02-17-2021
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 17, 2021
INDEX
Area Variance No. 39-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 1.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84
Area Variance No. 9-2021 Michael Loughrey 2.
Tax Map No. 239.16-1-7
Area Variance No. 6-2021 Meghan & Daniel Frazier 6.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-11
Area Variance No. 5-2021 ADK Developers & Builders 15.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-52
Area Variance No. 8-2021 Trevor Flynn, Balzar & Tuck Architecture 20.
Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48
Area Variance No. 11-2021 Jennifer Ball 28.
Tax Map No. 266.1-1-9.1
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 17, 2021
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
CATHERINE HAMLIN
MICHELLE HAYWARD
JOHN HENKEL
MEMBERS ABSENT
RONALD KUHL
ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. This is Mike McCabe, and I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, February 17, 2021. If you’ve not been to one of our meetings, our
format is rather simple. We call each application up, read the application into the record, allow the
applicant to present his project. We will question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised,
we will open the public hearing and seek input from the public, either live, call in or written. After we’ve
received the public comment, we’ll close the public hearing and we’ll poll the Board to see how each
member feels about the project and we proceed accordingly. Before we get started tonight, we have some
th
administrative items. So, John, I’m going to ask for a motion on the meeting minutes of January 20.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 20, 2021
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
JANUARY 20, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood
th
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So now I’m going to ask for a motion on the meeting minutes of January 27.
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF JANUARY 27, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Catherine Hamlin:
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
TO TABLE AV 39-2020 – JEFFREY GODNICK TO MARCH 2021 MEETING
MR. MC CABE-So, John, could I have a motion to table AV 39-2020.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
thth
MRS. MOORE-Before you table that, I’m going to ask you to table it to March 24 instead of the 17,
please.
th
MR. MC CABE-It just said March. So okay, March 24.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, please.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey
Godnick. Applicant proposes to maintain a 188 sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The shed is
located 3.9 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The existing home is 4,259 sq.
ft. footprint with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft. which includes the 188 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested for
setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Site plan new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of
the shoreline.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK, Introduced by John
Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward;
th
Until March 24, 2021.
Duly adopted this 17th Day of February 2021 by the following vote:
st
MR. HENKEL-And any information needs to be submitted by the 1 of March?
MR. MC CABE-Middle of February.
MRS. MOORE-So they’ve submitted information.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-So now we can get started. Our first application is AV 9-2021, Michael Loughrey.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2021 SEQRA TYPE MICHAEL L. LOUGHREY AGENT(S) CULLEN
FULLER – RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) MICHAEL L. LOUGHREY ZONING
WR LOCATION 11 SIGN POST RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 169 SQ. FT. WITH 81 SQ. FT.
DECK/PORCH AREA (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,372 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED
IS 1,541 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION
OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND
EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 10-2021 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.85
ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010
CULLEN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2021, Michael L. Loughrey, Meeting Date: February 17, 2021
“Project Location: 11 Sign Post Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 169 sq. ft. of
new living space on the upper level of an existing home. The existing home is 706 sq. ft. with 81 sq. ft.
deck/porch area (footprint) with a floor area of 1,372 sq. ft. and proposed is 1,541 sq. ft. floor area. Site plan
for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and
expansion of nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of nonconforming structure.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure
The addition is to be 18 feet 7 inches from the North property line where 20 ft. setback required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the construction of 169
sq. ft. on the upper level of the existing home.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location of the existing home as a portion of the home on the north side 18.77 ft. per the survey.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant
to the code. Relief for the north side setback is 1.23 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The existing home is 706 sq. ft. with an 81 sq. ft. porch/deck area with an existing floor area of 1,372 sq. ft.
The new floor area is to be 1,541 sq. ft. The plans show an upper level addition of 169 sq. ft. There are no
other changes to the site.”
MR. MC CABE-Is Mr. Fuller here?
MR. FULLER-I am.
MR. MC CABE-So first I want you to understand that we’re short a person tonight. You still need four
votes in the affirmative for your project to be a go, but you do have the option of tabling your application
until such time as we have a full Board.
MR. FULLER-I think as of right now I’d like to just proceed.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. FULLER-Okay. So basically 11 Sign Post Road, like was mentioned before, we’re looking to have relief
from the side setback for a non-conforming structure. On the side setback we are not going over any more
than what’s already there. We will be adding an additional two feet to the rear. That actually tails away
from the side setback. We are adding 169 square feet of living space above the existing kitchen. So it will
be new space. Yes, exactly there. The shed dormer. This will actually be, as far as the landscape goes,
this addition will be, for the most part, if you look at the site plan, it’s almost actually buried into the site.
The slope of the grade goes up towards Route 9L. So there’s actually very little visibility. There’s no
visibility from Route 9. There’s very little visibility from Sign Post Road as well. This is projected to be a
dense study area. The square footage is very minimal. They just want a little extra area upstairs. What
they have currently right now is very limiting. Other than the existing bedroom where the gable is, where
the sliding doors are, there’s very, very little headroom in there. It’s not really a very useful space, and so
that’s basically it. Very minimal amount of work done. Trying to stay as much in the footprint. We will
not be disturbing any land. So there’s very little disturbance in that aspect.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? So seeing none, at this particular time I’m going
to open the public hearing and I’m going to see if we have anyone who would like to provide us with
information on this particular project. Laura, is there anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There is. I have a letter from the Lake George Waterkeeper. “The above referenced
variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the
Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper is not opposed to the requested variance but finds the
application as an opportunity to bring the property into compliance with Town Code environmental
protection measures, specifically stormwater management. The Waterkeeper's algae monitoring program
has observed excessive algae growth along the section of Dunhams Bay, which can be partially attributed
to stormwater runoff. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the
Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-150 Imposition of Conditions, during your deliberations regarding
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
the above referenced variance application. The proposed variance will have an adverse effect and impact
on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The application states that there will
be no environmental impact because there is not increase in surface area, which is incorrect. The project
will increase building square footage with the cantilever overhang sections that will increase stormwater
runoff. The Zoning Board of Appeals should require a condition to install stormwater management to the
greatest extent practicable to reduce runoff and improve water quality and reduce the potential for
Harmful Algal Blooms. This can be achieved through Low Impact Development measures such as rain
gardens, grading or stormwater planters. It is the recommendation of the Waterkeeper that the Zoning
Board of Appeals condition the approval with the requirement of installing stormwater management to
the greatest extent practicable. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town
of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed.
Thank you for your consideration.”
MR. MC CABE-So there’s nobody else involved here?
MR. BROWN-So I’m only seeing one hand up that wishes to speak, but I think they’re here for the next
application. I’ve asked if they want to speak on this application. I haven’t heard back from them. So I
can either bring them in and find out?
MR. MC CABE-Well, we might as well find out.
MR. BROWN-Robin, are you here to speak on this application?
ROBIN INWALD
MS. INWALD-I’m sorry, no. For the next one.
MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Fuller, do you have anything to add to the Waterkeeper’s suggestions?
MR. FULLER-Yes, as far as the Waterkeeper’s comments, yes, we can add an eaves trench. The way that
we designed this addition is actually going to distribute the water further up the site than it currently is,
and currently the water actually runs off to the side, or running off to the back and it’s actually going over
an already in place retaining wall. There is quite a bit of actual tiered area on here because of the slope.
When I was speak to Michael, when I was visiting the site originally, even though there’s no
documentation about this, which I found kind of unusual that he actually mentioned it, but he said when
he did his dock that he had to abide by quite a bit of the landscaping. I don’t think he ever mentioned
anything about water beds, but he did mention about having to actually add shrubs, some types of planters
and that sort of thing, which I didn’t really, at the time I didn’t really take into consideration. I thought
that might have been something that might have been added to that dock permit, but as Laura told me,
there was no record of that, but as far as he’s concerned, he’s willing to make any exception to bring his
property up to compliance.
MR. MC CABE-So would this be more appropriate for the Planning Board, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Correct.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-So we don’t need to put it in our conditions, then.
MRS. MOORE-You don’t. Because the applicant has to go back to the Planning Board, the Planning Board
typically deals with this. I understand Chris’ point that there’s an opportunity for the Zoning Board to
put a condition on it, but because it has to go through two review processes, the Planning Board could do
that as well.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think it’s a minor amount of relief. It’s about 17 inches total of relief from the
20 foot setback. I don’t think there’s any real problem with this one.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with Jim. I think it’s a minimal request. I think it’s going to improve the
neighborhood. I saw the elevations of the plans for the exterior. Very minimal impact on the environment.
So I’m in favor.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I agree. I agree with what Michelle just said.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, like you said earlier, Jim, it was hard to get down there to look at it, but with what
they’re asking it’s very minimal. It’s a very small request. It definitely fits into the neighborhood. It’s not
going to be a detriment to the neighborhood and like Jim said, they’re only looking for a foot and five inches
of relief, one variance, no big deal. So I’d definitely be on board.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-It’s minimal relief. I think it satisfies all the other conditions. I’d be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, consider this to be a very minimal request and see no problem with it. So I’m
in favor of it. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Michelle for a motion.
MRS. MOORE-Before Michelle makes a motion, I apologize. I know Roy typically reads this into the
record, and I had forgotten it, is in reference to the Planning Board recommendation back to the Zoning
Board of Appeals. In this case for this project they recommended to the ZBA no significant adverse impacts
with the current project proposal, and their recommendation was a seven zero.
MR. MC CABE-So go ahead, Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael L.
Loughrey. Applicant proposes 169 sq. ft. of new living space on the upper level of an existing home. The
existing home is 706 sq. ft. with 81 sq. ft. deck/porch area (footprint) with a floor area of 1,372 sq. ft. and
proposed is 1,541 sq. ft. floor area. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming
structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirement, 179-13-010 expansion of a non-conforming structure
The addition is to be 18 feet 7 inches from the North property line where 20 ft. setback required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 2021.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. This will actually be an improvement.
2. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the lot configuration there and they’re going to be building
on the same footprint, and have already been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have
been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. They’re only requesting relief of one foot five inches.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. Per the Waterkeeper’s suggestion and this is going to go to the Planning Board for their
review.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
9-2021 MICHAEL LOUGHREY, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
th
Duly adopted this 17 Day of February 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-So congratulations. You have a project here.
MR. FULLER-All right. Thank you so much.
MR. MC CABE-So our next applicant is AV 6-2021, Meghan & Daniel Frazier.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; LITTLE & O’CONNOR PC; WINTERGREEN
LANDSCAPE STUDIO OWNER(S) MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER ZONING WR
LOCATION 12 SHORE ACRE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN
APPROVED PLAN TO INSTALL A POOL AND PATIO AREA (1,405 SQ. FT.) INSTEAD OF THE
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WATER FEATURE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE HOUSE
AND GARAGE (4,915 SQ. FT.) PORTE COCHERE (360 SQ. FT.), BUNK HOUSE (500 SQ. FT.),
PATIO, SPORT COURT, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE WORK (8,860 SQ. FT.). SITE PLAN
FOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PLAN. CROSS REF SP 8-2021; AV 60-2019; SP 81-
2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD
LOT SIZE 2.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-11 SECTION 179-5-020 (POOL); 179-4-070
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2021, Meghan & Daniel Frazier, Meeting Date: February 17, 2021
“Project Location: 12 Shore Acres Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a
modification to an approved plan to install a pool and patio area (1,405 sq. ft.) instead of the previously
approved water feature. There are no changes to the house and garage (4,915 sq. ft.), porte cochere (360 sq.
ft.), bunk house (500 sq. ft.), patio, sport court, and other associated site work (8,860 sq. ft.). Site plan for
modification of an approved plan. Relief requested for pool location.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for pool location.
Section 179-5-020 pool, 179-4-070 lots bounded by two roads or road and shoreline
The pool is to be placed on the shoreline side of the home that is considered a front yard location.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited as each
yard is considered a front and would require a variance for either location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. Pools are to be located in the rear yard and as noted the project site would not
have a rear yard.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to install a 20 ft. x 50 ft. pool and include a spa patio area adjacent to the pool area.
The project site is currently under construction for a new home and association site work. The plans show
the location of the new home and other features of the project (i.e. the bunk house received a variance in
2019). There are no other changes to the project.”
MR. MC CABE-So is Mr. O’Connor here or Mr. Hutchins? Is anybody here to represent this project?
MR. BROWN-Lucas Dobie’s here from Hutchins. I see Mike O’Connor’s in. Mike, if you can hear this, I
think on your phone if you do *6 you’ll be able to speak because that will unmute you, but Lucas is here,
and I think he’s ready to roll.
MR. DOBIE-Okay. I’ll go with it. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. So, good
evening, Board, and thank you for having us, representing Dan and Meghan Frazier at Shore Acres on
Cleverdale. As you may recall we received our approvals from the Boards last winter, middle to late last
winter, and then due to the shutdown we weren’t able to get out of the ground until June of this year.
