Minutes AV 21-2022 (Reds LG LLC) 5.18.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II REDS LG, LLC AGENT(S) NICHOLAS
ZEGLEN (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) REDS LG, LLC ZONING WR
LOCATION 7, 9, 13 NUTLEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE ALTERATIONS
TO TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF
A THIRD DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE 7 NUTLEY LANE NEW
BUILDING OF 540 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES ONE BEDROOM AND KITCHEN, 288 SQ. FT.
OPEN PORCH, AND 24 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRY AREA; ALTERATIONS TO 9 NUTLEY LANE
704 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND KITCHEN (FLOOR AREA OF 1,408 SQ.
FT.), NEW OPEN DECK OF 440 SQ. FT. WITH WALKOUT AREA BELOW; ALTERATIONS TO
13 NUTLEY LANE INCLUDE INTERIOR ALTERATIONS (EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 2,134 SQ.
FT. WITH FOUR BEDROOMS). PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION AREAS FOR
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A
RETAINING WALL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE, EXPANSION
OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR 9 NUTLEY LANE, AND HARD SURFACING
WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, EXPANSION OF
NONCONFORMING, STORMWATER DEVICES LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORELINE,
ADDING A THIRD DWELLING UNIT, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SEP 37-2021, SP 29-
2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT
SIZE 0.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040, 147; 179-13-010
JOE DANNIBLE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2022, Reds LG, LLC, Meeting Date: May 18, 2022, “Project
Location: 7, 9, 13 Nutley Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete
alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete construction of a third dwelling unit
on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540 sq. ft. which includes one bedroom and
kitchen, 288 sq. ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft.
footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,408 sq. ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with
walkout area below; alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations (existing floor area of 2,134
sq. ft. with four bedrooms). Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management, shoreline
plantings, and construction of a retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of
nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief
requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from shoreline,
adding a third dwelling unit, and permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100
ft. from shoreline, adding a third dwelling unit, and permeability. The parcel is 0.53 acres and located in
the Waterfront Residential zone –WR.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Chapter 147
The project work on the buildings includes existing and proposed requires relief: Setbacks for 7 Nutley
Lane area 16 ft. to the north property line and for 9 Nutley Lane 4 ft. to the north property line where a 20
ft. setback is required; on the south property line 7 Nutley Lane area 11 ft. to the south pro perty line and
for 9 Nutley Lane 12 ft. to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Expansion of non -
conforming. Stormwater device of stone rip rap at the shoreline where a 100 ft. setback is required. Also 7
Nutley Lane for adding a third dwelling unit as it includes a kitchen. Permeability 70.91% is proposed
where 75% is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 possible to limit the
third dwelling with no kitchen, as a previous survey shows three buildings, however the third building
from the previous survey to the current survey do not match in size or location – the building was
smaller. The setback variances may be limited due to lot shape.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is substantial relevant to
the code. 7 Nutley Lane relief –North side setback of 4ft, South side setback of 9 ft. 7 Nutley Lane
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
2
requires relief for being a third dwelling on the property. 9 Nutley Lane relief –North side setback of
16 ft., South side setback of 8 ft. 9 Nutley Lane requires relief for expansion of a nonconforming
structure. The relief for permeability is 4.09%. Relief is requested for the stormwater management
where 0 ft. is proposed and 100 ft. is required. The device is also assisting with bank sta bilization.
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. The applicant has received
approval for and has installed a new septic system that accommodates each of the dwelling units on
the site.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant requests to maintain after the fact construction of 7 Nutley Lane where an existing cabin
with no kitchen was expanded to be larger including a deck addition and 9 Nutley Lane for deck
expansion. The site was visited by Staff where it was observed the work on the buildings had been started
without approvals. The plans show the buildings and the work that has been almost completed on each
of the buildings.”
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of
concern: The Planning Board recommends none of the variances be approved, and that was passed seven,
zero on May 17th, 2022.
MR. DANNIBLE-Good evening. For the record, Joe Dannible with Environmental Design Partnership. I’m
here on behalf of Reds LG, LLC and their application for area variances is related to re-development or
renovation of the property located at 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. The property itself has three existing
structures on it, an existing house that is within 40 feet of the lakeshore. The applicants are proposing
nothing more than interior and exterior renovations to that property, but are proposing to enhance a site
that has no stormwater, providing two shallow grass depressions in front of the house, between the house
and the lakeshore, the only possible spot for that to occur. It would require the creation of a retaining wall
toward the house to be stormwater features on the property. The lot itself is very narrow, narrowing
down to about 70 feet at its narrowest point with side yard setbacks of 20 feet that is leaving relatively
little room for any development for the property. In fact the existing structures on the property themselves
are all pre-existing, non-conforming. They fall outside of the side yard setback lines. So again with the
proposal to start with, the first two variances needed are stormwater devices within 19 feet of the lake.
That is to create a stormwater management area. On 9 Nutley, that’s the second building up, we are
proposing to extend a new deck along the front of that building with stairs coming down to the sides. The
existing walkway shared between this lot and the adjacent property to the north. That does increase the
side yard setback on the north side. The setback on the south side is the same as the existing structure.
