01-19-2022
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
TH
JANUARY 19, 2022
INDEX
Area Variance No. 3-2022 Patrick M. Connors 1.
Tax Map No. 227.9-1-1
Area Variance No. 74-2021 Francis & Erin Steinbach, Jr. 2.
Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18
Area Variance No. 62-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella (Cont’d Pg. 15) 3.
Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20
Area Variance No. 2-2022 Dan Slote 11.
Tax Map No. 239.16-1-19
Area Variance No. 6-2022 Great Escape Theme Park, LLC 18.
Tax Map No. 288.20-1-20
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 01/19/2022)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JANUARY 19, 2022
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
BRENT MC DEVITT
CATHERINE HAMLIN
BRADY STARK, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
RONALD KUHL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
th
Appeals, January 19, 2022. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is pretty simple. There should
be a schedule on the back table there. What we’ll do is we’ll call each case up, have the applicant present,
well, we’ll read the case into the record. We’ll have the applicant come before us and present his case.
We’ll ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we’ll open the public
hearing, seek input from the public, and then at that point we’ll poll the Board, see where stand on the
issue and take appropriate action, but first tonight we have a couple of items of administrative business.
So we’ll start with minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
December 15, 2021
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
DECEMBER 15, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael
McCabe:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PATRICK M. CONNORS AGENT(S)
DANIEL W. RYAN, P.E. OWNER(S) PATRICK M. CONNORS ZONING WR LOCATION
95 ROCKHURST RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING DECK OF 644 SQ.
FT. TO CONSTRUCT A 644 SQ. FT. DECK IN THE SAME LOCATION. THE DECK IS ATTACHED
TO THE EXISTING HOUSE AND HAS A PATIO AREA UNDERNEATH. THE STEPS FROM THE
DECK TO THE LOWER PATIO AREA ARE TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE. THE EXISTING HOME
IS 1,890 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT MINUS THE DECK. THERE IS ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE
BOAT HOUSE STRUCTURE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 2-2022;
AST 725-2021; AST 876-2021; AV 1454-20953; SP 61-88 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JANUARY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
227.9-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010; 179-4-080
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Patrick M.
Connors. Applicant proposes to remove an existing deck of 644 sq. ft. to construct a 644 sq. ft. deck in
the same location. The deck is attached to the existing house and has a patio area underneath. The steps
from the deck to the lower patio area are to be in the same place. The existing home is 1,890 sq. ft. footprint
minus the deck. There is additional work on the boat house structure. Relief is requested for setbacks.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2022 PATRICK M. CONNORS, Introduced by John
Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Tabled to the January 26, 2022 meeting.
Duly adopted this 19th Day of January 2022 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote, just make sure that you do open the public hearing for that.
MR. MC CABE-I will.
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-We did advertise a public hearing. So is there anybody here who is here for AV 3-2022,
95 Rockhurst Road? So at this particular time I’m going to hold the public hearing open until next week
when we actually hear the application.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH JR.
OWNER(S) FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH, JR. ZONING WR LOCATION 211 ASSEMBLY
POINT ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE AN EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT.
(FOOTPRINT) HOME TO INSTALL A FULL BASEMENT WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,550 SQ. FT.
THE EXISTING REAR DECK OF 444 SQ. FT. TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A 356
SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FRONT DECK OF 220 SQ. FT. TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
WITH A 357 SQ. FT. DECK. THE SITE HAS APPROVAL FOR 154 SQ. FT. ADDITION. THE
EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 1,949 SQ. FT. IS INCREASED TO 2,786 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR
NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA, AND
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 70-2021; SP 15-2020;
SP 38-1995 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO 226.19-2-18 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-
6-065; 179-13-010
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Francis & Erin
Steinbach, Jr. (Revised) Applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. (footprint) home to install a
full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq. ft. The existing rear deck of 444 sq. ft.to be removed and replaced
with a 356 sq. ft. deck. The existing front deck of 220 sq. ft. to be removed and replaced with a 357 sq. ft.
deck. The site has approval for 154 sq. ft. addition. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. is increased to
2,786 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and
expansion of a nonconforming structure.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH JR.,
Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt:
thth
Tabled to the February 16, 2022 meeting with any new information by January 25, 2022.
Duly adopted this 19th Day of January 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Stark, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has also been advertised for AV 74-2021, which is 211 Assembly Point
Road. At this particular time I’ll open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that
has input on this who would like to do it now rather than next month? Seeing no one, I’ll hold that public
hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MR. MC CABE-And so our first application is AV 62-2021, Antonio & Maria Civitella.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA
AGENT(S) STUDIO A & JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA
ZONING WR LOCATION 104 KNOX ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO
AN EXISTING HOME AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,477 SQ.
FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 4,091 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A
PERMEABLE PAVER FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREA, NEW STEPS TO FUTURE SUN-
DECK AND DOCK, NEW SEPTIC, WELL, SITE PLANTINGS AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS.
SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF
SHORELINE, SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN FOR VEGETATION REMOVAL, STORMWATER
MEASURES STEEP SLOPES WITHIN 50 FT. OF NEW HOME, AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF
WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, PERMEABILITY, AND
INFILTRATION. CROSS REF SP 55-2021; FWW 1-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
SEPTEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 239.7-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040; 147-11
JON LAPPER & KIRSTEN CATELLIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. URRICO-This has been revised.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2021, Antonio & Maria Civitella, Meeting Date: January 19, 2022
“Project Location: 104 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to
demo an existing home and to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,477 sq. ft. and a floor area of
4,091 sq. ft. The project includes installation of a permeable paver for patio and driveway areas, new steps
to future sun-deck and dock, new septic, well, site plantings and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new
floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, shoreline planting plan for vegetation
removal, stormwater measures steep slopes within 50 ft. of new home, and work within 100 ft. of wetland.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, permeability, and infiltration practice. The project is
the construction of a new home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR on a 0.41
acre parcel.
Section 179-3-040, Chapter 147
The new home requires variance for setbacks where 20 ft. is required and 15 ft. 9 inches to the south
property line and 14 ft. to the North property line is proposed; floor area where 22% is the maximum
allowed and 32.5% 24.3% is proposed; permeability where 75% is required and 69.5% proposed; and
infiltration practice is required to be 100 ft. for the shoreline where 35 ft. is proposed.
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 minimal 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 possible to reduce
the building size and reduce the hard surfacing on the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The setback relief is 4 f.t 3 inches South and 6 ft. North side. Floor area is 10.5% in excess,
permeability 5.5% in excess of hard surfacing on the site.
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.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant has revised the application where the new home is to have a footprint of 2,477 sq. ft., this
includes the porches/deck areas. The home is to have a floor area of 4,091 sq. ft. The project includes the
disturbance of 13,499+/- sq. ft. of the site for the construction of a new home, landscaping, stormwater,
septic and well. The site is to contain areas of permeable patio for the driveway and shoreline side of the
home. The project includes a fire pit area and new stone steps to the proposed dock. The plans show the
location of the existing and new home. The plans include floor plans and elevations.”
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record my name is Jon Lapper with Kirsten Catellier,
landscape architect, from Studio A, and Kevin Maschewski the project architect. So the Civitella’s
purchased this property which I’m sure you all saw is clearly a teardown, seven years ago, and now they’re
prepared to move forward with a re-development. We started in September and they hired a very good
architect from Saratoga to design their dream home which came out at 32.5% FAR. We went to the
Planning Board in September with that proposal. The Planning Board unanimously recommended denial
and instead of coming to you and trying to sell that in September, we tabled it and went back to the owners
and talked to them about, you know, what was more realistic in Queensbury, and they hired Kevin to re-
design a completely different house on the site. So now we’re coming to you with a Floor Area Ratio
proposed at 24.3%, dramatically different than the 32.5.
