Meeting Minutes 3.17.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROBERT MC CORMICK AGENT(S)
JOSEPH J. BIANCHINE, PE OWNER(S) ROBERT MC CORMICK ZONING WR LOCATION
18 DARK BAY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 110 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION TO THE MAIN
HOME AND A 116 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION ALSO ON THE MAIN HOME. THE PROJECT
INCLUDES A 500 SQ. FT. CARPORT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 624 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,113 SQ. FT. 8-CAR GARAGE. SITE WORK INCLUDING A NEW
SEPTIC SYSTEM AND A WELL. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,
EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND PROJECT WORK WITHIN 50 FT.
OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF GARAGE, SECOND GARAGE, AND
NUMBER OF BAYS. CROSS REF SP 13-2021; SP 15-91; SP 59-88 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING MARCH 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 4.69 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 239.18-1-45 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-5-020; 179-13-010
JOE BIANCHINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I’m going to interrupt you. There was a recent change to this application.
And I’m just going to give you some numbers in reference to the size of the garage and the number of the
bays. So the correction is the garage is being reduced to 1,995 square feet.
MR. URRICO-What was that again?
MRS. MOORE-So 1,995 square feet. And then there are four bays instead of eight.
MR. MC DEVITT-Laura, just so I’m clear, we’re going from the 3,113 to 1,195?
MRS. MOORE-1,995.
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m sorry, 1,995.
MR. HENKEL-What about the 500 square foot carport, is that still there?
MRS. MOORE-That is still there.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. MC DEVITT-And again, how many bays?
MRS. MOORE-There is now going to be four bays.
MR. MC DEVITT-Four bays. Got it.
MR. URRICO-Okay. I’ll try this and if I’m wrong you’ll let me know. Okay?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2021, Robert McCormick, Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project
Location: 18 Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 110 sq. ft. porch
addition to the main home and a 116 sq. ft. porch addition also on the main home. The project includes a
500 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing 624 sq. ft. garage and construction of a 1,995 sq. ft. 4-car garage.
Site work includes a new septic system and a well. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, expansion
of a non-conforming structure, and project work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for size of
garage, second garage, and number of bays.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for size of garage, second garage, and number of bays in the Waterfront
Residential zone –WR.
Section 179-5-020 –garage
The proposed second garage is to be 1,995 sq. ft. and to be 4 bays. Relief is requested for the second garage,
garage greater than 1,100 sq. ft. and 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:
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021)
2
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. Feasible alternatives may be considered to expand
the existing garage.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief is request ed for a second garage, 3 bays are the
maximum allowed, 895 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. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a second garage to store classic cars and antique boats. The new
garage is to be 16 ft. in height and have 4 bays. The plans show the location of the garage in relation to the
home.”
MRS. MOORE-So I have from the Board, the Planning Board based on limited review has identified the
following areas of concern: 1. The size and scope of the garage. 2. Addition of a second garage. 3. Added
plumbing to the garage. 4. Conflict with neighborhood character. 5. Addition of a second curb cut. 6.
Concerns about potential uses. And I apologize. The one additional correction is that there is going to be
no toilet in this building now.
MR. URRICO-Laura, can I ask if the Planning Board concerns were based on the new figures or the old
figures?
MRS. MOORE-The old figures.
MR. URRICO-So their comments are not necessarily relevant to what we’re talking about now.
MRS. MOORE-I would say not all of them, but I do think some of them are. Obviously the things that are
not are the plumbing to the garage. The rest are still I think viable only because they’re still concerned
with the size of the garage, the fact that there’s a second garage, and the number of bays, but that wasn’t
identified as a concern in this one.
MR. MC DEVITT-Laura, I’m sorry, I apologize. I kind of got everything relative to the Planning Board,
but would you be kind enough, would you just summarize the stuff? What would be relevant at this time?
MRS. MOORE-So the size and scope of the garage. It’s still larger than 1100 square feet.
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-The addition of a second garage.
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-And then they have a concern with neighborhood character. They’ve identified the
addition’s second curb cut. That’s typically a site plan review, but they did include it in the
recommendation to you.