It’s really just the expansion of the structure for a deck. The remaining variances are all associated with
the construction and renovation of the 7 Nutley building. That building is proposed as a cabin with a one
bedroom and a kitchen and a deck extension off the front of it. The building has been kept as small as
feasible to create a quality living space for the owners of the property. With that being said, the applicant
understands the Planning Board’s concerns about this property and that this work had started without
the appropriate permitting in place. The applicants and owners of Red’s LG, LLC, John and Mike, are
with me tonight. They’re here to show their support for th e application and to do what they can to make
this application right as they’re newer up in the Lake George area and want to do what they can to develop
the property within the means of the Code. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-What triggers the permeability? Is that already an existing problem, or is there part of
this project, the newer part, that triggers the permeability?
MRS. MOORE-Part of this project triggers permeability.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Laura, does the Town recognize 7, 9 and 13 as the addresses?
MRS. MOORE-As far as I know, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So they just created this new building up on the upper end of the lot?
MRS. MOORE-There was an existing building. That’s why if you look at the original survey, there
appeared to be some small building.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s off the side.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
3
MRS. MOORE-I don’t know. I’m assuming it was defined as maybe a bunk, a camp setting where it was
a much smaller building., probably enough space for someone to sleep in, but it didn’t have a k itchen or
anything like that associated with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-But it’s all considered one tax parcel with three dwellings on it.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. Well I wouldn’t say dwellings. I would say, they’re all defined differently.
MR. DANNIBLE-Three addresses.
MR. MC CABE-I only saw two when I was there. 13 wasn’t identified in any way. Just looking at the
signs, I did not see any sign to indicate.
MR. DANNIBLE-13 is the main.
MRS. MOORE-The main house.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. I saw 7 and 9. I did not see a 13. That’s all right. So do we have questions of the
applicant?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I have one. I always go at this assuming you had come to us with clean hands, but I’m
curious to know why the project was started in the first place.
MR. DANNIBLE-Again, I have the owners with me if you have questions about the situation.
MR. MC CABE-They’re welcome to come up.
JOHN GRINER
MR. GRINER-So it’s me, my brother and my uncle.
MR. MC CABE-First of all, you have to identify yourself.
MR. GRINER-Sorry. John Griner. My brother Mike’s in the back there. Bought the property as like a
weekend, fun. As time went on we wanted to improve the property naturally. The guy that owned the
property prior was like a hoarder. There was tons of stuff on the property that we wanted to remove,
inside and out. So we started improving the property. We saw a lot of, I gues s you could say like flaws
in the construction, things we felt like were unsafe, things that we felt were old, some electrical, whatever.
So as we were inspecting the property, we wanted to improve it, make it look better, nicer, and COVID hit
and we had some free time on our hands and we thought, okay. So we apologize for overstepping our
boundaries with what we did. It wasn’t our intentions to rub anybody the wrong way or insult your
process, but obviously we did so and we’re here to take care of it. So far what we have done is we have
respected the process as much as we can in going forward as to what we can do, and then on top of it we
improved the septic system on all the structures. We removed all the asphalt on the property that we
could to improve the percolation on the property.
MR. HENKEL-Now when you said you improved the septic systems.
MR. GRINER-Yes, we got the permit and Hutchins did it. It was all approved and inspected by the Town.
MR. HENKEL-Are they holding tanks or what are they?
MR. GRINER-Three grinder pumps and they’re pumped up to the tanks up top, and forget the name of
the system. It’s a drivable to drive on. It’s an Elgin. So up in the upper area where there was tons of
parking for it, and you get back to the numbering on the buildings, I don’t know how familiar you are with
the properties and the fact that there used to be Carrie’s Cottages. I don’t know if you’re familiar with it
or not. There were tons of cabins on the property. They just kind of merged them all together and that’s
kind of what we have on the property. So like technically 9 was three cabins merged into one. So that’s
why on the deed, all the numbers are on the deed, one on deed, but it’s very confusing for us because like
the numbers on the doors are not always the same that matched, but they are what they are.
MR. HENKEL-But if there was ever any kind of septic system hooked up to seven, that would have given
you.
MR. GRINER-No, there was a full bathroom in that. Yes, there’s a full bathroom and just like a quick,
there’s a bedroom, like a small, you know like when you go almost like a studio, a cabinet, a refrigerator, a
sink, a shower and just a single living space. So what we actually did do, because the roof line was horrible,
we did adjust the roof line,
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
4
MR. KUHL-When did you purchase the property?
MR. GRINER-I’m horrible with timelines. 2017. I think it was 2017. We enjoyed it for the first couple
of years and we were just busy with life and work. So we had some free time, like I said, when COVID hit,
and we were sitting around. We wanted to do what we did. I apologize for what we did.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-So you purchased this for personal use only.
MR. GRINER-Correct.
MRS. HAMLIN-Correct, for you and your family and your friends. You seem very knowledgeable. Are
you in the construction business?
MR. GRINER-We do, my brothers and I, yes.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Are you from New York State?
MR. GRINER-Yes.
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m just curious how you didn’t think you needed to apply for permits. I don’t mean to
be hard on you.
MR. GRINER-I knew it was going to happen. Trust me. Like internally you have a family member that
you may not get along with at times. I have an older uncle who’s an older uncle. I respect him, but we
kind of butt heads at times and bickering back and forth.
MRS. HAMLIN-He won. Okay. I gotcha. Yes, but it’s a problem for the Town.
MR. GRINER-I understand what you guys are saying.