MR. MC CABE-Excuse me just a second. Is it 23.4 or is it 24.3?
MR. LAPPER-4.3.
MRS. MOORE-24.3.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I know that when the Staff Notes originally went out, and the agenda, it still had from the
old application, the 32.5, so I think that the couple of neighbor letters and the Waterkeeper, I think that
they might have been offended because it still had the 32.5. So last night we were at the Planning Board
again and they unanimously were in favor of it. So they were very pleased with the change. We still do
need a few variances, and if you look at what’s on the wall, it’s obviously a pie-shaped long kind of narrow
lot, as are the adjacent lots, and it’s a constraint that’s based upon the size and shape of the lots and I think
it’s .39 of an acre, and I know that in the past this Board has recognized that, you know, some floor area
and permeability relief was needed when you had a small lot because it’s not that they’re trying to build a
huge mansion. It’s just that you don’t have a lot of room on this lot, but that said, the floor area ratio that
we’re talking about here is only because there’s approximately 400 square feet in the basement, Kevin will
give you the details, for mechanicals, but when you’re looking at the house itself on top is less than 22%
FAR. It’s just because they have underground mechanical space in the basement. Otherwise what you’re
looking at is less than 22%, and in terms of the setback variance, if you can see, on the south side it’s just
that pinch point right at the corner. So most of that is far greater than the 15 feet setback on the south
side, and on the north side the 14 foot north setback is way better than what’s there now, and that’s along
kind of a blank space along the neighbor’s lot, and the neighbor got a variance on the north. They’re at
eight and a half feet and we’re able to get this to 14. So it’s certainly in character with the neighborhood,
and the reason why it’s pinched is because we’re respecting the lake setback. It’s where it’s supposed to
be from the lake. It’s just about the narrowness of the lot over there. So we think that these are pretty
modest variances and hope that you agree. So with that I’ll Kirsten to come up next and walk you through
the site plan and then Kevin’s the architect.
MS. CATELLIER-Hello. Kirsten Catellier from Studio A. So just to walk you guys through the site plan,
we’re proposing an access drive coming in from the east about 12 feet wide. Right now it’s proposed as
asphalt coming up to just the motor court area right in front of the garage, where it’ll transition to
permeable pavers. Once you access the residence we’re proposing a short little walk just to the front door
with planters, planted areas on each side of the walk. Not only to provide landscaping but to soften the
whole arrival sequence, knowing that it’s a long access drive coming in. As you enter into the site we are
proposing the septic area to the east of the residence, and then just one thing to note is we also are buffering
very heavily the north and the south property lines from the adjacent neighbors and we also are, there’s a
table on Sheet L.4.10 which breaks down the requirements of the landscaping for the Town of Queensbury
and it shows all the proposed plantings that we’re proposing. As you move through the site, we are
proposing a stepping stone walk around the outside of the residence. Also one thing to note is we’re not
proposing a solid walk right there, another reason to soften the overall landscape character of the site, and
then wrapping around to the lakeside of the residence, we are proposing an on-grade patio right there,
which is permeable pavers, and one thing to note, and Kevin will describe this more in his presentation,
we’re proposing on-grade for the accessibility from the residence for older generations and to keep it more
level. So there’s no steps involved or anything. Once you get down to the lakefront we are proposing an
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
on-grade fire pit area, very small, just for a handful of people, at the shoreline, and then we also are heavily
buffering the shoreline with vegetation to meet the Town of Queensbury requirements. We are also
providing access down to what will be some docks down to the water and we still are in the process of
developing that with the Lake George Park Commission. I think that overall sums up the proposed site
plan, and I’ll let Kevin delve into the architecture to give you guys some more details.
KEVIN MASCHEWSKI
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Good evening. My name is Kevin Maschewski. I am the President of Adirondack
Designers, formerly Adirondack Designers & Builders, and before I get into the architectural, I just want
to step back in time maybe about 15 years for a quick minutes. Laura, can you put on the site plan again
please. You have one with the neighbors. It might be the first or second one.
MRS. MOORE-This one?
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, that’s fine. So 15 years ago, back in 2007, I had the blessing to own the property
at 106 Knox Road which is to the south. It is .31 acres, very similar to the Civitella’s lot. It is pie-shaped,
unfortunately wider at the lake narrowing down towards the road front, but back in 2007 I had designed
a home for it, been in front of this Board for side yard setbacks. The side yard setback for the north which
is next to Civitella’s, was 15 feet, but on the south side, which you’re not seeing on that Board right there,
next to the Ahlers, was 12 feet. So I was able to design a home, fit it in a .3, I think it was a .31 acre lot.
Side yard setback to the south was 12. Side yard setback to the north was 15. At that time I had Dennis
MacElroy that did the, I think everybody might know that name, but did the site development plan for
that, which that whole property down there was owned originally by the MacElroy’s. So concerns of the
Ahlers next door were addressed. We went on through, built the house. It turned out absolutely
beautiful. It changed hands a few times, but all new septic, all new stormwater, and it came out beautiful.
Hence coming forward 15 years now, the Civitella’s are asking me to design a home for them, being I do a
lot of lakefront designs, and there’s a lot of mirror image of what I drew for them on 106 Knox Road. Very
difficult site, as most are in a pie-shape like that, but we were able to work it in there. My goal was to try
to keep the structure dead center so we have equivalent setbacks on either side, which is about 15 feet.
The house, I’m going to see if I can do this with my pointer. The house setback along that wall is 15 feet.
It’s the garage which only steps back the 14 feet. So the garage steps back one foot from the edge of the
house. So this setback here came in a little over 15 feet. I think it was like 15 and 9 inches. So the house
placement is pretty much in the center of the property. So when I looked at designing driveway, garage, I
know George Pensel mentioned something about flipping mirror image. The garage actually works well
with the existing driveway coming in. So as opposed to putting the garage on the southern lot, on the
southern property side, we kept the existing driveway turn in and go into the garage, and it actually works
out well if you kind of think into a street or a driveway for the Pensels. Because they come in their driveway
and turn, those headlights are shining right across here. I know there’s buffer planned, but in this
configuration, the garage blocks those headlights from coming into the balance of that house, and on the
architectural plans you’ll see on that whole side elevation we actually did not put any windows on the back
of the garage. So when the cars come in to the garage there’s no headlight transferring across to the
windows into their property. So we did do a lot of design and a lot of thought for neighbors, being the
owner here, designing and building that home. I took a lot of the characteristics from that, put it in this
design. So there’s been a lot of thought put into it, and I think it came out very well. So, Laura, if you can
go to the house plans, the next page. There it is. It’s the back of the garage, although it is a lot. I would
like to have some windows back there, but as the cars pull in that driveway at night time shining across, I
just thought it would be a better idea to keep the windows out. Likewise here there’s not many windows
on the side. I’m hoping that there’s no glare going across to George Pensel’s. So we took that consideration
on the design. There is enough windows facing the lake where the view is. So we opted out on really
loading the side with windows, we keep conscious of the neighbors. Laura, can you go to Sheet Three,
please. So as Jonathan Lapper did mention, floor area ratio. As I approached the design on this house, the
ultimate goal was to keep the house under 22%, and we did. What came about is it’s actually, the house
structure, the garage, the front portico, that all came in at 21.7. So the goal was achieved. Had a very small
mechanical room down below where the stairs come down from the garage, which the stairs come down
from the garage here, very small mechanical room right here on the other side of the stairs, and it just got
to the point where we were stuffing, you couldn’t get anything in there mechanically. We had a boiler we
could get in there, but now there’s a well pump, or the well pressure tank. So it got to the point where we
needed larger area in here for mechanicals. So then we did that, right along this entire front of the house
is a little three, three and a half foot wide catwalk if you will. I call it a mechanical plumbing access way.
So as you walk down, full basement is following this area here, just a full basement all the way down from
here. This area here, the shower upstairs, and the master is right here. The toilet, two sinks all in this
area. The drain to go out to the septic system through the basement to the foundation wall is right here.
So that usually, as you know, every time you make a house with a foundation sewer drain there’s a clean
out. So that there is all exposed. All the plumbing above here, all the drain lines are exposed and giving
over here, there is laundry room above here. A powder room is right here, and then the upstairs bathrooms
are all in this area. They all drain down here, and then the four inch main drain comes down along the
exterior wall, exits the house. So as we’ve looked at the mechanical room, we knew we were going to
come in for a one percent increase in floor area ratio. As you start looking at this, it made sense because of
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
all these utilities here, this is a second home. They are not, the Civitella’s do not plan on living here full
time right now. If anything ever goes, there’s that natural catwalk which is eight feet deep and eight feet
tall, and all out here is crawl space which is five feet. So if there’s any waterline breakage, we would hope
that that would act as a natural well to retain any of the water that does leak, but that right there represents
the 439 square feet that we were over on floor area ratio. Beyond that, I think everything else for the house
is accommodated and the floor area ratio, height elevation, we are under the 28 feet and I think what
Kirsten was making note of was out here on the lakefront I adjusted the foundation wall so it’s poured to
the floor level height, so that when the Civitella’s, these patio doors have one step down to an on-grade
patio. So we’ve eliminated any steps here, bring a patio out farther. So we just kept the patio right across
in front of that house and it’s one step down, one seven inch step down, but that pretty much takes care of
kind of the nuts of the structural aspects of why we’re at a floor area ratio of 24.3. I’ll answer any questions
if anybody has any.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant?
MR. URRICO-I just want to make sure what we’re talking about. We have five variances still remaining?
I’m counting two side setbacks, floor area, permeability and the infiltration system.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. HAMLIN-To add to that, though, I’m seeing height on both the newer application and the older one
as being, never mind, I’ve got bad eyes.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I’ve got one question. Where you’re keeping the asphalt, why can’t that be taken out and
help the permeability if you did that, went with permeable pavers? Why are you keeping the asphalt?
MS. CATELLIER-So the reason for that is the proximity to the septic system. It’s too close, and then also
just from a general maintenance perspective and affordability. We were trying to keep the pavers down
to a minimum.
MR. LAPPER-So what she’s saying is that it would count as an infiltration device if it was permeable with
the septic system.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. Sounds fair. Thank you.
MRS. HAMLIN-I did have a question somewhat related to that. What about the width of 12? Is that a
requirement that you need to meet, a fire apparatus type of thing? Could that be narrowed down
somewhat?
MS. CATELLIER-Yes, we could go down to 10 feet. We usually try and go to 12, just, you know, people
have larger cars these days, but it’s not like we’re trying to park cars down along that stretch because it’s
not wide enough, but we could definitely consider a 10 foot width.
MRS. HAMLIN-That might help to some degree given the length of it with the permeability as well.
MS. CATELLIER-Yes. Absolutely.
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 seek input from anybody in the audience on this particular
application. Chris, you were first.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chair, Board members. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper, and
I appreciate the presentation, especially on architecture. The project proposes significant variances
recognized by the application to two sections of the Town Code that were implemented to protect water
quality from overdevelopment, floor area ratio and site permeability. This application proposes too much
development on a small lot in a Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George, and it fails to
provide the balance necessary to grant the variances requested. The project fails to implement mitigation
measures to reduce stormwater. It proposes impermeable liners to prevent infiltration and relies too much
on permeable pavers which can have questionable benefits. The proposed variance will result in an
undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood and detriment to nearby properties. It does
exceed the capacity of the lot, which is the basis of the floor area ratio. I understand that it’s a small lot,
but we feel that there are alternatives available. The amount of development results in removal of most of
the mature trees on the site. I counted about 35, 20 are to be removed and of the ones that remain, there’s
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
going to be grading, which will cut down on the, 90% of the tree roots are in the first foot of soil. So if you
even grade around there, those trees are pretty much gone. It further increases undesirable changes.
Permeability, excessive permeability proposed will be an undesirable change, and you guys have dealt with
that on many applications recently. There are alternatives available to construct a dwelling and reduce
the permeability. The size of the dwelling can be reduced. Great idea on reducing the driveway size.
You really don’t need a 12 foot driveway there. You can reduce the courtyard patio that extends out in
front, extends well into the 50 foot shoreline. The variances will have an adverse effect and impact on the
physical and environmental conditions. We talked about the floor area ratio. The permeability and the
setbacks allow the expansion of development beyond the standards implemented for environmental
protection which will result in an unbalanced project. The expansion of the development reduces areas
for proper stormwater management and results in the use of practices that will reduce treatment. The
application actually states that it will be a compliant stormwater management system which it isn’t. The
Code requires that all water from new created impervious areas which would run off the property shall be
directed to infiltration devices. Now their stormwater report states that the runoff from the asphalt
driveway will go into a trench with an impermeable liner to ensure infiltration does not occur. So they’re
not meeting Code. The permeable paver area in front of the driveway will drain into a gravel trench that
drains into that same impermeable liner. The runoff in front of the building under the patio goes into a 12
inch depth gravel storage area with an impermeable liner. So there will not be infiltration there. So that
is a very important aspect if they’/re going to get a variance on permeability. You need to infiltrate the
stormwater, but they are not doing that on half of their infiltration or their stormwater practices. So we
feel that that does not meet the balance and that there are areas that this can be improved. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Ma’am?
LORRAINE RUFFING
MRS. RUFFING-Good evening, members of the Zoning Board. My name is Lorraine Ruffing. I live on
Assembly Point at 66 Bay Parkway. As Chris has said, this development will take place on a very small
lot, 0.39. It’s in a Critical Environmental Area because it borders the lakefront and the wetlands and as
the architect states, the site plan is challenging. Given the small size of this lot, 89% of the site can be
disturbed by the project. I think Chris has covered a lot of ground. So I won’t read my entire letter, but I
think the most important point is that this lot is the site of one of the last stands of mature trees along
Assembly Point as you can see on the screen., and as Chris said, the Civitella’s intend to remove 20 of the
35 mature white pine and hemlock or 60% of vegetation. Granted that some of the vegetation at the back
of the house has to be removed so they can egress or access the property, and the real problem is that the
permeability of the lot which is now at 84% will be reduced to 69%, and if you don’t count the pavers as
pervious, it would even go down to 64%, and I think you all know the difficulty that we’ve had on Assembly
Point with harmful algae blooms that over a 12 month period, between, well actually two year period, we’ve
had 14 algae blooms and so we are conscious that we want to preserve the water quality. Also there is, off
of those trees, there’s a very steep slope that goes down to the water. So if you remove the trees that are
along the shoreline it will have an adverse effect on the environment, particularly on the water quality, and
has Chris has said, they’re asking for a number of variances. It’s excessive. Their hardship is self-imposed
since they knew the Zoning Code before they bought the place, and so at least if you could deny the
variance for permeability and ask them to preserve more mature trees, particularly in the front of the house
within 35 feet of the lake, that would be wonderful. Thank you very much for your attention.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this matter?
Do we have anything written, Roy?
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. MC CABE-So, Jon, you guys have an opportunity to respond here.
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Responding to Chris, it’s the new projects like this that provide new stormwater and
new septic which help the lake. It’s the older properties that are leaching into the lake, like the last speaker
that we have to worry about in terms of the algae bloom, this is being designed right. When Chris was
talking about where it’s impermeable, I already explained that, and I know you understand this and I think
that Chris does, too. The area where it’s not permeable is because it can’t be because of the proximity to
the septic system, and that’s another Code. So we’re trying to balance the Codes, but we can’t do
something that’s not legal to have infiltration within proximity of the septic system, and that’s all that
there is. There’s nothing magic about that. In terms of the basement and the floor area which, 24.3 is
very, very close, especially on a small lot because it’s not that many square feet, 437 square feet. If we were
to make the basement five feet deep, that small basement area, for mechanicals and people were ducking
around, it wouldn’t require a variance. It would be inconvenient but it doesn’t help the neighborhood
because you can’t see what’s underground. So for the balancing test that just doesn’t help anything. So
in terms of permeability, which is 69 plus, as close as we can get. We’ll certainly take out two feet of the
driveway and that’ll make a big difference in terms of that calculation. So we think that this is an
intelligent and modest proposal with some minor variances. As I mentioned before, the neighbor to the
north is eight and half feet. We’re 14 feet along the garage which is not important for the neighbor. The
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
neighbor’s view is out towards the lake and it’s exactly what the other neighbors have all been granted
because of these pie-shaped lots. So totally appropriate and modest.
MR. URRICO-I have one more question. How much of a difference would the two feet on the driveway
make?
MR. LAPPER-Two hundred and forty square feet.
MR. HENKEL-So you’re talking not a whole lot. It’s going to bring it up a little bit. It’s going to bring it
up to about 70%.
MR. MC CABE-So are we all set? 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-Well, it’s come a long way since the first project here. They’re asking for 1500 square feet
over the allowable, over the FAR variance. The FAR variance doesn’t bother me too much if they were
able to stay within the setbacks. It’s still sticking out into those setbacks. The permeability, it’s getting
a little bit paver. I still think the permeable pavers are a little bit too close to the lake. I mean I know the
house is 50 feet from the lake, which is good. I think they could work on it a little bit better on getting
some of those pavers away from the lake. So like I said the FAR variance doesn’t bother me too much as
long as they can stay within the area that’s within the setbacks, not outside. So I’m kind of, not really
totally on board as is. So I’m kind of in limbo. I’ll listen to the rest of the Board.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m pretty much in agreement there. I do believe they’ve come a long way, and taking out
some of the driveway helps. I agree with the lady. I was a little shocked to see quite so many trees being
removed. The ones toward the lakeside of the property, some of those could be retained. I read a little bit
about what your erosion control measures are, and I think an existing root system can’t be beat near the
lake. So I would like to see something like that. So at this time without a little, I’m okay, as he said, with
the FAR. It’s not that huge of an increase, but the permeability needs to come up further than just that
two foot that I asked for, or infiltration systems under the pavers, something that would help in that.
MR. LAPPER-I should have responded about the trees, and I apologize. These are very mature white pines
with no understory. So there’s a concern about safety and that’s really what this is about. The landscape
plan that Kirsten has designed is absolutely extensive here, especially buffering the neighbors on the north
and south, but most of the trees are coming out because they are within the area that needs to be cleared
for the house and one of them is coming out because Mr. Pensel on the north would like to get that out
because he’s afraid it’s leaning towards his house. So it’s going to be very well landscaped when it’s done,
but these are kind of dangerous white pines that could fall over and that’s really what this was about and
we’re leaving the ones that can be. Actually this is a map that shows the reds coming out, the white pines,
and the ones that are staying are along the north and also along the lake that are staying.
MR. MC CABE-Well it appears like you’re adding quite a few.
MR. LAPPER-That’s a really extensive landscape plan here.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, acknowledging how far this has come already and also addressing some of the
variances that were permitted on next door properties, I still think we have a chance here to get this as
right as possible. We need to really pay attention to it as much as we can. That being said, we’re getting
closer to permeability. I’m counting 70% with the driveway shortened a little bit, but I don’t think we’re
there yet. So I’m going to be a no at this point, but we’re getting closer. The end is in sight.
MR. MC CABE-Brady?
MR. STARK=It seems like you guys did an incredible job with this project. It looks great and seems to be
in character with the neighborhood. You guys have permeable pavers and everything. I would be in favor
of the project if maybe we could reduce the driveway by the two feet to help, you know, if we could have
like a condition to do that I’d be in favor of it then, but otherwise no.
MR. LAPPER-And we’ll agree to that. Absolutely.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m just trying to better understand, and I apologize in advance, it’s been a long day.
The reduction in the two feet of driveway, what exactly that does. We arrived at, is it basically 240 square
feet?
MR. LAPPER-Two hundred and forty square feet.
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. So that, then, does what in terms of our percentage of where we’re at?
MR. HENKEL-It brings us close to 70, doesn’t it? About 70%.
MR. MC DEVITT-It would still be under? I’m just trying to get the.
MR. LAPPER-It would still be under 75, but it’s closer.
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-It’s not a lot of square feet. It’s just because it’s such a small lot.
MR. MC DEVITT-Right. So with that said, with that being conditioned, and realizing the extent of which
the project has come, with that condition of the two feet, I would be in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’m still against the project. I think that your garage situation I think is one of
the things that exacerbates the problem. I think if you had the garage doors on the backside facing Knox
Road that would eliminate essentially a lot of the permeability issue that you’re dealing with. You’d just
have that grass for landscaping at the top of the septic part over on the south side there. So I’m still not in
favor of your project. I still think you’re maximally building over 22% FAR and then all these waterfront
lots, if you maximally build them all, you create a whole situation of taking down, massacring the forest
that’s there in lieu of a project where you’re just concerned with the building of the house and you’re not
really concerned with the long-term property.
MR. MC CABE-So you don’t quite have enough votes here. Just for the record, I favor the project. I’m
impressed with the work that’s been done to try to make this acceptable and I think that we would be in
a far better shape with this house as opposed to the existing house, but unfortunately I only have one vote.
So I need some guidance.
MR. LAPPER-So we looked at whether there would be a straight entrance garage, like Jim said, and part
of the problem is we have to hug the side so there’s room for the septic system and that’s just because that’s
the narrower side of the property. If we have three and we need four votes then we’ll have to go back and
make a change. The issue on the setback that John was talking about on the garage that we’re 14 feet just
at the closest and 15 feet along the house. That’s the l east important area because it’s away from the lake
and it’s far greater than the neighbor’s lot at eight and a half feet, and their variances were for the same
reason, because it’s a pie-shaped long lot. So all the lots have constraints, but we’re certainly trying to do
it right and not put too big a house, and I appreciate that all recognize that the FAR and the basement is
not a big deal. I don’t think that can bring it to 20 feet on each side because then the building area, unless
you go closer to the lake, it’s just not enough building area on the site. If we could have we would have,
but if we need another vote, we’ll have to see what we can do and come back.
MR. HENKEL-Like I said, I would probably turn my vote around if you took, like I said, you took the two
feet out of the driveway and you took some of those pavers away from the lake in the front, I’ll turn my
vote.
MR. LAPPER-Let me see what we can do.
MR. HENKEL-But I’d definitely want some of those pavers out of the front away from the 50.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Excuse me. Kevin Maschewski again. The K turn right there, if you look at that K
turn straight out from the garage doors, great to have a K turn, but that is big, and I think looking at that,
taking that asphalt and that K turn out might be pretty significant. I’m just throwing that out.
MR. HENKEL-So on the south side, then. What’s the reason for that?
MR. LAPPER-A three point turn.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-As the cars back out of the garage, for a three point turn, but it could come right
here. There’s enough room to come back and take that vehicle back around. The idea is during the
wintertime, we all know how much snow we get here, that the plow could come and push snow kind of
in this area, and push snow, and all around here is to keep access for the garage.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MR. HENKEL-So now you’re pushing it on someone else’s property.
MR. MASCHEWSKI-Yes, well it would be nice, but I think they could re-work this right here, eliminate,
that is 10 feet by, 10 by 12. I mean there’s another 120 square feet.
MR. LAPPER-They also, to directly respond to John, we could pull back to the paved porch area by four
feet.
MR. HENKEL-In the front facing the lake.
MR. LAPPER-It’s 20 feet now. We could go to 16 feet.
MR. MC CABE-So you’re a yes, John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, like I said that cellar is needed. You’ve got to have that for work space and pipes and
mechanical area. It makes total sense. I would like to see it pulled back more, but you can’t really do that
without causing another variance on the other side a little bit more. So I’d be on board with that
agreement.
MR. LAPPER-So the four feet away from the lake.
MR. HENKEL-And doing away with that area, the turnaround kind of there and the two feet.
MR. MC CABE-Narrowing the driveway. All right . So at this particular time, I’m going to make a motion.
MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to interrupt you, only because you’re at a permeability relief requested, and at
this point we don’t know what the relief is that’s being requested for the permeability. I understand.
MR. LAPPER-But we can submit the calculation to you tomorrow.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. It’ll be less than 75%, but I just don’t know what it is, and that’s the relief.
MR. HENKEL-As long as it’s over 70% for me. I mean I don’t know how everybody feels, but it’s got to be
over that 70%, and should be with that 240.
MR. URRICO-We’re basically guessing at the permeability right now. We’re going to pass something
that we’re guessing at.
MR. HENKEL-Right. That’s not right. I realize that.
MRS. MOORE-You could potentially get those numerical values on the record. You could potentially
move it to next week’s meeting, because this sounds like something that. Unfortunately it would move
the Planning Board.
MR. LAPPER-I think we could get that number pretty quickly.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. So do you want to take this information, give them 20 minutes so that you can hear
another application?
MR. LAPPER-We don’t even need that.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. How about if we hear the next case and then have them come back.
MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. It’s 192 square, but we’ve already got half of the credit for that permeable.
MR. HENKEL-So you went down to 192 square feet instead of 240? Is that what you’re saying now?
MR. LAPPER-We’re reducing another 192 square feet, but that’s permeable pavers. So we get half the
credit for that.
MR. HENKEL-Gotcha.
MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, I just want to make sure of something that I vote on, that we have defined
numbers that I feel like, with all due respect, we’re kind of pencil whipping this thing here.
MR. LAPPER-If you take the next one, then we’ll come back.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MR. MC DEVITT-Minimally, or I’d push it to next week. We’ve got to vote on something that’s got hard
numbers.
MR. MC CABE-He’s going to get the hard numbers.
MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 2-2022, Dan & Lyn Slote.
MRS. MOORE-So prior to that, you’re going to table that application for a moment, only because for the
record you want to make sure that you’re moving on to the next application and giving the applicant a
little more time to come back to you.
MR. MC CABE-Right.
MR. HENKEL-We don’t have to make a motion, do we?
MRS. HAMLIN-Do we have to vote on a tabling?
MRS. MOORE-No, you don’t have to do that.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAN SLOTE AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER (CHRIS KEIL) OWNER(S) DAN & LYNN SLOTE
ZONING WR LOCATION 20 BURNT RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT A 1,205 SQ. FT. BUNK HOUSE, NEW SEPTIC, RETAINING WALL AND
STORMWATER AREA. EXISTING HOME IS 804 SQ. FT. WITH NO CHANGES. SITE PLAN
FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 1-2022; AV 85-
2001; SP 45-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-19 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040;
179-6-060
CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAN SLOTE, PRESENT
MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, do you want to read this into the record?
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-2022, Dan Slote, Meeting Date: January 19, 2022 “Project Location:
20 Burnt Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 1205 sq. ft.
bunk house, new septic, retaining wall and stormwater area. Existing home is 804 sq. ft. with no changes.
Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for size of accessory structure. Site is located in the Waterfront Residential
zone on a 0.92 ac lot.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional; Section 179-5-020 accessory structures
The proposed bunk house is 1,205 sq. ft. where accessory structures on the site are limited to 500 sq. ft. in
total on the site.
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 considered to
reduce the building size.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. The relief is 705 sq. ft. for size of building.
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 project includes constructing a bunk house with no additional site work. The bunk house is located
on existing hard surfacing and the project will have site work for retaining walls, stormwater management.
The project work also includes installation of a new septic system that will be for both the main house and
the bunk house.”
MR. URRICO-The Queensbury Planning Board passed a motion that based on its limited review did not
identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and
th
that was passed unanimously on January 18, 2022.
MR. KEIL-Hello. Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership here with the owner/applicant Dan
Slote.
MR. SLOTE-If you don’t mind, I’ll just give you a little bit of history about who I am and who may family
is with regard to our history on the lake.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. SLOTE-My wife and I bought the cottage in 2002, and previous to that we spent about seven years
renting on the lake. The reason was when we were married we could no longer stay with our family. It
was tough for us to have friends over. I grew up across the bay from here. In 1968, the year I was born, my
grandfather bought that house and it had multiple cottages on the property. My family stayed there,
myself, my wife, my parents, my sister, my cousins, my aunts. In 2016 they sold that house. My cousins,
my sister, my parents don’t come up. So my son is actually fifth generation on the lake. Both of my great
grandparents on both sides bought property starting in the 40’s. One grandparent owned Hemlock Point
and ultimately sold almost all the home lots on there to GE executives in the 50’s. My other great
grandfather owned Homer Point where he developed that himself and then my grandfather owned the
Antigua for years before he bought the house across the bay from us. So when my wife and I bought this
cottage, it was literally electric heat and it was a two season at the most and at best, and when we wanted
to upgrade it, our contractor said to us, tear it down right away and I’ll build exactly what you want for
the amount of money you’re going to spend to actually re-do and re-fit and gut this cottage, and we didn’t
want to do that, and you can see by the topo, not really indicated there as well as you’d probably like to see
it. We’re 15% grade from the top of the hill to the shoreline. It’s as steep as you’re going to get, and we
thought the worst thing in the world that we could do at the time would be to rip down a cottage from
1945 rather than just re-do it and make it work for us. My son is away at college. He comes back in the
summer and as my wife and I get a little bit older, quite frankly I’d rather have a bigger home down by the
water, but we don’t want to do that. We just are trying to solve an issue that we have which is being able
to have my son come home, spend the summer with us and have somewhere for him to go stay and not
literally be on top of us, as well as being able to have my mother and father who also grew up on the lake
come spend time with us, my sister and my brother-in-law and their new baby. So I understand we’re
asking for something that is completely out of the norm from what is already written into the current
zoning, but it’s something that we felt that if we could ask for it and be able to get this done. We’re not
changing the view of this property which hasn’t been changed in 70 plus years. We’re trying to build
something up on the hill that is out of the way. It will not have a kitchen. It has no other purpose other
than having a living area and two bedrooms, be able to have family and friends come stay with us.
MR. KEIL-And just to add a little bit more to what Dan was saying, I mean I think the reality here is it’s
an existing small two bedroom cottage and I think the way to think about this is, as Dan says, as a remote
bedroom, well within the allowable FAR on the order of 6,000 square feet to get to that 22%, and it could
be an addition attached to the existing house, but by separating it, it does a few things. One I think it’s
more sensitive to the conditions at the shoreline. Two it allows the house down by the shoreline to be
winterized and it allows the owners to access this remote bedroom during the wintertime. So I think you
know, they’re just thinking of that separation as a remote bedroom. It’s actually a much better project.
This wouldn’t be viewable from the lake as well, and the other things that I’d just like to bring up is there’s
going to be a new septic system. The existing one is towards the end of its lifespan. So we see that as a
big improvement for the lake and new stormwater. It’s a challenging site, the steepness and the proximity
to ledge rock, but I think we have come up with a system that can make some improvements to that as
well.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MR. SLOTE-Just one more thing. We did have contractors. Ruben Ellsworth came to the site. He looked
at what it would be and look like to actually dig next to the current cottage, add foundation with living
space and two bedrooms above it, and he told me that he would have to take, the current home is built
slab, crawl space, not even crawl space, but literally open to the elements and slab again. To marry the
two foundations he’d have to dig underneath the current cottage and he’d have to dig 20 feet to bedrock
which literally is within 60 feet of the lakefront. We’re certainly back from what the setback is. It’s at 51
at its closest point. It’s just not something we wanted to do. We don’t want to disturb lakefront.
MR. KEIL-I’d be happy to answer any questions you guys have.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-A few. So the current home on the site has not yet been winterized.
MR. SLOTE-No, it’s winterized. I think what Chris is getting at is that we leave it open during the winter.
My wife and I go skiing, but I think to the point that we would not use it, it would be easier for us to just
come up Friday night, get here late, ski Saturday and go home Saturday night, just accessing up on the top.
My neighbors are much older. They don’t even come anymore. There’s numerous bumps, theirs and ours.
Despite the efforts to keep it clean and expense, it’s very, very steep. We share a driveway. So our neighbor
Myron who I bought from has almost two acres, and we have one acre. He bought the property prior to
us buying it from him a few years before that timeframe, in ’97. Now we have an easement. We share one
driveway between three acres of collective land between Myron and ourselves.
MRS. HAMLIN-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-You said you had multiple questions?
MRS. HAMLIN-I think I’m done.
MR. HENKEL-So you ski down to your cabin you said?
MR. SLOTE-You could.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have any other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been
advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the
audience who has input on this particular project. Seeing nobody, is there anything written, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes. I have one letter. “We have known Dan and Lyn Slote for almost twenty years. They
purchased our property in 2002. They have been wonderful neighbors and fine people. We have no
objection to their construction of a 1200 square foot bunkhouse on their property. Sincerely, Myron and
Barbara Rapaport” I don’t have an address here.
MR. SLOTE-It’s 16 Burnt Ridge.
MR. MC CABE-Is that it?
MR. URRICO-That’s it.
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 Cathy.
MRS. HAMLIN-I didn’t see this, I mean from an accessory structure point of view it’s a big ask, but when
you put it in the context that he did, that it’s really just bedrooms. I mean you could bring it down, the
number of bedrooms, the size down, but the other one is only two bedrooms. Correct?
MR. SLOTE-Two. It’s listed for some reason as three.
MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I would say that I would probably be I favor of this as it is.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the application as presented.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MR. MC CABE-Brady?
MR. STARK-Yes, I’m in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I, too, am in favor of the project. The description is sort of a remote bedroom. I think
that’s the first time I’ve actually heard that on the Board, but it’s an interesting way of framing it in, but I
am in favor of your project.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m still skeptical. I think that we still need to address the accessory dwelling units
and I think it fails to address the fact that if everybody on the lake decides they want to do this, what’s the
impact going to be? It’s a lot of land clearing, and I think that we should be cautious at the same time. I
mean I think as an individual project I don’t have a problem with it, but who enforces whether you end up
putting a kitchen in there at some point or something in the future. No one knows if the property changes
hands whether that second dwelling on the property will amount to a second dwelling.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I understand what Jim is saying, we don’t want to start this and have multiple dwellings
on one piece of property, but with this family, I trust this family and it sounds like it’s been in the family
for a lot of years. Yes, it might change later. They could put a kitchen in, but I think we’ll address that at
the time and I think as is it’s a good project and I am for it.
MRS. HAMLIN-Could I ask one question? It is not considered an accessory dwelling is it, without a
kitchen?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. The idea of no kitchen. So it’s an accessory building.
MRS. HAMLIN-But it is still an accessory dwelling?
MRS. MOORE-It’s an accessory building.
MRS. HAMLIN-Structure, thank you, but it’s not a dwelling. All right. I’d still be in favor, but if somebody
wants to put out a condition that no kitchen be added in the future.
MR. MC CABE-Well that’s tough. First of all if they did go to do something like that, they’d have to come
back to us because it’s not conforming. And so I, too, support the project. Another approach would be
to say it’s a garage and then it’s just about within the required size. So I really don’t think it’s a stretch
calling it a great big accessory dwelling. So I would support the project. So it looks like we’ve got enough
yes votes here. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Brady if he’d do a motion for us.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dan Slote.
Applicant proposes to construct a 1,200 sq. ft. bunk house, new septic, retaining wall and stormwater area.
Existing home is 804 sq. ft. with no changes. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and new building within
50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for size of accessory structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for size of accessory structure. Site is located in the Waterfront Residential
zone on a 0.92 ac lot.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional; Section 179-5-020 accessory structures
The proposed bunk house is 1,200 sq. ft. where accessory structures on the site are limited to 500 sq. ft. in
total on the site.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 19, 2022.
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 will not change the view of the property or the lake.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
2. Feasible alternatives could be considered but would not necessarily serve the applicant’s needs.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is not really self-created. The other area makes a lot of sense for the applicant
and what they’re trying to do.
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) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
b)
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
2-2022 DAN SLOTE, Introduced by Brady Stark who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 19th Day of January 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Stark, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Underwood
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project.
MR. SLOTE-Thank you.
(AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA CONT’D)
MR. MC CABE-So, Jon, are you ready to straighten out the numbers?
MR. LAPPER-We’re going from 69.5 to 71.5 permeability, and I can give you the details. The driveway
we’re removing 240 square feet. Along the lake we’re removing 172 square but that counts as half. So it’s
86 because it was already permeable pavers, and the K turn, we’re taking out 50 square feet. That counts
as 25. So it adds up to 351 square feet that are coming out, after I did the halves, and that’s a little over two
percent. So it’s 71.5 is the number.
MR. HENKEL-So you have 16 feet of pavers on the lakeside. Right?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-That’s what you’re going down to, from 20?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. At the widest point, not even, because the house bumps out a little bit. The widest
point is 16 feet.
MRS. HAMLIN-Could you read those back?
MR. LAPPER-Sure. So the total, we’re taking out 172 square feet on the patio, but that counts as half
because they’re permeable. So already got credit for half. So now we’re 86 square feet. On the K turn
we’re taking out 50 square feet. That’s half as well. . So that’s 25 square feet and the driveway 240 square
feet. So 86 plus 25 plus 240 equals 351, which is just over two percent when we do the math with the
16,813 square foot lot. So we’re adding two percent more.
MR. URRICO-For a total of 448 square feet is it now?
MR. HENKEL-It’s 351.
MRS. HAMLIN-It’s 351.
MR. LAPPER-351.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MRS. MOORE-But I just want to clarify, the patio has a credit. The K turn does not. Does the K turn
also have a credit?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Okay, but the driveway itself is not a credit. So it that the number you’re trying to say?
MR. LAPPER-That’s how we got to 351.
MR. HENKEL-So we’re up to 71.5 for permeability.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, we’re all set?
MR. NAVITSKY-Mr. Chairman, if they amended the application, can we comment on it?
MR. MC CABE-Sure. So I’ll re-open the public hearing and recognize Chris.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to re-address the Board and I appreciate the
time on the permeability. It’s an important issue, but they still didn’t address the stormwater management
variance. We don’t even know what that is. Their stormwater managements system will not work. There
is impermeable liners in there which will prevent infiltration which is what the Town Code provides,
requests. So Mr. Lapper talked about being too close to the septic system. Well then they need a variance
for that. You need to talk about that. So in no way does this meet the Town Code. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Jon, do you want to address that?
JEFF ANTHONY
MR. ANTHONY-Jeff Anthony with Studio A. We consulted with our civil engineering office on this, Matt
Huntington, and he concurs that the stormwater management plan meets the 25 year storm requirements
for the Town of Queensbury Code as designed. So if anything is not meeting Code, the Planning Board
will certainly take that up with us, but at this time we’re sure that it meets the 25 year storm requirement
as per the design requirement in the Code.
MRS. MOORE-And just to clarify, the Stormwater Regs indicate that it has to maintain, in our current
Regs, that the stormwater device, if it’s a device, has to be a certain setback from the waterfront. In this
case those permeable patio pavers, and I think there may be another component that is also within that
distance. That’s what the relief is for, and I don’t know if that. Maybe the question isn’t what the exact
relief is for and I believe it is in the section of my notes. I’ll just take another look at where I put this.
MR. URRICO-You mentioned the stormwater septic, but I don’t notice any variance for that. I notice a
variance for setback from the shoreline.
MRS. MOORE-So it says 35 feet is proposed, and we require 100 foot setback.
MR. URRICO-So we’re not talking about the actual system. We’re talking about where it’s located.
MRS. MOORE-It’s location.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. URRICO-There’s no variance on the table as far as the system itself, as far as I can see.
MRS. MOORE-It’s the distance from the location at its closest point is proposed at 35 feet. We require
100. The Lake George Park Commission had updated their Code so their setback is different, is 35. So
their intent at this time is to meet the Lake George Park Commission. We have not updated our regs. It
doesn’t mean that we won’t update them, but at the moment our Regs say 100.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MR. HENKEL-So they meet both.
MRS. MOORE-They do not meet ours.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So we’re granting that as a variance.
MRS. MOORE-That’s part of the variance, yes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So is everybody on board here?
MRS. MOORE-So I’m just going to read back to you. So you have in that section of Chapter and relief
required in your draft motion, where it says floor area, where 22% is the maximum allowed, and 23.5% is
proposed in the floor area.
MR. MC CABE-24.3.
MRS. MOORE-24.3.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, see that’s what I tried to clarify because I thought the number that you gave me was
dyslexic.
MRS. MOORE-It could be. So 24.3 in reference to floor area the permeability where 75% is required and
now 71.5% is proposed, and then the remainder stays the same. It’s infiltration practice within 100 feet.
They’re proposing 35, and the setbacks are as stated above. Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’m going to make a motion.
MRS. MOORE-You need to close the public hearing.
MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. I’ve got to close the public hearing again.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Antonio &
Maria Civitella. (Revised) Applicant proposes to demo an existing home and to construct a new home
with a footprint of 2,477 sq. ft. and a floor area of 4,091 sq. ft. The project includes installation of a
permeable paver for patio and driveway areas, new steps to future sun-deck and dock, new septic, well,
site plantings and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of
the shoreline, shoreline planting plan for vegetation removal, stormwater measures steep slopes within 50
ft. of new home, and work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, permeability,
and infiltration.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, permeability, and infiltration practice. The project is
the construction of a new home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR on a 0.41
acre parcel.
Section 179-3-040, Chapter 147
The new home requires variance for setbacks where 20 ft. is required and 15 ft. 9 inches to the south
property line and 14 ft. to the North property line is proposed; floor area where 22% is the maximum
allowed and 32.5% 24.3% is proposed; permeability where 75% is required and 69.5% 71.5% proposed; and
infiltration practice is required to be 100 ft. for the shoreline where 35 ft. is proposed.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 22, 2021 & Wednesday, January 19,
2022.
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:
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because we’ve established that this new construction will make this property very
similar to adjacent properties.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but not deemed reasonable, mainly due to
the shape and size of the property.
3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, is not really substantial when you consider
what already exists on the property.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. In fact we think that the new construction will improve the environmental and
physical conditions.
5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, 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;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) The patio will be reduced by four feet.
b) Fifty square feet of the K turn will be eliminated.
c) The driveway will be reduced in width by two feet.
d) 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.
62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
th
Duly adopted this 19 Day of January 2022 by the following vote:
MR. LAPPER-So the K turn, 50 square feet will be eliminated and you said the word block. It’s four feet.
MR. MC CABE-Four feet. Fifty square feet of the K turn will be eliminated, and the driveway will be
reduced in width by two feet.
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Stark, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. We’re happy to work with you to make this work.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 6-2022, 1172 State Route 9.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC
AGENT(S) FRANCIS G. PALUMBO, RLA CT MALE OWNER(S) GREAT ESCAPE THEME
PARK, LLC ZONING LC-42A LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO REMOVE THE EXISTING TICKET ENTRANCE STRUCTURE AND ALTER THE ACCESS
AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,150 SQ. FT. TICKET BUILDING AND
A 2,750 SQ. FT. ENTRANCE STAGING BUILDING. THE PROJECT IMPROVES THE GREEN
SPACE IN THE PROJECT AREA. SITE PLAN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT /STRUCTURES AND
AREA IN THE RECREATION COMMERCIAL ZONE AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.
OF A SHORELINE. FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A
SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FORE SETBACKS AND LIGHT POLE HEIGHT. CROSS REF
SP 3-2022; FWW 1-2022; VARIOUS OTHERS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2022
LOT SIZE 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.20-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040
FRANK PALUMBO & JOE MARTINEZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2022, Great Escape Theme Park, LLC, Meeting Date: January 19,
2022 “Project Location: 1172 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to
remove the existing ticket entrance structure and alter the access area. The project includes construction
of a 1,150 sq. ft. ticket building and a 2,750 sq. ft. entrance staging building. The project improves the green
space in the project area. Site plan for new development/structures and area in the Recreation Commercial
zone and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a shoreline. Freshwater wetlands permit for work within 100 ft. of
a shoreline.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of ticket booth building and a security
screening building. Relief is also requested for light pole height.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional
The proposed buildings are within the 75 ft. property line setback requirement. The Security entrance
screening building is located 60.4 ft. from the front setback and the Ticket building is located 71.1 ft. The
light pole is to be 35 ft. in height.
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. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited
due to the setbacks noted on the survey and the area noted as the entrance area for the park.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested to for the Security building is 39.6 ft. and for the Ticket
building is 28.9 ft. Relief is requested 15 ft. in excess for the light pole.
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.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes construction of two new buildings for the entrance area for the Great Escape. The
project includes removal of existing building and modification to the hardscape to increase the green space.
The applicant has provided renditions of the buildings to be constructed with the exterior line access areas
for security and ticket buildings.”
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of
concern: 1. The applicant has agreed to modify the existing plan replacing the 35 foot light pole with two
Code compliant light poles. These will need to be included on the final plans, and that was passed
th
unanimously on January 18, 2022.
MR. PALUMBO-Mr. Chairman, my name is Frank Palumbo with C.T. Male Associates. Also with me is
Duncan Millard and Joe Martinez from Six Flags Great Escape. Thank you for entertaining us on our
request tonight. So with the plan up there now, we think probably the most relevant situation is the
uniqueness of the request that we’re making or the reason is very unique, and what you can see on there is
instead of having what would typically be in the corridor zone, it requires a 75 foot setback of pretty much
consistent front right of way along Route 9, there is an old right of way that buts into the site. As it is
exists now there are actually buildings within that area. So there actually are buildings. We’re taking
some out from exposure to the road and moving back, but that unique factor we believe was most likely
done when the stream may have gone further in and there was just not a process taken to change the right
of way there, and so that line remains the front property line even though it’s well back from Route 9, and
I think the way the zoning has placed forward what the setbacks would be in the corridor. So the reason,
what we’re doing here is for the customer experience, but it’s also a matter of fact of the way the industry
has to be these days. As you come off, as the people do now, come off the bridge and come down and go
in, there is a very important need of metal detection and the metal detection building that’s there now is
incapable of keeping things to get people through in a quick enough fashion so that’s why the building on
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
the left hand side, the overlap there is the expanded metal detection building, with that and having that be
a place where users will be first coming in. The other thing that happens with the original design that
many of you are probably familiar with, is the smaller ticket buildings that were out front and you would
go in and go between those and then it would sort of bring you back together and then fan out before
getting to the building where you’re actually entering into the Park. So the combination of what’s
happening in terms of why we’re doing the things that we’re doing is, you know, the extra need of basically
queuing of getting in through metal detection and sort of enhance the, you know, we want to try to
eliminate some of those other areas where that is occurring and people are getting backed up and they’re
not flowing freely. So with the need for that building out front, and that’s the one that has the 50.4
setback, you know, if you went all the way down to where you would normally see the right of way line,
the front property line, you know, we’d be almost double that in that case there. So what we’re doing is
obviously the term self-created. We’re doing it in order to improve the experience, but the fact of the
matter is in order to do that we have that limited space down in front there. We can’t go much further
back because that gets into where some of the other existing buildings are. So the one thing we were going
to be asking for the two variances with the light pole. We identified that as it was read into the record,
but at the Planning Board last night, we can get away without having the new 35 foot high pole and go to
two Code compliant. Laura, is there anything more that they would need to know about that?
MRS. MOORE-Not at this time.
MR. URRICO-Are they going to be 20 feet?
MR. PALUMBO-Twenty feet, yes. So at this point if there are questions from the Board we’d be happy to
answer them for you and see where your concerns are.
MR. MC CABE-So Route 9 was considerably narrower with the old StoryTown.
MR. PALUMBO-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-And that’s why you have the discrepancy there.
MR. PALUMBO-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So they widened Route 9 and that stole area from you.
MR. PALUMBO-Yes, and you can see that there’s cars parked in that area. However it was done, because,
you know, the bridge was done. The widening was done. All of that happened there, and, yes, that’s what
resulted in a significant change.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. STARK-No, but I do have a quick question for Laura. So, Laura, if you direct your attention to about
halfway through the packet that we have, I just want to make sure that I’m okay to vote, because my family
did sell property, it’s a Barton sale deed and it has the signatures. My grandparents, my uncle, my father
and my other uncle on it. I just want to make sure that I’m fine to vote on it.
MR. HENKEL-It’s not going to be any financial.
MR. STARK-No. I was just curious.
MRS. MOORE-So the idea, and you did. You notified us that you had a potential conflict, but as the Board
sees that this isn’t, there’s no financial benefit to you. So the idea, if you ever did have a conflict, is to at
least identify what you feel is the situation. The Board, as well as myself, if you contacted me ahead of
time, would give you guidance that this probably isn’t a conflict, and I don’t foresee that as being a conflict.
MR. STARK-Yes, I was just curious to see.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant?
MR. URRICO-For full disclosure I was also within 500 feet, although I don’t know how, of the
notification, but I don’t see a conflict here. Maybe as the crow flies, but I don’t know how they measure.
I do have a question. Your queuing process. Not everybody comes up off of the bridge. Some people
enter from the road or from the sidewalk area or across the street and they cross over.
MR. PALUMBO-Yes.
MR. URRICO-How will you accommodate those people coming in? How are they accommodate in this
process?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MR. PALUMBO-So ultimately everyone still has to come through that point, whichever direction. I was
sort of just talking about the bridge because it’s probably the most common, where people are doing the
most amount of parking across the way there, but, yes, so there is, what’s there now to get people down to
this building location, as I said, we’re actually going there now. It’s just the facility for the metal detection
now is incapable of keeping people moving and you see the queuing that we’ve allowed there. If it kept
going that slow, that queuing would go back even further. So that’s one of the reasons that they want to
get it, but, yes, thank you for your question. That is something that Six Flags is always thinking towards
is how to get people to the right places in a happy and safe manner. So we have happy customers.
MR. URRICO-It’s not the happiest place on earth, but it’s close.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised,
and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing, see if there’s anybody in the audience
who has input on this particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy, do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
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 Brady.
MR. STARK-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I am in favor of this project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I see no problems with this project. It’s basically something within what’s already
there and I don’t see it affecting anybody outside of the facility.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project. This is a situation where time has gone by and over the many
years Route 9 changed a bit and, you know, additionally the facility needs to ensure the fact that they’re
doing metal detection and what not. So I’m totally in favor, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I believe this is a necessary change.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s been a long time since the carefree days of StoryTown, and, you know, we just
have to accept the fact that you’re going to have to be more astute with your processing and taking people
through.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Times have created this problem needing security entrance where it was never needed
before. So it’s very minimal relief that they’re asking for. So I’d be on board as is.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think Six Flags has done a great job and is a credit to the
area and so I’ll support what you’re doing. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion, and,
Brent, I wonder if you’d make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Great Escape
Theme Park, LLC. Applicant proposes to remove the existing ticket entrance structure and alter the
access area. The project includes construction of a 1,150 sq. ft. ticket building and a 2,750 sq. ft. entrance
staging building. The project improves the green space in the project area. Site plan for new
development/structures and area in the Recreation Commercial zone and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of a
shoreline. Freshwater wetlands permit for work within 100 ft. of a shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks
and light pole height.
Relief Required:
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of ticket booth building and a security
screening building. Relief is also requested for light pole height.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional
The proposed buildings are within the 75 ft. property line setback requirement. The Security entrance
screening building is located 60.4 ft. from the front setback and the Ticket building is located 71.1 ft. The
light pole is to be 35 ft. in height.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 19, 2022.
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.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and are not necessary.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. As we described, this is a situation where Route 9 over the years has changed and we
believe this is a positive not a negative.
5. The alleged difficulty, while it could be suggested as self-created, is certainly not problematic in
any way, shape or form.
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 light pole has been re-designed and no longer requires a variance.
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.
6-2022 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK, LLC, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 19th day of January 2022 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote, this is a draft resolution. So I would suggest that you amend,
where it says dimensional requirement. We talk about the light pole in that section. So you want to
indicate that that light pole has been converted to two 20 foot poles so it is considered compliant So you
want to add that into your reso.
MR. MC CABE-So we’ll just say that the light pole has been re-designed and no longer requires a variance.
MRS. MOORE-That’s fine.
MR. MC CABE-Is that all right?
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m fine with that, Mr. Chairman.
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/19/2022)
MR. PALUMBO-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-So, with that, I’m going to call an end to our first meeting of 2022.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
TH
JANUARY 19, 2022, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brady
Stark:
th
Duly adopted this 19 day of January, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-We’ll see you next week.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe, Chairman
24