08-24-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATSMEETING
FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING
AUGUST24TH 2O22
INDEX
Area Variance No. 3S-2022 Brett&Pamela West 1.
Tax Map No.226.15-1-17
Area Variance No. 35-2022 Rebecca Gearwar 2.
Tax Map No. 301.9-1-14
Area Variance No. 39-2022 Gianni Simone 3.
Tax Map No. 315.10-1-59
Area Variance No.25-2022 Morgan Gazetos 3.
Tax Map No.239.20-1-19
Area Variance No. 36-2022 Jeffrey Randles S.
Tax Map No.239.12-2-11
Area Variance No.41-2022 James S. Brown 13.
Tax Map No.253.-1-23
Area Variance No.43-2022 Dark Bay Lane,LLC 16.
Tax Map No.239.1E-1-37
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 08/24/2022)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
AUGUST 24TK 2022
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO,SECRETARY
JAMES UNDERWOOD
RICHARD CIPPERLY
JOHN HENKEL
MEMBERS ABSENT
BRENT MC DEVITT
MR. MC CABE-So good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals,Wednesday,August 24`h,2022. If you haven't been here before,our procedure is simple. There
should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up,read the case into the record, allow the
applicant to 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. We'll close the public hearing. I'll poll the
Board and we'll proceed accordingly. First we have a few administrative items. John, could I have a
motion for the minutes.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
July 20`h,2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF JULY 20, 2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 24`h day of August,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
July 27`h,2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF JULY 27,2022,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy
Urrico:
Duly adopted this 24`h day of August,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Cipperly
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-And then also we have a couple of cases who have asked to be tabled until we have a full
Board. As you can see we're down one tonight. So,John,could I have a motion.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT&z PAMELA WEST AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) BRETT &z
PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO DEMO EXISTING HOME PLUS SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2 STORY HOME WITH A
5,436 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF
PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREAS AND A COVERED WALKWAY
BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,670 SQ.FT.WHERE
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022)
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 8,687SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW
LANDSCAPING, SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. AREA
VARIANCE GRANTED 3/23/2022 FOR SETBACKS, NUMBER OF GARAGES, AND
STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACKS. REVISION TO SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE FRESHWATER
WETLANDS WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED
FOR WETLAND SETBACK. CROSS REF FWW 10-2022;AV 38-2022;AV 57-2021;SP 51-2021;PZ
210-2016; PZ 95-2016; PZ 89-2016; SP 37-2009; AV 47-2007, SP 39-2007 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING JULY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 096 AC. TAX MAP
NO.226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040;CHAPTER 94;CHAPTER 147
Applicant requests to be tabled to the September meeting for a Full board.(Tabled to September 21s`)
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett&z Pamela
West.Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new 2 story home with a 5,436
sq. ft. footprint with a garage. Also included is installation of permeable pavers for patio and driveway
areas and a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 sq. ft. where
the maximum allowed is 8,687 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and
residential house,septic,and stormwater management.Lot line adjustment but no change to lot size.Area
variance granted 3/23/2022 for setbacks,number of garages, and stormwater device setbacks. Revision to
Site Plan to include Freshwater wetlands work within 100 ft.of a designated wetland. Relief requested for
wetland setback.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.38-2022 BRETT&z PAMELA WEST(MAIN HOUSE),
Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood:
Tabled to the September 21st,2022 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Duly adopted this 24`h day of August 2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-And for 35.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11. REBECCA GEARWAR OWNER(S)
REBECCA GEARWAR ZONING MDR LOCATION 10 APPLEHOUSE LANE (REVISED -
ADDITIONAL FENCE DETAILS)APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL AN EIGHT-FOOT-HIGH
FENCE ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. FENCE IS TO BE A PRIVACY FENCE.
THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,867 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES GARAGE AND PORCH WILL
REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT OF FENCE TYPE. CROSS
REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 LOT SIZE 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
3019-1-14 SECTION 179-5-020
Applicant requests to be tabled to the September meeting for a Full board.(Tabled to September 21s`)
(Revised— additional fence site details) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has
received an application from Rebecca Gearwar. Applicant proposes to install an eight-foot-high fence on
the northwest side of the property. Fence to be a privacy fence. The existing home of 1,867 sq. ft. which
includes garage and porch will remain with no changes. Relief requested for height of fence type.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2022 REBECCA GEARWAR, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe:
Tabled to the September 21s`,2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Duly adopted this 24`h day of August,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-And now AV 39.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022)
AREA VARIANCE NO.39-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GIANNI SIMONE AGENT(S) DANIEL
W.RYAN P.E. OWNER(S) GIANNI SIMONE ZONING MDR LOCATION 20 ACRES CIRCLE
(REVISED—ADDITIONAL GARAGE DETAILS)APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 930
SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE ON A SITE THAT HAS AN EXISTING HOME WITH A GARAGE.
THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT IS 2,182 SQ. FT. WITH THE ATTACHED GARAGE FOOTPRINT OF
600 SQ. FT. NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND
GARAGE. CROSS REF SUB 12-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 LOT SIZE
1.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.10-1-59 SECTION 179-5-020
Applicant requests to be tabled to the September meeting for a Full board.(Tabled to September 21s`)
(Revised — additional garage details) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has
received an application from Gianni Simone.Applicant proposes to construct a 702 sq.ft.detached garage
on a site that has an existing home with a garage. The house footprint is 2,182 sq. ft. with the attached
garage footprint of 600 sq.ft.No changes to the existing home. Relief requested for second garage.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.39-2022 GIANNI SIMONE,Introduced by John Henkel
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to the September 21s`,2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Duly adopted this 24`h day of August,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody who came to speak on AV 38,AV 35,or AV 39? You can do so tonight if
you wish or wait until the case is actually presented in September. Okay. So now we'll move onto AV
25-2022.
TABLED ITEM:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MORGAN GAZETOS AGENT(S)
MORGAN GAZETOS OWNER(S) GREG FRANCIS ZONING WR LOCATION 2930 STATE
ROUTE 9L (REVISED) APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DECK
ADDITION NOT CONSTRUCTED AS APPROVED. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT HAS
COMPLETED ADDITIONAL WORK WITHOUT APPROVAL INCLUDING DECK AREA NEAR
SHORELINE, SHORELINE PATHWAY DECKING, AND A RECONSTRUCTED
SHED/CHANGING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NEAR THE SHORE. EXISTING HOME
FOOTPRINT 1,306 SQ.FT.REMAINS THE SAME. THE DECKING AREA EXISTING IS 1,508 SQ.
FT. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 1,116 SQ. FT. THE SITE WORK WITH ADDITIONAL WOODEN
WALKWAY ETC. IS 2,384 SQ. FT. ; PROPOSED IS 2.074 SQ. FT. UPDATED PLANS SHOW
OVERLAY OF EXISTING AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HARD
SURFACING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS OF UPPER AND LOWER DECKS, SHED
AND WOODEN WALKWAY. CROSS REF SP 35-2022; AV 84-2014; SP 72-2014 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 092
ACRES TAX MAP NO.239.20-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040;179-13-010
MORGAN GAZETOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; GREG FRANCIS,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 25-2022, Morgan Gazetos, Meeting Date: August 24,2022 "Project
Location: 2930 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)Applicant requests approval
for construction of deck addition not constructed as approved. In addition, the applicant has completed
additional work without approval including deck area near shoreline, shoreline pathway decking, and a
reconstructed shed/changing accessory structure near the shore. Existing home footprint 1,306 sq. ft.
remains the same. The decking area existing is 1,508 sq. ft.previously approved 1,116 sq. ft. The site work
with additional wooden walkway etc.is 2,384 sq.ft.,-proposed is 2,074 sq.ft. Updated plans show overlay
of existing and previously approved. Site plan review for hard surfacing. Relief requested for setbacks of
upper and lower decks,shed,and wooden walkway.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks of upper and lower decks,shed, and wooden walkway.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
Section 179-3-040 dimensions,Section 179-4-OSO decks
1. Upper Deck—The as-built for the upper deck addition indicates is 24 ft.from the shoreline where the
2014 approval was for 24.4 ft. from the shoreline. Relief needed 25.6 ft. for shoreline. Relief is also
required for the side setback where 14.3 ft.furthest extent,is proposed and 25 ft.is required. The deck
addition at the house 11.2 ft.to the side setback where 25 ft.is required.
2. Lower Deck-The as-built survey shows the Deck addition to the house the closest point is 22 ft.where
the 2014 approval was for this portion of the deck to be 22 ft. (built as approved)
3. Shoreline Deck—The as built indicates 0 ft.from the shoreline for the landing connection to the dock
and 6 ft.from the shoreline dock to the shoreline. The 2014 approval was for the shoreline deck to be
12 ft.from the shoreline. Relief needed for the landing of 50 ft. and the shoreline dock of 46 ft.
4. Shoreline Shed—As built indicates the shed of 46 sq.ft.is 2 ft.from the property line.The 2014 approval
indicates an unlabeled square near the shoreline. Relief needed for 4S ft.
5. Wooden walkway path from shoreline deck to covered boathouse; length 19S ft. and 5 ft. to the
shoreline where 50 ft. is required. Relief needed of 45 ft. Note the 2014 approval does not identify a
wooden walkway.
Not subject to variance but additional hard surfacing review under siteplan—permeability is greater than 75110 even with the
deck additions-
6. Upper and lower deck size 73 sq.ft.of additional decking—approved was S2S sq.ft.existing is 901 sq.
ft.
7. Shoreline deck size 121 sq.ft.of additional decking-approved was 2SS sq.ft. and existing is 409 sq.ft.
S. The decking is 194 sq.ft.in excess of what is approved-specific to the deck elements at the house and
shoreline.
9. Total existing for decking and includes boathouse deck areas and wooden walk existing 2,3S4 sq. ft.
and proposed 2074 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed to remove 310 sq. ft. of deck area; this includes
64 sq.ft.of boathouse rear deck,4S sq.ft.of the shoreline deck at the dock,and 19S sq.ft.of the wooden
path. (noting the boathouse decking and the wooden walking path were not in the 2014 calcs)
10. The proposed 310 sq.ft.removal from the existing unapproved 392 sq.ft.leaves S2 sq.ft. over built
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 limited due to the
existing house location in close proximity to the shoreline and the steep topography of the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The Upper Deck relief-25.6 ft. to the shore, -10.7 ft. .&13.S ft. to the
side. The lower Deck was constructed and is 22 ft. setback as approved in 2014. Shoreline Deck relief
is 44 ft. from the shoreline,landing relief is 50 ft. Shoreline Shed relief is 4S ft. Wooden walkway 45
ft.relief. The applicant has already proposed to remove 310 sq.ft.of decking area from 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 maybe considered to have
minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant has provided plans that show the existing conditions on the site with the decking location
to the shoreline. The applicant is aware the work was done without approvals and would like to rectify
the situation as some of the work was done due to the topography constraints and other work was done
to accommodate elderly parents on the site.
The applicant has had the surveyor overlay the approved decking on the existing deck where the primary
issues are for the work at the shoreline. The applicant proposes to maintain the 46 sq.ft.shed in the current
configuration, remove the shoreline deck pathway and replace with mulch, stone landscape areas with
native plantings. Also to be removed is a portion of the lower deck to dock area, and a portion of the
boathouse deck area."
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
MR. URRICO-Then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, had a motion that did not identify
any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and that was
passed on August 16`h,2022,and it was passed unanimously six zero. That's it.
MR. FRANCIS-Good evening. I'm Greg Francis. I'm the applicant. I just want to apologize for letting
this get out of hand and go on for so long. I thought I had someone taking care of it and they were not and
that's why we're here tonight. So I just want to apologize for letting it get to this point, and Morgan is
going to go and rectify it.
MR. GAZETOS-I'm Morgan Gazetos from Lake George Docks, and I'm not the original builder. Mr.
Francis asked me,after someone else constructed the decks,the walkway,etc.,if I could help him through
the process. So I worked with Laura and a surveyor, looked at the most egregious stuff which is
highlighted in pink on the copy you all received. The biggest item being a wooden walkway, but then
also the two overhangs next to the stairs, the little platform and then for good measure we threw in the
deck in the back with the shed. So the difference was about S2 square feet versus the original proposal
Mr. Francis had approved with you guys back in 2015,'14. So actually in 2014 I built the one side of the
dock, all approved, and then,so I saw it beforehand and then last year I did the other side, again approved
by LGPC,and he said,hey,can you help me with this. So the upper deck,as we can it the two ones against
the house,I can sort of understand what the guy was thinking. He should have stopped during the process.
He should have called Bruce Frank or whatever the mechanism is, and said,hey,I've got to come back in,
I'm having an issue with my stairs. There's a huge ledge outcrop there and I think sometimes you draw
things on paper and then you're standing on the site and you're going, oh. I think he had one of those
moments and instead of raising his hand and saying,hey,I've got a problem,the guy went right ahead,and
so again the application,and Laura can tell you all about this,I had a hard time with his numbers. I had a
hard time with the previous impermeable surface versus everything else. So everything that's on here is
the best I could do following up after the fact. I had the surveyor come out three different times just to try
to get a handle on this. We got everything that's actually there trying to figure out what was there before
from the pictures. It's a big task. So obviously it's within 50 feet of the mean high water mark. It couldn't
be. So everything that we feel was additional we're going to crop off,and then the big ask is, and the side
line setbacks didn't change. The setbacks from the waterfront for the two upper decks didn't change. It's
just by moving the one set of stairs and changing his configuration,he added a couple of feet. They're big
decks to start with. So when you add six inches,you know,something six inches wide,you're adding,you
know,40 square feet.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. KUHL-Have you got pictures of what you're doing? I mean I have the original pictures, and this is
kind of like a bunch of red on the map. I mean I'm a little dense,you know,I need pictures.
MR. GAZETOS-It's hard. I can't take it out until I get approval to do so.
MR.KUHL-I can't understand what you want. That's effectively what I'm saying. I see this with a lot of
red,okay, and I have,like I said,the original pictures. I'm trying to understand it. Okay. Because this is
not an easy thing. I'm not trying to challenge you. I'm trying to understand what you're doing.
MR.GAZETOS-I appreciate that. Sir,you want to see the current pictures,correct,what's currently there
now?
MRS. MOORE-Is this what you want?
MR.KUHL-Okay.
MR. GAZETOS-Originally,this wasn't supposed to be here. There's a, actually it's different even than in
this picture, there's two little four by fours on each side here, and then a wooden walkway extends from
here,gotta be 60 to 70 feet to the other boathouse.
MR. KUHL-Right. That walkway's going away. Right now Mr. Francis has these two sets of potted
plants on each side. Those things are going away, and then on the other boathouse which isn't pictured
because it pre-dated,whatever,there's an eight by eight deck on the back of that.
MR.KUHL-That's going away?
MR.GAZETOS-Yes,sir. So I know they're red drawings on the map,but it's 64 square feet. It's a sizeable
chunk in the back here.
MR.KUHL-Okay.
MR.GAZETOS-But the most egregious thing is the walkway. Impermeable space inside a 50 foot setback
is a no no.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
MR.KUHL-Okay.
MR.GAZETOS-And then when they re-did the stairs here,it was just a set of stairs before they did a wider
platform here and so I'm just going to return it to the access stairs.
MR.KUHL-The stairs. Okay. Thank you.
MR.HENKEL-Also was the original permit granted for the shed?
MR. GAZETOS-The shed was pre-existing.
MR.HENKEL-That's a different shed than the original,a lot different.
MRS. MOORE-So I can shed a little light on this,no pun intended. In reference to the shed,there's only
information on the previous application that says there's a square. It doesn't label it. It doesn't mention
the size.
MR.HENKEL-That's all it was was a square.
MRS. MOORE-Right, and the same as the RPS information. I can't obtain any additional information
about what it was previously. My understanding is it was a pump house.
MR.HENKEL-And the roofline.
MR. GAZETOS-The roof fine was changed. They sided it to match the house. It's thicker,but as far as the
overall size, I mean it looks different from the RPS pictures. It looks like it's moved,but it hasn't. I just
think when he re-did the one side.
MR.HENKEL-The door looks different.
MR. GAZETOS-The door is different. I mean he re-did the shed.
MR.HENKEL-That's a pump house.
MR. GAZETOS-Right.
MR.HENKEL-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm
going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody who would like to address this particular
project. No one? Roy,do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. URRICO-No.
MRS. MOORE-Not in the Zoning Board, but there are in the Planning Board. I will say there are two
letters in the Planning Board file, but they did not make it into the Zoning Board because they were
addressed at the Planning Board.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MRS. MOORE-And they're for the project.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Thank you. I think, obviously we have a tough one here to consider,but to me it seems
like some mistakes were made, some serious mistakes, and they're doing the best they can to rectify those
mistakes. I think the corrections are enough for me to approve the project and say while there is some
relief involved here, it's not as much as it would have been. Although it's not the original project,it's far
better than the one that was there prior to them fixing it. So I would be approving this.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
MR. CIPPERLY-I agree. It appears that they certainly tried to mitigate whatever the issues were that
were there before the best you can.
MR. MC CABS Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,I'm satisfied with the changes as they're proposed.
MR. MC CABS John?
MR.HENKEL-Yes,I also agree with my Board members. If there was a problem with permeability,as the
permeability is pretty good there, I would be a little bit against it,but I think they are doing their best to
take care of the problem. I would support this project. Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes I agree with what was said. After the show and tell,I'm not against it. It shouldn't have
happened originally but it did.
MR. MC CABE-And I cannot support this project. Eight years is just a little bit too long and I think it
shows total disrespect for the Town and our attempt to control building,but I'm only one vote. So at this
particular time,I'm going to ask Ron if he'd make a motion here.
MR.KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Morgan
Gazetos. (Revised) Applicant requests approval for construction of deck addition not constructed as
approved.In addition,the applicant has completed additional work without approval including deck area
near shoreline, shoreline pathway decking, and a reconstructed shed/changing accessory structure near
the shore. Existing home footprint 1,306 sq. ft. remains the same. The decking area existing is 1,50E sq. ft.
previously approved 1,116 sq. ft. The site work with additional wooden walkway etc. is 2,354 sq. ft.,-
proposed is 2,074 sq.ft.Updated plans show overlay of existing and previously approved. Site plan review
for hard surfacing. Relief requested for setbacks of upper and lower decks,shed, and wooden walkway.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks of upper and lower decks,shed, and wooden walkway.
Section 179-3-040 dimensions,Section 179-4-OSO decks
1. Upper Deck—The as-built for the upper deck addition indicates is 24 ft.from the shoreline where the
2014 approval was for 24.4 ft. from the shoreline. Relief needed 25.6 ft. for shoreline. Relief is also
required for the side setback where 14.3 ft.furthest extent,is proposed and 25 ft.is required. The deck
addition at the house 11.2 ft.to the side setback where 25 ft.is required.
2. Lower Deck-The as-built survey shows the Deck addition to the house the closest point is 22 ft.where
the 2014 approval was for this portion of the deck to be 22 ft. (built as approved)
3. Shoreline Deck—The as built indicates 0 ft.from the shoreline for the landing connection to the dock
and 6 ft.from the shoreline dock to the shoreline. The 2014 approval was for the shoreline deck to be
12 ft.from the shoreline. Relief needed for the landing of 50 ft. and the shoreline dock of 46 ft.
4. Shoreline Shed—As built indicates the shed of 46 sq.ft.is 2 ft.from the property line.The 2014 approval
indicates an unlabeled square near the shoreline. Relief needed for 4S ft.
5. Wooden walkway path from shoreline deck to covered boathouse; length 19S ft. and 5 ft. to the
shoreline where 50 ft. is required. Relief needed of 45 ft. Note the 2014 approval does not identify a
wooden walkway.
Not subject to variance but additional hard surfacing review under siteplan—permeability is greater than 75110 even with the
deck additions-
6. Upper and lower deck size 73 sq.ft.of additional decking—approved was S2S sq.ft.existing is 901 sq.
ft.
7. Shoreline deck size 121 sq.ft.of additional decking-approved was 2SS sq.ft. and existing is 409 sq.ft.
S. The decking is 194 sq.ft.in excess of what is approved-specific to the deck elements at the house and
shoreline.
9. Total existing for decking and includes boathouse deck areas and wooden walk existing 2,354 sq. ft.
and proposed 2074 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed to remove 310 sq. ft. of deck area; this includes
64 sq.ft.of boathouse rear deck,4S sq.ft.of the shoreline deck at the dock,and 19S sq.ft.of the wooden
path. (noting the boathouse decking and the wooden walking path were not in the 2014 calcs)
10. The proposed 310 sq.ft.removal from the existing unapproved 392 sq.ft.leaves S2 sq.ft. over built
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 22,2022&Wednesday,August 24,2022.
S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022)
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:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. This is removing work that should have never been done and it will make things the
best they can be under the circumstances.
2. There are many feasible alternatives. What we're doing with this is removing as much as we can
to make it livable for the residents.
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 definitely self-created because this individual let somebody build some
decking that never should have been there without approvals.
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,-
S. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a)
b)
c) 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.
25-2022 MORGAN GAZETOS , Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 24`h Day of August 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. McCabe
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. GAZETOS-Thankyou,sir.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 36-2022,Jeffrey Randles.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JEFFREY RANDLES AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) JEFFREY RANDLES ZONING WR
LOCATION 42 OLD ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND AN ATTACHED
GARAGE. THE ADDITIONS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL BASEMENT AREA. THE MAIN FLOOR
WOULD ALTER THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE WITH A NEW DINING AREA AND A NEW
GARAGE AND BEDROOM AREAS. THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL
LIVING SPACE AND STORAGE. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WOULD BE 6,968 SQ.FT.AND THE
NEW FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME WITH THE ADDITIONS WOULD BE 3,348 SQ.FT. PROJECT
ALSO INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE
PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND ALTERATION TO THE EXISTING HOME. RELIEF IS
REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 51-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
AUGUST 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.12-2-11 SECTION 179-3-040
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
BRANDON FERGUSON&CURT DYBAS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2022,Jeffrey Randles, Meeting Date: August 24, 2022 "Project
Location: 42 Old Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project:Applicant proposes alterations
to an existing single family home with removal of the first story down to the foundation and to reconstruct
the first floor with a second story and an attached garage. The project includes additional basement area.
The main floor would alter the north and south side with a new dining area and a new garage and bedroom
areas. The second floor would include additional living space and storage. The new floor area would be
6,96E sq. ft. and the new footprint of the home with the additions would be 3,34E sq. ft. Project also
includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area and alteration to
the existing home. Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for removal of the first floor,reconstruction of the first floor and
construction of second story,with an attached garage. Parcel is O.S3 acres and in the WR zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,147 stormwater
The applicant proposes the new home on the existing foundation. The home is to be S ft. where 20 ft. is
required to the north side. The home on the west side would be 51 ft. from the shoreline where 56.1 ft. is
required due to the adjoining home setback. The stormwater devices to be installed would be 4S ft. and
SS ft.where 100 ft. setback 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 locate the
home in a compliant location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the north side addition is 12 ft.,the shoreline side addition is
5.71 ft.,and the stormwater devices 12 ft. and 52 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The project includes
adding stormwater management to the site. The project has been provided to the Town Designated
Engineer for review and comment.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes project work to remove the existing home to the foundation. The project is a new
home to be constructed upon top of the foundation with work for some additional basement area. The
plans show the elevations and floor plans."
MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion
was passed August 16`h,2022 by a unanimous vote.
MRS. MOORE-So I just want to offer,just to clarify,that in reference to the house being brought down to
the foundation,it's being brought down to the first floor and then they're constructing the first floor up to
the second floor.
MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. I'm here tonight with
Curt Dybas who's the architect on the project and the applicants,the Randles, are also here tonight. So
quickly this is their existing parcel,O.S3 acres. This kind of box right here I'm kind of making,that is the
location of the existing house on the property right now. So as was just previously talked about,they are
planning on tearing it down to the first floor and re-building from there. So the foundation's remaining
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
and the first floor structure as well as the existing fireplace. They are going to be remaining, and they're
building off of that and around that. So the variances requested are for a screened porch that will extend
towards the lake,on the lakeside of the house. So typically the building setback zone is 50 feet. However,
looking at the average of the two adjoining homes they've upped that setback to 56.7 I believe, and that
was counting off of the actual main structures of the house themselves. The neighbor to the south actually
has a deck out front but we had to measure from their existing structure itself. So our proposed setback
is 51 feet, which meets the typical minimum. However,because of the two adjoining owners, especially
the one to the north being set so far back off the lake, it pushes that to a higher standard. Both these
applicants have spoken out in favor of this project and I believe they issued letters for tonight as well. The
second variance is a side yard setback. So are holding the existing foundation there because they're re-
using it. So that existing setback is eight feet and that will be held. The third variance is for stormwater
management. We have a stormwater management here that is going to be taking runoff from portions of
the existing driveway as well as portions of the roof. So that runoff will be directed to this stormwater
device that's SS feet from the lake. We do have another stormwater device on the lakeside of the house
that's a little closer to the lake. However, that one is taking only roof runoff from the house so I didn't
think it actually needed a variance. I don't believe that it does because this is a minor stormwater design.
So we have this stormwater management here that's SS feet, and we put it in this location in order to try
and kind of save some of the existing oak trees here. For the house and the driveway,this is the location it
had to be. So those are the three variances we're looking for tonight. I don't know if Curt has any
additional stuff on architecture.
MR. DYBAS-A couple of things on the house.
MR. MC CABE-First just tell us who you are.
MR. DYBAS-I'm Curt Dybas. The house was originally built in about'63. It's been in the Randles'family
since'65. Jeff and Nancy bought out their siblings five years ago. So it's been in the family for 56 years,
and the reason for keeping it is obviously there's a two hole fireplace,masonry fireplace,which is a bit pricy
to replace and also the foundation and first floor framing we're keeping. So all told probably somewhere
in the $150 to $200,000 savings in using that part of the house. The reason we took it down to the first
floor is the existing walls are basically two by four studs. They're Swiss cheese with a bunch of sliding
glass aluminum doors,terribly inefficient. The roof structure is 40 foot long trusses and we just said,look,
let's take it down. We'll make the house energy compliant to the new Building Code and everything I'm
building is I'm doing the res check to the new Code. I'm not doing an alteration and addition as I'm
approaching it as a totally new structure as far as the energy code and I know there was a question about
erring. All the new second floors and really most of the roof will be on new columns and new footings
within the existing house. The garage of course is basically all new will be trussed and fully framed,steel
beams. So that's a summation of the dwelling. I don't know what else I can add. Any questions?
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Anything written, Roy, or, excuse me, I'm
getting ahead of myself. 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 who has input on this particular project. Chris?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I just had one
question. I don't know,Laura,if you could go back to it was site plan three. I have a question where the
shoreline setback is actually taken from. If you look at the zoning drawing which was Sheet Three,there
are actually two lines,right near the shoreline. The shoreline setback is taken from the outside wall, and
then there's an inner one which is about five feet in which says mean high water 320.20. That's where the
shoreline setback should be taken from. I'm believing that this setback is actually taken from a line five
feet out and that it's a black line and it seems to kind of be worked into the adjoining property. So I don't
think it's from the right shoreline. So that's my question,if that could be identified. I do think there are
alternatives, but they explained on the stormwater, they're saving trees. That's always a benefit, but I
clearly think there's some problems with that shoreline identification.
MR. MC CABE-So do you want to address the shoreline setback?
MR.FERGUSON-My understanding is that it was taken from the actual,from the mean high water mark.
I'm not quite sure why the difference,the markings there on the plan. I know this was kind of gone over
with the Staff as well.
MRS. MOORE-I didn't identify anything. Neither did Craig.
MR. MC CABE-So you still think that the 50 feet that they.
MRS. MOORE-What they presented it accurate.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
MR. DYBAS-I believe the survey was done by Van Dusen&Steves.
MR. HENKEL-Is there a way of getting a porch in there still and be at the existing,you know, away from
the shoreline,three feet?
MR.FERGUSON-So the porch,I mean we're at 51 feet now. So it would be 5.7 feet. You'd have to lop off
that porch,which would kind of render it not as usable as it would be as it's shown now.
MR.HENKEL-What's the dimensions of the porch?
MR. DYBAS-14 by 24.
MR.HENKEL-So you'd have room there a little bit to get it to the existing.
MR. FERGUSON-You're saying to get it to the existing setback as it currently stands now?
MR.HENKEL-Yes,54 feet.
MR. DYBAS-We could angle the corner.
MR.HENKEL-I'd like to see it to the original. Everything else I'm good with.
MR. DYBAS-I'm going to speak up on something that,when I was designing this,I based it on the 50 foot
setback because the average between the two properties was taken from the two houses after the fact.
Now if I built that deck in front of my house,I would be before you for a variance. Correct? It's a raised
deck. The reason that was said to me is it's not attached to the house so therefore we have to go to the
house. So it seems like a double-edged sword to me that if I need a variance to build that deck,but I can't
use it for a setback,I have to go to the house.
MR. MC CABE-So I guess we've got to ask Staff for some advice here. What are we actually?
MRS. MOORE-It's to the porch.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So the number that we're given is the number that we're going to use?
MR. DYBAS-The number you're given is what I was told when we, in fact we did the survey and we had
the average for the deck, and we had to go back. Van Dusen & Steves had to re-do the survey and re-
submit it at the 56 feet because he took it from that neighbor's deck originally. I know that because I have
that survey.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. DYBAS-We were proceeding along the fact that all right we had an average of the 50 we met,and all
of a sudden, I think I talked to Craig about it,he said, no,you've got to go from the house. I said it's the
structure. He said it's not attached to the house so therefore I have to go to the house. So then we turned
around.
MRS.MOORE-So it's the adjoining house. It's not this house. It's the adjoining house that they're taking
that information from. The adjoining house,that deck is not attached to the structure and so that's why
that occurred. Otherwise if they had taken it, if it had to be from the deck, it had to be attached to the
house.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Do we have anybody else that would like to comment on this particular project?
So, Roy,is there anything written?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I have a letter here. "We are seeking the necessary permits to complete a renovation
of our home for the purpose of residing in Queensbury as full-time residents. We have been thoughtful in
our planning to stay within the building requirements, but are seeking a variance to build a larger front
porch. We have five children and with their future spouses and children we would like to better
accommodate our large and growing family. Please consider the following points as you review this
variance request. Request is within the baseline 50' setback from the lake front, both neighbors have
provided letters of support, the porch does not interfere with any neighbors' view (see aerial view of
homes), This variance request is for a small corner of the porch. When averaging the neighbors' setback,
there is a 56' setback requirement from the lake. The estimated non-complying area is 25 sq. ft. which is
less than 70/o of the total porch area (see shaded area of porch on attached plan). Thank you for your
consideration. Respectfully,Jeff&Nancy Randles 42 Old Assembly Point Road Lake George,NY 12545"
Now I want to point out they mention two letters of support. I don't see any other letters of support.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
MR. FERGUSON-I know they have talked to neighbors and they are supportive. They were going to
write letters.
MR. URRICO-For the record I want to say that there are no letters of support for the record.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,I'm satisfied with the application as proposed. I think that the 51 feet from the
shoreline is more than adequate. It's much more than we see with most of the projects upon the lake. I
think the stormwater,your primary stormwater basin,is SS feet back,which I think is well over what we
consider to be reasonable. Even though it's not within the 100 foot setback as proposed by the Town Code,
and I think that the minor stormwater collection device in the front is not going to be an issue So I'd be
in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-Yes,I agree with Jim. I support it as is.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-Yes,I'd support this project as presented.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes,I look at it as really not much of an impact to add onto the existing site the way it is.
Sort of the negative is we're going to have a couple of hundred feet of paved driveway,but on a very positive
note we're going to have stormwater control that we did not have before. So all in all I would be for it.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think the relief that is being requested is very minimal
and I think this is a good project. So given that,Jim,I'm going to ask for a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey Randles.
Applicant proposes alterations to an existing single family home with removal of the first story down to
the top of the first floor framing and to reconstruct the first floor with a second story and an attached
garage. The project includes additional basement area. The main floor would alter the north and south
side with a new dining area and a new garage and bedroom areas. The second floor would include
additional living space and storage. The new floor area would be 6,96E sq.ft. and the new footprint of the
home with the additions would be 3,34 S sq.ft.Project also includes stormwater management and shoreline
plantings. Site plan for new floor area and alteration to the existing home. Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for removal of the first floor,reconstruction of the first floor and
construction of second story,with an attached garage. Parcel is O.S3 acres and in the WR zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,147 stormwater
The applicant proposes the new home on the existing foundation. The home is to be S ft. where 20 ft. is
required to the north side. The home on the west side would be 51 ft. from the shoreline where 56.1 ft. is
required due to the adjoining home setback. The stormwater devices to be installed would be 4S ft. and
SS ft.where 100 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,August 24,2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
2. Feasible alternatives could be to build in a more compliant site,but it's 51 feet back from the water.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's minimal setback relief for what currently is existing
on site.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created.,but they're following the same footprint as currently exists
on site.
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,-
S. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
36-2022 JEFFREY RANDLES,Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption,seconded
by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 24`h Day of August 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. FERGUSON-Thank you.
MR. DYBAS-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 41-2022,James Brown.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JAMES S. BROWN AGENT(S)
JARRETT ENGINEERS,PLLC OWNER(S) JAMES S.BROWN ZONING LC-l0A LOCATION
1918 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT ANEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME
OF 1,936 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT. THE ACCESS DRIVE TO THE NEW HOME FROM AN EXISTING
PRIVATE ROAD"SHOP ROAD"THROUGH AN ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE HOME. THE
REMAINING DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY USING SOME
PORTIONS OF PREVIOUS LOGGING ROADS. SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
HOME WITHIN THE LC-l0A ZONE WITHIN THE APA AND NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50
FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY.
CROSS REF SP 54-2022; PZ-DISC 6-2021; SP 32-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
AUGUST 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 15.75 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
253.-1-23 SECTION 179-3-040;179-4-050
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Staff Notes,Area Variance No.41-2022,James S.Brown,Meeting Date: August 24,2022"Project Location:
191E Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct anew single family
home of 1,936 sq.ft.footprint.The access drive to the new home from an existing private road"Shop Road"
through an adjoining property to the home. The remaining driveway located on the applicant's property
using some portions of previous logging roads. Site plan for construction of new home within the LC-IOA
zone within the APA and new structure within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes. Relief is requested for access to public
right-of-way.
Relief Required:
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
The applicant requests relief for access to public right-of-way.
Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets
The applicant proposes a driveway that will start from Shop Road a private right of way,and be developed
on property 253.-1-22,then access the applicant's lot 253.-1-23.
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 be
limited due to the topographic on the applicant's property.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. Relief is requested for the side setback less than 3 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a driveway for a new home as the driveway will start in a right—of-
way and be constructed over adjoining property to the owners property. The driveway will be constructed
on old logging trails and pathways."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion was passed
on August 16`h,2022 by a unanimous vote.
MR.JARRETT-Goodevening. My name is Tom Jarrett with Jarrett Engineers. To my left is Jim Brown,
the sponsor of the project. To my right is Mrs. Stark. She owns the property to the north where we
propose access, an easement for access to the Brown property. I would call your attention to an access
plan on Drawing A-1. That may be the best illustrated drawing to look at for the variance. Mr. Brown's
property,both front on Ridge Road,but any of you who have driven up Ridge Road,you know that that
terrain is very steep and very rocky. The driveway was started there some, almost 10 years ago. It was a
real problem. Building a driveway up there would require an awful lot of environmental damage. So Mr.
Brown talked to the Starks and has permission to pursue an easement, or will pursue an easement with
their permission,to use Shop Road,go up about 500 feet. Then we would traverse south along an existing
logging road for the most part to his house that is shown on A-1. The variance is because we were supposed
to build access through our own frontage. We feel that's impractical and detrimental to the Town and to
the neighborhood. We propose using the Stark driveway, Shop Road for that access. That's our variance
request in a nutshell.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. CIPPERLY-I have one question. Maybe it's my eyes. What's the elevation of Shop Road and Ridge
Road?
MR.JARRETT-We climb roughly 210 feet to that landing where we take off from Shop Road. It's about
a 200 foot elevation change.
MR. CIPPERLY-And the grade is?
MR.JARRETT-Over 200/o. Excuse me,Shop Road is 200/o. The grade on the natural terrain is about 25 to
30. So a driveway would be very serpentine with a lot of switchbacks to get to our house site. Does that
answer your question,Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I think so. Thank you.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
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 who would like to provide input on this
particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No,nothing written.
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 Dick.
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes,I can approve it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project. I think it's a good idea.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-Yes,thank you,Mr.Chairman. Interesting,interesting project. Good luck. Yes,I'd be in favor,
Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-Yes.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It makes perfect sense to me.
MR.MC CABE-And I,too,approve the project. It's kind of out in the middle of nowhere and I don't think
you want a lot of access points to Ridge Road. It makes sense.
MR.JARRETT-Follow up to Dick's question earlier. The grade of our proposed driveway is about five,
less than 100/o,roughly five percent on average. So we're coming across almost constant elevation once we
get up to.
MR. CIPPERLY-Once you get up to the elevation. Yes.
MR.JARRETT-We're eliminating all the problem with trying to climb that 200 feet.
MR. MC CABE-So,Dick,I'm going to ask for a motion on this particular project or application.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James S.Brown.
Applicant proposes to construct a new single family home of 1,936 sq.ft.footprint. The access drive to the
new home from an existing private road "Shop Road" through an adjoining property to the home. The
remaining driveway located on the applicant's property using some portions of previous logging roads.
Site plan for construction of new home within the LC-IOA zone within the APA and new structure within
50 ft.of 150/o slopes. Relief is requested for access to public right-of-way.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for access to public right-of-way.
Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets
The applicant proposes a driveway that will start from Shop Road a private right of way,and be developed
on property 253.-1-22,then access the applicant's lot 253.-1-23.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,August 24,2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022)
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. The property owner owns the adjacent property. That's not a big consideration.
2. Feasible alternatives are probably this is it. This is the best you're going to get. They've been
considered by the Board and, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is really not substantial. It's the best you're going to get to get to this lot.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. That's where you want to put your house.
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,-
S. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
41-2022 TAMES S.BROWN,Introduced by Richard Cipperly,who moved for its adoption,seconded by
James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 24`h Day of August 2022 by the following vote:
MR.JARRETT-Well, there's really no house site there down on 9L. If you've driven it,there's no house
site.
MR. CIPPERLY-I drove by this site many times and saw an ATV parked there and wondered how you
were going to get up there.
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR.JARRETT-Thank youmuch.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 43-2022,Dark Bay Lane,LLC.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 DARK BAY LANE, LLC AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) DARK BAY LANE, LLC ZONING
WR LOCATION 40 DARK BAY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING
2,000 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A HOUSE FOOTPRINT OF 2,658
SQ. FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 4,378 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW
SEPTIC SYSTEM, UPDATE TO PARKING AND SHARED ACCESS ARRANGEMENT,
SHORELINE PLANTING AREAS, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SITE PLAN FOR
NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE.
RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS,FLOOR AREA,AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP
58-2022; AV 56-2021; SP 48-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2022
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-37
SECTION 179-3-040;147
JON ZAPPER&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.43-2022,Dark Bay Lane,LLC,Meeting Date: August 24,2022 "Project
Location: 40 Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an
existing 2,000 sq. ft.home to construct a new home with a house footprint of 2,658 sq. ft. The new floor
area is to be 4,378 sq. ft. The project includes a new septic system,update to parking and shared access
arrangement,shoreline planting areas,and stormwater management. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks, floor area, and
permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, stormwater device within 100 ft. of shoreline. The
property is located in the Waterfront Residential zone,WR on a 0.44 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040,Chapter 147 supplemental minor project
The project is for a tear down new build in the same location as the original project where the applicant
found that the additions to be added the existing home couldn't support. The new deck is to be located
22.5 ft. from the shoreline and the proposed main house is to be 31.3 ft. setback where a 75 ft. setback is
required. North office/study side is to be 19.4 ft. to the side and the South side main house side proposed
16.5 ft.setback where a 20 ft.setback is required.Floor area is proposed to be 4,37E sq.ft.or 22.750/o where
the maximum allowed is 4,233 sq. ft. or 220/o. Permeability—no variance is required but should be noted
the existing is 57.50/o and the proposed is 60.1010 where a 750/o is required — the project improves site
permeability and not subject to a variance.
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 to reduce
the floor area request;the existing home location may limit the alternatives to the improvements to the
shore side of the home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the deck to the shoreline is 52.2 ft. and to the
home is 43.7 ft.,floor area is 0.750/o in excess, side setback for the screen porch of 0.6 ft. and the house
improvement side setback of 3.5 ft.
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 project includes stormwater
management and additional plantings.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The new home to be constructed is to be in a similar location as the current home. The existing floor area
of 2,650 sq. ft. and the new floor area to be 4,37E sq. ft. The height is to be 27.92 ft. The project includes
rain garden,shallow grassed depression and permeable pavers to assist with stormwater management.The
materials have been provided to the Town Designated engineering(firm)for review and comment."
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that was approved August
16`h,2022 by a unanimous vote.
MR. ZAPPER-Good evening. For the record,Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson from Environmental
Design Partnership and Mike Chase is behind us. Dark Bay,LLC is owned by Mike and his wife. So they
have an existing approval, as Laura's notes stated, right now, which was granted a year ago, the 5rh of
October, which they could go in and build now. They were starting that process. The builder is Matt
Cifone,very good quality builder. The plan was to reinforce the foundation and then fix what's there and
he got down into it he just said he wasn't willing to do that, that it didn't make sense to work with that
existing foundation. So that's why we're back with an almost identical project, but it's this time a
teardown instead of working with the existing foundation,just because of the condition of it. So the
reason for the variances are the constraints of the lot. I know you guys were all there,with that steep slope
in the back,this isn't a situation where you can push the house back away from the lake,but that's being
mitigated,but right now there are trees on either side of,on the lakeside and the other side of the property.
Those are all going to remain and there's some pretty substantial plantings and stormwater devices being
put in between the house and the lake to make up for the fact that the house has to be closer to the lake
than would be permitted,but with new stormwater,new septic system,this is an improvement to the lake.
It's a modest size house. Small lot obviously but the permeability, excuse me,the floor area ratio request
1S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
of 22.75. So it's only.75 over. We could take that out of the basement and make it into storage space,but
it wouldn't gain anything for the neighborhood. It's a tiny difference. So we don't think it's really self-
imposed. It's really based on the constraints of the lot. The side setbacks are supposed to be 20 and it's
19 and a half and 16 and a half. So not huge variances. It's really just the distance to the lake and that's
because of the lot. So with that I'll ask Brandon to walk you through the site plan.
MR. FERGUSON-So I'm sure most of you are familiar with the site plan.
MR. MC CABE-I've just got to have you state your name.
MR. FERGUSON-Sorry. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design Partnership. I'm sure most of
you are familiar with the site plan as you saw not too long ago. Nothing significantly really has changed
on it. We are decreasing the permeability on the site,and with this project he's doing a brand new septic
system with a Clarus BTU unit and a UV system. So it's a huge upgrade to the septic on the lot,which we
know it's whereabouts is but we don't even really exactly know what the existing septic is. And we're
also making great improvements to the stormwater. There's no stormwater on site right now. The
permeability is higher than where it is right now and everything just goes off this steep site into the lake.
So we're doing as much stormwater management as we can, including adding permeable pavers to their
parking area and the front of the garage with a drywell and some, this little parking turnaround area is
going to be permeable pavers and then we're doing our shallow grass depression on the lakeside, take
whatever runoff we can. So we're really utilizing every portion of this site we can for stormwater
management which I think is going to be a great improvement from where it stands now. Do you have
any questions?
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR.HENKEL-I think,when it came in front of us it was about a year ago?
MR. FERGUSON-Yes.
MR.HENKEL-Weren't you talking about a heated driveway or something at that time?
MR. FERGUSON-Yes, and they're still talking about it for this portion of the steeper portion of the
driveway. He does want to use this year round. You can't put heated under the permeable areas because
they require insulation, but there was some talk about possibly doing some heated driveway up in here.
He hasn't made a final decision yet, but I shouldn't say up in here. In this steep portion right here that
we're taking out.
MR.HENKEL-Eliminate the need for salt.
MR. FERGUSON-Yes,that's part of it. Because he knows,he's owned the property for a while. There's
a significant amount of maintenance that has to go into that driveway. That's pretty steep.
MR.HENKEL-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time
I'm going to open the public hearing and see if anybody in the audience has input on this particular project,
and I suspect that there is somebody.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR.NAVITSKY-Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Chris Navitsky,Lake George Waterkeeper. I was just,I had
questions. I didn't know why, it seemed like nothing much was changing on the application, but my
concern is last year in October when you reviewed and approved this. It came back for revisions because
there was concern about more mitigation. The plan back in October had a raingarden along the front. It
had a big stormwater basin here on the side. I see this new plan, I don't see those. So that's what my
concern is. There was a lot of concern, they based that justification for the variance on the mitigation
measures. It seems like there's a lot less stormwater on this plan from the one that was approved last year.
So I just think, why don't they keep the same stormwater that they said they needed last year for
mitigation? And now they don't have it. So,thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Would you like to provide some information on that?
MR.HENKEL-What was the permeability last year?
MR. FERGUSON-The permeability was the same last year on the approved plan, and actually that
stormwater management on that side that got taken off prior to your approval last time. And the reason
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
for that was through the Town Engineering review, through LaBella, this neighboring well is in this
location right here, according to the neighbor's records, and we were too close to that well and there was
fear of compromising that well, and DOH has a requirement for a setback from a water supply well with
infiltration. So while we would have liked to have kept those stormwater devices in those areas,they were
too close to that neighboring well and LaBella,the Town Engineer, asked us to remove those at that time.
So they were actually off the plan that ultimately got approved,even though initially they were submitted
with those.
MR. ZAPPER-It's worth mentioning that just coincidentally we got the signoff letter today on the new
plan from LaBella,the Town Engineer,but that was certainly a fair question for Chris to ask.
MR. NAVITSKY-The drawing here is from September 2021.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anything written,Roy?
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment other than the LaBella letter,but I don't know if that needs
to be read in.
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 Ron.
MR. KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. I have no issue with it. I think it's presented right. I'm glad you
brought it up. I'm glad Mr. Navitsky brought up that stormwater issue. I mean we live and learn. We've
been dealing with stormwater all along. I would have never thought that that stormwater device would
have an effect on the neighbor's well,but we live and learn. So I'd be in favor of it the way it's presented.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I agree with Ron. I'd be in favor as well.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes, I would be in favor of it. Whatever else was done, we've got a few more
improvements.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Due to the previous approvals I'd be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-Yes,I think there's not too many negatives. I think it's a good project. I'd be on Board.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. We approved it before, and I think we'd be negligent if
we didn't recognize that something had to be done with the foundation. We wouldn't want to approve a
building on a substandard foundation. So,given that,I'm going to ask Ron if he'd make a motion here.
MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dark Bay Lane,
LLC. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,000 sq.ft.home to construct a new home with a house
footprint of 2,65E sq. ft. The new floor area is to be 4,37E sq. ft. The project includes a new septic system,
update to parking and shared access arrangement,shoreline planting areas, and stormwater management.
Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested
for setbacks,floor area, and permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, stormwater device within 100 ft. of shoreline. The
property is located in the Waterfront Residential zone,WR on a 0.44 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040,Chapter 147 supplemental minor project
The project is for a tear down new build in the same location as the original project where the applicant
found that the additions to be added the existing home couldn't support. The new deck is to be located
22.5 ft. from the shoreline and the proposed main house is to be 31.3 ft. setback where a 75 ft. setback is
required. North office/study side is to be 19.4 ft. to the side and the South side main house side proposed
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
16.5 ft.setback where a 20 ft.setback is required.Floor area is proposed to be 4,37E sq.ft.or 22.750/o where
the maximum allowed is 4,233 sq. ft. or 220/o. Permeability—no variance is required but should be noted
the existing is 57.50/o and the proposed is 60.1010 where a 750/o is required — the project improves site
permeability and not subject to a variance.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,August 24,2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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. The reason being this was previously approved and the design had to be changed.
2. Feasible alternatives are really limited,have been considered by the Board, and are reasonable and
have-been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is really not substantial as it kind of blends in and the setback relief is really
minimal.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self—created, but the reason for this is they were
just tearing down one and building up another.
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,-
S. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
43-2022 DARK BAY LANE LLC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 24`h Day of August 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody.
MR. FERGUSON-Thank you very much.
MR.HENKEL-Laura,what good is this letter. It doesn't really tell us anything.
MRS. MOORE-It's a signoff letter.
MR.HENKEL-It doesn't really say that,though.
MRS. MOORE-For which one?
MR.HENKEL-For Dark Bay. It seems like they're saying they got support by their engineer.
MRS. MOORE-They did. So the Town Engineer signed off on their project.
MR.HENKEL-Okay. But it doesn't really say.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/24/2022)
MRS. MOORE-They've addressed all the concerns. So LaBella had a list of comments.
MR.HENKEL-Okay. I'm just saying it doesn't really say that,though,in the letter.
MR. MC CABE-What they don't say is a good thing. They don't say there's any problems.
MR.HENKEL-Based on our review we have no further comments.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So the applicant went through the process.
MR.HENKEL-It doesn't say they support it.
MRS. MOORE-No. So their job,their rule is to look at our Code and make sure the applicants have met
the Code requirements. So that's what it says. They're not going to say whether it's good or bad. Just
does it meet our requirements.
MR.HENKEL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So,given that information,I make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
AUGUST 24TH,2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald
Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 24`h day of August,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe
22