Since then the project’s going along very well. The bunkhouse is weather tight, being finished out and the
main house is being framed right now. So it’s really taking shape, going along really well, very proud of
the project. Why we’re here is to, how we came to this point is as the site took shape and we saw where
the walkout basement would be, my clients realized it’s an excellent opportunity for a pool at that walkout
level, Infinity Edge pool. Because they have six children. They’ll get a nice usage out of it during the
season when the lake is too cold. So we propose a 20 by 50 foot Infinity Edge pool. What that means it’s
a disappearing edge pool as it’s also known as where on the lakeside the water spills over a spillway and is
collected and re-circulated. So it’s a beautiful, beautiful feature and as Staff described by the Zoning Code
this parcel does not have a rear yard in which to situate a pool. The lakeside is considered front as well as
Cleverdale Road is a front. So any swimming pool on this parcel would require a variance. So that’s why
we’re here tonight, and as Staff noted, the previously approved water features, which was a series of spas
and a creek, has been eliminated from the project. The roadside of the project has not changed. Neither
have the northerly or southerly parts and with this pool it allowed us to re-shape the lakeside yard further
to enlarge our stormwater areas to make them all the more gentle, which will promote more natural
infiltration, and the patio around the pool is permeable pavers. So they would see, the runoff from the
lakeside of that house and the patio will be infiltrated. With that we’d also like to note for the record that
as part of the previous project there was a boundary line agreement with the northerly neighbor for a
conveyance and to construct an access driveway over the northeast part of the parcel, and that has not
changed, that proposal, that agreement. The pool is situated 65 feet from the northerly property line where
the setback requirement is 25 feet, and it’s 110 feet off of the shoreline and 110 feet from the southerly
property line. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions. I believe Mr. O’Connor is on the call with
us, the project attorney, and I believe the Fraziers are on the Zoom call as well. Thank you for having us,
Board.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I do, Mike.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. HENKEL-This is probably going to be a stupid question, but on the Infinity pool, obviously it’s using
a wall that’s not in the ground. Right? Is there going to be glass towards the lake or is it actually a concrete
wall? Or how is that wall, like I said, an Infinity pool looks like you’re in the lake. Right?
MR. DOBIE-That is a concrete wall. It’s basically a dam to hold back the water which has a tremendous
load on it.
MR. HENKEL-How deep is that pool there on that side?
MR. DOBIE-The exposed Infinity edge is three foot six inches is my understanding above the trough. And
then it’ll have a deep end on the southerly end of the pool to eight feet and then the shallow end is on the
north is my understanding, Mr. Henkel.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. HENKEL-Okay. I was just wondering, because you talk about a 20 by 50 pool which is a lot of water.
If that was a big exposed wall and if it cracked or broke, you know, that could be a lot of water that could
be going towards the lake especially chlorine water. That was my concern because I’ve seen Infinity pools
where it’s all glass or, you know, it’s a lot of exposed.
MR. DOBIE-No, that’ll be a super reinforced concrete wall to hold that water, and the exposed part is three
foot six above the trough.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. That’s not very much then. Yes. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions?
MRS. HAMLIN-Well, kind of along that line, maybe it’s a silly question, but if we had a major, major storm
event, would there be a spillover?
MR. DOBIE-The trough, Mrs. Hamlin, is the full width of the pool. So it’s 50 feet long. It’ll have a
tremendous amount of storage to it. So to your point, that heavy rainfall event, say a five inch rainfall, it’ll
be designed to retain that, and there’s also, below it is our stormwater management treatment area, the bio
retention area if you will.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. Well thank you.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So hearing none, at this particular time I’m going to open the public
hearing and see if there’s anybody who would like to provide us with information on this particular project.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-So I’ve added Robin Inwald. She’s the first on the list. I’m just going to go down
alphabetically how the hands are raised, and she’s first and she’s in.
MR. MC CABE-Robin.
ROBIN INWALD
MS. INWALD-Yes, hi. I’m Robin Inwald. Our home at 38 Gunn Lane has been tucked away along the
border of 12 Shore Acres, 100 feet from the lake, since 1960. This is my home. This is where I eat. This is
where I sleep. This is where I spend time with my family. Just feet away I’ve been confronted with the
biggest land alteration and new construction build this area has seen in decades. I’ve tried to ignore the
constant chatter of construction workers walking up and down the side of my home. I’ve tried to ignore
the constant blasting, building and machinery buzzing. I’ve tried to ignore the destruction of the natural
landscape and the erosion of our peaceful surroundings. I’m very saddened by the planned layout of the
tall arborvitae hedge that will bring us the complete opposite of the natural Adirondack lakeside
landscaping we’ve enjoyed on this property since 1980. I’m even more devastated by this proposal to install
a 20 by 50 foot Infinity Edge pool, one that is definitely not allowed by the Town Code and one that will
set a major precedent for all of Lake George and negatively impact our collective quality of life. This new
structure and everything it will entail and the precedent it will create will exist less than 65 feet from my
bedroom window. That’s the measurement we just heard. I thought it was a little bit more. The
conversation going on among construction workers I’ve endured for months will turn into conversations
and splashing from congregation around this pool. There’s a reason why pools have not been built close
to the lake. We live here. Our homes are right next to one another. It’s dense habitation. Any pool built
within close proximity to the homes on the lake would be a detriment to every dwelling on the lake, to
every family that has enjoyed generations of nature, the peace and quiet at the lake. The background is
the view from my bedroom. You can just see how close the proposed pool will be to me. Ultimately the
resulting noise at all hours of the day and night and increased light at night will cause significant harm to
my property and enjoyment of it. I’m amazed that this is even being seriously considered when the Town
denied by request for handicap ramps several years ago. Moreover, the proposed pool will be the first
lakeside pool in Harris Bay, Sandy Bay, Kattskill Bay or Warner Bay. Over 20 lakeside neighbors have
signed a letter indicating opposition to the proposed variance. This is the response with less than a week’s
notice of this variance request during the Pandemic. Many families in this area are concerned that this
will significantly and permanently alter the character of our shared lakefront communities and it will
create a precedent that will forever change the Adirondack Park. I can’t emphasize this enough. The
community is overwhelmingly against this. The applicants have provided no assessment of the
environmental impacts posed by this pool, and before such a pool is approved a new precedent is
established, the aggregate impact of lakeside pools needs to be properly studied. Furthermore the proposal
does not take into account the increased runoff caused by the proposed pool and patio that will flow into
a drainage stream that naturally crosses downhill into my family’s property. Above all for me it’s about the
proximity to my home. I am begging the Board to reject this variance for my family and me, for our
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
neighbors and for the wider Adirondack Park community. Please carefully review all the letters and
additional comments signed by nearby owners and residents opposed to this variance. Thank you for
taking my concerns and those of my family and Lake George neighbors into account.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So, next person.
DANIELLE SARNO
MRS. SARNO-Hi. Good evening. I’m Danielle Sarno, owner of 23 Gunn Lane. My attorney Claudia
Braymer of Braymer Law has submitted a letter to the Zoning Board on behalf of the Inwald family. Since
she had another meeting to attend, she may not be able to join us tonight. Mrs. Moore, is attorney Braymer
on the call? She is? So she’ll be sharing the main points of her letter, but until then I’d like to share a few
points. Along with the 24 delivered and/or e-mailed signatures from concerned neighbors, mostly owners
in the area, the letter submitted to the Zoning Board tonight includes all owners representing the five
closest properties to the immediate north of 12 Shore Acres. These five closest north side addresses are
183 Cleverdale Road, 23 Gunn Lane, 32 Gunn Lane, 34 Gunn Lane, and 38 Gunn Lane. The immediate
neighbors to the north of 12 Shore Acres who are most likely to be impacted by the granting of this variance
are united in the request that the Zoning Board deny a variance for building a swimming pool at the
lakeside front yard of 12 Shore Acres. I’d like to read the letter that was signed by our 24 neighbors. “To
Whom It May Concern: As a current and/or full or part-time resident or annual visitor/renter on shoreline
property located on Harris Bay, Sandy Bay, Kattskill Bay, or Warner Bay, I object to any change in the
current Town of Queensbury Code §179-5-020, or any Zoning Board/Planning Board-approved variances,
or site plans, that would allow swimming pools to be built on the lakeside of homes facing Lake George
frontage. I understand that, currently, there are no swimming pools located on the lakeside of any
lakefront homes on Harris Bay, Sandy Bay, Kattskill Bay, or Warner Bay, and object to any precedent being
set that would allow, approve, and/or potentially encourage such additional development in this area of
the Adirondack Park. Next my husband has a few words as well, Asaf Sarno. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you.
ASAF SARNO
MR. SARNO-Peaceful, calm, nature, that’s Lake George. Imagine your favorite pastime no or in the lake.
Maybe you’re fishing, sailing, or just taking in the sunrise or sunset or just enjoying nature with your family.
You’re enjoying the peaceful calm of the lake. You’re enjoying the serenity and beauty of our majestic lake.
Now imagine what will happen when pools are built on the shores of Lake George. I used pools in the
plural sense, because if you allow this variance, the flood gates will open in Harris Bay, Sandy Bay, Warner
Bay, Kattskill Bay, and all of Lake George will be littered with swimming pools on its natural shores. If
you are a homeowner of lakefront property, would you want your neighbor to have a large noisy lakefront
pool infiltrating your home and your property? Absolutely not. Members of the Board, this is Lake
George. If you allow this variance, you will establish dangerous precedent that will allow anyone with
lakefront property to build a pool on Lake George’s beautiful shores. If you allow this variance, the
aesthetic beauty of our lake will be altered forever. The peaceful, calm and natural sounds at the lakefront
will be muted and altered forever. My neighbors and I strongly oppose this variance application. Lake
George is Queen of the American Lakes. Lake George is God’s country. Lake George is beautiful and I
urge you to please keep it that way. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you so much.
MR. BROWN-Claudia?
CLAUDIA BRAYMER
MS. BRAYMER-Thanks, Craig. Thank you so much, Board members. My name is Claudia Braymer. I’m
the attorney representing the Inwald family, and I wasn’t sure I was going to be able to make it tonight
because I had a prior engagement conflicting with this meeting, but I did send in a letter to the Board, and
asked Laura to send it out to all of you. I hope you’ve had a chance to receive it, maybe not read through
it all. So I’m going to try not to read the whole thing, especially so that Laura doesn’t have to do that or
Craig, but I do want to cover some of the main points. So if you’ll just bear with me, I’ll go as quickly as I
can. As you heard tonight the applicants do already have a project that was approved last year along with
a variance that this Board granted, and the project includes a 14,000 square foot, seven bedroom residence
and now the applicants want to construct a 1,000 square foot swimming pool in addition to a “spa” that is
on the lakefront side of the property, and that spa is still shown on the plans. You can see it right there
on your screen, that little circle below the pool. So I think it’s insincere for them to say they’ve eliminated
all of those prior elements that were on the last plan, and as we know we’re here for a zoning variance
because the Zoning Code does not permit swimming pools to be located in the front yard of properties,
and according to your Zoning Code lakeside yards are considered the front yard. I do need to point out
that the Zoning Code also says both areas or sides of the lot adjacent to each road or shoreline shall be
considered the front yard, and the remaining areas shall be considered the rear yards. So in these cases
there are only front yards and rear yards for zoning purposes. So the assertion that this property does not
have a rear yard is legally incorrect. The parcel does have rear yard space and the swimming pool would
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
have to be placed in one of those remaining rear yard areas for it to be permissible without a variance. I
also want to pose to you my position that the Zoning Code’s prohibition of swimming pools in the front
yard is a restriction related to the use of the property. The restriction against swimming pools in the front
yard is not simply a dimensional requirement related to the distance of the pool from the property lines. A
variance from a dimensional requirement, as I’m sure you know, would be considered under the area
variance criteria. However, since this is a restriction against the use of the front yard portion of the
property for a particular use, namely a swimming pool, a variance from that prohibition against swimming
pools in the front yard must be evaluated pursuant to the criteria for a use variance. And we’re asking that
you apply that use variance criteria to evaluate this request. If you do that, I am sure that you will find
that this request needs to be denied. The applicants cannot demonstrate that the applicable zoning
regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. Even if the applicants could demonstrate
financial or other hardship relating to the use of the property, the front yard for a swimming pool, the
alleged hardship would still have been self-created, thus precluding the grant of a use variance pursuant to
your Code as well as case law, and I won’t get into that with you now. However, I know that that’s
probably maybe not a direction that this Board wants to go, finding that a use variance would need to be
considered, in this case, but even if you consider this under the area variance criteria, the request should
be denied because there will be adverse impacts to the neighboring property from the use of the pool, as
you’ve already heard from the Inwalds. The benefit sought by the applicants are already available. I want
to remind you this is lakefront property on Lake George, so there’s plenty of natural water for swimming.
The requested variance is substantial in that it requests a complete avoidance of the Zoning Code's
prohibition of swimming pools in the lakefront yard of properties. The granting of this variance would
have adverse impacts by changing the character of the neighborhood, and the requested variance was
entirely self-created by the applicants' change in their desire to have a swimming pool in front of their
lakefront property, and I do finally want to make the point that this would be a precedent setting variance
for the Board to grant to a lakefront property on Lake George. We know, and I’ve looked at satellite maps,
and we know of no other existing swimming pools on lakefront yards in Queensbury in the surrounding
bays of Lake George that were already mentioned. This is not a unique situation that has arisen due to
special circumstances associated with the layout of the applicants’ property or the discovery of some
geologic problem with the site that might require the need for a variance. No variance here is reasonably
needed to alleviate a tricky or unforeseen implementation of the Zoning Code. There are, or certainly there
will be if this is granted, other property owners who would also be interested in constructing swimming
pools on their lakefront yards. If you grant this variance, we expect a tidal wave of similar requests from
other property owners who would also desire to avoid the implications of the Zoning Code so that they,
too, can have lakefront swimming pools. In conclusion we ask that you deny this variance so that the
prohibition against swimming pools in front yards along Lake George remains in effect in the Town of
Queensbury. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Inwald.
MICHAEL INWALD
MR. INWALD-Hi, I’d like to share my thoughts. My name is Michael Inwald. This is my wife, Tanya.
We’re at 183 Cleverdale Road which directly abuts 12 Shore Acres for about 200, 250 plus feet along the
north boundary. I’ve been a member of the Lake George community my entire life, and I’m speaking today
not only in support of my own family who have been and continue to be negatively impacted by the
Fraziers’ development, but also in support of two of many things that I’ve come to love about Lake George
for almost 40 years. Its nature and its community. First we’re all blessed to be surrounded by such
amazing landscape filled with large mature trees and dense woodlands, the lakes, the streams, the wildlife,
the quiet most of the time when the lake isn’t buzzing with tourists. Every moment that I spend at our
property or at Double H camp where I volunteer, I feel a sense of gratitude that I’m so lucky that my mother
was born in this area and my grandparents thought to bring their family to the Lake George region. I also
love the community that I believe makes Lake George so unique. I’ve enjoyed decades of nothing but
positive and respectful interactions with families all along Cleverdale peninsula, and many of my best
friendships were molded here. As a property, resident, member of the community for my entire life I never
encountered any disagreements or issues with neighbors. I never fought with anyone here. I’ve never
questioned variances. I never disagreed with other people for making changes to their own property that
had no bearing any anyone else or the environment, but until now I never had to defend that privilege of
nature, of quiet, of privacy and community. This past summer my family had to watch quite painfully as
the beautiful mature trees and shrubbery that lined our two properties and that we enjoyed for decades as
a natural division between us, were brought to the ground by the Fraziers. They might have had a right
to remove that natural fencing, even if we can’t understand why they needed to remove it with two and a
half acres to work with, but in taking that unilateral action without discussing it with us first and
respecting their community, they’ve now removed a key sound barrier and opened up 12 Shore Acres to
greater influence on all of us and we can now see and hear everything next door. What was once a
complete nature scape and a sound suppressing feature for anyone who walks on Cleverdale Road or who
spends time on the other side of the lake, is now a large opening into a 30,000 square foot, 9 bedroom
complex and a resulting broadcast of sights and sounds that will never be properly insulated like it was by
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
new arborvitaes and landscaping plan. Now, after eroding the privacy between our properties in sight
and sound the Fraziers are asking to build an outdoor sound generating congregation feature that isn’t
allowed by Code. I want the Fraziers to know this and everyone to know this, that I honestly take zero
pleasure in speaking against my neighbors’ desire to enjoy certain luxuries, especially since our families
will be neighbors for many years to come, but this luxury comes at our cost, in addition to the costs that
we’ve already incurred. An outdoor pool feature will result in an invasion of our property with sounds of
congregation, whether small gatherings or large, sounds of splashing, sounds of maintenance. This
proposed change in their plan is highly undesirable and it will have a substantial impact on us. Unless
and until, from our perspective, there’s full re-growth of the original thick Adirondack woodland boundary
that would create a proper sound barrier between our properties, we strongly oppose any new sound
creating feature, including a pool, that is not explicitly allowed by current Code. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else?
STEPHANIE SCHNEIDER
MS. SCHNEIDER-Good evening. I’m Stephanie Schneider and I’m the owner of 38 Gunn Lane where my
mother, Robin, resides. This is the house directly adjacent to the Fraziers’ property and I’ve spent every
summer of my life in Cleverdale with my mother, my grandmother, my family. Now I can share the joys of
Lake George with my own daughter. I look forward to meeting my neighbors the Fraziers and to future
years when my family and theirs will be able to enjoy a shared part of the lake together. However, I am
concerned about the impact of the proposed pool. I’d like to briefly address the factors the Board will take
into account in evaluating this project and explain why I think it is in the best interest of our community
for this to be denied. First the proposed pool is located about 75 feet or possibly less from my mother’s
bedroom window and the same distance from our kitchen, living room and two bedrooms on that side,
often used by my daughter and my six young nieces and nephews. This pool will indeed create undesirable
change, including unrestricted noise and light and will significantly impact our ability to enjoy our
property. It also will create an undesirable precedent for the wider community. There’s been an
outpouring from our neighbors expressing their concern for this proposal for a lakefront pool. Second, the
Fraziers have not demonstrated that this is their only option to obtain the benefit that they seek or that
the lake itself does not provide such benefit. They failed the burden to identify alternatives if any exist
that will not infringe on their neighbors, will not impact community and do not violate zoning rules and
requirements. Third the proposed 20 by 50 foot pool is significant. The precedential effect is also
unmistakably substantial, made clear by 24 residents and nearby lakefront property owners who have
signed a letter and made comments asking the Board to reject the requested variance. Fourth, it does not
appear that the Fraziers took into account that the proposed pool and patio will likely increase runoff or
spillover into a drainage stream that crosses into our front lawn, potentially eroding areas of the lawn that
I played on as a child and which my daughter now enjoys. Fifth, the Fraziers need for a variance appears
to be entirely self-created. In fact we’ve been confused as to why they have exclusively referred to water
features during hearings on the original designs to obtain earlier approvals, but then they built these two
structures as pools on the actual 2020 site plan. Regardless of these issues, I hope the Fraziers know that
this isn’t personal and we are just genuinely worried about how this will impact us and our community
and hope that our families, as close neighbors, can be friends for generations to come. Thank you for taking
these concerns into account.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Next one, Craig.
MR. BROWN-I don’t see any more interest in the lobby.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Laura, other than the letter that Braymer concisely presented, do we have any
more written correspondence?
MR. BROWN-You’re muted there, Laura, if you’re talking.
MRS. MOORE-So, yes, there’s a letter from the Lake George Waterkeeper, and I’ll just note that there is
another letter, however those people have spoken so far and this letter is signed by five families opposed
to the project, The Sarno family at 23 Gunn Lane, the Schneider family at 38 Gunn Lane, the Inwald family
at 183 Cleverdale. The family I don’t think I did hear was the family at 34 Gunn Lane and the family at 268
Cleverdale. So that was one letter. Claudia’s letter that she spoke of and then the petition that was read
into the record. So I’ll go back to the Lake George Waterkeeper. “The above referenced variance
application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake
George Water keeper. The Waterkeeper is opposed the referenced variance application since it will be
setting a precedent for shoreline pools in the Town and continued removal and alteration of vital natural
features along the shoreline, which is not harmonious with the intent of the Town. The extensive alteration
of the natural landscape, soils, and tree removal already proposed will have environmental impacts that
will be exacerbated with another large structure. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning
Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-080 Variance Criteria, during your
deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The proposed variance will produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties. To
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
my knowledge, the Town has not approved a swimming pool along the shoreline of Lake George so this
would be a precedent setting decision, which would be a change in the character of the neighborhood.
There is subjectivity whether the proposed structure would be a "very attractive structure" as it would be
out of character for the neighborhood. Additionally, the installation of the pool on the
lakeside/recreational side of the property, 70 feet from the neighboring house may be considered
detrimental. There are alternatives to the applicant that would eliminate the undesirable change in
character. Although a variance would still be required by placing the pool on the roadside of the house, it
would be further from the public right of way . It may also result in a reduction of driveway surface and a
reduction in impervious cover, which would be an overall benefit. The proposed variance would have an
adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The pool
structure, associate patio and wall, which is nearly 2/3 acres of additional hardscape, replaces important
natural landscape necessary for the protection of water quality along shoreline, which is the intent of the
Town Code. The amount of permeability of the proposed patio material is questionable. There is also
concern about the amount and type of chemicals that would be used and that would enter the groundwater
through the permeable pavers and overflow from the infinity pool. This reason alone should be enough to
prevent the variance. There is also a concern of the impact on the physical environment with the proposed
10 foot cut for the structure and impacts to infiltration and reduced treatment capabilities of the deeper
soils. This water quality impact from runoff and chemicals will increase with the proposed underdrains in
the biofilter down gradient from the pool. It is the recommendation of the Waterkeeper that the Zoning
Board of Appeals deny the requested variance due to change in character of the neighborhood and adverse
impacts to the environment. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed .
Thank you for your consideration.” And then I’ll just note, according to the Planning Board, on behalf of
their recommendation they, again, did not see any significant adverse impacts with the current project as
proposed. That was recommended seven to zero.
MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask Hutchins Engineering if they would like to reply to anything that they
heard from the public.
MR. DOBIE-Could I ask Staff, is Michael O’Connor on the call?
MR. BROWN-He is. Can you speak, Mike, so we can see if we can hear you? Did you have something,
Lucas?
MR. DOBIE-Yes. I don’t want to get into arguing with the neighbors. It’s a little bit further than the 65
feet to Mrs. Inwald’s actually structure. It’s 65 feet to the property line. I’m not sure where her bedroom
is in the house. S it’s a little bit further than that, and we discussed some of the over spillage during storm
events with the trough being able to capture that, and the additional stormwater management below that
as well. So it would handle any overflow from the permeable pavers. I guess at this time if the Board has
any further questions, or we could get the opinion of the Board so we could make our decision here so my
clients could advise me on how to move forward.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-In most cases when we’re considering a pool in two front yards or the situation when
there’s two front yards, it’s usually a corner lot where the applicant does not have an option and we have
to decide whether it’s reasonable for them to have a pool. In this case I think this is the first time, I’ve been
on the Board for a long time, that I’ve ever seen one where a pool is adjacent to the lake, in one of the only
front yards that’s available, one of the only two front yards that’s available. So I would have to consider
what kind of variance we might be offering and to me it’s a very substantial variance. I think it also could
set a dangerous precedent for that area. We’ve seen areas, other areas of the Town where they were
granted variances for pools. Usually it’s bordering a buffer zone or it doesn’t have a really good setback,
and the result was that everybody in that neighborhood, in that subdivision came for a pool at some point.
So eventually he whole neighborhood had pools that required variance. I think this would be dangerous
for this area against Lake George to offer a pool. I think you’re supposed to provide minimal relief and in
this case, it’s all or nothing, and I think nothing is the safer option from the Town perspective, and I would
be against any variance for this location that involves a pool.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think any waterfront property owners, whether they live on Glen Lake, Lake
Sunnyside or Lake George would be concerned with the aspect that this project has presented here this
evening. I think that we have to remember that the foreshore of the lake is where the action begins and
where the action ends and by creating a pool situation 75 feet back from the lake closer to the housing
where people are used to peace and quiet is the wrong direction that we’re going here. I think pools do
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
not have a place on Waterfront Residential property unless they were located in the back where the
current on their plot sport court is located. So I would not be in favor of this application.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also not in favor. I think it’s an undesirable change to the character of the
neighborhood as Mr. Urrico and Mr. Underwood have already explained, and I just agree with Jim. It
should go in the back where the sport court is, but this is a self-created difficulty and I think this particular
piece of our test has bearing here, where there’s no need for this except for their enjoyment, which is great,
but the bottom line is we have to grant the minimum variance necessary and I couldn’t, in good faith, do
that with this application.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I agree with everybody. It is a front yard, and it would set a terrible precedent, in addition
to that fact that, I mean I don’t think of this as use. It’s a residential use. It’s an accessory use to a residence.
So I wouldn’t even go there. It’s in the front yard. We’ve heard testimony here that there aren’t any, we’ve
heard Board members who’ve been on for a long time say that there haven’t been any other pools in front
yards granted. It would mar the beauty of the lake, not to mention I don’t think we have enough
information in our packet about what the real environmental impact would be, especially with my
question that I asked, okay, so it will absorb it, but where’s the information on that, and I wouldn’t expect
that information to be given to us. I think we just have enough here in terms of precedent, in terms of self-
created, and as far as need, you know, benefit to the applicant, it does not outweigh the potential impacts,
particularly to the character, I mean it’s the character of the lake, the character of the neighborhood. I
think this is not worthy of a variance.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-In defense of the Fraziers a little bit, I’ve been on the lake for about 50 years, and the boat
traffic and the personal watercraft, if any of these people that were talking had a personal watercraft, they
go zooming around in front of properties all day long, creating noise. If we’re talking about noise, that’s
where the noise is coming from, not from pools, but I agree with all my members that it shouldn’t be
permitted on the lakeside like that. If they wanted to put one maybe in the back, well there’s not really a
backyard, but closer to Cleverdale Road or they could maybe re-design that spa to make it a little bit bigger
and get some enjoyment out of it that way, but the idea of putting the pool by the lake, I would not be
agreeable with that at all.
MR. MC CABE-And my feelings are that indeed we would be setting precedent if we allowed the pool on
the lakeside. We understand that whichever side of the house the pool goes on, we’d have to grant a
variance. They’re both considered quote front yards, but the lakeside is a little bit more critical front yard,
and so I, too, cannot support the pool on the lakeside. The arguments about the noise are ridiculous.
You’ve got a lake right there, but the pool in the front yard, or excuse me the pool on the lakeside as
mentioned would be precedent setting for us, and I’m not comfortable with that at this particular time.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, it looks like Mr. O’Connor has finally been able to connect, if you want to
give him a few minutes.
MR. MC CABE-Absolutely.
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This property went through an extensive review when the
house was being built and if you have in your packets or your old files, you’re going to see the maps that
show the landscaping that the Fraziers are doing. They in fact they’re planting not only ground plants and
shrubs, but a substantial number of trees with three inch roots and I think it’s 15 to 17 feet in height
throughout their property. It’s on Map L-3.10 and L-3.11 of the original zoning application. That may not
be in your packet there. As far as the spa, if that is still shown on the site plan, that is, they have agreed
that that comes off in lieu of the pool. As far as affecting the landscape from the lake, the front wall of this
pool is three feet six inches high and will be well landscaped like the rest of their site. It probably won’t
be noticeable from the lake that there is in fact a pool there because the landscaping can be brought to a
height where it’s a little bit above the pool edge. As far as lighting goes, if there’s any lighting on the site,
and I have not seen a lighting plan, it would all be downcast. We went through much of the same items
that we’ve heard tonight with the Inwald family before with regard to the sports court that’s in the back
of the property, and part of that was the reason why the shrubbery was planted along the edge of the
property to give us privacy from the Inwalds and to give the Inwalds privacy from us and it is a substantial
hedge that was planted there. So I know that we’re talking about something a little bit different, a little
bit new, but we’re really not talking about anything that has significant impacts on people except by
speculation that it would. The pool is 110 feet from the lake. The activities I would think they’re still going
to be taking place on the front part of the property. I call it the front part, the lakeside of the property. I
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
don’t think it’s going to have that significant impact on the Inwald residence which is right on the property
line along the adjoining north boundary of this property. I don’t think there’s much of a setback there at
all, as I recall from the prior zoning application, and I pointed that out before when they were complaining
about the sports court. So I don’t think that, if you take the totality of the plantings that the Fraziers are
doing, the efforts that they’re doing as far as the stormwater, I don’t think you have any significant impacts
that are prohibited or should be prohibited.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, that’s it, and thank you for allowing me to speak.
MR. MC CABE-So right now we have six noes. We are short one person , but that person only gets one
vote. So I guess I need some guidance on how you want to proceed here. Do you want to table this
application and give it some more consideration? Do you want us to take a vote or?
MR. O'CONNOR-I would like to table it because the one thing that was suggested, although I think it’s
really contrary to the applicant, was that perhaps if the pool was back where the sports court was or is, it
would not be objectionable to the neighbor, but I would like to explore that with my client and have the
opportunity to do that.
MR. MC CABE-Absolutely.
MR. O'CONNOR-And also I would like to have Hutchins give us more information as far as stormwater.
I heard a couple of questions as to whether or not we would be creating something that would go to the
lake or go to the neighbor’s property from our site, and that’s not going to be the case.
MR. MC CABE-We discussed that, and I really don’t think that’s an issue, at least from our standpoint.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well I’d appreciate the tabling.
MR. MC CABE-All right. Sure. So, Laura, do we have openings in, Mr. O’Connor, how much time do you
need?
MR. O'CONNOR-I could probably make it in the next month.
MR. MC CABE-I don’t think we have an openings in the first meeting. Laura, do we have any openings
in the second meeting?
MRS. MOORE-We might have openings in the second meeting, but please note I just received other
applications for the March meeting, I mean I know April’s agenda is open for the first meeting. I just have
to go through the application materials that have already been set up for the March meetings. I would
prefer if you tabled it until April, but we can adjust things if that’s how the Board wishes to proceed.
MR. MC CABE-So I’ll ask Mr. O’Connor, would you be willing to wait until the first meeting in April?
MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I’d rather not, but I know we’re asking the Board’s consideration, so we’ve got to
be considerate also.
MR. MC CABE-So, John, could we have a motion?
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Meghan &
Daniel Frazier. Applicant proposes a modification to an approved plan to install a pool and patio area
(1,405 sq. ft.) instead of the previously approved water feature. There are no changes to the house and
garage (4,915 sq. ft.), porte cochere (360 sq. ft.), bunk house (500 sq. ft.), patio, sport court, and other
associated site work (8,860 sq. ft.). Site plan for modification of an approved plan. Relief requested for
pool location.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2021 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER, Introduced
by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
th
Tabled to the April 20 meeting with any new information submitted by the March submission deadline.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 2021, by the following vote:
MRS. HAMLIN-Can I say something? If the proposal is still to put a pool in the front yard, if they’re going
to come back with that, I would be interested in more environmental information about that pool and
major storm events. So just putting that out there.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MRS. MOORE-Mr. McCabe, you have closed the public hearing. Are you going to re-open that public
hearing.
MR. MC CABE-At the next meeting, yes. The next time we get together for this particular application.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Our next applicant is AV 5-2021.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ADK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS
OWNER(S) LLC ADK REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS ZONING WR LOCATION 123 SEELYE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 4,709 SQ. FT. PORTION OF THE EXISTING
GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,440 SQ. FT. WITH 514 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK
AREA FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA 5,108 SQ. FT. HOME (INCLUDES AN ATTACHED
GARAGE) AND TO MAINTAIN A 720 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. SITE WORK IS
PROPOSED FOR MUCH OF THE SITE TO INCLUDE DRIVEWAY AREA, SEPTIC SYSTEM, NEW
HOME WITH A DECK, WITH SITE PLANTINGS AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN
FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FOR A
SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 7-2021; AV 17-1996; AV 25-1991; SP 10-96; SP 03-93 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.59
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-52 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020
DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2021, ADK Developers & Builders, Meeting Date: February 17, 2021
“Project Location: 123 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a
4,709 sq. ft. home and a 258 sq. ft. portion of the existing garage to construct a new home of 2,440 sq. ft.
with 514 sq. ft. porch/deck area footprint with a floor area 5,108 sq. ft. home (includes an attached garage)
and to maintain a 720 sq. ft. detached garage. Site work is proposed for much of the site to include driveway
area, septic system, new home with a deck, with site plantings and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new
floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks and for a second garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and for a second garage.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage
The new home is to be located 13.8 ft. where 20 ft. setback is required. The new home is to have a garage
and the project proposes to maintain an existing garage where only one garage is allowed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location and design of the new home. The second garage may be eliminated due to the extent of site
work and the new home would have a garage.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. Relief requested is to allow two garages where only one is allowed. Relief also
requested for setback of 13.8 ft. may be considered moderate to minimal relevant to the code.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site and to maintain the existing garage. The
project includes the installation of a new septic system, stormwater controls and shoreline planting. The
plans show the new location of the home and the existing garage. The elevations and floor plans detail the
arrangement of the home and the views.”
MR. MC CABE-So do we have a representative here from ADK Developers and Builders?
MR. DICKINSON-Yes. My name is Devin Dickinson from Dickinson Associates. I did the engineering
and site planning for this project. So I’m here on behalf of the owner, Peter O’Neil. So I wanted to give a
little background on the existing conditions. I’ll be brief because you guys went through that, but just to
clarify it is a .61 acre parcel on Seelye Road. It does currently have a house, a detached garage and a shed.
The current home has a footprint of about 2300 square feet and it’s only 43 feet from the shoreline of Lake
George. The current home also sits about seven and a half feet from the southerly property line. There’s
also a substantial amount of pavement that exists right now. So onto the proposed site plan let’s start
with the south setback relief. So when the property was first purchased the intent was to actually
remodel that existing home. Once they really kind of dove a little deeper into it they had some moisture
and some mold issues in the home. It was ultimately decided they were going to take it down and build
new. When we started that process, once a decision was made to go with the new home, we really set out
to not ask for any variances. One of the problems that the owner and designer ran into is they couldn’t get
the footprint within the setbacks, and mainly because the focus was to have a master suite on the same
level as the living room, kitchen, dining and all that. Essentially to create, as they say, an age in place floor
plan. So what we set out to do, once we realized we couldn’t match the setbacks for the width there, we
tried to reduce I and minimize it as much as possible to really reduce that request we have there, and that’s
where the 13.8 feet comes in. So it is a situation we’re improving but we are requesting that relief from the
20 foot setback. The second variance as you mentioned is the garage. So again this is something that kind
of came up through the design process. That garage is in very good condition. The original house design
was going to have a three stall garage which would have made the one single structure all that much larger.
It was ultimately decided that it made more sense to try to keep the detached garage as opposed to tearing
it down and sending it off to a landfill, and then reduce the footprint of the house and reduce that garage
to a two bay garage. That existing garage really sits pretty low on the property. There’s retaining wall
around the back of it. It’s only 13 feet tall. It is there. It’s been there I believe since the 70’s, and we feel
that it fits well with the property and really offers a large benefit to the owner to have that additional
storage, you know, maybe PWC’s or a boat or a car that they leave up here that type of thing. The other
aspect of it, too, is that it does minimize the site disturbance. If we leave the garage there, it’s less
disturbance to the site, less site work and excavation and all that. So those are the two variances we’re
requesting. We do feel that we’ve minimized the side line setback. We feel that the garage is well, since
it is an existing structure, we do feel that that is not a substantial request. To give you some numbers here,
to kind of look at the pre and post, so the existing home, like I said, is about a 2300 square foot footprint.
We’re proposing a 2400 square foot footprint for the new home, and that include the two car garage. We’re
also proposing to remove approximately 2400 square feet of pavement and we’re reducing the impervious
area by about 3800 square feet total, and like it says in the application, on top of that we’ve added
stormwater devices. We’ve added the vegetative buffer at the shoreline, new septic system, etc. And one
of the big things with this project as well is we moved it 46 feet further from the lake than the existing
home. We’ve actually moved it even further back than what the required setback is, the average of the
two homes on either side. So overall we feel that this proposed site plan is a big improvement over what’s
there now. We feel that we’ve really worked to minimize that variances and the impact as much as
possible and we feel that it’s not a substantial request and we think environmentally it’s a huge impact to
the property. So I think at this time I’ll open it up to any questions from the Board.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So hearing none, it’s a pretty straightforward
request so I’m not surprised. So I’m going to open the public hearing at this particular time, and is there
anybody in the audience who would like to address the Board on this particular project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-I’m not finding any interest.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have any written correspondence, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I do have a letter from the Lake George Waterkeeper. “The above referenced variance
application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper recognizes the site improvements, such as reduction in impervious
cover, unnecessary pavement removal, and increased setback, but views the development as an
opportunity to bring the property into compliance for the long-term protection of the lake's water quality.
The application fails to meet the balance test for the granting of the variance, especially in the light of the
recent Harmful Algae Blooms in the Queensbury bays. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning
Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-080 Variance Criteria, during your
deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The proposed variance will produce an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties. The
second garage on the property will be a change in character when the impervious cover could be reduced
to be compliant with the Town Code. As the application states, the lot is narrow, and the second garage
gives the appearance of over development on the property. There are alternatives to the applicant that
would eliminate the undesirable change in character. The applicant failed to justify the need for a second
garage in the application and variance criteria. The proposed variance would have an adverse effect and
impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The applicant has proposed a
design that improves the current site conditions with increased setback and elimination of excessive
pavement. But the balance to grant a variance is not be achieved with the noncompliant permeability
coverage that will remain which would be improved with the removal of the second garage. It is the
recommendation of the Waterkeeper that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the requested variance due
to change in character of the neighborhood and adverse impacts to the environment. The Lake George
Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend
the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed . Thank you for your consideration.” And then in
regards to the Planning Board review of it, they did recommend that there was no adverse impacts with
the current project, but did note that one Planning Board member was concerned with the request for the
two garages.
MR. MC CABE-So that’s it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-I think I really appreciate the project in total. My concern is the second garage. You
did explain why it was necessary to them, but it remains a concern. So I’m really on the fence on this one.
I know it happens every once in a while. I’m going to reserve judgment for right now.
MR. MC CABE-So Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I mean it’s such a small parcel. When we’ve allowed second garages in the past it’s been
for very large parcels, but that was more where people were installing the second garage. This one does
currently exist. I think the actual setback is quite minimal and there is such improvement. As far as
whatever the Waterkeeper was talking about in terms of compliance, I imagine that’s various stormwater
provisions that they’re looking for. So if the Planning Board can address that, then I would be in favor. I
don’t see any reason to tear down a perfectly good garage really and to have one attached to the house, I
mean that’s kind of standard procedure. People want an attached garage.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think Mr. Dickinson did a nice job with this project, bringing back the house 89 feet
from the lake, stormwater management. Those are all good things, but now that you’re tearing down a
house, I think you need to comply, put it into more compliance with the rules. So therefore I would say
with it only being a .61 acre lot, I don’t see anybody else that size that has a second garage that big. Even
though I hate to see something torn down, I’d rather see maybe a little bit larger garage, a three car garage
added to that house and eliminate that garage. I just don’t think it’s a two garage lot. It doesn’t fit there
well, but I appreciate everything else they’ve done to that lot. It’s going to be a nice project. I cannot
accept it with the second garage.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m basically in agreement with what John said. I agree that the project in total is a good
project and it does improve the property, but having a second garage almost negates some of the
improvements because we’re trying to squeeze a second garage into a very small lot and I would take
another look at John’s suggestion about maybe expanding the garage you already have and helping the total
property by not having a second garage on it.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we need to keep it in perspective as to the size of the lot and what’s being
proposed here. The setbacks on the house, that 13.8 feet on the south side I have no problem with
whatsoever. I think that the garage in the back, while you’re doing construction, could remain so you
could use it for storage, etc., but on issuance for the CO for the house, I would ask that the garage be
eliminated.
MR. MC CABE-So I view it a little differently. The applicant could get his third bay, if you would by
expanding the new attached garage, but that’s going to involve more impervious area, and I think that it’s
a unique solution maintaining the existing garage. So I guess I would support the project as presented. I
think that maintaining the existing garage is more beneficial than expanding the footprint of the new
attached garage, but unfortunately my vote isn’t going to carry enough. Well, we still have Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, I’d like to say something.
MR. MC CABE-She was reserving judgment. So we’ll listen to Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. After listening to you all, thank you very much. I was looking at John’s
suggestion of maybe adding a third bay to the attached garage, but I just see area variance issues coming
along with that. So ultimately it’s my view to I’m just going to say leave it as it is. I looked at the property
and it wasn’t a bad looking property when I saw it. So that’s my view. So I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-All right. So at this particular time we have three yeses and three noes, and we’re one
short. So the applicant has a choice here. He can table his application until we have a full Board, or table
his application and make some changes, or call for a vote, and it doesn’t look like he’ s going to get enough
votes to pass. So I need some guidance from the applicant here.
MR. DICKINSON-It’s a little awkward here on Zoom. So I’m trying to get a little input from the owner,
but in the meantime if I can address some of the concerns. Part of this process, when we ultimately decided
to keep the existing detached garage, is that we do meet the floor area ratio with this. This was a trade
type of situation. Eliminating that garage is going to eliminate this impervious area. We certainly could
do a three car garage at the house. Unfortunately that adds pavement to what we have because you need
a wider entrance. So we really, you know when we balanced all those issues really felt like keeping that
existing garage was the way to go. That’s kind of how we got there, and then to speak to Chris Navitsky’s
letter, his comments about the site, I don’t necessarily agree with all those things. I think to say that it has
a negative impact in the neighborhood is not accurate in the sense that this garage was built in the 70’s so
it’s 40, 50 years old. I think at this point that garage is the neighborhood. We have done stormwater. We
have raingardens. We have storm trenches to collect the runoff from the driveway, and again we have a
vegetative buffer, so I think from an environmental standpoint we’ve really hit all those things. I know
Chris very well and I agree with what he does and I know he’s a do a little more on every project kind of
guy, but I do feel like we went above and beyond on this. I think at this point, unless we can sway a fourth
vote, I’ll see if I’ve gotten any response here. One question I did have for you. If they decide to go this way,
could we approve the sideline and table the garage, or is that segmenting the application?
MR. MC CABE-No, it’s all or none.
MR. DICKINSON-Okay. All or none.
MRS. MOORE-So I understand that this is a tie vote. I do have room on next week’s agenda if I
understand we have a full Board. I haven’t heard that no one’s attending next week. I do have two items
on the agenda. So if that is a way to appease the applicant and the Board, then you could potentially table
it to next Wednesday.
MR. HENKEL-So, Laura, would that, that’s the day after, though, the Planning Board, right? Is next
Tuesday the Planning Board?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. Then we would move your Planning Board review into next month.
MR. HENKEL-Next month. Okay.
MR. DICKINSON-Let’s table it for now, Laura, I think that’s the way to go. That way it’ll give us a chance
to decide whether we’re going to keep the garage or remove it. We obviously really need to get that side
line approved as well to make the house footprint work. So if we could do that, let’s move to table it,
please.
MR. MC CABE-All right. So we’re going to table it until next week?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John, could I have a motion here?
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from ADK
Developers & Builders. Applicant proposes to remove a 4,709 sq. ft. home and a 258 sq. ft. portion of the
existing garage to construct a new home of 2,440 sq. ft. with 514 sq. ft. porch/deck area footprint with a
floor area 5,108 sq. ft. home (includes an attached garage) and to maintain a 720 sq. ft. detached garage. Site
work is proposed for much of the site to include driveway area, septic system, new home with a deck, with
site plantings and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks
and for a second garage.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2021 ADK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS, Introduced
by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin:
th
Tabled to the February 24, 2021.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MRS. MOORE-I just want to make sure that you’re going to leave the public hearing open.
MR. MC CABE-I’m going to leave the public hearing open, yes. Excuse me. Did I close the public hearing?
I closed the public hearing. So at this particular time I’m going to re-open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. MC CABE-And so it will be open when we start next week. Okay. So our next application is AV
8-2021.
MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, just one thing before we go too far, that tabling resolution you did for
Frazier.
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
thst
MR. BROWN-I think you guys picked April 20, which is a Tuesday. April 21 is actually a Wednesday.
So at some point probably before the meeting’s over, if you could just do a correction resolution on that
date.
MR. MC CABE-So, John, can you make a correction to that tabling?
MR. HENKEL-I sure can. So do you want me to re-do the whole thing or what?
MR. MC CABE-No, just correct that date.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. I’m going to correct the previous motion that I made for Area Variance AV 6-2021.
thst
We’re going to change that date from April 20 to April 21.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2021 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER, Introduced
by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Tabled to the April 21st meeting with any new information submitted by the March submission deadline.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-So now we have AV 8-2021, Trevor Flynn, Balzar & Tuck Architecture.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN, BALZAR & TUCK
ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DANIEL GRASMEDER ZONING WR LOCATION 3222
STATE ROUT E 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 84 SQ. FT. LIVING
ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, A 436 SQ.
FT. SINGLE STORY BREEZEWAY/MUDROOM ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
HOME CONNECTING THE EXISTING 1,315 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOME. THE
PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THE MASTER
BEDROOM THEN ALTERATIONS TO THE THIRD FLOOR TO INCLUDE A 48 SQ. FT. STUDY
NOOK AND A NEW ROOF OVER THE EXISTING BATHROOM AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO
INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WITH UPPER LEVEL OF 1,344 SQ.
FT. AND THE LOWER LEVEL OF 786 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS INCLUDE
THE HOME OF 2,172 SQ. FT. AND DETACHED GARAGE 1,315 SQ. FT.; NEW FLOOR AREA 6,582
SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF
15% SLOPES, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACK OF MAIN HOME,
HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATIONS TO THE MAIN HOME AND TO THE NEW GARAGE,
NUMBER OF GARAGES, SIZE OF GARAGE, AND NUMBER OF STALLS FOR A GARAGE.
CROSS REF SP 9-2021; AV 43-02; 76-2002; AV 27-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.18-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179=13-010
JON LAPPER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2021, Trevor Flynn, Balzar & Tuck Architecture, Meeting Date:
February 17, 2021 “Project Location: 3222 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant
proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to be on the west side of the existing home,
a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the south side of the home connecting the
existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project includes interior alterations on the second floor
for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor to include a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof
over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes construction of a detached garage with the
upper level of 1,344 sq. ft. and the lower level of 786 sq. ft. Existing building footprints include the home
of 2,172 sq. ft. and detached garage 1,315 sq. ft.; new floor area 6,582 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a
CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and stormwater
management. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main
home and to the new garage, number of garages, size of garage, and number of stalls for a garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home
and to the new garage, number of garages, size of garage, and number of stalls for a garage.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure, 179-
2-010 garage, private parking
The single-story addition to the main home is to be located 56.6 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback
is required. The two roof dormer additions of the home are to be 33 ft. 6 inches where 28 ft. is the maximum
height allowed. The new garage is to be 26 ft. 3 inches where an accessory structure is limited to 16 ft.
Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and to have a garage with more than three bays.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to
orientation of the existing building on the parcel and parcel shape for height and setback. The second
garage may be eliminated to reduce the number of garages and bays on the property; although the
second garage is storage and workshop for classic vehicles.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the single-story addition to the main home
is 18.4 ft. The relief for the two roof dormer additions is 5 feet 6 inches in excess. The new garage relief
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
is 10 feet 3 inches in excess. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and to have a garage
with more than three bays.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes residential additions to the main home, alterations to portions of the three floors,
then construct a detached garage. The project includes new stormwater controls, site work to reduce
runoff, landscaping for the site. The plans show the additions and the portion of the dormer roof additions
that are above the 28 ft. but match the existing structure height. There are elevation views and floor plans
for the proposed work on the home and the new garage.”
MR. MC CABE-So I saw Jon Lapper here.
MR. LAPPER-Hi, Mike. I’m going to get started. I’ll introduce the team. The application is in the name,
for some reason, of Trevor Flynn who’s the project architect from Balzar & Tuck, but the applicants are
Dan and Cathy Grasmeder, the owners. Besides Trevor who will speak after me, Brandon Ferguson is the
engineer from Environmental Design Partnership, and of course Cathy and Dan are on as well. Craig was
just texting me asking me who to let in, and that’s the group. I’ll start out with some general comments
and then pass it over and Trevor will go through the architectural, which I think is really important here,
but in general, although there are a number of variances that we’re asking for, for the most part, these are
modest and important upgrades to a home that was designed in the 20’s, built in the 30’s. It’s still a camp.
It’s not a year round house. This intended to be their retirement home. So just to get started, some of the
variances are to add dormers upstairs, and Trevor will go through the details. I just want to give you the
general scope. To make the upstairs more usable, there had to be an addition to add a living room and an
eat in kitchen area, and that is slightly closer to the lake, but that’s really to respect the important
architecture of this home. It’s certainly noticeable and impressive on the lake. There have been some
changes that have been kind of basterdized over the years, and this is to bring it back and to respect that
original 1920’s design. Then the mudroom is to attach the existing garage. They need a mudroom. All of
those changes, when you see the architecture, you’ll be able to appreciate that it’s just a much more
attractive, but in keeping with the character of the design of this home. There are substantial new
plantings. We’re complying with the shoreline buffer requirements. Substantial stormwater upgrades
and the only thing that might seem like a big variance is for the classic car collection and working on the
cars, the two story garage, but that was designed to be built into a hill on the center of the property where
it’s not visible from the road. It’s essentially not visible from anywhere, and this was just a way to make it
fit in with the site but nobody can see it, and I don’t have to tell you that anywhere else on the lake that 3.3
acre site would have been subdivided long ago into two or three typical lake home lots. So all of this is a
very modest amount of floor area ratio for a large site, and they’re not trying to knock this down and build
a huge home. They’re just really trying to tweak it, make it a year round home, make it more livable but
respect what’s on the site and I hope when we get done tonight you’ll agree with that. So at this point I’ll
pass it over to Trevor to go through the details with the design.
TREVOR FLYNN
MR. FLYNN-Thank you, Jon. Trevor Flynn with Balzar & Tuck Architecture. As Jon mentioned I’ll
briefly walk you through the floor plans, elevations and some of the other things. I’m going to just kind of
proceed through the order of the variances and how they’re listed. Just looking at the original structure,
anything you see in this light gray is the house and then any of the brown shaded area is our proposed
addition or alterations to the existing structure, from a site perspective, and also the two story garage
which I’ll get to later. So from the beginning any alterations to the existing structure is an alteration to an
existing non-conforming structure. As we look into their existing floor plan, you can see a lot of the spaces
are divided up and chopped up and there has been additions that have been added to the floor plan over
the years, and the goal of the client was to kind of restore the existing nature within the footprint of the
building, and then also add square footage to it to make it an aging in place first story addition, to make it
more useful, and then also respect the overall size and how it ties into the existing structure. I’ll jump to
the proposed floor plan. As you can see this red line around the perimeter is the existing house and as we
started to study different options, there were several plan studies involving and looking into adding to the
east or further back to the south, and this ended up presenting the less impact on the site and allowed for
us to tie into the existing gable overall form and shape and again respect the existing architecture. We
did look to the east and some problems that were occurring to the east would help and lessen our request
for relief, on the other hand there was a septic tank and other utilities in the way and there wasn’t enough
room, without asking for a side yard setback relief as well. We would have been asking for two variances
at that time, therefore looking towards the west, and also pulling the footprint back as far as we could
away from the shoreline setback. As we started to look at other renovations to the house, the house was
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
an existing three bedroom house. They wanted to keep that. The house is three stories. So on the second
floor they’re looking to renovate into master bedrooms to make a second bedroom, and then on the third
floor, they were thinking about introducing, which was an existing bunk room/attic space, but renovating
it to become an actual bunk room, and that’s what started to trigger our third variance which is the relief
from the height. The two areas that we’re asking for this relief is at this study nook, which is a dormer
that extrudes out towards the lake, yet within the zoning envelope of the existing ridgeline. On the other
portion that is also asking for relief in height is this existing bath that has an existing roof on it. We’re
simply repairing it and modifying it. Not increasing the pitch, but since again we are touching and
modifying that roofline it does require that height variance as we’re reconfiguring it in a sense within the
same shape. Some images that might help. This is an existing image from the lake, and you can see it has
a very pronounced form and trying to keep that intact as we started to study the overall shape and the
addition as it gets added to the west of the structure. A perspective image of the house and the addition,
this is the first floor addition, and the dormer to that bunk room. So also note the dormer is also added to
make the room properly in reference to Code, you know, adding light and vent to the room. We do not
have enough light and vent per the New York State Building Code and we wanted to add additional
windows to the space and that dormer was added to meet Code. A second image is the approach to the
house from the driveway, and again this is a good angle to perceive the roof shape and also the existing
dormer that we are modifying to fix current ice damage and rain damage that is occurring in the home. So
our goal is to clean that up and after doing all these renovations, it would not be good for the client to deal
with that at a later date. Again the addition of the first floor addition to the west and this is that dormer
that we are modifying. This is great diagram to understand and we’re asking for relief for the height
variances. Again the dormer on the lakeside, and you can see we are within the existing ridgelines. So
this cinnamon color or light red is the existing structure over the 28 feet, and two other dormers. These
are the proposed addition and modification to that dormer at the bathroom. If there’s questions on the
three variances on the house, I’m happy to answer some of those, or I can proceed into the garage.
MR. MC CABE-So in summary the dormers which we would have to approve the additional height, they
are not going to be any higher than what the ridge of the house is right now?
MR. FLYNN-Correct.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. You can proceed.
MR. FLYNN-Okay. The second request is two-fold, adding a second garage to the property and as
mentioned by Jon we do have a large site compared to most sites on Lake George. As part of the argument,
a second garage is also part of the clients’ hobby of restoring vintage cars and restoring the cars as well,
and you’ll see that in plans, but we are taking the existing garage and attaching that to the house.
Currently this is a detached structure and we are linking it with a mudroom. As seen typical in most
homes today, the idea of the weather in the northeast, this most recent ice storm it allows people to go
from the garage into the house. So attaching that was a requirement of the clients, and then looking into
that other space for the clients’ hobby is where we ended up for a detached garage as shown on the site
plan.
MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. The garage that is attached to the house, that’s going to have a second
floor on it above, right?
MR. FLYNN-No. So right now it has a gabled roof on it.
MR. HENKEL-There appears to be windows there. Okay.
MR. FLYNN-Yes, we’re just modifying.
MR. HENKEL-To make it match the house.
MR. FLYNN-This is probably a good view. Currently it’s a gable end, but to respect the architecture,
looking at it, a gambrel roof is low, and that is also within the, under the 20 foot as seen by this dashed red
line.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. I didn’t know if there was going to be more space up there like storage or anything
like that.
MR. FLYNN-No, more of an elevation move to tie in with the character of the home.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. FLYNN-I wanted to jump to the view shed and the idea of this second garage or detached garage being
seen from the road. As you will see in these two images, it is a heavily vegetated and very dense wooded
area. We don’t feel that there will be any sight of the garage as seen from the drive or from any neighbors.
I don’t know if Jon mentioned we do have support letters from most of the neighbors in the area in favor
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
of the additions to the home and the detached garage. So a couple of things that, as we started to study
the garage, the request by the owner was looking at storing vintage cars and also repairing them, and two
things came with those. A workshop to work on the engine parts, store parts in the lower level storing
cars and also lifts. There were, again, extensive studies of the overall size and footprint of the garage. We
did quickly study the thought of all these garage bays being on one floor or one level, and what that started
to do is that actually lengthen the size of the garage. It would end up being roughly 72 feet by 24 to 32 feet
deep, and it also resulted in worsening the footprint or the relief requested for the size of the garage. It
would have ended up with a footprint size of 2,000 square feet plus or minus. So we quickly started to
shift our thought process of a bank barn and also tucking it into the existing grade. So as seen from this
image, the thought was to mimic their existing topography, also set the floor heights at the two levels. So
the lower level we do come in level from the drive, and the upper level we had to keep that height, after
several investigations of the topography and the ledge rock in that area. So that ledge rock and that
topography set that floor height level and ironically was very close to what we needed for head height
clearances for the typical garage door and garage door opener by the time we came in with the additional
floor structure for the workshop area. The other thing that also affects the height is the requirement for
lifts. The client, you know, as mentioned the purpose of this property was purchasing it for their
retirement home, their forever home, and looking to age in place, and as Dan’s main hobby to get away into
his garage and work on cars, rolling around on the floor or under these cars just isn’t sustainable as he ages.
So the lifts are very important, and these lifts require 12 to 14 feet clear, just for the cars, and then you need
an additional two feet to the underside of the roof structure. So that what starts to push the ridge height
over the required 16 foot variance or height, and then as we looked at the overall height we do notice that
this is following the existing topography. We did take our measurement from the worse possible point
which is the need location. So we are at the worst point, 26 feet 3 inches. Where on the upper level we’re
closer to 21 feet which is the minimal required for those car lifts, and in attempt to lessen the impact on
the site and the view and the roof mimics the topography. There’s a very similar image to the house. You
can start to see the area that encroaches in that. I believe that’s it for the three variances from the garage.
I briefly mentioned the size. There is 1100 square feet allowed and we are at 1345 square feet requested or
proposed. So that is third one that I didn’t define. I don’t know if there’s any questions on the garage at
this time, and then I can hand it over to Bernie Ferguson with EDP in regards to the site.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions for the applicant on the garage?
MR. URRICO-My question is, the cars are worked on to re-sell and if so, how are they brought in and how
are they removed?
MR. FLYNN-There are no commercial intentions at all. This is a hobby, pure hobby. Dan collects all
these cars. It would not be bringing a car in to work on and re-sale it. These cars are going to stay in his
possession.
MR. URRICO-Okay. He keeps them all? He’s going to keep them all?
DANIEL GRASMEDER
MR. GRASMEDER-Yes, and don’t ask how many cars.
MR. URRICO-Do you need more room than the garages that you have? Would there be some out in the
driveway.
MR. GRASMEDER-No.
MR. GRASMEDER-So currently I do, I’m working on three different cars right now and I do have, I rent
some storage as well, and some of it is, the left side of it is a certainly a request of mine. I don’t know if any
of the others here, but I’m working on a car right now that I had in high school. It’s a ’65 Barracuda. I’ve
climbed up and down underneath that thing at least 1,000 times and it’s just, I can see going in the future
I need this type of room and in the house that we had previous to this house, I only had a nine foot ceiling,
and so it would be a big help to me to have this.
MR. MC CABE-Let’s move on.
MR. FERGUSON-This is Brandon Ferguson from EDP. We worked on the site here, and just to kind of
quickly go over some of the site features. Around the house, as you can see, we took advantage of a lot of
the existing disturbed areas. This is kind of a large kind of roundabout kind of driveway that exists there,
and the proposed dwelling addition is going to kind of encompass that area. We’re going to re-use most
of the driveway coming into the site and access to the existing garage, making some modifications for guest
parking and access to the house. There’s not a whole lot cleared on this site either because there’s already
kind of a large cleared area down there. As Trevor mentioned that area a little bit closer to the lake, but
the driveway already extends in that area now and there is no stormwater on the site right now either.. So
we’re going to be adding stormwater management to the site. The walkways and patios around the house
are going to be permeable pavers. We’re going to use some raingardens and shallow grass swales to deflect
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
the runoff not just from the proposed impervious, but from large parcels on the existing impervious as well.
The septic system, it’s actually a newer septic system on that site that can support the house. So there’s
no changes to that, and then around the garage, as I mentioned there’s a place there really to kind of hide
it from view. Trevor has some good photos showing the roughly dense woods down there. So it won’t be
visible from the lake and it won’t be visible from the road as well. That’s kind of why that location was
chosen, and they’re using that existing slope and area to access that second story. Other things with the
site is plantings. So along the lakeshore there’s already a pretty decent buffer. There’s a lot a wooded area
right behind the dock, between the existing driveway and the dock, and in that area Trevor’s pointing to
that’s kind of a rock ledge that goes down to the lake, and there are some existing shrubs and everything
up there right now. So we’re going to supplement that with some more shrubs, a couple of trees and along
the house we’re going to do some foundation plantings. All of that to kind of soften up the view from the
lake, enhance the aesthetics and help protect the lake better. I guess that’s kind of a quick summary of
the site modifications and how we think we’re improving the site. If you have any questions on that I’d be
more than happy to answer them.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-I have a question about the hobby aspect of this car situation. So how many in total cars
does he have right now if I might ask?
MR. GRASMEDER-So I’ve never really counted them.
MRS. HAMLIN-Not that many.
MR. GRASMEDER-I’m working on a ’65 convertible Mustang. I’ve got a ’31 Model A, a ’58 pickup truck
and working on a ’65 Barracuda right now. So that’s four. So it’s usually in that range I would say, and
it’s what I enjoy.
MRS. HAMLIN-So you have the classic cars and the one attached to the house is obviously for regular use.
MR. GRASMEDER-My wife and my daughter, right, exact.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right, and you’re already renting off site for storage of these. Are you going to
put a cap on how many you’re going to keep in your possession at one time? I’m struggling with the second
garage a little bit. Because we had quite a few people who were opposed, in the previous application, to a
second garage. We don’t usually entertain them, and it’s obviously a larger lot, but it’s still under five
acres.
MR. LAPPER-What somebody else would do would be to build another house there and get a subdivision
and when you compare it to that, it’s really modest. I mean the thought that it’s 3.27 acres is just a big
difference from the last application, and it really won’t be visible.
MR. GRASMEDER-I don’t know if it helps here, but we did move from Queensbury to here and I had built
in 2009 I believe my second garage at my last house.
MRS. HAMLIN-I read that.
MR. GRASMEDER-Yes, and I think you could go to any of the neighbors there and say, hey, was Den a
problem and all of them.
MRS. HAMLIN-How much acreage did you have here, if I might ask?
MR. GRASMEDER-One acre, and the bummer about it was that the ceiling height was nine feet and I
didn’t have the room for a lift, but it’s my hobby. It’s like except for this year I think I’ve watched every
Super Bowl from standing in my garage and it’s where I spend my time. It’s where I enjoy being. So that’s
what the idea is. I’ve said it before, I have zero interest in commercial activity here. It is complete hobby
and enjoyment, and again, if that 15 years or how many years it was that we were at the other house was
any indication of what my intentions are, that’s what they are.
MR. HENKEL-Mike, I have a question. Is there any way of making a larger garage attached to the house
and you could put a lift in that, that part? Because you’ve got kind of a false second floor there. So would
you be able to put a lift in that garage?
MR. FERGUSON-We did look at a garage in that area. It’s not seen easily from any of our site plans, but
the topography does step quite significantly in this area, and the area is all ledge. So it would come for
almost another variance as we were looking at.
MR. GRASMEDER-And I don’t know if this will help you out as well, John, on that side of it, too. I don’t
know if you’ve ever worked on cars in your attached garage, but you end up having the house start smelling
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
like paint and other things like that, and I really found that in our last house that separation, and it really
wasn’t that hard because it was a pretty small property worked out really well. I was never a disturbance
to the family. When I was working on something in there, it was separated. I could close the door and it
just worked out really well.
MR. HENKEL-I understand that, but in the past we’ve had problems, that’s the APA. So is it allowable
to use the garage space and work on cars? Didn’t we do something like this at the Top of the World, you’re
not supposed to be allowed to use the garage for mechanical work and things like that, especially if you’re
going to talk about painting. That’s another whole problem I would say. I don’t have any problem with
you doing it, but I’m just saying, is there any rules against that? I thought there was.
MR. LAPPER-Well the difference is if it was commercial, John, that would be completely separate from a
hobby use.
MR. HENKEL-I hear you. That’s fair.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions? So at this particular time a public hearing has been
advertised, and I’m going to open the public hearing, and I’m going to seek input from anybody who would
like to speak on this particular project. Craig, do we have anybody?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-I don’t see any hands up.
MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, you said we had some written communication here?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. So these are all. I’ll just read the first one. These are form letters, and then I’ll
read the names that are associated with them. “My property is located adjacent to the Grasmeders on the
East side of their property. I have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation and addition to the
home as well as the second garage/workshop. It is my understanding that multiple variances are being
requested and wanted to provide this letter in support of the variances requested by Mr. and Mrs.
Grasmeder.” This is from Diane Matthews. And then “Our property is the second house east of the
Grasmeders (adjacent to Diane Matthews). We have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation and
addition to the home as well as the second garage/workshop. It is our understanding that multiple
variances are being requested and we wanted to go on record saying we support the variances requested
by Mr. & Mrs. Grasmeder.” And this is from Jeffrey Myers. And then I have “Our property is located
adjacent to the Grasmeders on the west side of their property. We have reviewed the plans for the
proposed renovation and addition to the home as well as the second garage/workshop. It is our
understanding that multiple variances are being requested and we wanted to go on record saying we
support the variances requested by Mr. and Mrs. Grasmeder.” And this is from the McCormicks, Robert
and Lynn. And then “Our property is located directly across State Route 9L from the Grasmeders. We
have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation and addition to the home as well as the second
garage/workshop. It is our understanding that multiple variances are being requested and we wanted to
go on record saying we support the variances requested by Mr. and Mrs. Grasmeder.” And this is from
Lester and Thalia Chase.
MR. MC CABE-So that’s it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Additions proposed on the home I think are reasonable. I think that the setback
from the lake at 56.6 feet I think is what it is is not going to be a detriment to the lake. The dormers as
explained by the applicants and Staff are below the existing roofline. I don’t think that’s going to pose a
problem either. As far as the new garage goes, I think it’s a little bit excessive because of the height of it
being 26 feet 3 inches even though they’ve tried to build it into the hillside as explained, you know, but
when you are going to have a three car garage on your house as well as creating a new garage that’s going
to have four bays for four more vehicles, I think that’s a little excessive. So I think that that size could be
shrunk down a little. Maybe make it two bays and maybe make it high enough so you can work on cars
in there, but I wouldn’t be in favor of the garage.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MRS. HAYWARD-Actually I’m in complete agreement with Jim. The house itself, the variance requests
I think are minimal and fit the character of that historic house, but I just have concern about the size of the
garage. I think it’s a great use of the property and the topography. I appreciate the fact it’s not visible
from the lake or the road. We went and looked at the property this weekend. So I think if you could
minimize the size of the second garage I would be in favor. So at this point I am not in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I agree wholeheartedly with both of my co-Board members here. I mean I’m kind of torn.
I mean he wrote passionate, and he emphasized that quite a bit in the application and I hear that, but then
again it’s a different kind of hobby and it’s kind of a different kind of accessory use and I’d like to see him
accommodated in that, but not to that degree, but I think the house, everything is fine on that house. I’m
happy to see a beautiful historic home done right, you know, and not torn down and replaced with
something else. So if we could do something to moderate, you know, to mitigate that garage size somehow,
I would then be in favor, but as it is right now I’m not.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I guess I’m in agreement with my fellow Board members to a certain extent. I think this is
definitely different than the earlier project we heard, because this is 3.16 acres as opposed to .59 acres. So
that makes a big difference to me, but I think they’re plenty far away from the lake. I understand where
they’re coming with the dormers, but I think the garage can be shrunk somewhat. I don’t think the height
is really totally necessary. I would like to see it scaled back at least somewhat. So as presented I would
not be in favor of it, but if you can moderate the second garage somewhat, make it as small as you can and
still allow you to enjoy your hobby, that would help me to say yes on the application.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I somewhat agree with all my Board members. One point I’d like to bring up is some of
these Codes should probably be changed. When you’re talking about a large piece of property like that,
over three acres, especially with it where it’s situated on the lake down in a hole like that, these variances
of 28 feet for the house are ridiculous really for a lot of the houses along the lake, especially when they’re
sitting down like that, they’re not obstructing anybody’s view. So I have no problem with the house the
way it is. It’s definitely a nice thought out plan. I’d like to see the guy have his passion for his cars. That’s
great. That’s a great hobby. It’s too bad they can’t incorporate that a little bit into the house, especially
with a lift, because then that would not cause any height problem with the garage attached to the house.
Yes, this is kind of a unique. The second garage is not going to be seen by the road. It’s kind of hard to
say no to it, but I am a little bit, the height of it does bother me a little bit. So I’d like to see him get the
garage that he needs for his cars because I think he deserves that, but at this point I’d have to say no to that
second garage, the height. It just bothers me a little bit. So no as is. I’m sorry.
MR. MC CABE-So I view it a little bit differently. If we’re going to okay a second garage, then we’re going
to okay a second garage. I think that, and again, I kind of, listening to Jon’s argument about most
properties this size would be subdivided. So we’d be looking at another at least one building and probably
two, and certainly the garage is going to be much smaller, a second garage is going to be much smaller, than
any additional buildings that would built on subdivisions on this site, and I also kind of am impressed by
the job that the architect has done in hiding the second garage, particularly a structure of that size. So I
would support the project as is. However, there’s not near enough votes for this at this particular time.
So I need some guidance from the applicant here. You can table the application and consider making the
garage smaller which seems like that would satisfy most of the Board members here, or we could take a
vote, but it doesn’t look like you’d fair very well on a vote. So I guess I need some guidance from the
applicant here.
MR. FLYNN-Do you mind if I ask a couple of questions in regards to, you know, I’ve heard a lot of
minimizing the size of the garage and realizing one of the variances, you know, the 1345 versus 1100 square
feet. If we’re able to get the footprint within that 1100 square feet, you know, one step towards minimizing
the garage, would that start to be more favorable in the eyes of the Board?
MR. MC CABE-Well I would say probably the additional height is the most damaging, but again, that’s
per our normal thought. I’d have to kind of get some guidance from the other Board members. Is it simply
the overall size of it, or is it the size and the height, or is it the second garage?
MR. HENKEL-I don’t mind a second garage on a piece of property that big, but the height bothers me a
little bit because that’s the APA of course. That bothers me a little bit. Like I said, it’s too bad they can’t
incorporate that into the house. Then that wouldn’t be a problem, that height that was part of that garage
if that’s attached to the house, but that’s my thoughts.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else on the size of the second garage? So I heard that from both Cathy and
Michelle.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. URRICO-I’m bothered by the height to a certain degree, but not that it has to be reduced to 16 feet.
I would settle for something in between. I just wanted to bring up another point, too. Jon Lapper had
mentioned that this could be subdivided. Is this a subdividable lot. It’s a Waterfront Residential.
MR. LAPPER-So technically you’re right. It’s in a two acre zone, but that would be a pretty minor variance
to get two lots in 3.16.
MR. URRICO-It would still be a variance. It’s not a done deal.
MR. LAPPER-I agree, but if you compare it to most of the Waterfront Residential lots in Queensbury,
they’re smaller than half of this.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that you could look at two bays versus four bays which you’re currently
proposing, and two bays would be more than reasonable for a hobbyist.
MRS. HAYWARD-I tend to agree with you. I’m just thinking about what we are charged to do, and we
are charged to grant the minimum variance necessary. So I don’t want to dictate the number of bays you
can have. I’m passionate about sewing, but I don’t have enough room for all the sewing machines I want,
but I’ll ask you the question, Mr. Grasmeder. How many bays could you live with? Can you live with
two?
MR. MC CABE-So I think we don’t need an answer right now, but I think giving the applicant some ideas
here on how we’re leaning. So I think the applicant is in favor of tabling here.
MR. LAPPER-Mike, would it be possible to get us on next week with a compromise?
MR. MC CABE-You’d have to ask Laura. Laura, what do you think?
MRS. MOORE-It always depends on what type of information and how quickly it can be provided to us
so that we can distribute that information back out and so this is our meeting of, you know, it’s next week.
So I don’t know how quickly you can get information distributed.
MR. LAPPER-But we’d only be changing the garage. Trevor, what would you need?
MR. FLYNN-Besides another week. No, that’s why I’m asking the questions. We need to have a good
discussion with Dan and the Grasmeders of what they’re looking for, amount of bays. Reducing the square
footage I think is a big one. Even if we went to two bays and the workshop and kept the footprint the
same, we would still be over the proposed square footage. So in my mind if we reduced the square footage.
MR. HENKEL-The square footage is not the problem, though, I don’t think.
MRS. MOORE-I’m going to interrupt. So you’re not designing their project for them at this time. So if
the applicant can provide information maybe by Monday and then go from there to decide if they can’t
meet that deadline to say that we’re going to re-table that when we come to next Wednesday’s meeting.
That gives them a little bit of time to talk over the weekend, but make sure that I get enough information
say Monday morning that I can get that information out to the Board members.
MR. LAPPER-That seems very fair, Laura.
MR. FLYNN-Yes, thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John, I’m going to look for a motion here.
th
MR. HENKEL-We’re going to February 24. Right?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn,
Balzer & Tuck Architecture. Applicant proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition
to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the
south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project includes
interior alterations on the second floor for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor to include
a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes
construction of a detached garage with the upper level of 1,344 sq. ft. and the lower level of 786 sq. ft.
Existing building footprints include the home of 2,172 sq. ft. and detached garage 1,315 sq. ft.; new floor
area 6,582 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
of a nonconforming structure, and stormwater management. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of
main home, height of the alterations to the main home and to the new garage, number of garages, size of
garage, and number of stalls for a garage.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2021 8-2021 TREVOR FLYNN, BALZAR & TUCK
ARCHITECTURE, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael
McCabe:
th
Tabled to the February 24, 2021 meeting with information to be submitted to Laura by Monday, February
nd
22, 2021.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. LAPPER-I’d just like to thank everyone for appreciating what we’re trying to accomplish here and I’m
sure we can work this out in the next few days.
MR. MC CABE-So we’ll see you next week then.
MR. GRASMEDER-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 11-2021.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JENNIFER BALL AGENT(S) HUTCHINS
ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PAMELA HARRIS ZONING RR-3A LOCATION PICKLE HILL
RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH AN
ATTACHED GARAGE 4,460 SQ. FT. WITH 120 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA FOOTPRINT. THE
PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES RENOVATION OF 2,400 SQ. FT. COMMERCIAL GARAGE TO A
RESIDENTIAL GARAGE WITH 1,680 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO EITHER SIDE OF THE GARAGE
(TOTAL FOOTPRINT WOULD BE 4,080 SQ. FT.) RELIEF REQUESTED FOR 2 GARAGES
WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED, SETBACKS OF THE GARAGE AND SIZE OF GARAGE.
CROSS REF SUB 1-2021; SUB 2-2021; SUB 17-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY
2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9.1
SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179-3-010
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 11-2021, Jennifer Ball, Meeting Date: February 17, 2021 “Project
Location: Pickle Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct new single
family home with an attached garage 4,460 sq. ft. with 120 sq. ft. porch/deck area footprint. The project
also includes renovation of 2,400 sq. ft. commercial garage to a residential garage with 1,680 sq. ft. addition
to either side of the garage (total footprint would be 4,080 sq. ft.). Relief requested for 2 garages where
only one is allowed, setbacks of the garage, and size of garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for 2 garages where only one is allowed, setbacks of the garage, and size of
garage.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion
Relief would be requested for Lot 1 to have two garages and have one garage to be in excess of 2,200 sq. ft.
Setback relief for the garage addition is to be 67 ft. from the west side where 75 ft. is required and 39 ft. to
the front setback where 100 ft. is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts
to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce
the garage size.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for west side setback is 8 ft. and the
front setback is 61 ft. Relief for having two garages where only one garage is allowed. Garage expansion
relief is 1,880 sq. ft. in excess.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or environmental conditions where new stormwater controls will be
installed as part of the two-lot subdivision.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to maintain an existing garage and to improve the garage with two carport roof
sections for a total of 4,080 sq. ft. The project site is part of a two-lot subdivision where each lot will have
a new home. The garage is located on Lot 1. The plans show the garage and the additions to the garage.”
MR. MC CABE-I don’t think I’ve been to a meeting where we’ve had this many second garages. Is the
applicant here?
MR. DOBIE-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Lucas Dobie on behalf of my clients Jennifer Ball and Dan
Davies. Jen is the contract buyer of the 16 acre parcel, currently the lands of Pam Harris, which is the late
Keith Harris’ job or his former logging and excavating business, and it’s a 40 by 60 existing garage and the
rest of the parcel is vacant. My clients propose a fully compliant two lot subdivision which will create a
three acre saleable lot in the southeast corner. They will retain the 12 acre lot on which they’re going to
construct their new home with an attached garage, and they also propose a one acre boundary line
adjustment with the southwesterly neighbor which will greatly help their situation, get them more land
and put their well on their subject property.
MR. MC CABE-So, wait a minute. I don’t see that as part of what we’re approving here.
MR. DOBIE-No, that’s just a little project history, just for the record.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, I was going to say, I thought we did that a while ago.
MR. DOBIE-We were here in December for a two lot subdivision of her parcel which is to the east. S we
discussed this with the Planning Board at Sketch phase. So we’re the westerly 18 acres with the truck
garage on it. So we’re not asking for any relief on the subdivision. I just wanted to give you a little project
history.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, okay.
MR. DOBIE-The garage was built by Mr. Harris in 1986. So it’s an existing non-conforming commercial
use which we understand there’s been some neighborhood complaints over the years and we want to make
it very clear for the record that my clients will abandon the commercial use. This will be renovated for
their personal storage of say an RV, trailers, that sort of deal. So really a nice building and they’ll do a first
rate job of renovating it with all new exterior attractive doors. We estimate probably a $75,000 to
$100,000 improvement on the building. While we’re at it we’d like to pull this 14 foot shed roof additions
off the east and the west sides. So you can put a trailer under that to keep it out of the weather. We think
it will really enhance the aesthetics of the building as well, and as Staff said we’re going to re-work almost
the entire site. It’s a cornfield now, to greatly reduce the amount of gravel coverage close to Pickle Hill
Road, which was Mr. Harris’ lay down yard and there’s a couple of storage trailers there now which will
be removed. An old excavator, that’s going to go. So we’re really feeling positive about the improvements
to the neighborhood. Again the commercial use will be abandoned. It will be entirely residential, owned
by my client, and they propose to construct their new house over the northerly portion. So again our
variance requests are to renovate and maintain this building, to add the shed dormers, shed roof dormers,
and with that we will ask for a little setback relief on that westerly dormer to the west and to the front,
and also to maintain this as a second garage in addition to their garage that’s attached to their house. So
again it’s a 12 acre parcel. All kinds of room to work on it and we think it’s going to be a real nice
improvement to the neighborhood, and my client is on the Zoom meeting with us if you have any questions
that I can’t answer, and we’re here to ask for your approval so we can continue with the project. Thank
you for having us.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-We didn’t do a subdivision on this yet as far as making this 12 acres. Right?
MR. MC CABE-I thought we did.
MR. DOBIE-That application is at the Planning Board as a compliant two lot subdivision. No variances
on this. We did a, we received our variance for the easterly lands which is a separate parcel owned by my
clients also. The southeasterly lot. We received a variance on that last month, but that’s a separate project
from this project.
MR. HENKEL-Right. It’s just kind of weird that you left that little 15 foot spot to the west there. Why
is that?
MR. DOBIE-That’s because that’s the exact number we needed to meet our 400 feet of road frontage. I
can’t say historically how that came to be.
MR. HENKEL-It’s kind of weird you left that 15. It’s just weird.
MR. DOBIE-If we conveyed it, then we’d need a variance for that. So we’d be 385 feet of frontage and we
wanted to not request an additional variance.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MRS. HAMLIN-Well, could we talk about the two garages a little bit? The one attached to the house,
that’s actually, is that four bays or three bays and some other sort of entrance?
MR. DOBIE-That is a three bay garage and it just has an additional door in the rear so if you wanted to put
a four wheeler in the rear or something.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay.
MR. DOBIE-It’s 38 feet in width, which is typical of a three bay garage.
MRS. HAMLIN-So that’s just somewhat of a storage area in the back that you’ve have that extra entrance
added for?
MR. DOBIE-That’s correct, Mrs. Hamlin.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. And how many vehicles will you be able to accommodate in the other garage?
MR. DOBIE-In the existing garage, ma’am?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, the one with the modifications that you’re making.
MR. DOBIE-Correct. That’s going to maintain the doors. It’s a 40 by 60 building. We’re not going to add
anymore doors to it, per se. It’ll be just interior storage.
MRS. HAMLIN-So the overhangs, the sheds are kind of like carports so you can put like a Winnebago in
there or something?
MR. DOBIE-Correct.
MRS. HAMLIN-It will be big enough for that. Okay.
MR. DOBIE-Yes.
MRS. HAMLIN-So altogether you’re going to have seven stalls, like seven bays. All right.
MR. DOBIE-The applicant has three or four trailers up at his real estate office now. So they need a home
inside or under a roof.
MRS. HAMLIN-I just wanted to be sure. Okay. Thank you.
MRS. HAYWARD-I have a question about the lot size. What size is it after the subdivision is complete
on these western properties? Could you clarify for me? Is it Lot One? How many acres is that going to
be, still 12 acres?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. DOBIE-The parcel as it sits today is 16 acres. A one lot one acre boundary line adjustment with Mr.
Hutchinson to the west. Lot One will be 12 acres maintained by the applicants, and then the three acre
saleable lot.
MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. With all these goings on the past couple of months I just wanted to be
sure I’m clear before I make a decision. Thank you.
MR. DOBIE-Great. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m
going to open the public hearing and see if anybody has any input on this particular project.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. BROWN-We have Lionel B.
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, Lionel.
DEBORAH BARTHOLD
MRS. BARTHOLD-Hello. My name is Deborah Barthold, and we own the property directly behind this
project, and I’d like to know how close this house is to, our house is right at the end of Oak Valley Way,
and you can see our backyard from this, this lot line here. I mean what are they going to do behind here?
What’s the proposed pool and what’s all this stuff?
MR. MC CABE-So this is for you to provide input to us, not for us to provide answers to you. So were you
given the layout here or have you had an opportunity to look at the drawings?
MRS. BARTHOLD-Well, no. I don’t even understand what the drawings are about, but I know exactly
where the lot line is, and I know that perhaps Mr. Kubricky, we’re right here, right, and Mr. Kubricky has
two pieces of property behind this property. So how close is the house to our lot line?
MRS. MOORE-So can I just jump in real quick and just give her a quick overview of that? So if you, are
you able to see the map that’s being displayed?
MRS. BARTHOLD-Yes, but it’s really small.
MRS. MOORE-Let me continue. So this is your lot.
MRS. BARTHOLD-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So this is 100 foot setback where this dotted line is, and this I guess sort of a swirly
line, this is all vegetation that’s to remain.
MRS. BARTHOLD-Yes, but there’s not much vegetation there. It’s all like dead.
MRS. MOORE-So the explanation of that, it’s over 100 feet from your property line.
MRS. BARTHOLD-Okay.
MR. BROWN-So, Laura, if I could share, I’ve got the other map up.
MRS. MOORE-Go ahead. Do you want me to unshare?
MR. BROWN-Yes. Probably that will work better, just to try and answer the question.
MRS. BARTHOLD-So they’re setback closer to my property line.
MR. BROWN-So in the map that’s going to come up hopefully soon, can you see this map here?
MRS. BARTHOLD-Yes.
MR. BROWN-So this is your home and your pool.
MRS. BARTHOLD-Yes.
MR. BROWN-And I think that their house location is over here some place.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MRS. BARTHOLD-There’s still not much vegetation there.
MR. BROWN-But this is a 2018 photo. So unless something’s been removed since then, this the vegetation
that I think their plan shows to remain, but we can let them respond. They’ve certainly heard your
question. So I just wanted you to see that photo.
MRS. BARTHOLD-Well they’re going to be able to see my yard from their house. Because there’s no
vegetation there. That’s not right. There’s vegetation there, but it’s dead vegetation. I mean there might
be two, three large trees on that border, but there’s not that much vegetation.
MR. BROWN-Up here it’s certainly a lot shallower, but this appears to be, in the area of where your house
is, it’s pretty significant. So again I just wanted to show you that photo and we can continue on.
MRS. BARTHOLD-If you stand, I went over to Pickle Hill Road and you can very clearly see my backyard
from that lot. So there can’t be that much vegetation there.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean it depends on the angle. I don’t want to pick and choose here, but looking
through this area you can probably see, but this. So okay. I’ll go back to Laura.
MR. MC CABE-So was that your input?
MRS. BARTHOLD-That’s my input. I just wanted to know how close this house would be to my yard.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MRS. BARTHOLD-And their pool and everything.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have anybody else?
MR. BARTHOLD-Mr. Kubricky who owns the other two lots adjacent to this property is out of town. I’m
sure he doesn’t even know about this hearing.
MRS. MOORE-So he does, and there’s a letter in the file that I’ll read into the record.
MRS. BARTHOLD-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Okay. We’ve got Carly Bolen.
CARLY BOLEN
MRS. BOLEN-I guess I live at 224 Pickle Hill Road. So my primary concern as always is the garage
structure.
MR. BROWN-Can you put the map back up, Laura?
MRS. BOLEN-So the garage is directly across the street from my house. Obviously we all know it’s a non-
conforming commercial garage that variances tied with the Harris’ for years. So any time that lot would
be sold obviously this variance goes away and anybody utilizing that property, that variance is gone and it
wouldn’t be used for commercial anyway. I saw the plans and obviously they’re all in good taste. She’s
done a good job with her house that’s down the street. I get it. It’s very pretty. What I don’t understand
is increasing the size of a garage that’s already non-conforming, that’s already larger than an accessory
structure should be. While it looks really nice and the drawings are really good, I don’t agree with
extending the footprint of it to a 4,000 square foot footprint that I’m going to have to look at for even
longer. So that’s, my comment is go ahead. If I bought property, I would want to utilize the garage. So I
get that they want to use it. It’s up to the Board if they want to allow a second structure. In a perfect
world it goes away and it gets knocked down when they build a house, but I understand it’s not a perfect
world, but I do not agree with increasing the size of it 70% from what it already is and non-conforming,
but she did a very good job. The plans look very nice, and I’d love a façade update. I just don’t want to
see it grow.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Craig, somehow you’ve knocked me out of the meeting here. Can you hear me?
MR. BROWN-You’re still here. We can see you and hear you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. I can’t see. So I guess I’m not sure what I’ve got to do here.
MR. BROWN-I would go to the upper right and see what view you’re in. You may just be viewing the
speaker and not the whole panel.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. URRICO-We can see you.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, we can see you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, well, that’s all right. So as long as you can see me, it’s fine. So do we have
anybody else?
MR. BROWN-I don’t see anybody else in the lobby with their hand up.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Laura, do we have any written communication?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, I have two written communications. I’ll start with the first one. This is “Greetings
ZBA, Thank you for receiving our input on this matter. We request that our letter be read at the ZBA
th
meeting of Feb. 17. We live on Pickle Hill Road, just southeast within 500 feet of the garage. We are
strongly opposed to the expansion of the preexisting commercial garage. It may be helpful for us to provide
a brief history of that garage. We objected to the building when we first learned of the permit issued to
Mr. Keith Harris, but were told that it was approved by H. Russel Harris (former town supervisor and
relative of Mr. Keith Harris}. The permit was issued even though it was not a residential garage nor a
secondary building as described on the application (there was no other building on that parcel) and it did
not meet the setback requirements then or now. The town took Mr. Keith Harris to court after the garage
was completed. but the court found that the permit had been issued by the town and the operation of a
logging/excavating business was grandfathered on that property to the Harris family, who lived on an
adjoining property that they also owned. They have left that property. However, a grandfathered
nonconforming use is NOT allowed to expand. Nor should that nonconforming use be allowed to be sold
or rented since it was specifically allowed because of the Harris' family history on that site. This garage is
already huge and we do not believe that it will become a residential sized garage with additions to nearly
double its size. Pickle Hill Road is designated as "Scenic" in the Town's master plan. Enlarging this
building, which is already nonconforming and does not have appropriate setbacks will not add to the
beauty of this road. Furthermore, if the town allows such a large garage to expand will it be condoning a
commercial use? If used to store commercial vehicles this will increase traffic on Pickle Hill Road, just past
the crest of a hill, creating a traffic hazard. We would not oppose Jennifer Ball building a single-family
home; however, this garage should be removed, first, as it is clearly a commercial building. It was allowed
only as a grandfathered use and is in violation of required setbacks . Jennifer could then have a single-family
home designed and built with the appropriate setbacks and garage size. If she is allowed to expand that
garage, how would it be used as residential? Why would such a large building be necessary? How could
the town prevent it from being used commercially? Please, do not allow another bad decision by the Town
of Queensbury to adversely affect our property value and our ability to enjoy the beauty and peace of this
RR3A zone.” This is Paul and Deborah Davidson. And the second one is addressed to the Zoning Board
members. “My name is Tom Kubricky. I have 2 lots that adjoin the property in which Pam Harris and Jen
Ball would like to be approved on. I would like to see this approved. They have done a fabulous job
throughout the last twenty-five years developing the Pickle Hill area.”
MR. MC CABE-So that’s it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John.
MR. HENKEL-I can see where the neighbors on the south side, even though Mrs. Bolen was the only one
that talked, I can see that they have a problem with that garage being so close to the road . I think, yes,
Mrs. Ball’s done a very nice job with those properties, no doubt, and I understand why she wants to keep
the garage, but I do not approve of enlarging it. It definitely is a setback problem. So I would not be in
favor as is. That’s it.
MR. MC CABE-So, Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I would have to agree with John. I think that improving the garage, the exterior
of it, would be a plus, but expanding it even more from it’s nonconforming size already would be a big
mistake on our part because who knows what’s going to happen with the garage and even though people
say they’re only going to use it for their own personal usage, I would disagree that having a garage like that
is an example of how things can go south before you blink your eyes.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement with Jim and John. The garage has been there for a long time, and I
don’t agree with expanding a nonconforming structure.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. I do have a question for Staff. I got a little confused with some of the input. Is
there a Use Variance for this garage that was issued in the past? Do you know?
MRS. MOORE-I’m just trying to think of the history that’s on it.
MR. MC CABE-What is was is it was used in, I remember this particular case. The question was Mr.
Harris at one point used it for his logging business. Then it was identified that he moved to Fort Ann, and
it was theorized by doing this that he gave up that particular property as a commercial use, and for a period
of more than a year so therefore it couldn’t be used as a commercial property again, and we disagreed with
that because he did have some equipment there which was used in logging and so we interpret that as he
continued to use that garage as a commercial entity.
MRS. HAMLIN-So it was a legitimate use at the time. It continued to be a nonconforming use, but it was
not via a Use Variance. So therefore when these people do willingly abandon its use, I mean, within a
year’s time you’re back in the same place as long as it continues to be residential.
MR. MC CABE-Well he’s not involved anymore.
MRS. HAMLIN-No, I mean even these people. If it’s not being used currently.
MR. MC CABE-That was several years ago when we did that.
MRS. HAMLIN-So it’s currently not being used commercially?
MR. MC CABE-Right.
MR. BROWN-So I may have a better answer for you, Cathy. I think where you’re going is if this was
granted a Use Variance that’s going to run with the property forever and ever and ever. Right?
MRS. HAMLIN-With the land. So I’m just trying to determine what the history was.
MR. BROWN-Right. So if there wasn’t a Use Variance that was granted and the applicant wants to go on
the record and say we want to dissolve that. We don’t want to be subject to that Use Variance anymore,
I don’t know the answer to that, if there is a legal remedy to dissolve that Use Variance, but if it wasn’t a
Use Variance and it was a pre-existing non-conforming that gets discontinued for a period of more than 18
months, you’re correct, it converts back to a conforming use.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So our Town Code has 18 months for it to be in non-conformance.
MR. BROWN-Correct.
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, because you’d have to have it in your local code. Okay. Well then I’m good with
that, but I agree with everything else with regards to the expansion of it. I think that they have adequate
space for vehicles and storage and expanding it is not something I would go for. It’s existing. It’s in good
shape. They’re going to doctor it up and make it look pretty. So okay. I’m good with that. I would vote
in favor without the expansion if they’re willing to go that way.
MR. MC CABE-All right. So you’re a no for as is. Right?
MRS. HAMLIN-As is, yes.
MR. MC CABE-So as I’m hearing things, we’re not arguing about the second garage. We’re arguing about
the second garage being much larger. Is that what we’re saying?
MR. HENKEL-It sounds like it.
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. It’s a 12 acre lot.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, and I’m kind of agreeing with that also. So I guess I can’t accept the project as is.
MR. URRICO-Do you want my input, Mike?
MR. MC CABE-I’m sorry. I skipped over you. I put you down as a no.
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. URRICO-That’s all right. You’re right.
MR. MC CABE-So now I need some advice from the applicant.
MR. URRICO-The only thing I wanted to add is that this property has a long history, and I don’t think we
should be re-visiting it to make a decision on this except for the garage. I don’t think it’s fair to judge the
current application based on what was there in the past. So that’s all I’m going to say.
MRS. HAMLIN-If I could say, I wasn’t doing that. I just understand that had a use variance been granted,
it would go on forever. It doesn’t belong to the owner of the land, it belongs to the land, and I was worried
about future commercial use, not what had happened in the past. So that was my concern.
MR. MC CABE-So we do have a short Board tonight. We’re short one member, however the applicant
needs a lot more than one vote. So as it stands right now the project is not going to pass. So I need some
guidance from the applicant here on how the applicant wishes to proceed. We can table this and you can
re-look at it. I think you’ve heard that in general nobody’s in favor of a larger second garage, although I
think that a second garage would be supported.
MR. DOBIE-Yes. Thank you, Board. We appreciate your input and the neighbors, too. Certainly my
clients want to be excellent neighbors. They are now, and they’ve given me permission to request that we
receive an approval without the shed additions. So we’d request approval to maintain and renovate the
existing garage and eliminate two shed additions. We’d be happy with that. So that’s where we’d like to
head with that instead of tabling and re-doing plans and coming back. If that’s okay with the Board.
That’s where we’d like to head with this.
MR. MC CABE-So we’ll re-poll the Board. So, I started with John.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I have no problem with that. That makes sense. As long as they update the building
for aesthetic looks, I have no problem with it. Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I would be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I would, too, with those changes made.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I support the amended proposal.
MR. MC CABE-Jim
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support it. So I’m going to ask Jim to make a motion here.
MRS. MOORE-I’m going to interrupt you. I apologize for doing that, but I want to make sure that you at
least understand why. So as Cathy mentioned with the Use Variance, at this point we don’t know if there
was a Use Variance that was granted. So possibly as a condition to this variance include that if there was
a Use Variance that ran with the land, that it would be dissolved as part of moving for approval of this
application. Is that understood?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jennifer Ball.
Applicant proposes to construct new single-family home with an attached garage 4,460 sq. ft. with 120 sq.
ft. porch/deck area footprint. The project also includes renovation of 2,400 sq. ft. commercial garage to a
residential garage with 1,680 sq. ft. addition to either side of the garage (total footprint would be 4,080 sq.
ft.). Relief requested for 2 garages where only one is allowed, setbacks of the garage, and size of garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for 2 garages where only one is allowed, setbacks of the garage, and size of
garage.
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion
Relief would be requested for Lot 1 to have two garages and have one garage to be in excess of 2,200 sq. ft.
Setback relief for the garage addition is to be 67 ft. from the west side where 75 ft. is required and 39 ft. to
the front setback where 100 ft. is required. The existing structure as is could be modified and improved
with the appearance on the outside only. No additions would be built on to that structure in excess
of 2400 square feet.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 2021.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. It would be a slight improvement for the neighborhood to have this building upgraded.
2. Feasible alternatives were considered by the Board. This structure has been here for well over 20
years and even though the structure is not a permitted structure, it’s pre-existing non-conforming
use will be improved by the requested variance to improve the building.
3. The requested variance is substantial because it is a second building, but we’re changing the use
from commercial use to residential storage use.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. It’ll be a slight improvement over the pre-existing conditions. It existed for many
decades.
5. The alleged difficulty is somewhat self-created because they’re creating a new home above this
property up on the hill behind it.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) The Use Variance for a commercial use would be dissolved if we are going to grant this approval
this evening.
b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
11-2021 JENNIFER BALL, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Michael McCabe:
th
Duly adopted this 17 Day of February 2021 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you calling the vote, just to confirm that that dissolution of the Use Variance, if
there is one, is a condition, and then you mentioned the word storage. Just to confirm that this is a
residential garage storage space, not just storage space.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll amend that with the residential use only.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-So congratulations. You have a project.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you very much, Board. Have a good night.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021)
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any more business? Seeing none, I’ll make a motion that we adjourn our
meeting this evening.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 17, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy
Urrico:
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of February, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe, Chairman
38