MRS. HAMLIN-And I hate to be a bad guy, but technically speaking we could tell you to rip everything
out. I wish there was like a fine situation. I’m torn, and I’m actually confused.
MR. GRINER-There is a lot. Even like next door they have another cabin on Fantastic Place and a
structure there that we actually purchased also with my family, my brother and the rest of my family, not
my uncle, and that was part of it, it was actually all one big looped driveway right there with tons of cabins.
MRS. HAMLIN-I’ve got a quick question for you. You have replaced one deck already, correct?
MR. GRINER-So we improved the one deck, yes.
MRS. HAMLIN-You built it, but without approval, correct?
MR. GRINER-We’ve re-built it, correct, without approval.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay, and to the same size? Is it in kind or is it bigger?
MR. GRINER-It’s bigger.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right, and then you added a kitchen to one of the cabins?
MR. GRINER-No, no kitchen has been added to it right now. It’s just all stick framed right now. There’s
nothing done inside the structure as it sits right now.
MRS. HAMLIN-You have three buildings that are complete units that each one has a kitchen.
MR. GRINER-All three would have a kitchen, correct, but not all three have a kitchen. Only one.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay.
MR. GRINER-Only one of the structures you would use right now. The other one, I think it was Charlie
that came by.
MRS. MOORE-So I think the main house has a kitchen, because that’s interior alterations, but that main
house has a kitchen.
MR. GRINER-Correct.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
5
MRS. MOORE-But the middle cabin is the one that was renovated with the deck. The cabin that is the
smallest cabin I’ll say is the one that was much smaller unit at the time, based on just going out to the site
and looking at those buildings you can clearly see it was enlarged and its intent i s to have a kitchen in it.
MR. GRINER-The building was re-leveled because of the way it was sitting, and I don’t know if you’ve
ever been to the location or are familiar with the area at all, the elevations there are like this. So we did
what was best for the structure at the time to make it sit as sound as it could.
MRS. HAMLIN-So I guess what I’m asking is, is this supposedly, we’re asking for a third dwelling unit
really for that.
MRS. MOORE-So, 7, to the point of Planning and Zoning Department, Number Seven is not a legitimate
dwelling unit. That’s why it requires a variance. Because right now the site only recognizes 9 and 13 as
dwelling units, with available kitchens and making it dwelling units because it has a kitchen in it. Number
Seven does not.
MRS. HAMLIN-So we would be giving him a variance to put a kitchen in there. The kitchen isn’t there
now. This is an after the fact forgiveness situation.
MRS. MOORE-As far as I know there’s no kitchen in Number Seven at all at this point.
MR. GRINER-No, there’s nothing in the structure right now.
MRS. MOORE-Just raw wood.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. Did they increase the square footage?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. GRINER-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-By how much. Do you know?
MR. DANNIBLE-It appears without the deck maybe double. With the deck maybe triple.
MR. KUHL-What are you going to use them for?
MR. GRINER-Well there’s three of us. We’re a growing family. We’re a huge family. We’re all in the
process of having families. It’s nice to have our own space when we can. I won’t lie. We have air b-n-b’d
it, but our intention isn’t to use the entire property like that or like every weekend. Our intention is for
us to use it and to enjoy it most of the time. It was nice to get some money back.
MR. KUHL-So you’ll swear on a bible it’ll never be an air b-n-b, right?
MR. GRINER-I said that we will use it, but not all three structures, no way. I’ll put that in writing if
that’s something you guys would like.
MR. KUHL-In my past experience, we had people come up there and they wanted to add for the mother-
in-law. Okay. My granddaughter got engaged out of that air b -n-b. Okay. So, you know, we have no
authority other than your word on the record, but it kind of bends me out of shape a little bit about people
coming in saying one thing and doing another.
MR. GRINER-I’m trying to be as transparent as I can, I guess. Like I said we have used it as an air b-n-b.
MR. KUHL-So Mike gets the small one?
MR. GRINER-Mike gets the small one.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-Not the applicant, but again, there seems to be a discrepancy between Staff Notes and the
application with regards to the permeability. So what is the permeability as it stands now? I have 70.91
in Staff Notes and I’m showing 62.5. So which is it? Because that’s a decrease.
MRS. MOORE-They’re proposal is 70.91%.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. So that’s actually, that’s an improvement.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
6
MR. HENKEL-Because on our proposed one it says.
MRS. MOORE-70.91. So existing is 62.9.
MRS. HAMLIN-Existing? Or is existing 67.78?
MRS. MOORE-So if it is, 75% is required. So I apologize. I don’t know why I don’t have the most recent
application on here.
MR. HENKEL-So it is at the 70.91 now? Or is it the 62 and a half?
MRS. MOORE-It would be the application that you have in your hand.
MR. HENKEL-That’s what we have, 62 and a half.
MR. DANNIBLE-62.5. It’s something I can definitely verify numbers on that. I think it’s a matter of how
much of the pavement has been removed as the applicant has tried to reduce the permeability.
MR. HENKEL-So you’re saying it’s at 62.5.
MR. DANNIBLE-That is what the proposal is. It’s probably even a little less than that with the variance.
MR. URRICO-You’re sharing a septic system, all three units?
MR. DANNIBLE=All three structures go to two different holding tanks.
MR. URRICO-Two different holding tanks.
MR. DANNIBLE-But each structure in itself has its own grinder pump that goes to the two tanks, and
then they share the same leach field up top. Where that whole parking area was, right off the road 9L
there, that was all removed, which is a pretty decent sized area, probably as wide as 70 by probably 40.
MR. HENKEL-Is that approved?
MRS. MOORE-The septic system is an approved system.
MR. HENKEL-It’s approved for all three cabins?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. URRICO-And the stomrwate4r management system, are they connected in some way, or is it separate
for each?
MR. GRINER-We haven’t installed the stormwater. What we want to do down near the lake with the
retaining wall, we haven’t done any of that work yet, but just from the aesthetics of the property and
knowing that we know it was a big deal, we want to it as good as we could. The intent was to improve
the percolation and all the runoff goes down into the lake right now. If we could do something to retain
that water with building a retaining wall.
MR. DANNIBLE-So to answer your question, there would be stormwater management in place down
closest to the lake and then the lot gets quite steep up behind 13 as it goes into where the old cabins used
to be. Up there there’s only a few flat areas. Within those flat areas we’re proposing two additional
stormwater features to collect runoff certainly from seven and of course you know the roof on nine.
MR. URRICO-Is the ultimate plan to consider them three separate dwellings? Or will they be
interconnected throughout? If one of them becomes an air b-n-b property, where would you have parking
for that? Where would the?
MR. GRINER-Up top parking is pretty large. It’s like 60 by 70 area.
MR. URRICO-So everybody would park there.
MR. GRINER-Well everybody, yes, could park there, but how would it be shared.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. GRINER-As few times as we’re there, we usually don’t go up there. We don’t want to be there if
there’s a renter there.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
7
MR. URRICO-You’re nor the Property Brothers then.
MR. GRINER-Actually we were asked to do the show, but we didn’t do it.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m
going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this
particular application. Chris?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. First I want to say I was ju st
confused by the application. I see references to stormwater devices. I didn’t see any represented on the
drawing that was prepared. I haven’t gotten into the stormwater because I didn’t know there were
variances on that. I do have concern about the permeability and I feel it’s going to increase impervious
cover, not decrease. They show the entire area, the parking area at the top, to be replaced by Number Two
stone. Apparently the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code considers parking, driving surfaces constructed
with materials of Number Two stone or larger as permeable. Despite the fact that it will become
compacted, prevent infiltration and create runoff. This is not supported by science principles and contrary
to basin wide standards and definition for impervious cover established by the Lake George Park
Commission and also as the definition in the Queensbury Town Code under stormwater § 147. The Lake
George Park Commission defines “Impervious Area:” as well as § 147 in the Town Code, as “all impermeable
surfaces that cannot effectively infiltrate rainfall”. This includes paved, concrete, packed earth and gravel
surfaces, i.e. parking lots, driveways, roads, runways and sidewalks. So clearly I think, regardless of the
stone size, this is going to become impervious.
MRS. MOORE-Can I just offer quickly is that the Number Two stone is in relation to landscaping area,
but if it is in reference to a driving surface, it is considered impermeable. So just a clarification.
MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. That’s all right. Because it seemed that they cited Number Two stone. So I as
just confused on that, and I didn’t see anything on the stormwater plans. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else that would like to input on this particular project? Sure.
MARTIN FARBER
MR. FARBER-My name is Martin Farber. I live at 33 Antigua Road which is across the cove from the
property. I have a letter which I guess is going to be read. So I won’t.
MR. MC CABE-Well, we can read the letter for you or you can take care of it yourself. I really would
rather you did it.
MR. FARBER-All right. I will read it. So we live at 33 Antigua Road directly across the a small cove from
7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. We have some concerns regarding the proposed alterations at those addresses.
For the last several years these properties seem to have been used as short term rentals. This has attracted
people who seem not to appreciate their proximity to other residents or the courtesy one expects from
neighbors. We have frequently been subjected to overly boisterous activity which has extended far into
the night disturbing our ability to sleep and requiring us to call the police to quell the noise. Increasing
the occupant capacity of these properties by allowing additional bedroom, and it was unclear to me as well
from the description whether it was one or more bedrooms that were going to be increased, and living
space will serve to further foster more of this behavior. In addition, I have some concerns that allowing an
increase in human activity on such a small plot will stress the septic system, particularly if the leach field
is going to be used as a parking area. This would allow the introduction of bacterial and viral pathogens
into a part of the lake which is shallow with a limited rate of turnover and which is the source of drinking
water for all the homes in that area. It would also result in an increase of unwanted nutrients in the lake
which will encourage an undesirable increase in marine plant g rowth and the likelihood of potentially
harmful algae blooms which are already affecting other parts of Lake George. I would also point out that
this construction was already well underway before the appropriate permissions were requested will not
be used as an excuse to approve them as I have in other times I have seen when I have come before this
committee with projects that have been started before appropriate permissions were granted, and I
thought that a year or two ago they were doing work on the shoreline before getting permissions and they
were stopped. So the fact that they would then do this without getting permission seems to me to be
somewhat questionable..
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this matter?