MR. HENKEL-Is that a public road? That’s not a public road or a Town road. Right?
MR. BIANCHINE-It’s a private road.
MR. HENKEL-That’s a private road to all those residents. So that is still a concern with curb cuts?
MRS. MOORE-With the Planning Board it is, but not.
MR. HENKEL-Our Code doesn’t say that right, it has to be a Town road.
MRS. MOORE-No, it doesn’t say anything about how many curb cuts can one applicant have on their
property.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021)
3
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-It’s not part of the request.
MR. MC CABE-So are we all clear here? Are we ready for the applicant? Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I think so.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, continue.
MR. BIANCHINE-Joe Bianchine with ABD Engineers and I’m here representing Robert McCormick. First
of all the McCormicks have just recently moved to this residence from their Clifton Park house so they are
now residents of the Town of Queensbury. They own this site, which is about 4.7 acres, and they also
own two vacant lots just to the south of this. To the north of their property it’s owned by Grande which
had a similar variance request last month for a larger size garage, second garage. So that’s all along the
north boundary. Along Route 9, just to the west, Route 9L, Dark Bay Lane which is a private road is to
the south of us, and then Lake George is to the west of us. So they have frontage on Lake George. They
have the dock on Lake George. Predominantly the entire 4.7 acres is wooded except for where the house
is and the garage, and they do have a basketball court, but most of the rest of it is all wooded. The existing
residence, since they’ve just moved here they would like to add two porches at their entrances. They’re
small porches, about 116 feet, and 110 square feet to dress up the residence and to make a covered entrance,
and then they do have an existing garage. It’s a two bay garage. It’s not attached to the existing house
because of the grading on site and so forth. Typically most houses nowadays have an attached garage, but
this one is a detached garage, 624 square feet. They would like to add a 500 square foot carport to that
because they do have three family vehicles that they use and they would park those at the exis ting garage
and the carport. They would like to add another garage to the site. We’ve reduced the square footage
since last night from the 3100 square feet to now just less than 2,000 square feet and changed it from an
eight bay garage to a four bay garage, and eliminated the bathroom, the septic tank, and the wells, which
were changes just since last night. Mr. McCormick has a couple of classic vehicles that he would like to
store here. He also has a gator and he also has maintenance equipment for 4.7 acres. So that would all go
in the garage. He’s also a collector of antique like gasoline pumps, old gasoline signs, things like that, the
older petroleum products, things like that. So that’s why he would like to have this garage for that. He’s
not proposing to do any work on the vehicles. He’s not proposing, it’s not a commercial operation. It’s
simply his hobby and the vehicles would be very seldom driven, only on a nice sunny day or something in
the summer. It’s not a year round type operation. Very little traffic The garage is situated so that it’s
not near really any neighbors. It’s 100 foot from the property, it will be over 100 foot now with the
reduction. It would be about 120 feet from the property to the north. It’ll b e about over 200 feet to the
right of way on Route 9 to the east and it’s about 200 feet from Dark Bay Lane and it’s opposite land that
he owns on Dark Bay Lane. There’s two properties that he owns just to the south on Dark Bay Lane.
They’re vacant properties. They’re a total of about an acre. So all together he owns over five acres at this
general location, and it’s several hundred, I think almost 300 feet from Lake George. You won’t be able to
see it. We did do a cross section through the site. The site is all wooded and there is a mound on the
Route 9 side that drops off towards the lake, but there’s trees everywhere, mature trees. So this being only
16 feet there’ll be very little visibility of this. So for that reason we don’t feel it will have any undesirable
change to the character of the neighborhood because you barely will see it and it’s from a private road. You
won’t see it from Route 9. Whether or not we can achieve it by any other methods, you can’t really expand
the existing garage or put another garage on the existing house just because of the way the house is
situated. It is on a slope, and just would be very difficult to do that because of the size of the garage that
you would need. Is it substantial? Well, I think if the Code says 1100 square feet, we’re over that obviously,
1995 square feet, just under 2,000, but I think the Code also says that if you had a five acre lot you could
have 2,000 square feet. So he does have five acres. It’s just not all one parce l. He has no intentions of
developing those other two parcels. He just bought them for his own privacy. Again we don’t feel there’s
any physical or environmental impacts to this site. It is in the environmental area because of the slope of
the existing land around. The garage is over 15%, but by reducing the size of the garage there’d be less
impact on that. We have done test pits at the site and basically there’s sand at the surface and then down
to two to three feet and then it gets into rock. So the foundation for the garage will be on rock. Likewise
we put on three sides of the garage the infiltration trench to get the addition stormwater into the ground
by infiltration. So everything is graded so it’ll go into the infiltration trench and there’ll be no additional
runoff. It’ll all be infiltrated into the sandy soil at the top. Lastly is it self -created. Yes, it’s his desire to
build a garage here. He’s got, as I say, almost, he’s got over five acres up here. He’d just like to utilize his
property and like to use it for his hobby as well as his residence. So I think that’s about all I can say at this
point. I can answer questions.
MR. MC CABE-Does anybody have a question of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-Mike, you never said the dimensions. I know you told us the square feet, but what’s the
dimensions of the new garage?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021)
4
MR. BIANCHINE-It’s 55 feet wide and depth is about 41 feet, something like that.
MR. HENKEL-That’s the new dimensions. Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. HENKEL-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So there is a public hearing advertised for this particular project. So at this time I’m going
to open the public hearing and see if anybody out there has input on this particular project or ask if there’s
any written input on this particular project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-At the moment I know I just let in Chris. If Chris Navitsky, the Waterkeeper. I know he
has a written letter, and at the moment I have it looks like another pe rson that wishes to speak. So I will
take care of that after Chris speaks.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Is it okay to proceed, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MC CABE-Yes, it is.
MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Chris Navitsky, Lake George
Waterkeeper. I’ll preface this, my comments were drafted obviously before the change that was submitted.
I’ll try to amend those on the fly here , but we did have questions and the intent and the extent of the
project located within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. We had concerns
about the potential negative impacts to the important natural resources and water quality, especially with
the proposed mitigation measures. Regarding the proposed variance, that it would produce an undesirable
change in the character of the neighborhood and would be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed
garage is a very large structure. It still could be considered that, to accommodate numerous vehicles, well
in excess of the allowable size of an accessory structure, which itself is a change in character. We did have
questions on maintenance activities and I think that was addressed a little bit by the applicant’s agent, but
if there’s going to be gas motors, even if they’re going to be working on those old motors, just wondering if
there was going to be any mitigation measures to capture any potential runoff or leaks, and we just wanted
them to verify the need of the size of that structure. We think they have re duced that a little bit,
recognizing that. The proposed variance would have an adverse effect and impact on the environmental
conditions in the neighborhood. Due to the extent of the disturbance to accommodate the size of the
structure and proposed access drive, a large stormwater management system is required. We did have
concerns about the ability of the site to provide effective management and treatment. Numerous deep test
pits that had bedrock down or rock indicated at six inches, at twelve, inches, so there is limited depth to
handle stormwater. Also the project needed to be considered a Major stormwater due to the disturbance
exceeding 15,000 square feet and it failed to meet that. We did suggest a reduction in size would allow
that stormwater management to be reduced. We do not know how that was affected with this change.
Additionally, the applicant should verify compliance with Section 179-6-050 which requires the
undisturbed 75 foot vegetated buffer to regulated streams. There is a stream to the east of the structure
and we just want that noted. It looks like it might be there, but that just should be recognized on the
application that that will be a 75 foot undisturbed buffer. So we recommend that the ZBA table the
application and have the applicant consider alternatives to reduce the size of the structure and extent of
disturbance and improve the balance of the application. Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-So, next?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any other attendees. I have two phone call listeners. I’m going to bring them
in, only because I’m not sure which project they are on. So I just brought in with the last four digits, 9786.
Are you here to talk about this project, and currently you’re on mute. I see they’re not unmuting. So I’m
going to move them back to attendee. The other one, I know have an 8818. Are you here to talk about this
particular project?
MIKE TUCK
MR. TUCK-Laura, this is Mike Tuck. I’m here for a different application.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you. And then I have Jim Tobin, and he can unmute himself and speak if he
wishes to. You’re all set, Jim, if you want to speak. You just need to unmute.
JIM TOBIN
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021)
5
MR. TOBIN-My name is Jim Tobin and I am a resident of 15 Dark Bay Lane and I have lived there for 35
years, and for 20 of those years the McCormick family have been my neighbors, and they’re very cordial
neighbors. Also I am the President of the Dark Bay Association which is a nine member group of people
that live on Dark Bay Road. I have informally polled all the neighbors concerning this project and there
has been no opposition to this project in the neighborhood. I’ve seen that the building has been reduced
in size. I’ve walked the site and the site is hidden behind a knoll that is a rocky knoll that’s not visible
from Dark Bay Lane, and the building probably will never been seen. Maybe the ridge will be seen on
occasion, but mostly the building is hidden. Also I believe that Chris brought up there’s a stream. There’s
two streams on this property, one on the, I believe the east part of the property which is an active stream,
probably a Class One stream. The stream that runs along Dark Bay Lane is road runoff from the highway
and it would run in the springtime then stop and dries up, but the parcel is a large parcel, and having
ownership on the other side of the road also we feel it’s no detriment to the neighborhood. The people
who live here feel it has no detriment. So I think we have a great say in this and we appreciate what the
McCormick’s have done over the years on maintaining their property, and we welcome them as neighbors.
Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you, Jim. Laura, do we have anybody else?
MRS. MOORE-I don’t see anybody else’s hand raised, and again, if people are wishing to speak on this
particular project for the McCormick’s, there’s some tool functions that you can either raise your hand and
I can let you in to speak and again I’m not seeing anybody raising their hand.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the
Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to recognize that this is very environmentally insensitive. You’re
talking about a parcel that’s heavily wooded at this time and they’re asking to place a second garage in the
middle of that parcel which basically truncates the whole parcel. For environmental purposes I think the
Waterkeeper was right on the mark when he talked about runoff effects on these very thin soils that exist
in the area. As far as the project down by the waterfront where the home is, I would not have a problem
with adding the extra bay on there, having an extra bay at that point, but for this project to proceed with
a second garage, for us to even consider it, it’s way oversized. It doesn’t need to be in the middle of the
parcel. It could be located much closer to Dark Bay Lane and we might consider something smaller, closer
to Dark Bay Lane, but at this point, in time, I would not approve the project going forward.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Jim. I think this is, I think it’s too large. As
the Waterkeeper referenced, the runoff effects are concerning to me, and while I do appreciate the size of
the parcel, I do appreciate what Mr. Tobin indicates as President of the Dark Bay Association, and
neighbors not being in opposition, I believe it’s overbuilt and I still believe that by going closer to the road
and by continuing to tweak this, that there’s a project to be had, at least as far as I’m concerned, but as it
is, I’m not in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I think we’re heading in the right direction, I mean compared to what was originally
proposed to where they are now, that’s a big improvement, but we’re still talking about a second garage,
and I don’t think you get brownie points for making it smaller, with the idea that it’s still a second garage
on the property, it only should take one. So if we’re going to make some movement in this area with a
second garage, I think we need to be more cognizant of where we are and what we’re doing in terms of
size. Neighborhood doesn’t necessarily mean just Dark Bay. It means Queensbury in general because
when we give variances we’re giving variances beyond that specific neighborhood. So I agree with Jim and
I agree with Brent. I think we need to see this cut down some more than it already has been.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members. There’s no doubt it’s a large piece of property.
It could house a larger garage to take care of the property. I understand that, but I’d like to see it also be,
if it’s possible, in that one location where the garage is already there instead of disturbing more land, even
though the permeability’s good and everything, but Chris Navitsky brought out a lot of good points a bout
the shallow soil and the absorption of it. So at this time I’d not be in support of the project either.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021)
6
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement with all of my fellow Board members. This is a Critical
Environmental Area and especially today we need to be really aware of how our use of the slopes effect the
lake, and we need to consider that stormwater runoff which the Planning Board will address, and our job
is to grant the minimum variance necessary, and I appreciate what th ey’ve done so far, but together with
my Board members I think we can go further. I’m not in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I don’t, I appreciate Chris informing us about the shallow soils and the streams and I
would want to see more information supplied by the applicant with regards to that, and the meaning of
that 75 foot buffer. Also I agree with everybody else that we’re talking about seven bays here, and I know
that we have approved things before, but I don’t think seven bays.
MR. MC CABE-We’re down to four now, aren’t we?
MRS. HAMLIN-We’re down to four, but when you add the two and the three, we’re talking a total of
seven bays on the property. How many bays do you need? And I think I would like it in writing that
this is strictly, well I think they did say that, it is strictly storage. I understand that, but the more you
start multiplying cars being stored, you run the potential for leaks and things, so I think that there just too
many bays. So however they want to do it, whether they want to expand the existing garage, something,
but I think they need to cut down that number of bays to be more in line with previous variances that
we’ve given along this line, and taking into account different soil conditions. So I would be opposed at
this point, as presented.
MR. MC CABE-I guess I’ve got to disagree with you guys because not too far up the road we just approved
a second garage with I believe three bays for 3222. So I think to be fair to the McCormick’s here, because
they’re asking for just about the same thing as the other project, that I would support this . They’ve gone
through some reduction here to make it more palatable, and I believe what they’re ending up with, I think
we okayed three new bays for the property at 3222 Route 9. So this is one bay over that, but unfortunately
I’m only one vote here and there’s six others that go the other way. So at this particular time I need some
guidance from the applicant as to how they want to proceed. Obviously at this poi nt the project isn’t
acceptable. So we can table this. You can withdraw the application, or we can take a vote.
MR. BIANCHINE-I think at this time we’d table, if you could table the application until I have more time
to talk to the applicant.
MR. MC CABE-How much time do you need?
MR. BIANCHINE-I mean we can talk to them in the next couple of days or so and see if we can come up
with something by next week some time.
MR. MC CABE-So I guess we’re talking about the April meeting time period. So do we have any openings
in April, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I’m trying to figure it out. Right now all the April applications are in, and.
MR. HENKEL-You know, Mike, comparing the other project that you were talking about, the square
footage on this is a lot bigger. I know we’re talking about a four bay compared with a three bay, but it’s
the square footage on this is larger than the square footage on that three bay.
MR. MC CABE-Well the three bay had to be greater than 1100 because didn’t we okay a larger size garage?
MR. HENKEL-I can’t remember exactly, but I know it was definitely not 1995 square feet.
MRS. MOORE-Actually I have that information. I can probably pull it up here, but the upper level, the
total square footage of that was 1,920 square feet.
MR. HENKEL-It was? Okay. That’s right. It had that extra room on top of it. Yes.
MR. MC CABE-All right. So we’re talking April, then?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, you can do the first meeting in April and if I end up not being able to put that on, I’m
going to talk to the applicant and make sure to be able to table it to May, but at this point I’m going to say
yes for the first meeting in April for the ZBA.
MR. MC CABE-So can I have a motion here, John.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert
McCormick. Applicant proposes a 110 sq. ft. porch addition to the main home and a 116 sq. ft. porch
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021)
7
addition also on the main home. The project includes a 500 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing 624 sq.
ft. garage and construction of a 3,113 sq. ft. 8-car garage. Site work includes a new septic system and a well.
Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure, and project work
within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for size of garage, second garage, and number of bays.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2021 ROBERT MC CORMICK, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt:
Tabled to the April 21st, 2021 Zoning Board meeting with any information submitted by March 24th, 2021.
Duly adopted this 17th day of March, 2021, by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Actually I’m going to ask, you mentioned, Joe, that you can take that information and bring
that to me sooner, by the end of the week maybe or early next week?
MR. BIANCHINE-Next week would probably be the soonest, yes.
MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, when?
MR. BIANCHINE-Early next week.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So we’ll make it until March 24th for information.
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl