece of property. So I think I will withhold my
decision at this point, and listen to the other Board members.
MR. ABBATE-Okay, Mrs. Hunt, thank you. Well, let’s welcome our alternate member,
Mr. Rigby.
MR. RIGBY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The existing Code allows for an accessory
structure of 200 square feet. Your existing structure is 120 square feet. So you would
have the capability to replace the existing structure with another structure that has 80
additional square feet, if you would like to stay within the Code without requesting a
variance. Looking around the neighborhood when I was there, I didn’t see any houses
where there was a second accessory structure in the neighborhood. Mr. Redmond is
opposed to it, your neighbor. So I think I’m going to have a difficult time in approving
this variance because of those factors. I think, you know, you do have the possibility to
replace the structure you have with a slightly larger structure, and I think that’s the way
I would prefer to see this go, if it could go that way.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I agree with Mr. Rigby. You could replace your existing structure with a
larger structure and possibly, which would allow for all your extra storage. We’d all
like extra storage. I’d like a big shed, but I can’t have anymore on my property. The
variance that you’re requesting, the relief is 100%, and I think that’s more, we’re charged
with giving the least amount of relief, and 100% is a lot of relief.
MRS. SCHNEIDER-What’s that mean?
MR. BRYANT-Well, you’re only allowed one accessory structure. Now you’re getting
another one. That’s 100% relief. So, in my view, it’s excessive, and I would not be in
favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I, too, am concerned with the addition of a second structure
here also. I think that, you know, where you propose the second structure for to me, I
think does seem to make more sense. I think it probably does provide your neighbor, as
opposed to what he said, as far as it not being in his interest to have it there, but I would
think that this moves it significantly away from his property line. The only other
suggestion I could make would be to move the current shed back there with the new
one, you know, and combine the two together. I mean, that’s another possibility, to get
them both further back. I mean, they’d be set back over 200 feet, almost, from the road
out in front of the homes there. I think I would have to agree with my fellow Board
members that I would probably vote for you to, you know, place the new shed there, but
remove the old one as it presently exists. That makes the most sense to me.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I just wonder if we’re seeking two variances on this, or we should be
seeking two variances on this, one for a second accessory structure, and one for the relief
from the 200 total square feet accessory structure.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-Well, the point has been made perhaps we should be seeking two
variances, one for the relief and one for the.
MR. URRICO-We’re 112 feet above the maximum square feet.
MR. ABBATE-Well, I’ll offer that to the Board members for their consideration.
MR. URRICO-Anyway, I also believe that this is, the second structure is not needed. I
think an 80 foot difference, if a bigger structure can be put in there, I think that would be
a valid alternative to the request, and I would be against this.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please?
MR. MC NULTY-Well, if there were ever a place that I would agree to a second shed, it
would probably be on your property or in your neighborhood. As has been mentioned
before, I think it’s a very neat neighborhood, and to even spot your existing shed, you’ve
got to be looking for it almost. It’s well concealed, and I’m sure if you put a second shed
in it would be well done, and you make a fairly good case that you need storage just for
material that you’re using to maintain your own property. It’s not like you’ve got three
jet skis and two snowmobiles and an all terrain vehicle that’s laying around the yard. So
that’s in your favor as well, but at the same time, as the other members have mentioned,
asking for a second structure, a second shed, is double the normal number. So it is
substantial relief, and the square footage is in excess, too. So, I guess I’ve got to come
down as a reluctant no. I’m kind of on the fence, but think, as has been pointed out, that
there are some alternatives, perhaps not the ideal ones for you, but one is either
enlarging the existing shed or replacing it with a full 200 square foot shed and being in
compliance. So I’m going to have to come down, no.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mrs. Schneider, I also have a problem with this
as well. I’m going to support, well, Mrs. Hunt is still on the fence on this, and I’ll get to
her, but I’m going to have to support the majority of the Board members, and let me
explain to you why, so that you understand. We take into consideration a number of
things. There’s criteria that we have to follow through, and we also take into
consideration the intent of the law. In other words, not only the spirit, but what was the
intent of the Ordinances when they were written. Now there are some times where it
makes it very difficult, in the clarity, it’s foggy and the whole thing, but in this case here,
it’s my opinion that it was the intent of the Ordinance really not to grant 100% relief. I
think that’s quite excessive. I truly believe that, and I think, while I listened to
everything that you had to say, and what you said makes a lot of sense, quite frankly. I
could use more shed time, too, but I think that we are constrained in that we have to
basically stay within the statutes that we are guided by, if you will, and I believe that I
would find it extremely difficult to support your application, not for merit, but because I
believe it was the intent of the Ordinance not to grant 100% relief. I believe that’s rather
extensive. Now, Mrs. Hunt, you were on the fence on this. Would you like to comment?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I guess I would reluctantly say no.
MR. ABBATE-You would reluctantly say no. I’m going to close the public hearing now.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, but before I do, I’m going to give you
an opportunity, if you have anything else you’d like to say, in order to be fair to you.
You can see right now that it would appear that the vote may very well be against you,
and please understand, it’s not for merit, but we are constrained, there are constraints in
the things that we can do and what we can’t do.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MRS. SCHNEIDER-Right. The reasons why we would have difficulties removing the
one shed and getting another one is because that was a pre-built one also, and it cost
$5,000 for that shed. So it would be like, okay, we’d have to sell it, and then somebody
would have to come there and get it and pick it up. So the likelihood of us being able to
sell it is not very good.
MR. ABBATE-I understand.
MRS. SCHNEIDER-And we have a covenant with the neighborhood that we, not to
leave stuff laying around, and not to, you know what I mean, so I thought that if we
stored other stuff, like lean stuff on that shed, that that would look tacky, that that
would be against the covenant, do you know what I mean, so I did not think that that
was a possibility.
MR. ABBATE-Well, you came here with good intentions and good intent. There’s not a
problem with that at all.
MRS. SCHNEIDER-We can build on to that shed, though, right, we can build on to that
existing shed?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, you may. Now I’m going to ask for a motion, and again, I’m going to
respectfully remind the members that we have the task of balancing the variance against
the impact on the area, as well as the fact that State statutes spell out five statutory
criteria that we must follow, and, having said that, I’m going to ask for a motion. Is
there a motion of some type?
MOTION TO DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2005 GARY SCHNEIDER,
Introduced by Charles McNulty who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt:
41 Nicole Drive. The applicant has proposed the placement of a 192 square foot pre-
built shed in the rear of their property and is seeking relief to allow a second accessory
structure per Section 179-5-020. Considering the criteria, one is whether an undesirable
change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to
nearby properties would be created. I think we have to acknowledge that there would
be a slight undesirable change if a second shed were allowed where only one is
permitted, and there probably would be a slight detriment to some of the properties in
the nearby neighborhood. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved
by some other method feasible for the applicant to pursue. I think here, as some of the
Board members have mentioned, there are some alternatives, probably not the perfect
ones that would fully meet the needs that the applicant has spelled out for us, but,
nevertheless, there is an option of either enlarging the existing shed that the applicant
now has on the property, or removing that shed and replacing it either in the same
location or a different location, with a shed up to 200 square feet, which would be
conforming to the Code. The question of whether the requested Area Variance is
substantial, I think we’ve all concluded that we have to say that it is, at least in terms of
numbers of sheds, because the applicant’s requesting twice as many sheds as the Code
permits. Also the total square footage would exceed the square footage allowed for a
shed. Whether the proposed variance would have an adverse effect or impact on the
physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, probably not. It
might be argued that there might be a little bit of aesthetic disadvantage for a second
shed, but I don’t think it really would affect the environmental conditions in the
neighborhood, and whether the difficulty is self-created, I think in this case we have to
say yes, it is, in the choice of equipment that the applicant has decided that they need for
the property, and the way they’ve decided that they want to store it. I think when we
consider the pluses and the minuses, and the magnitude of the request, regrettably the
balance falls against the applicant rather than for the applicant, and for those reasons, I
move that we deny this application.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
Duly adopted this 15 day of June 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Rigby,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote to disapprove Area Variance No. 41-2005 is seven in favor of
disapproval, zero against. If there is no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No.
41-2005, I regret to inform you, has been defeated. Thank you for your time.
MRS. SCHNEIDER-Do I need a permit or something to get the bigger one?
MR. ABBATE-I would suggest you either talk to the Planner or talk to Craig Brown who
is our Zoning Administrator.
MRS. SCHNEIDER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so much for your participation.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2005 SEQRA TYPE II JEFFREY M. CLARK AGENT(S):
JARRETT-MARTIN ENGINEERS; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES
OWNER(S): JEFFREY M. CLARK ZONING LC-10A, RR-5A LOCATION ROUTE
9L APPLICANT PROPOSES A 4-LOT SUBDIVISION AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM
THE MINIMUM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO OF THE LOTS.
CROSS REF. SUBDIVISION 2-2005, SUBDIVISION 18-2004 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING JUNE 8, 2005 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 45.35
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240-1-49 SECTION 179-4-090
STEPHANIE BITTER & TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. UNDERWOOD-There’s a little of an addition added on to the application, and it
says Queensbury Zoning Board waiver requests for the following items: Number One, a
waiver is requested for the location of on-site sewage disposal facilities, design details,
construction details, flow rates and number of bedrooms proposed, and detailed designs
will be provided to the Planning Board during subdivision review. Secondly, a waiver
is requested for the percolation tests and locations. Once again, these would be
provided to the Planning Board at the time of the subdivision review, and, third, a
waiver is requested for the location, design and construction of all existing and
proposed site improvements. The location of stormwater swales, drains, culverts and a
grading plan will be determined after the final driveway locations have been
established.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2005, Jeffrey M. Clark, Meeting Date: June 15,
2005 “Project Location: Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
desires to subdivide his 45-acre parcel into 4-residential lots, of 11.2, 13.5, 8.8, and 11.6-
acres, respectively. The property is located in 2-zones, RR-5A and LC-10A. All 4 lots
will be accessed by the same private drive off of Ridge Road.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from §179-4-090 (“the required frontage for one principal
building shall be 40-feet, and such frontage shall provide actual physical access to and
from the lot to be built upon”).
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
Lots 1 and 2 have frontage on a public road, however, they would not have actual
physical access to that road. Thus, 40-feet of relief for lot 1 and 40-feet of relief for lot 2 is
required.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SB 2-2005: 1/18/05, sketch plan for 4-lot residential subdivision, pending.
SB 18-2004: 9/28/04, sketch plan for 4-lot residential subdivision, tabled by applicant.
Staff comments:
The applicants argue that only one location along the frontage of the parcel offers good
sight distance; therefore, a common driveway to serve all 4-lots is proposed.
Staff identified a concern with accessibility of emergency vehicles to lot 1 and lot 2. The
applicants indicated that an emergency access road off of Ridge Road to lot 1 for this
purpose was a possibility. Staff met with the N. Queensbury Fire Chief and he is
satisfied with that solution, with the comments that the roadway needs to be packed
gravel paved and can be gated at the entrance. Additional drawings showing this
amendment will be submitted with the site plan.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
June 8, 2005 Project Name: Clark, Jeffrey M. Owner(s): Jeffrey M. Clark ID Number:
QBY-05-AV-48 County Project#: Jun05-24 Current Zoning: LC-10A & RR-5A
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes a 4-lot subdivision
and seeks relief from the minimum road frontage requirements for two of the lots. Site
Location: 240-1-49 Staff Notes: Area Variance: The applicant proposes a four-lot
subdivision of a 45 +/- acre parcel. Two of the proposed lots are to be accessed from a
private drive that services two of the parcels as a shared driveway on Route 9L. Relief is
requested for the proposed two lots to not have physical access to 9L. The information
submitted shows the proposed lot lay out and driveway. 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 Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 06/10/05.
MR. ABBATE-Obviously we have two representatives of Area Variance No. 48-2005.
Would you folks be kind enough to speak into the microphone, and for the record
identify yourselves and your relationship with this appeal, please.
MS. BITTER-Good evening, Chairman and members of the Board. My name is
Stephanie DiLallo-Bitter. I’m here from Bartlett, Pontiff as attorney for the applicant,
and I’m also here with Tom Jarrett, as the project engineer. As was identified in the
application, the applicant is proposing a four lot subdivision off of Ridge Road. To
clarify some of the Staff comments, each lot would actually have the necessary frontage
on Ridge Road, as is demonstrated by the enclosed subdivision layout plan. The
variance is being requested because of the proposal of the one common driveway access.
This access would actually be coming from the boundary of Lots Three and Four, and
would provide access to all four lots, which is the reason for the variance this evening.
The frontage width is actually represented for each lot, which Tom can get into more
detail on. Obviously, the benefit that would be achieved by this applicant in the
granting of this variance would be that he would be able to maintain this four lot
subdivision, with the safe, one driveway access. The effect it would have on the
neighborhood in our minds would be positive, due to the evaluations that have been
made on this area of Ridge Road, due to the way in which Ridge Road runs against this
property, the engineers have determined that this is the safest spot for sight distance, in
order to access each of these lots as opposed to having four separate driveways, which
I’ll allow Tom to go into more details on, as well as the fact that the Staff notes have
44
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
commented that the applicant is willing to identify an emergency access Route for Lots
One and Lots Two, which again, I’ll let Tom go into more detail on. Due to the
evaluation, we do feel that this is the only feasible alternative to have the safest route for
all four of these lots, and because of the safety factor within this application, we feel that
this relief should not be deemed substantial and it will not have any adverse effects. I’m
going to allow Tom to go into more detail.
MR. JARRETT-I think you did a very good job. Stephanie said the frontage, we have
frontage for each of the lots. The minimum that we’re providing is approximately 150
feet, whereas 40 feet minimum is required. The location that we’ve selected for the
driveway at the boundary of Lots Three and Four is the safest, and we feel the only safe
location for a driveway along this frontage. There is an existing logging road entrance
near the north property corner, and that’s proposed to be used as an emergency access
for emergency vehicles, and that’s the one we would stabilize with gravel and gate. I
think that probably covers it. We can open it up to questions.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Jarrett. Thank you, Counsel. Do any of the Board
members have any questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD-My question on the site is, due to the fact that you have so many
wetlands there, that, you know, you’re accumulation of acreage to justify it, you know,
kind of follows a hazardous path, you know, around those wetlands, which really
doesn’t have a whole lot of bearing as to, you know, when I’m thinking of five acre
zoning, I’m thinking it’s the same thing of which we discussed previous to this this
evening, up on top of the mountain there, where people expect that when they live in a
rural area, that they’re not going to end up in a cluster subdivision, and I think that what
you’re proposing here is essentially you’re clustering on the only buildable area of
property, you know, of that 52 acres. You’ve got steep slopes way up to the east of you,
and a substantial amount of wetlands everywhere else, and I think that the mere fact
that, you know, you have gone into the Planning Board for some preliminary pointers
from them, as far as that goes, but I think that your numbers don’t really jive with the
reality of what’s there, as far as buildable land, you know, in immediate vicinity to the
road frontage there. I’m just guessing, looking at what else is out on Ridge Road there,
and the distances between homes, I don’t really see that, you know, I just have some
concerns about that.
MR. ABBATE-Are you referring to that Subdivision A-183?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-You are. Okay. Are the Board members aware of Subdivision A183?
Jim? Do you want to explain that so that everybody knows what we’re talking about?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, in previous other presentations we’ve had, we’ve always
discussed, you know, what do you count as buildable area, and I think that we, you
know, you discussed this with the previous ones where we were on very steep terrain,
and also on wetland areas, too, and I’m just wondering if we’re stretching out a little bit,
you know, with, you know, if you looked at the total acreage of buildable property there
along Ridge Road there, I would think you would be hard pressed to come up with 10
acres there.
MR. BRYANT-In the calculation, normally, isn’t the wetlands subtracted from the
overall acreage?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-And it has been in this case. We have the density to allow four lots.
45
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I assume that you must have, yes.
MR. BRYANT-Well, you take Lot Four and Lot Two, it looks like you’ve included it in
that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. You’re staying on the perimeter, right, with your boundary
lines?
MR. BRYANT-Because Lot Four can’t possibly be 11 acres without the wetlands.
MR. JARRETT-No. The total density overall meets, supports four lots.
MR. BRYANT-Is that the case after you deduct the wetlands?
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-How is that divided? I’m not understanding.
MR. JARRETT-Well, there’s quite a bit of buildable area on Lot One, Two, and Three.
MR. BRYANT-Lot Number One, and Lot Number Three.
MR. JARRETT-Four is really the most constricted, as far as buildable area.
MR. BRYANT-When you look at the amount of the wetlands, I understand what Mr.
Underwood is saying, and if you were to deduct, for example, Lot Number Four
encompasses a large portion of the wetlands, when you subtract that from the total area
of Lot Number Four, you’re not coming up with 11.
MR. JARRETT-On an individual lot basis, you’re correct, we do not make that area for
Lot Four, but as an overall density, and we’re in two zones here, so it becomes an overall
average density for the subdivision. The Planning Board reviewed that very carefully,
and we do have the acreage to support four lots.
MR. BRYANT-So then don’t we need, in that case, don’t we need specific variances
relative to the individual lots, where he doesn’t have the space, for example on Lot
Number Four? When you deduct the wetlands, how many acres are you left with? So
now we need an additional variance because you don’t have the acreage.
MR. JARRETT-I don’t believe the Code is worded that way.
MRS. BARDEN-No. The Planning Board can look at the density and can also negotiate
minimum lot size.
MR. JARRETT-We actually meet minimum lot size. We just don’t meet the development
area on that one particular lot, but we, it’s counter balanced by the other lots.
MRS. BARDEN-And the Planning Board has looked at this configuration.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, they have.
MR. MC NULTY-Another question that probably drifts over into Planning Board
territory, but I’m bothered by this emergency vehicle access. What was their problem
with driveway? Driveway too narrow?
MR. JARRETT-It actually gave us two alternatives. One is to widen the private
driveway leading to Lots One and Two, so that we can get better passage of emergency
vehicles, or provide the separate entrance, and we chose, as a preferred alternative to
46
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
enhance that existing entrance that’s already there, rather than widen the common
driveway, you know, add more tree clearing and more stormwater.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, like I say, it strikes me that it’s more a Planning Board
issue than it is our concern. The only thing that struck me is I wondered just how
practical that would be. You’re going to have a gate across it so it’s not going to be easy
for emergency vehicles to get in until somebody shows up with a key to the padlock.
MR. JARRETT-Actually, that gating, I think, came from Staff’s, it was Staff’s
recommendation or the Fire Marshal.
MRS. BARDEN-We asked the Fire Marshal if he was okay with gating, and he was.
MR. JARRETT-So we will discuss the details with the Planning Board and see how they
want to handle it.
MRS. BARDEN-I think they’re just worried about having more than one vehicle.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. The other thing that struck me is thinking to future years. I’m
just wondering who’s going to keep that road plowed? Because absent being plowed in
the winter, it’s going to be useless, and it strikes me that it might be better to make the
driveway minimally compliant, but again, I’m getting off the topic of what we’re
supposed to be looking at here.
MRS. BARDEN-There are a couple of, you know, like what Mr. Jarrett said. There are a
couple of alternatives. The Fire Marshal still needs to look at this. He’s also looked at
maybe individual cul de sacs at each lot, or hammerheads or turn offs, and so that’s not
a final configuration in any kind of way.
MR. JARRETT-We would actually support the pull offs or the hammerheads to allow
emergency vehicles to pass other vehicles, rather than widen the entire driveway.
MRS. BARDEN-Right.
MR. JARRETT-So I would certainly support that.
MRS. BARDEN-There’s going to be some combination.
MR. JARRETT-It becomes a Planning Board desire.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Well, like I say, it’s really Planning Board. So I’ll get off that
topic now. Thanks.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Any other members have any questions, please?
MR. URRICO-I guess I’d like to follow up on Mr. Bryant’s questioning. Lot Four is 11.6
acres, or is that 11.6 acres with wetlands subtracted?
MR. JARRETT-The acreage you see in the Staff comments are total acreage.
MR. URRICO-Total acreage.
MR. JARRETT-Total acreage.
MR. URRICO-But when you subtract the wetlands from that, what is Lot Four?
MR. JARRETT-I don’t know. I’d have to go back through my notes and see if I have that
calculation readily available. I don’t know offhand what it is. I can see if I can find it.
47
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
I’m not sure that it meets the minimum standards for that individual lot, but overall, the
density of the four lots does meet Town standard.
MR. BRYANT-I understand that, and I understand what you’re saying, okay. I disagree
with Staff. I don’t think that she’s following my logic. Because eventually you’re going
to create four separate lots, okay. So if this lot is substandard, it’s not the five acres that
you need to have, because of the wetlands, then you’re going to need a variance for that
lot to be a buildable lot. Regardless of the overall density, you’re still creating four lots.
So at some point you’re going to have to address the substandardness of the two lots
that are in question. That’s my only point. Maybe I’m wrong, but I don’t think so.
MR. URRICO-And I guess I would also ask about Lot Three, that if, how much of that
buildable lot, minus the wetlands, is in the RR-5A zone?
MR. BRYANT-Well, the same would apply for Lot Two. I mean, Lot Two is a very small
lot in the RR-5A zone. Does it even have five acres in that lot, in that portion of it?
MR. JARRETT-No, again, it’s a two zone, it’s a parcel that has two zones. So you’d
average the density, split the density for two zones.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other questions? I’d like to follow up, if I may, on Mr.
McNulty. He was very gracious when he said perhaps we’re getting into another area
that really belongs to Planning, but, you know, Mr. McNulty, I think you raised a very
valid point. If we were to grant a variance, I suggest that we have to take everything
into consideration. While it may be primarily a Planning Board decision, I think if there
are doubts in anybody’s mind concerning whether or not the wetlands were included,
etc., etc., I do believe you had a valid point. I don’t want to go into a long dissertation of
it, but I’m willing to listen to what you have to say.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, to some degree, like I say, I think you leave it to the Planning
Board. To some degree, I think some of these concerns we can handle, in terms of
character of the neighborhood type approach, and I was just trying to look in the Code
here and I didn’t find it fast enough, but the question on wetlands, I think what Staff
was saying, too, is I think the Planning Board, in certain instances, is empowered to, in
effect, give a variance. They’re allowed to look at a subdivision, make exceptions, and
say, okay, this approval for a subdivision applies to all four lots, and we’ll Lot Four or
Lot One, if it were standing alone, be substandard because we’ve got compensating on
the other ones, but that’s something that Staff or somebody else would have to
substantiate.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MS. BITTER-And as you are aware, Chairman, we obviously had to sit down and have
our pre-application meeting with Staff, and it was at that time that this was the only
variance identified as being required for the subdivision being proposed.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MR. MC NULTY-Yes, and if we approve the variance that’s being requested, that does
not mean that we are approving any other variance they might need but haven’t asked
for.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, absolutely right.
MR. MC NULTY-They’ll just have to come back and ask again, if they’ve found that
somebody is in error. Yes. I’ll make sure that it’s made quite clear on the record.
MR. JARRETT-If I could add one more point.
48
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-By all means, please.
MR. JARRETT-We have not called it a cluster subdivision so far, but Stephanie points
out correctly that this may qualify as a cluster that would satisfy that condition as well.
We haven’t gone that far. We didn’t think we needed to, but I don’t know, Susan, I
would beg the question to you. This could be called a cluster, the Board can review it in
that light.
MRS. BARDEN-You said, at that January meeting, that it was a cluster subdivision.
MR. JARRETT-I stand corrected. I forgot what I said.
MR. ABBATE-So then, in effect, it is a cluster. For the record, it is. Thank you, Staff. Do
we have any other comments from any of the Board members?
MR. ABBATE-If not, what I’m going to do is open up the public hearing, and to ensure a
fair and open process, I’m going to ask public comment on this appeal, which is Area
Variance No. 48-2005, and I’m going to request that those wishing to be heard on this
particular variance please be kind enough to come to the table, identify yourself for the
record, and your place of residence. Do we have anybody in the audience? Yes, sir,
please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
EVERETT VOOHREES
MR. VOOHREES-My name’s Everett Voorhis, 2220 Ridge Road. I’m the neighbor to this
property, and in regards to this cluster development, how many dwellings are involved
in that?
MR. JARRETT-Four.
MR. VOORIS-There would be four houses, a house per lot. In regards to their road, if
anybody’s ever been up Ridge Road, where they’re proposed driveway is is the best
spot. Where the Fire Department wants to put that access road in, it’s a very bad curve,
and like this gentleman said, they may be better off widening their main entrance that
they have now and continuing on and stay away from that curve, and as far as
somebody maintaining it in the winter, up there, again, it’s a real bad curve, and it
would be a hard call don’t want to short change the firemen in regards to a safety item,
but up on Lockhart Mountain, they had a road up there that was proposed to take care,
the trees are growing up through the road and nobody’s been there. The gate’s been
locked for 10, 15 years. So, that’s a predicament that you could head off, like you were
saying, in the future, down the road, nobody maintaining the road or whatever, but they
were on the right track with maintaining the main road and keeping it, maybe widen it
and build it up and stay in that area. That’s the safest spot. Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, sir. Your comments are duly noted. Do we have any other
folks in the audience who would like to come to the table and express any concerns with
Area Variance No. 48-2005? There does not appear to be any other. So what I’m going
to basically do is ask the members of the Board to offer their commentary. Folks, if
you’d like to come back to the table, and again, I’d remind the members of the Board
that we will only concern ourselves with the evidence that appears on the record and we
need this for an intelligent judicial review, and may I please, well, let me try something
different. Do I have a volunteer? Who’d like to go first?
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Chairman, how about me?
49
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-Would you like to go first?
MRS. BARDEN-I found a density calculation from the minutes from that January
Planning Board meeting.
MR. ABBATE-Would you read it into the record, please.
MRS. BARDEN-This is from Mr. Jarrett himself. “We have a net of 36.2 acres that,
outside of wetlands, we’re asking for four lots, split between the five and ten acre zone.
We’re allowed two lots in the five acre zone because we have 11.6 acres, and we’re
allowed two lots in the LC-10 zone, because we have 24.6 acres which would be four
lots”.
MR. BRYANT-What meeting was that, of what date?
MRS. BARDEN-This is January 18, 2005.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so much. I appreciate that. Now, getting back to my original,
do you wish to comment on those Staff comments? No?
MRS. BARDEN-Does that work, make sense?
MR. JARRETT-Yes. It actually sounds like something I said.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have anyone who’d like to volunteer?
MR. RIGBY-Mr. Chairman, I’ll go first, but I have a question first.
MR. ABBATE-Would you, please.
MR. RIGBY-The driveway that is going to run down to Lot One and Lot Two, will that
be able to be seen from Ridge Road?
MR. JARRETT-The southern portion of that driveway, the driveway itself, or the cars on
the driveway?
MR. RIGBY-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-I’m going to qualify by saying I don’t think the driveway itself can be,
but the cars behind would be seen by Ridge Road if they’re, when they’re traveling on it.
MR. RIGBY-Going as far down as, what, the first part of the driveway, you’re saying?
MR. JARRETT-The southern part, definitely. The northern part, it has been logged to
some degree, and I don’t think it would be totally hidden, but maybe largely hidden.
MR. RIGBY-Will there be some coverage between the driveway and Ridge Road? Will
there be?
MR. JARRETT-From the northern part?
MR. RIGBY-Yes.
MR. JARRETT-Yes.
MR. RIGBY-And on the southern part, no?
50
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. JARRETT-The southern part, we may have to move that location slightly anyway.
So we would have to probably move it a little bit to the rear. It would be somewhat
more screened, but not as much as the north.
MR. RIGBY-It would have coverage? Okay.
MR. JARRETT-Are you concerned with visibility?
MR. RIGBY-I’m concerned with visibility, yes. I mean, I like the idea of a single curb cut
and where it is. I think that’s a great idea. The concern would be visibility, yes.
MR. JARRETT-The applicant’s not here tonight, but I don’t think it would be a hardship
to him to him if we designated that we left vegetation between that driveway and Ridge
Road to provide some kind of a natural buffer, natural screen there, if that satisfies your
concern.
MR. RIGBY-Yes, that’s good. I guess then my general comments would be that, pretty
much what I’ve already said. I think , you know, the idea of a single curb cut where it’s
located seems to be a good solution. What we’re charged with tonight, I think, from
what I see here, is a variance request just for the variance to not, for the 40 foot frontage
relief for Lot One, and also Lot Two. So, keeping that in mind, just thinking about just
that variance, and nothing else, I’d be in favor of granting the variance.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-I basically agree with Mr. Rigby. I think looking at what’s actually
before us tonight, the question of granting relief for two lots not having access frontage
on a public road, the benefit of having the driveway entrance at a good location for sight
distance on that curve certainly outweighs any detriment. So I think it’s a good idea,
and I’d be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-I’m not ready, Mr. Chairman.
MR. ABBATE-Mr. Bryant’s not ready. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I still have concerns about the ultimate fruition of this project,
given the amount of waivers that that were requested from the Zoning Board, as I
previously brought up that matter. I think that, you know, when you do have all these
wetlands and things like that, that, you know, we can go ahead and approve what we’re,
what you’re asking us this evening because I don’t really think that has much to do with
the project itself, but I think, you know, you guys are still going to have to go through
the DEC and the APA to get this thing approved.
MR. JARRETT-And the Town.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And the Town, you know.
MR. JARRETT-We just requested that the design details go to the Planning Board and
not here, even though the Code specifically requires it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Right. So I think, I would think it would be properly
reviewed along the way. So that, you know, what you’re asking us, this single driveway
entrance makes more sense to me knowing the hazardous nature of Ridge Road, and as
was mentioned by the near neighbor also. I would think that I wouldn’t have any
problem with your request this evening.
51
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have to agree with my fellow Board members. I think it’s a very
narrow area that we have to look at, and I would be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you, Mrs. Hunt. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-I have just a technical question. Technically speaking, there are two lots
in the RR-5A zone and two lots that are equally divided, or somewhat equally divided,
between the LC-10A zone and RR-5A. Right?
MS. BITTER-For the density purposes.
MR. URRICO-So I think that Mrs. Barden, when she read that in, said two LC-10 and
two RR-5A.
MR. JARRETT-From a density calculation perspective, that’s correct.
MR. URRICO-Okay. That’s okay, but the four houses will be located in the RR-5A zone.
Okay. I’m in agreement with my fellow Board members. I would be in favor of this,
with the condition, you had indicated that you would widen the driveway in some
locations, as an alternative to the gated access.
MR. JARRETT-If you would prefer to make that a condition, then I would like to leave it
to either widening the entire driveway or just providing pull offs, which I prefer
personally.
MR. URRICO-I think I would prefer the pull offs, but I don’t know how everybody else
feels.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I think that Mrs. Hunt said it best, that the area that we’re looking at
here is very narrow and it only relates to the two lots that don’t have frontage, and so
with that in mind, I would be in favor of the application, with any stipulations that the
Board members would like to make, but I understand that this will go to the Planning
Board, and they will scrutinize it, and they’ll take into consideration all the wetlands. If
I were on the Planning Board, I would have, I would look at it very carefully.
MRS. BARDEN-Mr. Bryant, can I just give you, just a clarification to make you more
comfortable. In the clustering section of the Ordinance, it says that the Planning Board
has been empowered to modify the minimum lot area and minimum lot width
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance in order to enable and encourage flexibility of
design and development of land in such a manner as to promote the most appropriate
use of land to facilitate and to preserve the natural and scenic qualities of open lands.
MR. BRYANT-I understand what you’re saying exactly, okay, but I am the recipient of
one of these Planning Board decisions, and I’ve got to tell you quite frankly, it’s very
undesirable. Okay. It’s an undesirable result. How the Town came up with this, I don’t
know anything of the history, and I don’t understand the logic behind it, but the
ultimate outcome is totally undesirable.
MRS. BARDEN-I just wanted to clarify the fact that you don’t need variances for
minimum lot size.
MR. BRYANT-I understand. I understand.
52
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-I guess I’m last on this thing, and I’m going to go along with the rest of
the Board members. I think they made a lot of sense. Mr. Urrico has indicated that he
would feel much more comfortable with a little condition, and I’m certainly going to
yield to that, and perhaps whoever wishes to make the motion may want to consult with
Mr. Urrico and see what his concerns are for a condition. Having said that, I’m going to
close the public hearing now.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, and again, I respectfully remind the
members that we have a task of balancing the benefit of a variance against the impact on
the area, and we have State statutes that spell out five statutory criteria, and I will also
remind the Board, if we have a condition, I’m going to let Counsel understand that final
approval plans and compliance with any conditions will have to be met and submitted
to the Town Community Development Department before any further review by the
ZBA, and, having said all of that, may I hear a motion for Area Variance No. 48-2005
please.
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2005 JEFFREY M. CLARK,
Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Route 9L. The applicant desires to subdivide his 45 acre parcel into four residential lots
of 11.2, 13.5, 8.8 and 11.6 acres, and is requesting relief from Section 179-4-030, the
required frontage for one principal building shall be 40 feet, and such frontage shall
provide actual physical access to and from the lot to be built upon. Specifically, Lot One
and Lot Two do not have frontage on a public road and thus 40 feet of relief for Lot One
and 40 feet of relief for Lot Two is required. As mentioned, we would like those
driveway widths to be increased so they can handle properly the equipment of the fire
department if need be, and also that the lots, those driveways have turnarounds or
hammerheads, as you suggested, to facilitate that. It was not within our purview to
suggest, but the suggestion was made that that second entranceway was not necessary,
as was originally proposed. The benefit to the applicant would be that there would not
be the creation of four separate driveways out onto busy Ridge Road, and it was
recognized that this is a hazardous part of the roadway and that one single driveway
made more sense. So I would move that we approve it.
Duly adopted this 15 day of June 2005, by the following vote:
th
MS. BITTER-Mr. Chairman, if I could. I don’t want to interrupt your motion to approve,
but the one correction that we made from the Staff notes was that the 40 foot was not
necessary for Lot One and Lot Two, and I know that it was incorporated into the motion.
If we could just correct that.
MR. ABBATE-Just as a point, not as a criticism, but as a point, but once a motion is in
progress, it is inappropriate to interrupt it.
MS. BITTER-I apologize.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you.
AYES: Mr. Bryant, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Rigby, Mr. Urrico,
Mr. Abbate
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
53
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 48-2005 is seven in favor, zero against. Is
there any challenge to the tally? If there’s not, then Area Variance No. 48-2005 is
approved, and let the record show that the decision by this Board is based on fact,
balancing ratio, and goes to the realm of reasonable doubt, and as such, this decision is
not considered to be irrational or unreasonable.
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. ABBATE-You’re very welcome. Thank you.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2005 SEQRA TYPE II WILLIAM RESSE OWNER(S):
WILLIAM RESSE, KATHLEEN HAROLD ZONING SFR-20 LOCATION 12
SARGENT STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A POOL ON THE NORTH
SIDE OF PROPERTY AND SEEKS RELIEF TO ALLOW THE POOL TO BE
LOCATED IN A SIDE YARD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 8, 2005 LOT
SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-2-41 SECTION 179-5-020
STEPHANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; W. RESSE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2005, William Resse, Meeting Date: June 15,
2005 “Project Location: 12 Sargent Street Description of Proposed Project: The
applicant proposes placement of a 536 sq. ft. inground pool in the side-yard.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief per §179-5-020 C2, “pools may be erected only in the rear
yard”.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
No prior history.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes placement of a 536 sq. ft. inground pool with encompassing pool
patio area.
The proposed pool will be located on the North-side of the house, 15’ from the property
line. A fence surrounding the pool and patio area is proposed.”
MR. UNDERWOOD-“Warren County Planning Board Project Review and Referral Form
June 8, 2005 Project Name: Resse, William Owner(s): William Resse, Kathleen Harold
ID Number: QBY-05-AV-49 County Project#: Jun05-33 Current Zoning: SFR-30
Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to place a pool on
the north side of property and seeks relief from the minimum setback requirements. Site
Location: 12 Sargent Street Tax Map Number(s): 302.8-2-41 Staff Notes: Area
Variance: The applicant proposes to install a pool in the side yard where the rear yard is
the required location for a pool. The information submitted shows the location of the
proposed pool, the house and the lot configuration. The plot plan demonstrates that the
rear yard is not a feasible location for the pool. 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
Bennet F. Driscoll, Warren County Planning Board 6/10/05.
54
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-Counselor, would you and your clients speak into the microphone and for
the record identify yourselves and your relationship with the appeal.
MS. BITTER-Yes. My name is Stephanie DiLallo Bitter, here from Bartlett, Pontiff,
Stewart and Rhodes, together with William Resse and Kathleen Harold, the property
owners. As the application identifies, the applicants are interested in proposing the
installation of a pool on the north side of their property. Due to the fact that the
placement of this pool is considered in the side yard, a variance is now being requested.
It’s the applicant’s opinion that the benefit of this variance would outweigh any
detriment that would be provided to the community with the granting of this variance,
the benefit obviously being that they would be able to install the pool, and we do not
believe that this would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. The first item being
that although it’s considered to be located in the side yard, all the necessary setbacks
that are allowed in the Code will be maintained, specifically 20 foot in the rear is
required and actually 22 feet in the rear is being proposed. Ten feet on the side is
required and 15 feet on the side is actually being proposed. It’s the applicant’s opinion
that this is the only feasible alternative with regards to the placement of the pool. The
first reason being that the rear yard that exists on their property is actually only 10 feet
in size, I believe, the rear area of the yard. So there’s not really a placement area for a
pool. It’s 20 feet, I’m sorry. The second item being that the placement of the pool in this
area would be the safest for the welfare of their children because of the placement it
would have to the house, so that they can monitor to the house. So due to the safety
level, it would be the best alternative. Although there is a side lot that they actually own
that’s immediately adjacent, they do not feel that this is the best feasible alternative or to
be considered a feasible alternative, due to the fact of its distance from the house, in
addition to the fact that it would also require variances to install a pool in that area. We
do not consider this to be a substantial variance due to the fact that the pool will
maintain the setbacks. In addition to the fact that although rear yard is defined in the
Town of Queensbury Code as being behind the covered porch as it exists, the way in
which the pool section reads, it says behind such principal structure. If you look at the
way in which the principal structure sits on their lot and you draw a horizontal line
across the lot, a majority of this pool is actually located in the rear of their lot. We do not
believe it’s going to have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions of the neighborhood. One being that we’re maintaining the required setbacks
as we’ve identified, the second being that we are installing a fence, obviously because
it’s a pool, but under the Code a four foot fence is all that is required, and the applicant’s
are proposing a six foot fence. The next item being that they are planning on having a
whole landscaping plan, which actually the applicants have brought tonight, if I can
submit this, Chairman, to you directly.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, please.
MS. BITTER-I apologize I don’t have more copies.
MR. ABBATE-All right. I’ll pass this down as rapidly as possible.
MS. BITTER-This landscaping plan was actually drafted by the neighbor that’s
immediately across the street. He’s in that profession and is obviously going to be
benefited from the landscaping that’s being proposed, but the landscaping, as you will
soon see, is being presented on both the front of the fence as well as the side yard, to act
as not only something that would be more aesthetically pleasing, but also as a buffer for
that side adjacent neighbor that the pool is going to be right against. We also are
proposing that the fence is going to be at an angle at the front. This angle not only
makes the front not have so much of an impact, but it also doesn’t totally close off the
side yard, so that the fence will start back further from being closer to the property line.
At this time, if you have any questions, or if there was anything you wanted to add.
55
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. RESSE-Yes, just real quickly. To elaborate on the angled fence, the idea of that was
not to cut off any of the visual access by our neighbor to the front road. We wanted to
give them as much visual access as possible, and that was the primary concern for
angling it. Actually there’s, I counted them today, eight pools within a five to seven
hundred foot area of our house, and at least one of them is, a couple of streets away, is
the same situation, a pool right in the side yard. As a matter of fact, that’s even closer to
the road than what we’re proposing here, and then finally I, again, just to elaborate, the
visual access from the house and the proposed location is the biggest reason we want it
there, for safety reasons, and also to prevent unauthorized use at other times by others.
MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you very much. Do any members of the Board have any
questions?
MR. BRYANT-Mr. Chairman, for the record, when I was making a field inspection, I ran
into Ms. Harold and also the owner of the property at Number 14, ex parte.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you for the information. Questions from members of the
Board? All right, there doesn’t appear to be any questions from members of the Board.
MR. BRYANT-I do have a question.
MR. ABBATE-I’m sorry. Mr. Bryant has a question.
MR. BRYANT-The height of the fence that you’re proposing, is that higher than the pool,
the structure, whatever is going to go in that area?
MR. RESSE-We were proposing a six foot fence, privacy fence along the front and side
areas, and then the back end, the rear and the back side area, it would be a four foot
fence where it runs through the wooded area.
MR. BRYANT-So the pool is in-ground and the deck is ground level, whatever you’re
going to do around the pool?
MR. RESSE-Yes, right.
MR. BRYANT-So that fence is going to hide the entire pool? Diving structure and that
stuff?
MR. RESSE-Yes, no diving structure, but, yes, in the front and side it will hide the entire
area, and, again, chain link will be running in the rear area where it’s wooded.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you. All right. No other questions, then what I’m going to do is
open a public hearing and to ensure a fair and open process, I’m going to invite public
comments on Area Variance No. 49-2005. In the interest of time, if there are any folks in
the audience who would like to come forward and comment on Area Variance No. 49-
2005, please come to the table, identify yourself and your residence. Thank you, sir.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BILL MEILLEUR
MR. MEILLEUR-Bill Meilleur, my wife June. We’ve lived at 14 Sargent since ’97. It’s a
nice neighborhood, quiet, peaceful. We figure all that’s coming to an end with a
swimming pool 35 feet from our kitchen. Mr. Bryant was around this afternoon. We
had a little chat. So he’s very familiar with the locations of everything. I mentioned to
him at the time, if they were going to build on that, use the vacant lot on the other side
56
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
of the house. It would seem to be the logical location. A few months ago Mr. Resse
approached me and he asked me if I had any issues for the pool. I said about the only
issue I’ve got is how quickly I can sell my house. So that’s it.
MR. ABBATE-Well, thank you very much for your input.
MR. MEILLEUR-Have you got any questions?
MR. BRYANT-Yes. I’ve a question for you. Do you feel that the proposed fence is going
to help any?
MR. MEILLEUR-Not for noise. There’s going to be a lot of noise out there. We’re used
to peace and serene.
MR. BRYANT-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you so much for your input. We appreciate that. Do we have any
other input from the members of the public on Area Variance No. 49-2005? Okay.
MICKEY ROWELL
MR. ROWELL-Yes, sir. I’m Mickey Rowell, and I’m one of the neighbors that was
mentioned that I do have a pool. We have been, having experienced unauthorized use
of our pool. So we can appreciate having something, I think, placed closer to our home.
Had we given that some more consideration, we may have moved our location.
Another thing I might want to add I guess is with respect to the noise. If we have, my
wife and I both work full time. We have older children. They have friends. Our
neighbors have friends, and they also have a pool, but it’s a very limited amount of time,
really, that the pool is active, and I think the same case would be with Mr. and Mrs.
Resse. They’re both full-time employed. They’re also much younger, the children, that I
think that they would be entertaining.
MR. BRYANT-When you refer to the closeness of the pool to your house, are you
specifically referring to what Ms. Bitter was talking about in Lot Number Eight?
MR. ROWELL-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-The fact that they have that big lot, they have a place to put the pool, but
it’s too far from the house?
MR. ROWELL-I think it would add a big deterrent from being located, the proximity of
the pool being located so much closer to the home. I think it would be where this
alternative, if it was one, really there’s another structure in between the home and where
this other proposal might be.
MR. BRYANT-It’s the garage I think, isn’t it?
MR. ROWELL-Yes.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you so very much for your input. I appreciate it.
MR. ROWELL-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Do we have any other members of the public who wish to comment on
Area Variance No. 49-2005? Okay. If not, then would, Counsel, you and your clients
57
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
like to come forward? I’m going to ask the members of the Board for their commentary,
and they know the procedure.
MS. BITTER-I don’t mean to interrupt. I was hoping just to respond to the comments
that were made by the neighbors, if I could have that opportunity.
MR. ABBATE-By all means, Counselor, sure.
MS. BITTER-I know that noise is obviously a concern. At this time there’s a trampoline
in that area now, as a number of you members probably have seen during your site visit.
With the swimming pool there, which one of the other neighbors had commented, the
applicants would actually be reducing the period of time that that portion of their
property would be used, because the swimming pool would only be actually used for
three months out of the year. So although, you know, no one can control the noise that’s
coming off of their property, in this case we would actually be reducing the period of
time in which generation of noise would be coming off this property, as to the impact
that it will have on the adjacent neighbors. Also, you know, if, in the future, they fence
in that area, say for example, children could play there all year round, or at least for a
good six months out of the year, which would generate more noise than a pool would
on that side of the property. Also we mentioned about the landscaping plan which is
not required with the installation of a pool, but it’s definitely something that the
applicants are proposing in order to lessen the impact it would have on the neighbors,
and the landscaping would actually go all the way around the fence, not just in the front,
and the last issue, with regards to that open lot on the side, I know that the applicants
haven’t identified this, but a lot of the neighborhood children play in that lot, and this is
a community which has narrow lots, and that’s one of the open spaces that is in that
community, which we all would like to see preserved, so that that openness is
continued.
MR. BRYANT-How do they play in that lot? It’s fenced. There’s a dog there.
MS. HAROLD-Well, actually, the neighborhood kids play kick ball, and the dog comes
in the house.
MR. BRYANT-I just want to touch on the lot, okay, because I understand your concern
about the fact that you have a garage on this side and you’re not going to be able to see
the kids, which would mean that they’re in the pool, and if the pool were on Lot
Number Eight, and they’re in the pool, you’d have to actually be outside with them, but
from a standpoint of your neighbors, the fact that your neighbor’s garage is on that side
of the property, and of Number Six, wouldn’t it be beneficial like to the neighborhood,
as far as the noise an activity?
MS. BITTER-Well, actually that neighbor’s in the City of Glens Falls, and I don’t
necessarily think they’re here to even comment, whether or not their impact would be
more or less.
MR. BRYANT-Well, I’m not talking about geographic boundaries. I’m just saying, I
understand that they’re in Glens Falls. I understand that goes right in the middle of
your lot. I understand that. All I’m saying is from a practical point of view, you know,
the neighbor’s got a garage on that side. He’s not going to be concerned about the noise.
The kids are not going to be jumping up and down in his kitchen window, as opposed to
the other side, where you’re so close to the neighbor’s house, you know.
MR. RESSE-Right now, as was mentioned before, with the trampoline, which is a bit of a
kid magnet, that gets used five, six months of the year, and cool weather, warm weather,
whatever. We put the pool on the other side, as you’re suggesting, not only would the
trampoline remain where it is, in between us and our neighbors, but any other activity
we were doing over on the fenced in lot would also be moved somewhat over there, too.
58
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
So we’re going to have activity in cool weather, hot weather, six months out of the year,
whereas with a pool, during warm weather, three months out of the year, that’s where
you’d have the noise. So I don’t know what would be more or not.
MR. BRYANT-For years I had a trampoline, and it was such a novelty, the kids used it
for about a month, and then nobody ever went on it.
MR. RESSE-That hasn’t been our experience for the first few years here.
MR. ABBATE-Okay.
MR. MEILLEUR-Can I make another comment?
MR. ABBATE-Yes, the public hearing is open. I haven’t closed it. If you would come up
to the microphone, so that we get it on the record, please.
MR. MEILLEUR-We keep comparing this trampoline. There’s three, four kids on a
trampoline. How many in a swimming pool. Do you see what I mean?
MR. ABBATE-Of course.
MR. BRYANT-How often is the trampoline used?
MR. MEILLEUR-Well, that doesn’t bother us at all. I have no idea, but I never see more
than three or four kids on it at a time. You can’t compare that with a swimming pool.
There’s going to be, how many kids in a pool?
MR. URRICO-Even with the shrubbery there and the fence? I mean, how many kids are
going to be there? You answer the questions. How many kids do you think are going to
be there?
MR. MEILLEUR-More than on a trampoline.
MR. URRICO-Are they inviting the neighborhood there? I don’t hear them say that? Do
you have pools in any of the other surrounding properties where you live?
MR. BRYANT-Yes, there’s seven or eight.
MR. MEILLEUR-I guess there’s one or two I guess.
MR. URRICO-And do you hear them? Do they disturb you?
MR. MEILLEUR-No, they’re far away.
MR. URRICO-Yes. Okay.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Is there anything else you wish to add?
MR. RIGBY-I just have a general question, too. If there were a lot, if there were enough
land in the back of this property to put a pool in, and this variance weren’t being
requested, would the noise still bother you?
MR. MEILLEUR-No. It would be far enough away. It wouldn’t bother me. We’re
talking 30 feet now.
MR. RIGBY-So you think that the distance, if it were in the back of the house, would
make a difference?
59
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. MEILLEUR-Definitely, yes.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MEILLEUR-Thirty feet is not very many feet.
MR. RIGBY-Well, it still could be within thirty feet if it were in the back of the house,
too.
MR. BRYANT-No, his garage is in the way.
MR. MEILLEUR-No, it would be further away. Mr. Bryant was there this afternoon.
MR. BRYANT-His garage is in the way. If it were in the back of the house.
MR. RIGBY-I know that. I’ve been there, too. I’ve seen it, but what I’m saying is, the
circumstances could be the same.
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. MEILLEUR-Well, my point was, you can’t compare a trampoline with a few kids on
it to a swimming pool full of kids. That’s my point.
MR. RIGBY-Okay.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, sir. I appreciate that. Okay.
MS. BITTER-If we could just respond to those two comments. The first, it’s obviously
not going to be an Olympic size swimming pool. So the number of children in the
swimming pool is going to be limited, and actually the applicant wanted to comment
with regards to the monitoring that will be accomplished at the pool.
MS. HAROLD-Our trampoline is really well monitored. It has, you know, a netting, and
we only allow, even though there might be a pile of kids there, we watch them and
they’re only allowed to be three at a time, and we would never change our safety. As a
matter of fact, it will get more stringent with a pool, and our neighbors that have pools
have already told me that I should not let kids over unless they have a parent, and that
will certainly limit the number of kids in our pool, because they have to be accompanied
by a parent before they can come over and play in the pool.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you very much.
MS. HAROLD-Thanks.
MR. ABBATE-I’m going to ask if the ZBA members wish to comment, and if I may, may
I start with Mr. Rigby, please.
MR. RIGBY-Just some general thoughts. I’m just going to think out loud here, I guess, as
I do this. There would be no issue, obviously if there were enough property in the back
of the house to build the pool. I think the noise would still be a factor to the neighbor.
This is an unusual lot. I mean, there’s two side yards, the house, there’s two side yards
that are very large, and, you know, unfortunately the house is situated in a place where
it just doesn’t have a back yard. So we’re kind of presented with this problem. The
pool, the way it’s presented, presents, it meets all the necessary setbacks. The only thing
we’re proposed with determining tonight is whether we grant a variance for a side yard.
So, I mean, we’ve got all the setback requirements. The only thing we’re looking at is a
side yard situation. It is, I think it is the safest area for the pool. It’s right on the side of
the house. The deck is there. That’s where the living area is. If I were going t put in a
60
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
pool, that’s where I would want it. If I were a mom or a dad, I’d want to be able to
watch the kids, and that would be the place that is the safest place. I think that, you
know, my problem is we’ve got a neighbor who’s opposed to it, and that’s my biggest
issue. If no neighbor came out to speak tonight on this, I think I would have said, you
know, yes, I’m in favor of this, without a problem, but since we have a neighbor that’s
opposed, I kind of come down on the other side, and I say that, you know, we’ve got to
look at that and say that, you know, we’re presented with a variance, that the Code says
no, pools only in the back yard, and we’ve got a next door neighbor that’s very much
opposed to it, so I’m coming down right now, but I want to listen to the rest of the Board
members first, but I’m coming down on the side that I think that I’ve got to listen to the
neighbor and say that I can’t vote for it, but I want to listen to the rest of the Board first.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Rigby. Mrs. Hunt, please.
MRS. HUNT-Thank you. I, too, am undecided. I first thought the ideal place would be
the vacant lot, but then, thinking it over, a pool is an attractive nuisance, and it could be
a real problem with being used when you weren’t home, and I am concerned, too, about
your next door neighbor finding, taking exception to having a pool that close to his
home. So I really don’t know. At this time, I’m torn.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mr. Urrico, please.
MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t have a problem with the application. I’ll make a decision. To
me, the benefit to the applicant, they’ve demonstrated to me that they would benefit
from this, and there are feasible, other feasible means, but I think if it were my kids, I
would want them where I can see them, and being that this is set back considerably from
the side, even though it’s a side yard, the setback is not within range. They’re not asking
for a variance on the side setback, the definition as to what constitutes a side yard, as
opposed to a back yard. They don’t have a back yard. They have to put it in a side yard.
This is a logical place for it to go. I understand one neighbor’s upset, and I still think 35
feet’s substantial, compared to some of the other applications we’ve seen. I also heard
from another neighbor that said there was no problem with it. So, to me, that’s a 50/50.
The request is substantial, but again, it has to go in the side yard, one or the other, and I
think this is the logical place for it to go. I don’t see any adverse physical or
environmental effects, and the difficulty is created because of the odd shape of the lot.
I’d be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Thank you. Mr. Underwood, please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would have to agree with Mr. Urrico. I think that, you know,
given the fact that you have a garage on the other side between the house and the vacant
lot that’s available, it does make more sense from a safety standpoint to put this pool
where it’s been requested. I think that the nearest neighbor is going to be affected, but
certainly I don’t think it’s going to make any more difference than if you already have a
jumping device out there. My kids spend hours and hours and hours and hours, untold,
on there making all kinds of racket. So I can’t imagine that a pool or a swimming place
is going to make any difference. Kids are kids, and you just have to live with them.
They’re human beings, too. As far as the alternatives, I don’t really think there are any
alternatives in this case because of the small nature of the back yard. This is the only
place it can go. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Thank you. Mr. McNulty, please.
MR. MC NULTY-Well, I guess my thinking is pretty much like the last couple of people
that have spoken. The pool meets the setbacks. If the house were further forward
towards the road, then there wouldn’t be any variance needed. All we’re looking at is
whether the pool can be in the technical side yard or not. Noise is a constant problem in
the Town of Queensbury, and so far the Town Board’s chickened out on doing anything
61
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
with a noise ordinance, but I think it’s a controllable problem if it becomes a problem.
Obviously the applicants are aware that this is a real concern to some of their neighbors.
A little bit of supervision and control on the kids so there’s not a lot of screaming and
loud shouting would solve the problem. That, for me, coupled with the fact that I didn’t
hear any complaints about noise coming from the trampoline, and it strikes me that
there probably aren’t going to be a lot more people in the pool than there are on the
trampoline. Responsible parents aren’t going to want 15 kids in that pool, because they
can’t keep track of them. So I think with a little bit of care, the noise problem can be kept
to a minimum. So all I’m really looking at is how is the pool going to look from the
road, being in a side yard rather than a rear yard, and I think it’s going to be set back far
enough from the road that it won’t be a big problem. So I’ll be in favor.
MR. ABBATE-Thank you, Mr. McNulty. Mr. Bryant, please.
MR. BRYANT-Normally I would agree with Mr. McNulty, but in this case, I can
understand why the Code was written relative to the pool being in the side yard.
Nobody wants a pool in their kitchen window. As far as this setback argument that
some of the Board members are making, you’re talking about setback of an accessory
structure. This is a swimming pool, where kids are going to play and all kinds of stuff is
going to go on. I think that there’s a feasible alternative, and I think that, and that
alternative is to put it in Lot Eight, and get a variance for that, which would be
acceptable to me, and as far as the supervision, I think that that issue has already been
solved, because the owner has decided that no visitors can come in without adults. So
they have supervision. So that solves the supervision issue, and I think that’s a feasible
alternative. So, I’m going to be opposed to the application.
MR. ABBATE-You’re going to be opposed?
MR. BRYANT-Yes.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Mrs. Hunt, may I come back to you, please?
MRS. HUNT-Yes. Well, on reflection, I will approve it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Now it’s time for me. We have a neighbor who is concerned, and
rightfully so. He has a right to be concerned, about a pool being close, outside of his
kitchen window, I think he expressed it that way, and I suspect I would probably be
concerned as well. We had another neighbor, however, who said he doesn’t object, and
so as I think one of the Board members said, it’s a 50/50 type of thing. As it is right now,
it would appear to me that, if the motion goes as I suspect it’s going to go, it’s going to
be approved. So I’m in a very safe position. No matter what I say, it’s not going to
really change a darn thing, but if it were not this close, and the decision were up to me, I
would say I feel a lot of sympathy, if you will, for the neighbor who is really upset that
it’s close to his property, but then again, we take other criteria into consideration. One
neighbor says no, the other neighbor says yes, it’s a 50/50 type thing, I think there is
going to be adequate supervision. I’ve listened to what everybody had to say, and if the
vote were up to me, and it’s not, I would, quite frankly, after giving a lot of attention,
probably vote to support the application. Having said that now, I’m going to close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. ABBATE-And I’m going to ask for a motion, and again, I don’t have to remind the
members what the State Statutes spell out, the five statutory criteria and what have you,
and so I’m going to respectfully request that we have a volunteer for a motion for Area
Variance No. 49-2005.
62
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2005 WILLIAM RESSE,
Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Charles McNulty:
12 Sargent Street. The applicant proposes placement of a 536 square foot in-ground
pool in the side yard. The relief requested is per 179-5-020C(2), in which pools may be
erected only in the rear yard. In making this motion, I believe that the benefit to the
applicant outweighs the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the community. I
believe that the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, but I
believe that the applicant has chosen wisely in selecting this yard for the pool, enables
them to keep a closer eye on their kids and I think that’s important. Whether there’s an
undesirable change in the neighborhood character or to nearby properties, I don’t think
that’s going to be the case. I think they’ve done everything they can to shield the
neighbors from any view, and it may be added noise with shrubbery and a fence which
is somewhat removed, setback from the property line. I also believe the request is
substantial, when weighed against our Code, which does not allow or ask for a variance
in the case of a pool in the side yard. I don’t think there will be any adverse physical or
environmental effects, and the difficulty can be considered self-created, although the
property itself has created the problem. I move that we approve this Area Variance.
Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Abbate
NOES: Mr. Bryant, Mr. Rigby
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
MR. ABBATE-The vote for Area Variance No. 49-2005 is five in favor, two against. If
there’s no challenge to the tally, then Area Variance No. 49-2005 is approved.
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2005 SEQRA TYPE II EDITH BAKER AGENT(S):
FRANK JELLEY OWNER(S): EDITH BAKER ZONING LC-10A LOCATION MUD
POND ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1380 SQ. FT.
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING AND SEEKS RELIEF FROM THE FRONT AND REAR
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS THE PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS
OF THE LC-10A ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.05
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.15-1-10 SECTION 179-4-030
FRANK JELLEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. ABBATE-Now, in order to avoid any perception of impropriety, I did receive a
letter advising me that this was going to be occurring, and so, what I’m going to do, so
as not to embarrass the members of this Board, with their permission, I’m going to
recuse myself, and I’m going to ask if Mr. McNulty would take over, please, and the
reason for that is that I did receive notification that a neighbor is going to be doing
something. Mr. McNulty, please.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2005, Edith Baker, Meeting Date: June 15, 2005
“Project Location: Mud Pond Road Description of Proposed Project: The applicant
proposes a 1380 sq. ft. single-family residence with 994 sq. ft. gravel drive on an
approximate one-acre lot. Lot is zoned LC-10.
Relief Required:
63
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
The applicant requests 42-feet of front setback relief, where 100-feet is
?
required in the
LC-10 zone (house is proposed 58’ from front property line).
42-feet of rear yard setback relief, where 100-feet is required in the LC-10
?
(house is
proposed 58-feet from rear property line).
Relief from the permeability requirements, .4% of relief (allowing 94.6%
?
permeability), where 95% is required in the LC-10 zone.
All variances requested per § 179-4-030.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
No parcel history.
Staff comments:
The applicants should identify any possible site constraints to development, no
topographic information provided on site plan.
This is a preexisting non-conforming lot, with 1-acre in a 10-acre zone. The zoning is SR-
1A across Mud Pond Road, where 1-acre is the minimum lot size.”
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Would you introduce yourself and tell us anything else you’d
like us to know about this application.
MR. JELLEY-Okay. Good evening. My name is Frank Jelley. I’m representing Edith
Baker. The lot that we are proposing is fairly large for this size one family residential
house. It’s a pre-existing, nonconforming lot. At some point in time the zoning
changed. Edith Baker has, and her family has owned the parcel for quite a long time,
and is looking to do something with the land at this point. The site constraints, the only
one that I can see, is the fact that the slope, the land is quite a bit higher than the road,
but with the length of the driveway, it certainly would be able to be excavated and put a
driveway in along that area, as it is quite often done in the Adirondacks, but beyond
that, the site constraints, everything seems to meet all the setbacks, besides the zoning,
for the leaching fields and the house and what have you.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Questions for the applicant?
MR. RIGBY-Can you tell me what’s located behind the parcel?
MR. JELLEY-Yes. Currently behind the parcel there is a sand pit, a sand/gravel pit. I
don’t know exactly. I’ve never been in there, but it seems to me an area where they’re
moving around sand and gravel and stone.
MR. RIGBY-Either side of the parcel? I couldn’t locate the parcel. I was out there. I
couldn’t locate it.
MR. JELLEY-On either side of the parcel is basically just land, on one side, coming
towards the parcel on the left, there are some houses, and then directly across the street
there are houses.
MR. RIGBY-So the parcels immediately adjacent to this parcel don’t currently have
residences?
MR. JELLEY-I believe to the left of it there are homes, but then to the right, directly to
the right, there aren’t. In the area, there are many small lots. In the package there’s a
zoning map that shows.
64
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. RIGBY-So Lot Number Nine does have a residence on it?
MR. JELLEY-I don’t know that for sure.
MR. RIGBY-Okay. Lot Eleven, do you know?
MR. JELLEY-I don’t know that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Everything on the other side of the road’s one acre lots.
MR. RIGBY-Okay.
MR. JELLEY-But all of the neighboring lots are very small, and it would be very difficult
to put anything on there with a septic, private septic.
MR. RIGBY-Thank you.
MR. MC NULTY-Any other questions? If not, I guess we’ll open the public hearing, and
ask if anybody wants to comment on this, and it doesn’t look like there’s anybody else
behind you.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Did questions occur to anyone in that big interval? Well, I
guess it’s time to talk about it and see where we stand on it. Let’s start with Jim
Underwood.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what we need to consider is the fact that this is a pre-
existing, nonconforming lot. Obviously, someone’s held the property for quite some
time, and, you know, if you look at the rest of the road along there, almost all of the
houses are on very small lots, very similar to what’s going to be constructed here, and
despite the fact that it’s LC-10, I don’t know if that’s a reflection of, as was mentioned,
the sand pit, and I think that’s Keith Harris’ sand pit up there, and the Town facilities
further up the road, too. That may be just a reflection of the zoning change that
occurred some time to preserve that. So it wouldn’t be developed or something. I’m not
sure, but in this instance here, I don’t see that there would be any harm in what’s being
proposed here, if they’re allowed to build this house. Certainly everybody has acreage
in Town, and there’s a lot of acreage that’s buildable, and I didn’t really see that there
were any real constraints to this lot. So, I’d be in favor of it.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Mr. Bryant?
MR. BRYANT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Mr. Underwood. Usually when
we run into these situations, they’re building too much house for the lot, and in this
case, it’s a modest house. It’s a three bedroom. It’s got a very small dining room and a
very small living room. It’s basically what you can fit on the lot, and the relief requested
is moderate, but it’s acceptable, and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Mr. Urrico?
MR. URRICO-I agree with my fellow Board members. I would be in favor of it.
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Mrs. Hunt?
MRS. HUNT-I have to agree, too. I think, you know, this was a lot that was created
before the zoning, and it’s a modest home, and I would go along with it.
65
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. Mr. Rigby?
MR. RIGBY-I agree with my fellow Board members, too, but my dilemma is that I could
not locate the lot when I went out there to see it. I don’t know what’s, we don’t know
what’s next to, either side of the lot, so I’m kind of torn in making a decision. I think it
probably is a good thing to vote yes on it, but I don’t think I have enough information.
So I’m going to be opposed to it.
MR. MC NULTY-I’m inclined to agree with the majority. I think with this being a pre-
existing lot, the only real question’s whether it’s a buildable lot or not, and I don’t see
any compelling reason to say that it’s not a buildable lot, and given the one acre lots
across the street, it seems to be in keeping with the neighborhood. So I, too, would be in
favor. Having said that, I think it looks like we’ve got enough votes for in favor. So, I
need a motion. We’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2005 EDITH BAKER, Introduced
by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Allan Bryant:
Mud Pond Road. The applicant’s proposing a 1,380 square foot single-family residence
with 994 square foot of gravel drive on an approximate one-acre lot. The lot is zoned
LC-10. All the relief that’s requested here this evening is a reflection of that LC-10
zoning, and as was mentioned previously this evening, this is obviously a pre-existing,
nonconforming lot. The applicant is requesting 42 feet of front setback relief where 100
feet is required in the LC-10 zone, and the house will be proposed 58 feet from the front
property line. They’re also requesting 42 feet of rear yard side setback relief where 100
feet is required in the LC-10, and the house, again, is proposed 58 feet from the rear
property line, so just about dead center in the lot. Relief is also required from the
permeability requirements, and that’s because of the extraordinary requirements of the
LC-10 zone where 95% is required, and they’re only requesting .4% of relief allowing
94.6% permeability. Again, all those requests are as a result of the LC-10 classification,
and it’s felt that this home, as it will be constructed, will be basically in the nature of all
the other ones in the neighborhood which are located on very small lots. There doesn’t
seem to be any concern that this is a problem of whether it’s a buildable lot. I would
move for its approval.
Duly adopted this 15 day of June, 2005, by the following vote:
th
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. McNulty
NOES: Mr. Rigby
ABSENT: Mr. Abbate, Mr. Stone
MR. MC NULTY-Okay. There you go.
MR. JELLEY-Thank you very much.
MR. MC NULTY-Thank you.
MR. ABBATE-I’d like to throw something out to the Board members. I would like to
suggest, and I’ll yield to whatever the Board members want, that when we have these
meetings, that we have the Zoning Administrator here and possibly with some of the
more complicated cases, the Town Attorney.
MR. URRICO-Well, isn’t Susan in that role?
66
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MR. ABBATE-No, Susan is the Planner. She’s not the Zoning Administrator.
MRS. BARDEN-I review the plans. I’m not the Zoning Administrator, you’re right.
MR. BRYANT-She answered most of my questions.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, she did.
MRS. BARDEN-He is coming to the next meeting, because there are some more
complicated items.
MR. BRYANT-I think, just for the record, can I say this, you should also suggest, the Girl
Scouts is the next meeting, right?
MR. ABBATE-No. The Girl Scouts have pulled the application.
MR. BRYANT-Okay. Well, when we have the Girl Scouts or something of that thing, we
need to have the Town Attorney here.
MR. URRICO-But I do agree about the Town Attorney. I really feel that too often we
don’t have a legal counsel here when we need it, and that just saves everybody.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Maybe I would make the suggestion that if members feel that
there’s going to be something controversial, like an item, you know, like on the agenda,
that if you have a question that could be asked prior to that, you know, so at least when
we come in here that question could be reflected upon before the thing even begins, you
know, or in a memorandum to us from the Town Attorney.
MR. BRYANT-Well, it’s easy for you to say, but, you know, most of us have to work for
a living.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know.
MR. BRYANT-And we don’t look at these packages until the weekend before the
meeting. So, it doesn’t give them a lot of time to answer.
MR. URRICO-I think in a situation where you have two Towns involved, I think it’s an
easy call, I mean, it’s an easy call to see there’s going to be an issue, as far as
Luzerne/Queensbury. There was almost an issue with another application with
Queensbury and Washington County were close. It didn’t get to that point, but, I just
think we really deserve to have counsel here.
MR. ABBATE-Anybody else? Do you agree as well?
MR. RIGBY-There’s absolutely a need for counsel here, depending upon what the
circumstances are. Maybe not for all meetings, but a question for Sue, Sue, is the intent
for you to replace Bruce at these meetings going forward? Is that the idea?
MR. ABBATE-Right.
MR. RIGBY-Okay.
MR. URRICO-She did a terrific job tonight.
MR. ABBATE-Yes, she did an outstanding job. My compliments for the record.
MR. RIGBY-I think she did, too.
67
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think that if there’s something ambiguous in the Code, though,
in that’s where it gets tricky, that it’s a Zoning Administrator determination. So if you, if
when you’re going through this, and I know that you all are busy, call, anytime you
have any issues.
MR. ABBATE-No problem. You folks have been great, the cooperation. I don’t have
any problem at all.
MRS. BARDEN-And maybe what we do is just have a cell phone for Craig or something.
MR. ABBATE-And what I will do then, tomorrow, I’ll go down to Town hall and I’ll talk
to the Town Attorney and suggest to the Town Attorney that we would feel much more
comfortable if he or she were present at our meetings. Does anybody object to that?
MR. BRYANT-I don’t think it’s necessary.
MR. RIGBY-I don’t think all meetings either.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Not every meetings.
MR. URRICO-You know when something’s going to be.
MR. ABBATE-Well, like tonight as an example, you know, the question of entering into
another domain, I was really serious. I’m not even sure where we’re at on that, even
right now, legally. After all, that’s their job, the attorneys, not mine, but I had a concern
there. What we could do, how about this, if any of you folks, going through the cases,
have any concern and feel that you would feel more comfortable if the Town Attorney
was there, I’ll call and say we’d like to have them here. How’s that?
MRS. BARDEN-Well, I think, administratively, what they’re trying to do is to arrange
the agenda so, you know, we have a bunch of stuff on the next meeting that we know
we’re going to need the Town Attorney, so we tried to put the easy stuff here first, so
that, you know, that’s one night.
MR. ABBATE-That’s logical. I don’t have a problem with that.
MRS. BARDEN-And the same with Craig.
MR. ABBATE-Because if the Girl Scouts are here, I would definitely insist that the Town
Attorney be here, quite frankly.
MR. BRYANT-Absolutely.
MR. ABBATE-Guaranteed. I already made my mind up on that one.
MR. URRICO-Do they look at the agenda and see other attorneys representing the
applicants and think that maybe we need help there at those opportunities or?
MRS. BARDEN-I think as far as Newbury, I think that the Town Attorney had been here
on the two times that they were at the Planning Board meetings. So I think that that
was, as far as legal counsel was concerned, you know, you all were kind of good to go
with your variance.
MR. ABBATE-Well, if anybody has any concerns about any case, let me know and I’ll go
right down and say we’d like to have you here. No problem.
MRS. HUNT-What I find helpful, too, is when we’re able to look at the.
68
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 6/15/05)
MRS. BARDEN-Right. We’re working on it. Next time you’ll have it.
MR. ABBATE-Okay. Do we have any other administrative chores this evening?
MRS. BARDEN-But just ensure the Department is cognizant of that arrangement, of the
Town Attorney and the Zoning Administrator.
MR. ABBATE-All right. Well, then the meeting is then adjourned. Thank you, ladies
and gentlemen.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Charles Abbate, Chairman
69