BEN BOTELHO
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
8
MR. BOTELHO-My name is Ben Botelho. I’m an attorney with Braymer Law in Glens Falls. I’m here to
represent Robert O’Brien and Denise Freihofer who live very close to the property. We are upset the
applicant has done most of the work on the property without permission from the Town and is now
seeking retroactive approval from the ZBA. We did send a comment letter to the Planning and Zoning
Board and I’ll give everyone a copy when I’m done speaking, but I just wanted to reiterate a couple of items
from our letter.
MR. MC CABE-So are you going to require that we?
MR. BOTELHO-I won’t make you read the whole thing in.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. BOTELHO-I’ll just hand out copies to you. First because the Zoning Code only allows one dwelling
unit for every two acres and only allows one dwelling lot per lot regardless of size, we believe that the
applicant needs to obtain a Use Variance not an Area Variance. Second, even if the Area Variance criteria
did apply, the Board should deny them. It is a very substantial request, asking for three dwelling units for
a half acre lot when the Code only allows one for two acres. There’ll be major impacts to the neighborhood
if the variances are granted. There are several alternatives for the applicant to develop the property,
including removing 7 Nutley Lane, which we believe is a brand new structure that’s almost three times
bigger than the previous one that was there or converting it back to its prior use which was basically a
shed, and, third the difficulty was clearly self-created. The work was done without permission from the
Town. If approved the massive overdevelopment will have significant impacts on the environmental
conditions of the neighborhood. We respectfully request that the Board deny the variances. Thank you.
And I’ll hand out copies.
MR. MC CABE-The first copy goes to Roy.
MR. BOTELHO-Okay, it’s already in your packets?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. BOTELHO-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to comment on this particular project?
MR. URRICO-I have other letters. This is from Kathleen Toomey Noonan, 9 Big Slide Drive. “As a
lifelong owner and resident of 9 Big Slide Drive on Lake George I am voicing my opposition to any variance
for buildings at 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. This owner has not followed any of the rules or regulations or
building codes in the past. He has converted a shed to a building with no permits or approval and has
now erected a second building. Now this request for a third non-conforming structure sure to push any
limits on water, septic and less green for further runoff into the lake. The fact that even one building exists
on this lot is ridiculous when as a 55 year plus owner on his property I cannot get a variance to make my
dock 1 inch bigger, how can this unchecked building in a sliver of land go unchecked? This person is not
a resident. He is running a business and has created congestion in an area not designed to handle the
increased number of guests now staying in a very small area and pushing the limits of our small
communities septic, utilities and roads. In addition, the overcrowded number of guests staying at his
rentals have increased the loud noise, drunken behavior, limited parking, exceptionally loud mus ic and
bright lights, none of which are in keeping with our Lake George community. I strongly oppose any
variance to allow additional building expansion and further request the past violations of this LLC with
failure to request permitting any and all codes an regulations be reviewed by this body as it appears a
pattern of abuse, the building already exists and was erected in secret, how can you allow this? I am
requesting the planning and zoning board deny any variances for this property. Thank you for your
attention in this matter.” “I am the owner of No. 8 Nutley Lane, that is, a dwelling heartbreakingly close
to No. 7 Nutley Lane, one structure in question this evening. In fact, the two properties were once one
property and still look that way. We share a driveway and a path and we're very close together. My family
has been living at this address, 8 Nutley Lane, since the early seventies, nearly 50 years. Significant loss of
serenity and the Adirondack experience began in the last few years w ith the neighbor's renting of their
property (nos. 9 and 13 Nutley Lane), often to would-be partiers. In the beginning, they exercised much
respect and care with regard to screening renters. With time, that has changed. There is much to discuss
regarding the downsides of Bldgs. # 9 and # 13 Nutley Lane. Our recent past experiences with the
AirBnBers and other renters' negative influences at these sites has a deleterious effect on our
neighborhood's overall living and peace. I will try to narrow my major comments to the Bldg. at # 7 Nutley
Lane, however. The reason being that # 7 is about 35 feet from my front door and the center of my living
room at # 8 Nutley Lane. So, there can be no fencing, no baffles, no trees or other plantings that will limit
the amount of noise and excitement emanating from that site after 10:00 pm in the evening. This we learned
from the noises emanating from # 9 Nutley Lane after 10:00 pm. Loud noise, music and raucous goings on
till the wee hours. Again, not all renters behave thusly, but enough to disrupt the overall Adirondack
serenity. When I first saw Bldg # 7 upon my arrival a few seasons ago, I was shocked and appalled. No one
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
9
had ever mentioned to us that this edifice was even planned. A small ,tiny shed pre-existed on that site.
Nor has anyone still, in the past two seasons even mentioned it to us. Apparently, the Board was not
informed either. Building #7 is not, as the plans state, "an existing seasonal cabin to undergo interior and
exterior renovations". This is a brand new dwelling unit. It is not a renovation. It's an entirely new
construction on a property that shouldn't have two dwelling units, let alone three. Just visit the property
and you will see. Other problems exist with this application, to be sure. #9 is not an "existing seasonal
cabin to undergo interior renovations and rebuilt deck". This is a year-round, four-bedroom dwelling that
was converted and fully renovated by the new owners from the one-bedroom home they purchased. The
application at hand appears to be for renovations that have been completed for a number of years, while
admitting only that the deck was "rebuilt prior to SPR and ZBA approval". Major construction work has
been going on at this property for years, with few if any permits applied for. To get back to our primary
concern,, Bldg. #7 is a major invasion to our privacy and to what had previously been a serene Adirondack
space. As I sit in my living room, I can clearly look across our shared driveway into the living space of Bldg.
# 7. And I assume that will apply to their prospective deck as well. So much for the Bldg. # 7 occupants
being able to gaze into my living quarters! To attempt to block it out would be like putting a Band-Aid on
an open wound. Vision is one thing, but noise after 10 pm is not blocked by fences and shrubs. The building
must be taken down. What we have observed on our lakeside lawn after 10 pm, from the # 9 Bldg renters;
i.e. removal of our wood burning grill, removal of wood and miscellaneous lawn items, renters o ut in the
open public urinating on the lawn, and the usual loud music, I am afraid all this would now extend to our
front lawn on the other side of our house, should Bldg # 7 be granted a variance. To be clear, even if our
neighbor agrees to never rent again, and even if everyone is quiet and respectful, adding a third house to
their property that already has two, four-bedroom homes, is too much. (As noted, one of the homes, #9,
was purchased as a one-bedroom home and converted to four.) The new building must be taken down.
The fact that #7 is already built, without any approvals, should reinforce that fact, not lessen it. The fact
most of the work mentioned in this application is already complete prior to making proper applications,
should reinforce that fact, not lessen it. To sum up, it seems that we might have reached a new reality with
our current woes caused by the new renters of Buildings # 9 and # 13, but the thought of extending these
woes to a newly constructed Bldg.# 7 and the other side of our p roperty is almost mind numbing. The
absolute loss of Adirondack serenity is most assured thereby. A realtor recently told me, "You know, if that
structure, No. 7 proceeds, and is occupied by tenants or renters, your property values at No. 8 Nutley Lane
will plummet." That thought sticks with me today and I ask the Board to protect my home and investment
by removing # 7 and simply restoring the Adirondack beauty to what it once was. Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. O’Brien, #8 Nutley Lane” “I live just to the north of the properties at 7, 9, & 13 that are in
question on Nutley Lane. I have been made aware through the notice that was mailed to me that my
neighbor Tom/Reds LG, LLC has applied for a variance and approval for a third house on his property. The
building (7 Nutley Lane) was built there illegally where there once was an old shed. It was built without
applying to the Town for a building permit and now he wants a variance? Normally I wouldn’t object to
a neighbor asking for a variance because I like to keep a friendly relationship with my neighbors but in this
case, I must strongly protest approval of this variance. Here are my reasons. Since this property was
purchased by the current owner the other two houses that exist on this prop erty have been rented out
continually for short term usage during the summer months. I have been subjected over the years to noisy
parties until the late hours of the night, lots of people wandering around outside, doors slamming, loud
music, people yelling profanities, and the bright, unnatural, LED lighting that he has installed on his
porches and deck areas which shine over to my property. He did move one spotlight when I made him
aware that it was shining directly on to my porch and I was appreciative for that. What should normally
be a peaceful evening on Lake George for the residents who live in Plum Bay has often been shattered and
turned into a disturbing, noisy night where I have had to close my doors and windows and turn up my
television to drown out the noise coming from his property. I have not called the police on nights like this,
but I know others have. A couple of summers ago I finally did call Tom after a particularly loud party that
went on until 3 a.m. I left him a message and he did text me back and apologized and would let his renters
know to tone it down. This seemed to help for a few weeks, but it didn’t last for long before it started up
again. Last summer was particularly bad. I especially dreaded weekends at my home because of all the
noise at night and commotion that came from his dock during the day which would be loaded up with
people, jet skis and boats zooming in and out of the bay above the speed limit. Please don’t get me wrong,
I am all for people enjoying the beauty of Lake George and staying at a short-term rental home. Other
homes around me are rented and I never had to deal with any problems like this. I have lived in Plum Bay
during the summer for 41 years now and up until Tom purchased this property we had a peaceful
neighborhood where I felt safe at night. Now there are people renting from him that he obviously does
not check out very carefully nor does he put stipulations in his rental agreement about large parties and
noise after 10 p.m. at night or I don’t think we would be having these issues if he did. Occasionally there
are nice, quiet families who rent and are respectfully that they are in a residential neighborhood, but there
have been way too many other times that he has rented his property out to young, loud, obnoxious people
who have no concern for the residents who live in the surrounding homes and just want to party, and they
have no consideration for neighboring homes. This is especially true at nighttime when the sound travels
across the water even more loudly. And now he wants to be able to have even more renters stay on his
property by trying to sneak a third building onto his land? I was relieved to hear that the Town told him
to stop construction since he had built it without applying for a permit first. Who does that? Residents
need a permit for everything before building here in Queensbury and Lake George. I realize that I can’t
stop Tom from renting his two existing properties and I am glad to see him finally making some
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
10
improvements to those structures granted they are conforming to the Town of Queensbury building codes.
For these reasons I’m asking the Zoning Board to NOT approve this third building (7 Nutley Lane) and
that the structure be taken down. If this is allowed, it will only mean more congestion on his narrow lot,
more people on his dock and more noise for nearby residents to hear. This is a money-making venture for
him and he does not care about what his neighbors have had to endure these last few years. I am sorry if I
sound upset, but I have been pushed to the limit with this situation. Thank you for your time and for
reading this. Respectfully submitted, Denise Freihofer” That’s it.
MR. MC CABE-So you may comment or you can listen to what we have to say. That’s kind of up to you.
MR. DANNIBLE-Just in general, from the engineering and stormwater perspective, certainly comments
that we’re all aware of would be coming. Obviously everybody noted what we had noted ourselves is that
our stormwater is close to the lake and we have no other options with that. Also everybody noted that
the construction that occurred without a permit, we’ve represented in that they’re not trying to hide that
fact. They’re trying to figure out a way to get to an agreeable approval so that they can come and utilize
the property.
MR. MC CABE-So let me just clarify one thing. Normally there’s a problem with multiple dwellings on
one property, but historically as long as the building existed before and construction took place on the
original footprint, then we’ve approved that. The problem would be if the three buildings didn’t exist
before and construction took place on a footprint other than the original, then we’d have to take a harder
look at it. So my question is, can we verify that there were indeed three dwellings on this property before?
MRS. MOORE-I can confirm that there were at least two dwellings on the property. I can’t confirm there
was a third dwelling. I can tell you that the survey that was generated prior to the most recent one shows
three buildings, two of them were noted to be dwelling units. The third one I’m assuming was either a
shed or a bunkroom of some sort. I can’t verify that.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. GRINER-We have old photos from the previous owner of it being a structure.
MIKE GRINER
MR. M. GRINER-Mike Griner. So actually the owner that owned it, well one of the children of the
neighbors that owned it back from 1950 he actually stopped by the property and he gave us about 50
pictures from when he was a kid there and so we have old photos from 1950 of all these structures, one of
which, so the two that, you know, 13 and 9 and 7, which is all livable, and it was with a cabin, and we have
the old site plan. I have it at my house. It has the cabin on it. What I have here is a survey map from 1996
that’s on file with Warren County and with the Town of Queensbury that shows 13 a framed residence, 9
a framed residence and 7 as a framed cabin.
MR. HENKEL-What’s the square footage of 7?
MR. M. GRINER-It doesn’t define square footage.
MRS. MOORE-So cabin can be, I can’t confirm whether it was a bunkroom, and that’s why, whether it
had a kitchen. I’m assuming it didn’t based on just looking at that building.
MR. HENKEL-We don’t have that.
MRS. MOORE-We have the same survey
MR. HENKEL-We don’t have it in our packet.
MRS. MOORE-You don’t have it in your packet.
MR. HENKEL-Could I just compare that to what we have here?
MRS. MOORE-I guess the other point is that there’s no permit in the sense that that is considered a living,
a dwelling unit. I mean the cabin is one thing.
MR. MC CABE-So it’s your contention that it’s very possibly an accessory structure?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
11
MR. J. GRINER-I’d point out on the survey map John is looking at right now, there’s three framed
structures on our property. So there’s multiple structures on the adjacent property. It’s not out of
character for the place.
MR. MC CABE-All right. 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 Ron.
MR. J. GRINER-Not anything to do with this, I kind of just wanted to address the room. I understand
the concerns with rentals and the air b-n-b and loud noise and what all the complaints have been. Not to
push blame, but we’re not the only air b-n-b in this cove.
MR. MC CABE-And we understand that. It’s a Town wide problem.
MR. J. GRINER-And the other thing is, with these other structures, we don’t plan on air b-n-bing all three
structures, nor do we plan on doing this forever. I also would like to add, every one that we rent to we do
have a screening process and we have an age limit, and again this isn’t necessarily for you. I would just
like my neighbors to hear it. I just want them to know we do have screening. We don’t let anyone come
in less than 25 at the absolute minimum, most of the time 30. I do know the couple of complaints that
they have called us and, you know, we verified it, and it was my uncle’s sons that are early 20’s.
Unfortunately it really wasn’t the air b-n-b’s problem. It was more or less our younger cousins. And we
pretty much said you’re not allowed up here without supervision anymore. So we do understand the
problem and we don’t want to be that person in this neighborhood. We love Lake George. We don’t
want anyone upset with us. We want to make it right. So kind of just to our neighbors we apologize
for that. We don’t want a bad experience with anyone. We’re very nice people from a big family. We
want to have fun. So that’s pretty much all I can say just to the neighbors.
MR. HENKEL-But you’ve got to realize if we approve this as three units and you guys sell it, which very
well could happen in a few years, now it’s approved as three units. That’s going to continue on. Somebody
could buy it just to rent those three units, not to use it as family like you guys are going to do, which I think
it’s great that you do that, but that’s the problem that I have.
MR. J. GRINER-I can comment that this, hopefully my children never sell this. I understand what you’re
saying, but the other thing I can say just as far as rentals on this topic, we have one dock and people don’t
rent on the lake unless you can bring a boat. Ninety-nine percent of people won’t rent, and we own a
boat. So there’s really no other spot for anyone else. Mike owns a boat. We own a boat. So to have more
than one renter ever, it’s not really feasible. So having that extra cabin doesn’t mean that we’re bringing
in more rentals, and I know it’s off topic, but I just kind of wanted to let everybody know.
MR. MC CABE-All right. So, Ron, how do you feel?
MR. KUHL-I think if you would have brought your pictures I’d be more convinced. I think you’re asking
for too much. If Number 7 was just a raw building or was a, whatever, a shed, I don’t know. You’re asking
for too much. I’m not in favor of the way it’s presented, and I’m going to stop right there.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with Ron. I think, you know, when I first looked at this and I’ve said in
the past that trying to look at this as nothing had happened, it’s a new project and you’re proposing this, I
would still say no to most of the variances. In fact I don’t even understand some of these. I don’t
understand what is taking place here and I imagine that there’s a reason for that because it’s been done
haphazardly almost, but I also want to address, when we look at the criteria we look at whether there will
be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be
created, and from what I’ve heard and what I’ve seen from the letters and people speaking here, it’s already
affected the neighborhood and the character and you haven’t even gotten approval for any of this stuff here.
So you’re trying to convince us that this project should go forward or with different approvals yet you
haven’t demonstrated anything that shows you’re willing to do that. You haven’t done anything yet that
demonstrates that, what you’ve done with the property, and if somebody’s misbehaved on the property
and making it hard for people nearby, that’s still your problem. So I would say no to the project at this
point on any of the variances.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m a no on everything at this point, but I am open-minded if certain improvements.
Permeability, I wouldn’t budge an inch on that. I wouldn’t, no matter what you do, go for that third
dwelling and the kitchen. That would be out for me. Then we’re just left with some setbacks. It sounds
like it was the deck that was added that created the four foot setback.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
12
MR. DANNIBLE-The stairs to the deck.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So that’s one of the biggest encroachments right there. So maybe you’d have to
move the stairs. I don’t know, and I’d definitely want to know more about what the stormwater is, how
its effectiveness is. I don’t know if the engineering would have a look at that as well. I’d have to have a
lot more information and certainly it’s just not going to happen for me, the one in the back with the extra
dwelling unit.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we’re grossly underestimating the negative elements of this project. The two
lower homes on there obviously I think you should be able to improve those. I don’t have a problem with
that, but I think the way that you went about the process is to your detriment now because as you’re seeing
the Board’s not going to approve you. I think you’re caught between a rock and a hard place. I think as
far as Number Seven goes that building as you’ve constructed it is not built to year round standards as new
construction should be done in the Town, and I think that as a building it has no purpose and it should
not exist under the present rules and regulations. You’re going to have to deal with the Adirondack Park
Agency who’s going to put this under a big microscope and they’re going to come down on you 100 times
harder than this Board. So to gain any ultimate approvals you’re going to have to jump through a lot more
hoops. I think you’re talking about seven bedrooms on this small lot here, even though they’re in three
separate dwellings, you’re talking about three separate kitchens on top of that and you’re telling me your
septic is perfectly designed and engineered for that purpose. I find that a big stretch of the imagination.
I think your stormwater with your drive coming down has to be dealt with. So you’re going to have to go
back to the Planning Board and deal with this. I don’t think that we should touch this with a ten foot pole
at this point.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I agree with my Board members pretty much. There’s no doubt, like Jim said, Number 9
and Number 13, I understand the improvements except for that deck might be a little bit too big, and you
probably could have changed the stairs, although you have a generator sitting there, but I definitely would
not be in favor of Number 7. So I’m not in favor of the project at all.
MR. MC CABE-And so I also have some problems with the project. So I don’t have a problem with the
setbacks for the expansion of a non-conforming building, and I have to say that stormwater control is a lot
better than no control. So I think if you explain the stormwater management a little bit better, which I
think is very important on a property such as this, that we could get by there, but I think the third dwelling
is a problem because it doesn’t sound like we really had a third dwelling as we view a dwelling. It sounds
like the third building was a bunkhouse which is again fine but the addition of a kitchen to that makes it
a dwelling and I would have a problem with that, and I would also have a problem with the permeabili ty,
again, because of the proximity to the lake here. I think you would have to do a better job with
permeability to be a good citizen here. So you have two choices, as you did with the other project. We
could take a vote, but you’re not going to do real well with a vote, or you could go back and do a little bit
more work.
I like the idea of re-submitting a revised set of plans by June 15th for the July 20th meeting.
MRS. MOORE-For the first meeting in July.
MR. HENKEL-So July 20th. Okay. So we’re going to table it?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reds LG, LLC.
Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete
construction of a third dwelling unit on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540
sq. ft. which includes one bedroom and kitchen, 288 sq. ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area;
alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,408 sq.
ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below; alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior
alterations (existing floor area of 2,134 sq. ft. with four bedrooms). Project includes grass depression areas
for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, and construction of a retaining wall. Site plan for new
floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing
within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater
devices less than 100 ft. from shoreline, adding a third dwelling unit, and permeability.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022)
13
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 21-2022 REDS LG, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who
moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to the July 20th, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted
by June 15th, 2022.
Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2022, by the following vote:
MR. DANNIBLE-Sounds good. Thank you for your consideration.
MR. MC CABE-Hold on. I saw somebody enter from the back there. Were you here for the Antigua Road
project?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-That project got tabled until June.
MRS. MOORE-To July.
MR. MC CABE-July 20th, excuse me. So the public hearing is open for that particular project. If you want
you could make your comments tonight, or you could wait until the actual meeting.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I’ll wait.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So actually, I apologize. The Board, they can’t hear a project in advance of getting the
information.
MR. MC CABE-I will tell you that if you submit your request for a survey, what we normally do would be
allow the initial portion of it, and then ask for an as built survey. That’s it. I just gave you the guidelines.
MRS. DWYRE-Mr. Chairman, I just need the vote for the tabling.
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt