06-21-2023 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS
FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING
JUNE2IST 2023
INDEX
Area Variance No. 3-2023 Neil&Sandra Rypkema 1.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 302.7-1-34
Area Variance No.4-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 2.
FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.227.17-1-25,227-17-1-24 (Septic)
Area Variance No.15-2023 Alisha&Michael Griffey 2.
Tax Map No.239.16-1-23&24
Area Variance No.IS-2023 Roaring Brook LLC (Michel Ferri) 11.
Tax Map No. 302.6-1-52
Area Variance No.19-2023 Chris Carte 14.
Tax Map No.266.1-2-42
Area Variance No.20-2023 William Levett 17.
Tax Map No.226.19-2-9
Area Variance No.21-2023 Great Escape Theme Park LLC 20.
Tax Map No.2SS.20-1-20
Area Variance No.22-2023 Bay Road Self Storage,LLC 24.
Tax Map No. 302.E-1-21;302.E-2-20 (Lot Line Adj.)
302.S-2-24
Area Variance No.23-2023 Sean Palladino&Sarah Lockhart-Palladino 29.
Tax Map No.265.-1-43
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 06/21/2023)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 21ST,2023
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO,SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
RONALD KUHL
RICHARD CIPPERLY
ROBERT KEENAN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals,Wednesday,June 21",2023. If you haven't been here before,our procedure's pretty simple. There
should bean agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up. The case will be read into the record. The
applicant will be allowed to present the case. We'll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been
advertised,then we'll open the public hearing,take input from the public. We'll close the public hearing.
I'll poll the Board and then proceed accordingly,but first we have a few administrative items to take care
of. So,John,could we have the meeting minutes for May 17`h?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 17`h,2023
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF MAY 17TK, 2023, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 21"day of June,2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-And table.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
REQUEST TO TABLE AV 3-2023(RYPKEMA)TO JULY 19,2023
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Neil&z Sandra
Rypkema. Applicant proposes to construct two single family homes: Building A of 2,500 sq. ft. with an
attached garage; and Building B of 1,200 sq. ft. and maintain an existing 1,200 sq. ft. garage on-site. The
project work includes minimal clearing for the new homes and municipal connection for sewer and water.
Relief is requested for two single family homes (not connected) on a parcel and for more than one garage
on a parcel.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2023 NEIL&z SANDRA RYPKEMA,Introduced by
John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe:
Tabled to August 16,2023.
Duly adopted this 21"Day of June 2023 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-So before you call the vote,I'm going to make you change the date because there's no new
information at this point. So it'll be August 16`h. I apologize.
AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MRS.MOORE-And the same with Eberlein. You're going to table that to August 16`h. I apologize for not
letting you know sooner.
REQUEST TO TABLE AV 4-2023(EBERLEIN)TO JULY 19,2023
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Geraldine
Eberlein. (Revised)Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a
new home with a footprint of 2,411 sq.ft.,-an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq.ft.,-and a new floor area of 3,343 sq.
ft. The project includes associated site work for anew permeable driveway,stormwater management,and
shoreline landscaping; the project also includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining
property to east property line. 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.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to August 16,2023.
Duly adopted this 21s'Day of June 2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-And so also we have a request for an extension here.
MR.HENKEL-No date change for that?
MRS. MOORE-There's no date change.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF 1 YEAR FOR AREA VARIANCE 23-2022(TYLER CONVERSE)
Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing lots. Parcel 51 will increase from 0.49 to
1.08 acres and Parcel 52 will be reduced by 0.59 acres. Parcel 51 will have an existing house with an
attached garage totaling 3,008 sq.ft. and a detached garage of 3,515 sq.ft.;Parcel 52 will have 5 homes and
associated outbuildings to remain. Relief is requested for size of detached garage, second garage, and
setback for house.
The Zoning Board of Appeals approved Area Variance 23-2022 on June 29,2022. Applicant is requesting
a one year extension . With this resolution the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a one year extension to
June 28,2024.
MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR AREA VARIANCE 23-2022, TYLER
CONVERSE. Introduced by John Henkel,who moved for its adoption;seconded by Ronald Kuhl.
Extended to June 28`h,2024.
Duly adopted this 21s' Day of June 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-And now we can get to business. So our first applicant here is AV 15-2023, Alisha &
Michael Griffey,26 Tall Timbers Road.
TABLED ITEMS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ALISHA &z MICHAEL GRIFFEY
AGENT(S) BRANDON FERGUSON (EDP) OWNER(S) ALISHA &z MICHAEL GRIFFEY
ZONING WR LOCATION 26 TALL TIMBERS RD. (REVISED)APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-
STORY ADDITION TO THE MAIN HOME AND TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE TO A
REC ROOM. THE EXISTING MAIN HOME FOOTPRINT IS 1,540 SQ. FT. AND HAS A FLOOR
AREA OF 3,560 SQ.FT. THE NEW REC ROOM IS TO BE 673 SQ.FT. FOOTPRINT AND FLOOR
AREA. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING GUEST COTTAGE OF 485 SQ. FT.THAT IS TO REMAIN.
THE TOTAL NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 7,707 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW
EXTENSION OF THE DRIVEWAY AREA WITH CLEARING, PERMEABLE PAVERS ON THE
SHORELINE SIDE OF THE NEW ADDITION, AN UPGRADED SEPTIC SYSTEM, PLANTING
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
PLAN,AND RETAINING WALL IN AREAS OF THE NEW ADDITIONS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW
FLOOR, CONVERSION OF SEASONAL TO YEAR ROUND AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN
50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR MAIN BUILDING HEIGHT AND
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT,EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE,SIZE
OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE,AND EXPANSION GREATER THAN 1/3 FLOOR AREA OF MAIN
STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 30-2023; SP 66-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL
2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.79 AC. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-23&z
24 SECTION 179-3-040;147,179-5-020;179-13-010;179-4-010
STEFANIE BITTER&r BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2032, Alisha & Michael Griffey, Meeting Date: June 21, 2023
"Project Location: 26 Tall Timbers Rd. Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)Applicant proposes
a 2-story addition to the main home and to convert an existing garage to a rec room. The existing main
home footprint is 1,540 sq. ft. and has a floor area of 3,560 sq. ft. The new rec room is to be 673 sq. ft.
footprint and floor area. The site has an existing guest cottage of 4S5 sq.ft.footprint that is to remain.The
total new floor area is to be 7,707 sq.ft.Project includes new extension of the driveway area with clearing,
permeable pavers on the shoreline side of the new addition, an upgraded septic system,planting plan and
retaining wall in areas of the new additions. Site plan for new floor area, conversion of seasonal to year
round and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for main building height and
accessory structure height, expansion of nonconforming structure, size of accessory structure, and
expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for building height and accessory structure height, expansion of
nonconforming structure, size of accessory structure, and expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main
structure,an addition to the existing home and upgrading a garage to a bunk house with an addition. The
project is located at 26 Tall Timbers Drive on a 2.79 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-010 1/3 expansion,179-5-020 accessory structure,
The main house addition is to be greater than 1/3 of the existing home relief is I,S4S sq.ft.,the main house
is to be 31.52 ft.in height where 2S ft.is the maximum height for the main home. The rec room building is
to be IS.S ft.where 16 ft.is the maximum height for an accessory. The rec room building is to be 673 sq.ft.
which exceeds the maximum allowed accessory structure limited to 500 sq.ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the
applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce
the variances requested.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for 1/3 expansion is I,S4S sq.ft.,main building height
is 3.52 ft.,rec room building size 660 sq. ft. (accessory structure existing is 1,000 sq. ft. and proposed
is 1,160 sq.ft.),rec room building height is 2.59 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.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant has revised the project for an addition to an existing home, the detached garage to be
removed and replaced with a rec room building on the existing foundation, and the cabin to remain with
no changes. The addition to the home will now include a bunk room on the second floor. The new floor
area would be 7,707 sq. ft. The plans show the floor plans and elevations show the arraignment for the
main house and the rec room building."
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter. I'm back with the team from April. When we were last before you at that
time,we understood that the Board looked for amendments to the proposal. Before I go into the changes
that were made,let me reiterate the goals the applicant has for this project. It's to keep the historic 1929
structure. Obviously as we discussed at the last meeting,an option exists to clear the entire lot and start
from scratch and that's not at all their priority. They're looking for preservation and to keep the original
character. They're moving forward with this, and they're trying to do this in the manner that is best for
the environment and for the property,but it appears that we're kind of taking the road less traveled since
if they did just start from scratch there'd be no variances necessary,but it means that much to them that
they keep at it and they've re-designed it. The proposal itself is an addition of a 1929 structure,the removal
of an existing garage and construction of a rec house. In April, reviewing the minutes, we took your
comments and concerns to be the size of the accessory structure, the stormwater of the site, and
questioning where storage would occur on the site. We listened to you. We've reduced the size of the
building, the accessory structure or the rec building, at almost 400/o. The stormwater, we've received
signoff from LaBella, and the storage,we have pictures in our proposal and our presentation showing you
where that storage does occur on the site for the applicants. The rec building has been modified to remove
the sleeping quarters as well as the shower and the living space will be discussed in further detail by my
team members. The variances remain as described, three of which are for the maintenance of the 1929
structure, and to carry on the addition, there's a slight variance needed for height of what that building
will ultimately be. To expand the non-conforming structure, which is the 1929 structure that slightly
encroaches on the shoreline setback,is very minimal,that setback. The expansion is greater than 1/3rd of
the house,but again,that's just to carry forth and maintain that 1929 structure. The rec room,that building
is going to be 2.5 feet over the required height limit and the rec room itself is going to be 673 square feet
when 500 is allowed. No floor area ratio is needed for this project. The height allows both structures to
mirror each other. So it's for the aesthetics of what's being seen by the lake. The accessory structure,the
rec building, is being built on the concrete pad of the existing garage that's being demo'd. No views are
being impacted. The purpose of the rec building is to lessen the development along the lake. The house
can't be built technically perpendicular to the existing house because of a ledge that exists,and we'll show
you that picture in our presentation. The height of the rec house is actually shorter than the existing
garage that's being torn down. In evaluating the balancing test, we believe that everything that you're
looking at far favors the granting of these variances. This is a unique project. This is a two acre lot. They
do not wish to tear down the structure and they want to preserve the character. There's no undesirable
change to the character of the neighborhood with this proposal. It's even mentioned in Staff comments
that it's minor. There's other feasible options that could be considered if we reduced more variances
sought,but this is the best plan for preservation. Minimal impacts as identified by Staff. The relief is not
considered substantial. We're maintaining the existing structure which is a number of the variances
being sought,which is kind of backwards in terms of looking at the Code and what should be encouraged,
and even Staff says they're minimal. There's no adverse environmental impacts. We're enhancing the
septic,engineering signoff,and this is in a similar location to other houses in this area. This should not be
considered self-created when preservation is actually what's occurring. I'm going to turn it over to
Brandon.
MR. FERGUSON-Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. I put together a revised PowerPoint.
So the variance requests, as you recall, are essentially expansion of existing floor area by greater than 1/3ra
which we felt the Board last time was generally okay with that variance request considering that we could
tear down the building and build a larger structure there and be zoning compliant. Building height,which
hasn't changed from the previous proposal on the main building,and then the accessory structure area and
that building height accessory structure. So at the last ZBA meeting our understanding was the concerns
had to do with proposed size and use of that accessory structure, the lack of storage/garage on the site,
concerns over the living space within that accessory structure and general concerns over drainage and
stormwater on the site. So this was the previously proposed site plan, and if you'll recall there was an
addition on the north side of the existing home,extending. There's no shoreline setback required for that.
Everything's beyond the 50 feet, and we had an accessory structure that was proposed in the location of
the existing garage that they were using for some additional bedrooms and recreation space.Based on some
of your comments, what we looked at and what actually Dennis looked at from Balzar Tuck is how to
reduce the size of the accessory structure. So they were able to kind of figure out,looking at the degree
and existing conditions on the site,they were able to extend that house,proposed addition,backwards a
little bit away from the lake and take those bedrooms out of that accessory structure and add it into the
house,and that allowed us to shrink down that accessory structure area and that's kind of the main change
to the house site plan layout,but that addition is to the rear,not on the lakeside. So this is the previous
existing structure,and I can let Dennis kind of cover this a little bit more.
DENNIS MC GOWAN
MR. MC GOWAN-Dennis McGowan,Balzar Tuck Architecture. So in this previous plan you can see,on
the left side of this page, this is where we had the sleeping quarters with the bathroom and mechanical
room between there, the hallway back into the living space of the rec building. What we've done is
removed any sleeping from this structure,changed the size of the structure by reducing the footprint and
then made a full bath into a powder room. So eliminating sleeping,bathing from this,so it doesn't qualify
as a dwelling unit, eliminates any chance of it being rented as an Air B N B which is comment that we
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
heard, and we made our best effort to make this structure usable for the owners as well as reduced in size
as per the comments that we heard.
MR. FERGUSON-And I think one thing to note on that bathroom was that they've reduced the.
MR. MC CABS Just state your name again,for the transcriptionist.
MR. FERGUSON-Okay. Brandon Ferguson. I just want to note that there was a 270/o decrease in the
footprint of that structure, and a 400/o decrease in the total floor area of that accessory structure. I just
wanted to point that out, and then this is kind of what shows that as well. This shows, and it's a little
hard to read up on the screen,but this shows what the reduction in the square footage and the floor area
within that structure where on the previous we had 925 square feet plus 175 square foot loft there. The
loft is removed as well and the footprint was shrunk down which results in the 400/o decrease in the floor
area of that structure.
MR. MC GOWAN-Dennis McGowan again. And then from the exterior, architecturally, we kept the
structure similar to the house,as it looked before,but we did reduce dormer that were in the roof that were
previously shown and looked to reduce the amount of overall square footage. So as you go to the next slide
on the side you can see,while it still is over the height allowable,it did reduce that by bringing down the
peak of the gables. Due to the reduction of that loft we were able to squeeze down the roof and have less
of a height requirement. So storage and the garage was part of the conversation at the last meeting and
we re-organized this table to try to break it down to better explain how the property kind of operates.
The top three categories are living space,what is currently the first and second floor of the house, and will
be an accessory structure,and then the second category being storage is the basement of the existing home,
and then what is the existing cabin that's up the hill from where the current garage sits, and the idea of
this slide is to show that while a garage was one of the items that was expressed, the Griffeys aren't
interested in building a garage,but they do have the capability of storing all their needs when it comes to
anything that's equipment for the property. With that being said, the property doesn't require a lot of
maintenance on their behalf. It doesn't have a large lawn. It doesn't have much of a lot at all. All of the
plantings will be maintained through typical gardening equipment that can be easily stored in the
basement of the house, and then they have that existing cabin for any other storage that may spill over
when it comes to outdoor storage and things like that during the winter and these pictures are a picture of
that basement just to show that, while it is minimal, they do have the space for it. They don't keep
anything outside as it is, the idea being that a garage would be needed to storage that type of equipment
does not fall under a category of needs that this family needs and they are hoping to impress upon you that
it is not needed and is not something they're looking to do with this project,but the property functions
well. They are mostly seasonal at this point until the addition is finished. They don't come up in the
wintertime. They do have the intention to use it in some of the off season times,but it's not an everyday
home. So this is the floor plan of the residence, and on this first floor, what you can see on the top of the
page, is where the new sleeping area will be located. It's not technically on the first floor. This is only a
crawl space, and this will be built back from the lake, as Brandon said, and allow for the sleeping that
they're trying to achieve in the accessory structure. So this bunkroom would be accessible off of the stair,
on the upper landing. So it's a bit of in between,but it came to be because of how the property is sloped
and where we felt it made sense for that level to be located based on the topography and then how it
worked with the design that we had before. So we were trying to avoid a long run of elevation, similar
how we're trying to avoid that on the lake facing. So we were able to put it behind the existing house,
which reduces visual impact from the lake,while still achieving the goal of the sleeping area.
MR. FERGUSON-Brandon here again. So this is,I know Brandon kind of touched on it. They were able
to move that structure behind that, that addition behind that house and use the crawl space under it to
minimize any blasting in the area,right,the elevations were able to work out there,because there is a lot
of rock on this site,but as far as further expansion of that existing residence in that area,you start to run
into what you see here in these pictures. So this is actually looking at the back,at the roadside,I guess,of
the existing residence, and as you can see it's just a rock wall right there. So really any extension of that
existing structure further back or any extension in that direction,you start to run into some heavy bedrock
in that area. So we're trying to avoid blasting, especially that close to the existing residence right behind
it. So that's why we were able to kind of finagle that section in,but further expansion of that becomes
quite difficult with those rock conditions on the site. And these are just a couple of other pictures of those
site conditions. You can kind of see when you're,this is the side the addition will be on. So you can see
the grade there is already lower. A lot of that rock in those areas is already kind of broken up,a little easier
to remove. So that's kind of why the addition's going in this location here and why it's able to expand in
this direction and not towards the driveway, and then touching a little bit on stormwater. I know it was
kind of brought up a little bit from the minutes. We're not going for a stormwater variance here. We meet
all the setback requirements for stormwater and the Town Engineer that reviewed our original design,
they signed off on that,and then we submitted the revised design which had very minimal revisions to the
stormwater and we got a signoff letter on that as well. So it's been reviewed by the Town Engineer twice
now, and they're good with it,and this right here kind of shows an example of what we're doing with the
stormwater. Really we're trying to take and capture everything before it goes into the lake from that
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
existing house. We're doing a little,some kind of stormwater areas in front of that,as well as a stormwater
area taking the new driveway and permeable patio area. It takes the new addition and that patio,and the
kind that,in the area of that existing patio there's two actually impervious patios. So removing those and
putting a permeable one in place. We think it's a big improvement,drainage wise,for that site compared
to what's there now. And this gets back to the building height. We're not changing,from what we had
proposed before. So I just wanted to kind of add this in here to show that addition in the rear,you kind
of see on the house there, it's lower than the main roof line of that proposed addition. So that's not
impacting that height variance that we were previously requesting that this Board seemed to feel pretty
comfortable with. There's just a minimal area on the lakeshore of that house,just that peak that ends up
requiring that height variance, and a lot of that,existing elevations of the current residence there. So this
picture is just showing that little triangle up there. So kind of just a summary of all this. The expansion
of the existing floor area by,so that did increase some because we did take those bedrooms and move them
from their accessory structure to the main structure. The building height,there's no change. The accessory
structure area, we reduced that from 925 to 673 for a 270/o reduction and the building height was reduced
slightly by about 100/o from what was previously proposed for that accessory structure as well. I think I'll
turn it back over to you guys for questions.
MR. MC CABE-So,John,you had a question?
MR.HENKEL-Well on the last application it showed the height at 31.52,and this new application is at 32
feet 6 inches.
MR. FERGUSON-It should be 31.52 for this survey.
MR.HENKEL-In this new application.
MR. FERGUSON-The height has not changed from the previous application.
MR.HENKEL-I've got 32.
MR. URRICO John's looking at the application,rather than the.
MR.HENKEL-I've got this one right here. New revised height is 32 feet 6 inches.
MRS. MOORE-Is that the site data?
MR. FERGUSON-There must have been a mistake. It has not changed from that previous development.
MR. URRICO-Nobody seems to be addressing the discrepancy. Did you make a mistake on the
application?
MR. URRICO-There's a mistake on the application. It's 31.52. That hasn't changed.
MR. MC CABE-On the Staff Notes it's still 31.52.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it's also, sorry, so it's 32 feet 6 inches, which is 31.5. Correct? 31 feet 6 inches
versus 31.5 in decimals. So just remember this. Because I remember doing the same thing,but one's not
in decimal.
MR.HENKEL-Okay. I was looking at the sheet,your revised sheet.
MRS. MOORE-It was, and it's still 32.5.
MR. FERGUSON-Well 31.5.
MRS. MOORE-Or 31.5
MR. FERGUSON-There's a two there. It should be a one.
MRS. MOORE-It should be a one.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Other questions?
MR.KUHL-When you were reducing the size of the auxiliary building,why didn't you lower the roof line
within Code?
MR. FERGUSON-The accessory structure? That roof did come down.
MR. KUHL-I understand that. Twenty-seven percent. I got all that. Why didn't you put it at the right
number?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MR. FERGUSON-So what's driving that height here is actually that grade in that area, because you're
entering it from the driveway side. So what it does is the grade in that area drops off quite a bit past the
driveway.
MR.KUHL-I guess I must have missed that when I was there because I didn't see that drop.
MR.FERGUSON-So this is kind of the side elevation view right here. So while they got rid of the dormers
or were able to reduce the dormers and reduce the overall height, that, what drives it now is that side
elevation right there that you're looking at, that,before it was on the lakeside. It's there. It's driving it
now. Because that existing grade drops as you go to the rear of the garage, it drops I think by about four
feet or so from the front of the garage to the area to the rear or to the lakeside I should say. There's actually
that foundation of that garage now extends well below the garage floor.
MR.KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC GOWAN-Sorry,just to add on to that,what you can see,so Brandon's talking about the left side
of this image. What you can see on the right side is the current height of the peak of the gable is at 14 foot
7 and we were at 16 feet previously from the driveway where the slab is of that structure. So we did come
down almost,you know,came down 17 inches.
MR.KUHL-But you're not using the attic for anything. Correct?
MR. MC GOWAN-We are not.
MR.KUHL-So again,I'll go back to my question. If you're not using the attic for anything,why didn't you
drop it 16 on the left side?
MR. MC GOWAN-To achieve that we'd have to do a flat roof or a very minimally sloped roof.
MR.KUHL-But you could still do it with a sloped roof. I'm not an engineer. I'm not going to design your
project.
MR.MC GOWAN-So,architecturally,this fits with the site. It's the driving force behind the shape of the
roof. It fits with the existing structure aesthetically and what's difficult is we'd have to do a essentially a
pitch in the wrong direction towards the lake. You'd send all the water down towards the lake. Right
now we're splitting it, helping out with stormwater, but at the end of the day, the driving force is
aesthetically this looks,it's in keeping with what is existing on site.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. CIPPERLY-Do you really think you could dig a four foot hole there along the shore?
MR. FERGUSON-For what?
MR. CIPPERLY-For anything. You've four foot deep holes.
MR. FERGUSON-For stormwater?
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes.
MR.FERGUSON-So the stormwater is actually getting built upon the site. So we're actually building up
areas and using retaining wall structures with a liner behind them in order to build up those areas for the
stormwater.
MR. CIPPERLY-That's a lot of rock there.
MR. FERGUSON-1 do understand that. Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. KUHL-I also looked at that, and what about the people to the south? They will still be coming
through there? It would be,what is it,the Simms? The Simms house.
MR. MC GOWAN-It's not their everyday access to the site,but in times of need for certain activities the
Griffey's allow them to have access. It's not an easement. They don't have a legal right to it, but it's a
neighborly access.
MR.KUHL-Well isn't that the only way they can get in there?
S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MS. BITTER-No.
MR. MC GOWAN-They have their own driveway.
MR.KUHL-They have that other driveway?
MR. FERGUSON-They come off Burnt Ridge.
MR.KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So the public hearing is still open from the last meeting. So we read a
couple of letters in.
MR. URRICO-I'm going to read those letters in when you're ready.
MR. MC CABE-Is that all right with you guys?
MS. BITTER-Yes.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR.URRICO-Okay. "I own the home immediately next to the Griffey's on Tall Timbers Rd.,Lake George.
I have had the chance to review their proposed project and fully support their request. I feel their project
is designed in very good taste and fits beautifully within the lot. As their closest neighbor,their plans are
a far better alternative than having someone purchase the lot between us and squeeze a new house in there.
I feel very confident their project will be a positive addition to the neighborhood!' I'm sorry, this is not
signed. I don't have an address other than the nearest neighbor.
ALISHA GRIFFEY
MRS. GRIFFEY-Mary Lou Dunton.
MR. FERGUSON-That's from Mary Lou Dunton.
MRS. MOORE-I'll clarify that. There was an e-mail, and so the e-mail versus the, the way it was sent. I
apologize, I should have put that in there that it was from Mary Lou Dunton. It was not sent in the
traditional e-mail sense. So when the attachment came through,it only came through with that language
on it.
MR. URRICO-Okay. "Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Area Variance 15-2023 submitted
by Alisha and Michael Griffey. We own the home at 30 Tall Timbers next door to the Griffey property.
The Griffey proposal is thorough and the proposed architectural design complements the existing house
built in the early 20th Century. However,as presented,we have concerns about the plan's non-conforming
scale and scope. When the Griffey's main house was built almost a century ago the importance of a natural
buffer around the shoreline wasn't fully understood or appreciated. Consequently,like many other homes
around the lake,the natural lakefront area in front of the main house was almost entirely replaced with a
poured concrete seawall, hundreds of square feet of impervious stone terrace, wide stone walkways and
large stone stairs leading down to the lake.Eventually,as awareness evolved,waterfront zoning laws were
established to protect Lake George and the town's other waterways. These laws grandfathered existing
non-conforming homes and included hardship provisions for reasonable non-conforming changes to
address modern needs (modern septic systems on undersized lots, +330/o additions to non-conforming
homes close to the water, etc.). As presented, the proposal asks to substantially compound the existing
non-conformity by more than doubling the main house living space (+1070/o), adding a sizable 2nd
accessory living structure (+1220/o total site floor area and 7 bedrooms),adding an additional parking area
and another massive set of stone stairs to the lake. This proposal excessively increases non-conformity
resulting in the loss of natural vegetation,mature trees and shrubs from the lakefront buffer. Furthermore,
the proposed 7,910 sq.ft.total site floor area is substantially out of character with the neighborhood.Based
upon the Warren County Real Property website data, the combined square footage of the 5 lakefront
houses to the south is slightly less than the proposed total site floor area of 7,910 sq. ft. (Simms =1,250;
Rapaport=2,314;Slote=SO4;Green=1,105;Seitz=2,250;Total 7,723 sq.ft.).We feel the non-hardship relief
requested"....for stormwater device setbacks,building height and accessory structure height,expansion of
nonconforming structure, size of accessory structure, and expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main
structure..." is excessive and results in the inordinate loss of natural vegetation,mature trees and shrubs
from the lakefront buffer. We respectfully ask that the plan's scale and scope be reconsidered and
substantially reduced before approval." And this is Lenton and Barbara Simms,and this was dated April
1S`h,2023. This is another letter from Lenton and Barbara Simms dated June 21" "Thank you for a second
opportunity to comment on Area Variance AV-15-2023 submitted by Alisha and Michael Griffey, 26 Tall
Timbers Road. We own the home at 30 Tall Timbers Road next door to the Griffey property. Since our
April 1S,2023 letter to you The Environmental Design Partnership, LLP (EDP) site plan has been revised
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
to include information on neighboring properties to the south and north.We're writing to provide context
missing from the EDP material that underscores our concerns about the excessive scope of the Griffey's
plans. Page 34: Attached is a 2011 Google Earth photo of the neighboring Dunton property to the north
taken before their similarly sized building plans received your approval and before construction was
completed. Comparing the 2011 photo to the 2021 photo included in the Griffey plan, the dramatic and
excessive loss of natural vegetation in the crucial 100'buffer zone and beyond is clear. This should not be
used to justify approval of the Griffey's plan. Page 25: Attached is an annotated version of the outdated
and now inaccurate survey map that EDP used for their "Simms Property FAR Calculations". The
annotations updating the map underscore our concerns about excessive shoreline construction by
providing counterpoint.. Several years ago we bought the lot (with a seasonal cottage) to our north and,
like the Griffeys, we combined the two lots. Unlike the current proposal, our goal was to protect the
natural shoreline and insure that the property wasn't excessively over built. To that end,we:permanently
removed one large crib dock from the lake;permanently removed one accessory structure;limited(by deed
restriction) future lakefront construction within-300 feet of the shore to no more than 1.5 stories on the
footprint of the existing lakefront seasonal cottage; and replaced hard surface paths with mulch paths,
constructed berms and swales and added vegetation to increase natural water absorption and reduce
runoff into the lake. We recount this information,not because we are under any illusion that the Griffey's
will, or should, forgo their plans. However, for the health of Lake George, we do think that zoning and
planning boards around the lake need to limit excessive lakefront building by enforcing current zoning
restrictions that seek non-hardship variances. We feel the non-hardship relief requested "... for
stormwater device setbacks,building height and accessory structure height,expansion of nonconforming
structure, size of accessory structure, and expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main structure...." is
excessive and results in the inordinate loss of natural vegetation, mature trees and shrubs from the
lakefront buffer and beyond. We ask that the plan's scale and scope be modified as follows: 1. reduce the
main house addition to the allowed 4,750 sq.ft.; 2. eliminate the redundant 2nd accessory structure since
the existing accessory structure alone is double the allowed 500 sq. ft.,- 3. leave the existing driveway
unchanged as stated in the Griffey's October 25, 2022 Site Plan 66-2022 application for a new driveway;
and 4. eliminate the proposed redundant hard surface stairs to the lake." And this is Barbara and Lenton
Simms.
MR. MC CABE-Are we all set with the letters, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,that's it.
MR. MC CABE-So is there anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular
project? So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MS. BITTER-Mr. Chairman and Board,the applicant would like to speak.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MRS. GRIFFEY-Hi. Alisha Griffey. I'm the homeowner. First of all,thank you guys for taking the time
to do this. I know you volunteer time because you care about the lake and you care about what happens
around it. I just want to,before we pickup for two seconds to think big picture and explain where we are
as homeowners and why we're here tonight. We love this lake. We've been coming here for 25 years.
We've been camping on the islands and we bought this property because we want to protect it. We have
already gone through the legal process of combining two separate lots, specifically so that there wouldn't
be two houses on this. What you're seeing here is a lot that,if we hadn't bought it,probably would have
had our current 1929 house torn down and the lot next to it would probably have a house on it at this
point. We are trying our best to figure out how do we meet the needs of our extended family and also do
everything in our power to protect the lake and also respect the history of the house. We love that it's a
1929 house. It's a time capsule. It has books from the 1930's sitting on the shelves,but it has zero modern
conveniences. So we are here because we want to figure out a way to work within the existing structure,
and that means we need variances. So we are very hopeful that we've done a good job of explaining how
we've responded to the feedback and explaining why we're asking for the variances,but we also are in a
place where we literally have run out of time and money to continue to go down the painful expensive path
of hiring architects and lawyers to go through different iterations of this. We do not want to tear this
house down. We do not want to tear this house down,but if we did,and if we moved it back two feet,we
could build anything without a variance. That's the dilemma we're in.
MR. MC CABE-Well not quite anything.
MRS. GRIFFEY-But we would build exactly what we're proposing, and we do not want to do that, and
that is why we've chosen the path that has cost us more time and more money. So we are hopeful that we
have done a good job of presenting an explanation for why we're doing this, and we're responding to the
concerns. Mr. Kuhl, I do want to answer your one question about the accessory structure height, and I
just want to clarify that what we're proposing is significantly lower than what's there. I think that got
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
lost in the translation. There is currently a garage there that's significantly above the current zoning rules,
and so what we're proposing is below what's currently there,and the only reason why it requires a variance
is because of the slope. When you look at it as you're coming from the driveway,it's not above the variance
requirements. It's only when you look at it from the lake because of the slope of the lot that it's above. So
I just want to clarify that this is actually an improvement over what's currently there,but I appreciate the
question which is why didn't you just do it within the current rules, and that's a totally fair question. So
anyway I just want to close by saying thank you guys for your time and your feedback and say that I hope
we've done a good job of explaining what we're presenting and why we're presenting it and that we've
earned our way to your supporting variances.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Dick.
MR.CIPPERLY-I appreciate what you've done. I think the garage for a rec room is a big improvement and
I understand the height. The back of that building falls off. I mean walking down the stairs you know it
falls off. So I mean that part of it is okay. I appreciate what you've done with protecting the existing
building and trying to match as close as you can to the look of it.. So I guess I'd be supportive.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-Yes, I think I'd agree with Dick that there have definitely been some improvements over
the last submittal. I think I would approve this at this point.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think overall this is an improved project over when we first saw it. I think the
changes have helped make it more sustainable, and I would definitely be in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Well I think the lot is big enough to support this whole thing, but I still think it's being
overbuilt and I'm not in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-I've been on the property and also been on the lakeside and viewed it from the lakeside. It's
a beautiful piece of property no doubt. They can do a lot with it as far as building a bigger house. I wish
they would have a garage instead of an accessory building because I think they're going to need that
eventually,but I guess as this point I'd support it as is,too.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I still think it's overbuilding at 7,700 square feet, even though it's a large lot, and I
think these larger lots in Town are driving the Town Board. The Town Board has in under its
consideration lowering the floor area ratio on the larger lots on the lake down to 200/o FAR. So I think in
this instance here I still can't support it.
MR. MC CABE-And as I view this project,first of all,I support trying to maintain history,and we've done
that for a neighbor of yours not too far from the north,and overall looking at the variances that we're asked
to give here,they're pretty mundane, and so for the beauty of the structure and for the minimal variances
that we're asking I support the project. So,I wonder if,Dick,you could give us a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Alisha &z
Michael Griffey. (Revised) Applicant proposes a 2-story addition to the main home and to convert an
existing garage to a rec room. The existing main home footprint is 1,540 sq.ft. and has a floor area of 3,560
sq. ft. The new rec room is to be 673 sq. ft. footprint and floor area. The site has an existing guest cottage
of 4S5 sq. ft. footprint that is to remain. The total new floor area is to be 7,707 sq. ft. Project includes new
extension of the driveway area with clearing,permeable pavers on the shoreline side of the new addition,
an upgraded septic system, planting plan and retaining wall in areas of the new additions. Site plan for
new floor area,conversion of seasonal to year round and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief
is requested for main building height and accessory structure height, expansion of nonconforming
structure,size of accessory structure, and expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for building height and accessory structure height, expansion of
nonconforming structure, size of accessory structure, and expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main
structure, an addition to the existing home and upgrading a garage to a rec room with an addition. The
project is located at 26 Tall Timbers Drive on a 2.79 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-010 1/3 expansion,179-5-020 accessory structure,
The main house addition is to be greater than 1/3 of the existing home(relief is I,848 sq.ft.),the main house
is to be 31.52 ft.in height where 28 ft.is the maximum height for the main home. The rec room building is
to be I8.5 ft.where 16 ft.is the maximum height for an accessory. The rec room building is to be 673 sq.ft.
which exceeds the maximum allowed accessory structure limited to 500 sq.ft.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on April 19,2023 and June 21,2023.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties as it conforms to the size of the lot and it could have been much bigger with two houses
on it.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They are reasonable and have been
included to_minimize the request or are not possible from just the standpoint of what has been
requested.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It just barely meets variance requirements.
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 because they could have done nothing.
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.
15-2023 ALISHA&z MICHAEL GRIFFEY,Introduced by Richard Cipperly,who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mr. Keenan:
Duly adopted this 21"Day of June 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood
MR. MC CABE-You have a project.
MS. BITTER-Thanks so much.
MRS. GRIFFEY-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 18-2023, Roaring Brook,LLC 740 Glen Street.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 ROARING BROOK LLC (MICHEL
FERRI) AGENT(S) JOHN M. REILLY,A.I.A. OWNER(S) ROARING BROOK LLC ZONING
CI LOCATION 740 GLEN ST APPLICANT PROPOSES A FACADE UPGRADE TO AN
EXISTING 2,201.83 SQ.FT.BUILDING AND NEW SIGNAGE. THE NEW FACADE INCLUDES A
FALSE FACADE FOR A PORTION OF THE BUILDING CORNER WHERE THE ROOFLINE
WOULD BE UP TO 19.5 FEET IN HEIGHT. THE REMAINDER OF THE ROOFLINE WOULD
REMAIN AT THE EXISTING HEIGHT OF 14 FT. THE FACADE CHANGE WOULD INCLUDE A
NEW WALL SIGN OF 30 SQ. FT. AND A NEW FREESTANDING SIGN OF 45 SQ. FT.. THE
FACADE COLORS ARE SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS BUILDING COLORS: (BROWNS FOR
THE BUILDING WITH RED,WHITE AND BLUE FOR THE SIGNAGE. SITE PLAN FOR FACADE
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
UPGRADES AND PREEXISTING SHED. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF
SP 41-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2023 LOT SIZE 0.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
302.6-1-52 SECTION 179-3-040 Cl
SAM BURDEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. IS-2023, Roaring Brook LLC (Michel Ferri), Meeting Date: June 21,
2023 `Project Location: 740 Glen St Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a facade
upgrade to an existing 2,201.53 sq.ft.building and new signage. The new fagade includes a false facade for
a portion of the building corner where the roofline would be up to 19.5 ft. in height. The remainder of the
roofline would remain at the existing height of 14 ft. The facade change would include a new wall sign of
30 sq. ft. and a new freestanding sign of 45 sq. ft. The facade colors are similar to the previous building
colors (browns for the building with red, white, and blue for the signage). Site plan for facade upgrades
and preexisting shed. Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks. The project is located at 740 Glen Street in the Commercial
Intensive zone on a 0.277 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The roof line area over the office is to be 30 ft.from the front setback where 75 ft. setback is required, and
14 ft.from the north property line where a 30 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 considered limited
due to the location of the existing building.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief for the front is 45 ft. and the north property line is 16 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 may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes an upgrade to the facade of the Valvoline Service store. The plans show the existing
free standing sign to be located to a compliant location. The new facade would have a false roof line near
the office area and updated brick and stone features of the building. The colors remain similar with light
browns for the building and the sign and features would be red,white and blue."
MR.URRICO-And 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 seven,
zero on June 20`h,2023.
MR.BURDEN-So Sam Burden for the record with Bohler Engineering here on behalf of the owner,Roaring
Brook, LLC. As mentioned the project located at 740 Glen Street in the Town. The site is currently
developed with a 2200 square foot automotive service station located in the Commercial Intensive zone.
Applicant is proposing facade upgrades, new signage, new freestanding signage and wall signage. The
facade includes a brick veneer,roof element that also includes the brick veneer and some stone piers. No
changes to the operations of the store are proposed as part of this application. That's for personnel parking,
anything along those lines. The applicant has really taken it upon themselves to upgrade the facade to the
architectural guidelines in the Code that are set forth and the new development that's going on all along
Glen Street. So as mentioned we were in front of the Planning Board last night and we received the
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
recommendation for tonight. The two variances we're seeking include the front yard setback and the side
yard setback. Due to the unique property line on the,I believe it's the northwest,if I'm not mistaken,the
northwest side, there's actually, the building's actually 6.5 feet, if I remember correctly, 6.5 feet, but our
facade improvements actually encroach closer to the existing nonconformance, and then the same thing
with the front. We are proposing 1.5 feet additionally into that existing non-conformance. So those are
the two variances that we're proposing as part of this. As far as the five criteria that New York State
specifies for granting a variance,we do not believe that these variances will produce an undesirable change
in the neighborhood due to the fact that we are conforming with the CI zone architectural guidelines.
We're adhering to Section 179 of the Town Code. We're really just trying to improve the appearance of an
existing building. Nothing too crazy there, and we're adding to that look of Glen Street,the Aldi's across
the street,the Five Below. We don't believe this could have been done by another feasible method. We're
trying to meet the guidelines set forth by the Town Code, and the flat walls don't do that so we added the
pier element which is the 1.5 feet that you're seeing as part of those variances on either side, and as
mentioned it's already a legal nonconforming building setback where it is. We don't believe the request
is substantial. As I keep saying the applicant is taking it upon themselves to really upgrade the facade of
this store,and we believe that the 1.5 feet for those piers on the two sides of the building are not substantial.
We don't believe that the granting would have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood. The applicant is trying to actively reinvest into the property and bring
this more up to the development within the area. Pretty straightforward there, and although it can be
perceived as self-created,the building's in existing nonconformance. There's a unique property line with
some parking in an easement off the property. We don't see that as substantial for this minor variance.
So I'd like to open it up to you guys for any questions..
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? Pretty straightforward. So a public hearing has
been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open a public hearing and see if there's anybody
out there that would like to approach the Board on this particular project? Do we have anything written,
Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with John.
MR. HENKEL-It's a pretty simple project. It's kind of weird that they have parking on someone else's
property,but we've seen that before. I'm all for it. It's a good project.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-Sam was very elegant in his presentation. I'd be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR.KEENAN-Yes. It's a good upgrade.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-It's a long way from the lake. Yes.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. I mean these variances already exist. They're just being
extended by a very minimal amount. So at this particular time I'm going to look to Bob to do a motion
here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Roaring Brook
LLC(Michael Ferri). Applicant proposes a facade upgrade to an existing 2,201.53 sq.ft.building and new
signage. The new facade includes a false facade for a portion of the building corner where the roofline
would be up to 19.5 ft.in height. The remainder of the roofline would remain at the existing height of 14 ft.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
The facade change would include a new wall sign of 30 sq.ft. and a new freestanding sign of 45 sq.ft. The
facade colors are similar to the previous building colors(browns for the building with red,white,and blue
for the signage). Site plan for facade upgrades and preexisting shed. Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks. The project is located at 740 Glen Street in the Commercial
Intensive zone on a 0.277 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The roof line area over the office is to be 30 ft.from the front setback where 75 ft. setback is required, and
14 ft.from the north property line where a 30 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on June 21,2023.
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 because they're basically improving the appearance of the existing building.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and the changes are reasonable and have been included
to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's very minimal impact on the existing building.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty,while it may be self-created,it's an improvement to the look and feel of the
Glen Street area.
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.
18-2023 ROARING BROOK,LLC(MICHEL FERRI),Introduced by Robert Keenan,who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 21"Day of June 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR.BURDEN-Thank you all.
MR. MC CABE-You have a project.
MR.BURDEN-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 19-2023,Chris Carte,67 Boulderwood Drive.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 CHRIS CARTE OWNER(S) CHRIS
CARTE ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 67BOULDERWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES
A 1,224 SQ. FT. DETACHED 2-BAY GARAGE ON EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PARCEL. THE
EXISTING HOME OF 3,870 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE
EXISTING HOME HAS AN ATTACHED GARAGE OF 1,363 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND IS
CONSISTENT WITH THE HOME. THE NEW GARAGE IS TO BE 22 FT.IN HEIGHT AND WILL
ALLOW FOR LARGER STORAGE AND LAWN EQUIPMENT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR A
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
SECOND GARAGE AND SIZE OF SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF AV 24-2000 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 4.52 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 266.1-2-42 SECTION 179-5-020
CHRIS CARTE,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.19-2023,Chris Carte,Meeting Date: June 21,2023 "Project Location:
67 Boulderwood Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 1,224 sq.ft. detached 2-
bay garage on existing residential parcel. The existing home of 3,570 sq. ft. footprint is to remain with no
changes.The existing home has an attached garage of 1,363 sq.ft.footprint and is consistent with the home.
The new garage is to be 22 ft. in height and will allow for larger storage and lawn equipment. Relief is
requested for a second garage and size of second garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second garage and size of second garage. The property is located in the
RR5 Acre zone/Grant Acres subdivision. The property is 4.52 ac.
Section 179-5-020 garage
The applicant proposes a detached 1,224 sq.ft.second garage. The maximum allowed size for lots less than
5 ac is 1,100 sq.ft. and only one garage is allowed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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 to reduce the size
of the garage. The applicant has indicated an addition to the existing garage would not be feasible.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial
relevant to the code where only I garage is permitted. The garage size relief is 124 sq.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 detached 1,224 sq. ft. garage. The garage is to be used for lawn
equipment and other items. The plans show the proposed location and the garage."
MR. CARTE-Okay. My name is Chris Carte. I live at 67 Boulderwood Drive on a four and a half acre
parcel and like many people I've accumulated some stuff over the years. Only the stuff that I have is on
wheels and it's fairly large and I'm just hoping to be able to put up a garage to be able to put my camper
and a tractor that I use for property maintenance and possibly a plow truck in the building and there's no
issues with setbacks and it isn't really,the garage really isn't visible from the road being located behind my
house but it's really the best spot for it. Adding on to the existing garage isn't really feasible because my
driveway basically comes up around that end of the house and wraps around to the back. So this is what
I`m hoping to do and I'm open for questions.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR.KUHL-Water and electric going in,or just electric?
MR. CARTE Just electric. Yes.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MR. MC CABE-Any 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 who would like to address us
on this particular project. Is there anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No written comments.
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 Dick.
MR.HENKEL-You already have an existing garage of 1363 square feet.
MR. CARTE-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-It's a large piece of property. It's under the five acres like the Code says,but I would not
be in support of a garage that size. I think you still could get your camper without having that size garage.
I think you could go with the 1100 square feet and there'd still be plenty,because that would give you 2400
square feet of garage total with the two garages. So I would not be on board with the size of the garage as
is.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I don't have a problem with this request. I think it's a large lot. I think you have a
defined need for the garage. I don't think you're going to impact anybody or anything by putting up a
second garage on the property. So I'd be fully in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-If the lot was just a little bigger you wouldn't need a permit at all. The way it's laid out,
you wouldn't see it from anywhere.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-I think the way the lot is and where it's going to sit it's probably invisible to most of the
people. I think I'd be in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-It's a sizeable lot and the garage size with the zoning so I would be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-I actually was against this when I read it,but then I came out and took a look at your property.
I think you've done a good job. I mean it is a little excessive. I also wish I would have built a garage for
my motor home 21 years ago and I didn't, but the fact of the size of your property and where you're
positioning it,I'll be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-So as it stands right now, I'm insignificant, but as I looked at the property, normally I
would be against a second garage,but your property's a little bit isolated. It's very large from the road and
nobody,very few people are going to go back that road and those that do aren't going to seethe garage. So
I think it's minimally invasive. So I'll support the project. So I wonder, Ron, if we could conjure up a
motion here.
MR.KUHL-Well thank you,Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Chris Carte.
Applicant proposes a 1,224 sq. ft. detached 2-bay garage on existing residential parcel. The existing home
of 3,570 sq.ft.footprint is to remain with no changes. The existing home has an attached garage of 1,363 sq.
ft. footprint and is consistent with the home. The new garage is to be 22 ft. in height and will allow for
larger storage and lawn equipment. Relief is requested for a second garage and size of second garage.
Relief Required:
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
The applicant requests relief for a second garage and size of second garage. The property is located in the
RR5 Acre zone/Grant Acres subdivision. The property is 4.52 ac.
Section 179-5-020 garage
The applicant proposes a detached 1,224 sq.ft.second garage. The maximum allowed size for lots less than
5 ac is 1,100 sq.ft. and only one garage is allowed.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on June 21,2023.
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 as the addition is positioned behind the house and can hardly be seen from the street.
2. Feasible alternatives are limited. They have been considered, are reasonable and have been
included to minimize the request.
3. The requested is really not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty could be suggested that it's self-created because of the size of the height,but
again needing the height for the motor home.
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.
19-2023 CHRIS CARTE,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard
Cipperly:
Duly adopted this 21"Day of June 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr.Henkel
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. CARTE-Thank you,gentlemen.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 20-2023,William Levett,27 Sunset Lane.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 WILLIAM LEVETT OWNER(S)
WILLIAM LEVETT ZONING WR LOCATION 27 SUNSET LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO REPLACE EXISTING 900 SQ. FT. DECK WITH A 810 SQ. FT. DECK WITH A 270 SQ. FT.
PORTION OF THE DECK WILL BE A SCREENED IN PORCH. WHEN THE SEPTIC
ALTERATION OCCURRED,A 12 X 12 (144 SQ. FT.) PORTION OF THE DECK WAS REMOVED.
THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,112 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT,A 563 SQ.FT.GARAGE,AND A 120 SQ.FT.
SHED ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA
(NEW SCREEN PORCH). RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS
REF SP 43-2023; AV 30-1997 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2023 ADIRONDACK
PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO.226.19-2-9 SECTION 179-3-040;
179-4-080
JILL LEVETT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
1S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2023, William Levett, Meeting Date: June 21, 2023 "Project
Location: 27 Sunset Lane Description of Proposed Project:Applicant proposes to replace existing 900
sq.ft.deck with an S10 sq.ft.deck where a 270 sq.ft.portion of the deck will be a screened in porch.When
the septic alteration occurred,a 12 x 12(144 sq.ft.)portion of the deck was removed. The existing home of
1,112 sq.ft.footprint,a 563 sq. ft. garage, and a 120 sq. ft. shed are to remain with no changes. Site plan for
new floor area in a CEA(new screen porch). Relief is requested for setbacks and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for the deck and covered porch section. The
property is located within the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.26 acre parcel
Section 179-3-040 WR and 179-4-OSO deck
The deck is to be 19.7 ft.with steps 16 ft.to the front where 30 ft. setback is required. Floor area proposed
is 2SS2 sq.ft. and allowed is 2,464 sq.ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the
applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited
due to the existing deck location and size of the lot.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 14 ft.to the deck and 10.3 to the steps. Relief for
floor area is 41S sq.ft.over the allowed.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered not self-created.
The subdivision did not address this particular lot at the time of subdivision.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to update an existing attached deck and to construct a covered porch section. The
plans show the existing home with a photo of the existing deck. The plans show the new deck will infill
sections and then a covered section is to be added."
MRS. LEVETT-Hi. I am Janelle Levett. My husband Bill was here last night but he is a school
administrator and he's chaperoning a trip on the Mohican right now. So you have me, and I hope that I
can answer all of your questions to the best of my ability,because I am not him. He's the hands and brains
of this operation. So he gave me some notes in hopes to obtain some better or clearer picture for you. We
are pursuing this project mainly for safety concerns for our family, and I can attest to that since I was the
one that figured out we had rot when I walked on to the upper deck while I was pregnant and it was
sponged and bounced and I thought it was my pregnancy weight,and it was not. We have a three and a
half year old and a two year old and we have not utilized the front of the deck at all in three and a half years.
Our current deck has significant rot,four by four foot footings went into small concrete balls and buried
around a foot underground. It had beams that were attached to the side of the posts rather than stacked.
Had three levels and followed the outline of the house. We removed a 12 by 12 foot section in November
so we could accommodate a new treatment tank and replace our failing septic and we're now looking to
replace,we are not looking to replace that section of that. We have removed the majority of the rest of the
deck so we can address the significant rot on the house that has occurred because there was no flashing
used when the old deck was built. The section that remains is so that we can have access to the house as
both doors to the home are elevated and open to the deck. Our proposed new deck would have one single
level,have a uniform line along the front of the house and a screened in section in the back. The footprint
is similar to the previous deck, minus the 12 by 12 foot section that was removed in November. The
screened in porch would provide space for our family to spend time outside while being protected from
the bad weather,mosquito and other bugs. He wanted me to express that we are decreasing the square
footage of the deck and we're decreasing the non-permeable surfaces of the property and we would be able
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
to address a significant safety concern for our family. As I stated,he did start taking the deck apart to
address the rot. He's just trying to maximize his time on the weekends as summer hits because he'll be
working. So he did start doing that,in hopes that we could get approval and move forward. We haven't
ordered any materials to work on this project yet.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So I just have a quick question. The
permeability is being reduced,but she's still in.
MRS. MOORE-It's not permeability. It's the floor area. I'm not quite certain where the.
MR. MC CABE-It's floor area. All right. I wasn't paying attention. Sorry. So no questions of the
applicant. So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open a public
hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to approach us on this particular project?
So do we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes. There's a letter. I am Erin Steinbach and my husband Frank and I own a home a few
doors down from the applicants Bill and Janelle. We fully support their request to extend their deck as
the existing structure needs replacing. This will only enhance their home and neighborhood. Thank you.
Erin Steinbach" That's it.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the thing we should key on is that this is not a self-created. It's
something that's been there for years. The deck without the 12 by 12 foot section is going to be slightly
smaller from what previously existed. So I have no problem with this request.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-To remove the deck to replace that flashing so it doesn't rot the house there makes sense,
and it's a good plus to the house. So I'd be fully on board with it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-Yes,I'm on board with this project. I think it's a good project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR.URRICO-I've been reading these things in for years and I can't remember one before that was not self-
created. So I'd be in favor of the application.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR.KEENAN-I have no issues with this project.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-Absolutely.
MR. MC CABE-So I was going to support this, but I figured I'd need supplemental oxygen to get up to
that deck. So I support the project,too. I think it's a worthy project. So at this particular time,I wonder
if,Dick,you could make us a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William Levett.
Applicant proposes to replace existing 900 sq. ft. deck with an S10 sq. ft. deck where a 270 sq. ft.portion
of the deck will be a screened in porch. When the septic alteration occurred, a 12 x 12 (144 sq.ft.)portion
of the deck was removed. The existing home of 1,112 sq. ft. footprint, a 563 sq. ft. garage, and a 120 sq. ft.
shed are to remain with no changes. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA (new screen porch). Relief is
requested for setbacks and floor area.
Relief Required:
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for the deck and covered porch section. The
property is located within the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.26 acre parcel
Section 179-3-040 WR and 179-4-OSO deck
The deck is to be 19.7 ft.with steps 16 ft.to the front where 30 ft. setback is required. Floor area proposed
is 2SS2 sq.ft. and allowed is 2,464 sq.ft.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on June 21,2023.
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. It's just replacing something that was there all along.
2. Feasible alternatives are really not possible. You have to get into your house.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's the size of what was there to begin with.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. It's a big lot.
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.
20-2023 WILLIAM LEVETT, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 21"Day of June 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MRS. LEVETT-Thank you. Thank you for your time.
MR. MC CABE-The next application is AV 21-2023,Great Escape,1172 State Route 9.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC
AGENT(S) BRAD GRANT OWNER(S) GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC ZONING LC-
42A LOCATION 1172 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO
PERGOLAS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING 2,830 SQ. FT. BUILDING. THE FRONT PERGOLA
IS 490 SQ. FT. AND THE REAR PERGOLA IS 430 SQ. FT. WITH THE INTENT OT PROVIDE
SHADE FOR CUSTOMERS. THE PROJECT AREA FOR THE FRONT IS EXISTING HARD-
SURFACING AND THE REAR PERGOLA IS A LANDSCAPE MULCH AREA;BOTH AREAS ARE
TO HAVE PERMEABLE PAVERS INSTALLED IN AREAS OF THE PERGOLA. SITE PLAN FOR
THE NEW PERGOLAS IN THE RC ZONE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED OR SETBACKS AND
PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 44-2023; FWW 8-2023; AV 6-2022; SP 22-2022; SP 3-2022;
FWW 1-2022; SP 3-2020; SP 3-2019; SP 54-2019; SP 67-2019; SP 15-2018; SP 5-2017, SP 28-2017
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2023 LOT SIZE 237.64 ACRES TAX MAP NO.288.20-
1-20 SECTION 179-3-040;CHAPTER 94
BRAD GRANT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.21-2023,Great Escape Theme Park LLC,Meeting Date: June 21,2023
"Project Location: 1172 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct
two pergolas attached to the existing 2,530 sq. ft. building. The front pergola is 490 sq. ft. and the rear
pergola is 430 sq.ft.with the intent to provide shade for customers.The project area for the front is existing
hard-surfacing and the rear pergola is a landscape mulch area; the rear area pergola is to have permeable
pavers installed. Site plan for the new pergolas in the RC zone. Relief is requested for setbacks and
permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability. The building#62 is on a 23S ac parcel in the
Recreation Commercial Zone RC.
Section 179-3-040 RC dimensional,Chapter 94 Wetland dimensional
The front pergola is to be 16.5 ft.from the front where a 75 ft. setback is required. The rear pergola is 66.S
ft. from the front setback where a 75 ft. setback is required and is located 32.5 ft. from the shoreline.
Permeability for project area work defined as 3,754 sq. ft. where 1000/o to be impermeable where 300/o 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location of the existing building,surrounding buildings and the site conditions.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant
to the code. Relief requested for front pergola front setback of 55.5 ft.,rear pergola front setback is S.2
ft. The relief for the rear pergola wetland setback is 42.5 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct two pergolas to existing structure to provide shade for customers.
The plans show the location of the pergola locations. The plans show elevation views of how the new
pergola and existing building floor plan ticket area for customers."
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 by a
seven to zero vote on June 20`h,2023.
MR. GRANT-My name is Brad Grant with Barton&Loguidice. Duncan from The Great Escape is here
with me. I just wanted to start with the purpose of the structure. I think it was outlined very well in the
Staff Notes that was read,but there's a little more to it. Particularly on the front pergola,people will line
up to get their tickets, but it's also, gets a lot of afternoon sun, and the staff, there's large window areas
there, and the sun just beats right in there, with computer equipment there also sensitive to a lot of heat
gain and the staff and the glare that comes in. So particularly on the front the pergola is a permeable roof
on four posts, will be attached to the header board as an addition and will provide that shade structure
needed. The rear pergola will also provide a shaded cover for guests for hospitality area for a variety of
guests' needs. The grass surface will utilize a permeable paver system. The applicant is commented to
that, and what was there in the back is a landscaped mulched area that, with foot traffic, is relatively
impermeable as it is with all the soil compaction from the foot traffic. The detail of the paver system was
not submitted with the application. So it was deemed impermeable, although it would be permeable.
The variances requested, I think the Appendix C map would be good, Laura. The setback reliefs being
requested are as follows, and this is kind of an unusual situation. That's the New York State right of way,
Route 9 being a traditional part of the right of way out here,but this is what they call a taking. There's a
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
stream that comes in through here. This is on an older map. These planters aren't there anymore. We
have some pictures to show a difference there, but this comes well into the property. So it's kind of an
unusual taking in that it comes so deeply in to the property and it's because of the stream that crosses the
Northway and then crosses 9W and eventually ends up in,this is the swamp. So all of this area that we're
talking about the pergolas have been developed, and this is kind of in the center part of the front of the
Park. So there's not really natural areas here to begin with. So there's the 16.5 feet from that expanded
right of way. The front pergola,24 and a half feet by 20. The back one is 20 by 21 and a half feet. There
are,so the front pergola is requesting relief from the travel corridor,which requires 75 foot setback because
it supersedes the front setback,where we're well below the 75 foot from the right of way. You could make
the argument this isn't really a travel corridor as much as it is a taking for the maintenance of the stream,
which DOT does. They've done a number of large culvert systems. The rear pergola is requesting relief
from the travel corridor and requires a 75 foot setback. So essentially from hereto here is at 66.5 feet, and
the rear pergola is also requesting permeability from the shoreline,the Swan Boat area setback where a 75
foot is required and that's down to 32 and a half. Like I said,this is a lot of walkways and development in
the Park that's been there for many,many years. The shade structure is important to,both in the front
and the back,particularly in the front which gets the afternoon sun. And we would be able to take any
questions.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR.KUHL-It seems pretty straightforward.
MR. MC CABE-Yes,it's pretty straightforward..
MR.KUHL-Did you break the beaver dam?
MR. GRANT-No.
MR.KUHL-Okay. That's another story. We'll talk about that later. I think it's the travel corridor thing.
It really is,but anyway,no,I have no questions.
MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the
public hearing and see if there is anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular
project. Do we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No comments.
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 Ron.
MR. KUHL-It's straightforward. Again it's because of the travel corridor,the 75 feet. If they're trying to
protect their customers and keep them out of the sun,that's a worthy project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy,do you agree with Ron?
MR. URRICO-I do.
MR. MC CABE-Bob,what's your feeling?
MR.KEENAN-I have no issues with this project. It's a nice improvement.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes, anything for the customers.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It makes perfect sense.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-Even though the variances are large, it's not a detriment to the environment or the
neighborhood. So I'd be on board.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MR. MC CABE-I, too, support the project. I think the variances that are being asked for are pretty
technical and not really reflective of what the area is actually all about. So at this particular time,Jim,I
wonder if you could give us a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Great Escape
Theme Park LLC. Applicant proposes to construct two pergolas attached to the existing 2,530 sq. ft.
building. The front pergola is 490 sq.ft. and the rear pergola is 430 sq.ft.with the intent to provide shade
for customers. The project area for the front is existing hard-surfacing and the rear pergola is a landscape
mulch area;the rear area pergola is to have permeable pavers installed. Site plan for the new pergolas in the
RC zone. Relief is requested for setbacks and permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability. The building#62 is on a 23S ac parcel in the
Recreation Commercial Zone RC.
Section 179-3-040 RC dimensional,Chapter 94 Wetland dimensional
The front pergola is to be 16.5 ft.from the front where a 75 ft. setback is required. The rear pergola is 66.S
ft. from the front setback where a 75 ft. setback is required and is located 32.5 ft. from the shoreline.
Permeability for project area work defined as 3,754 sq. ft. where 1000/o to be impermeable where 300/o is
required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on June 21,2023.
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.
2. Feasible alternatives really are not available because of where the location is in regard to the Travel
Corridor Overlay and we find it's reasonable and minimal.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because as we mentioned before it's already a previously
impermeable area out there and it will provide a little bit better service for customers and for the
staff from the hot sun.
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 because they want to make things better for the guests.
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.
21-2023 GREAT ESCAPE THEME PARK LLC, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Robert Keenan:
Duly adopted this 21s'Day of June 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. GRANT-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-The next application is AV 22-2023,Bay Road Self Storage,290 Bay Road.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE, LLC
AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP LLP OWNER(S) KUBRICKY JOHN
&z SONS INC. ZONING CLI LOCATION 290 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
REDEVELOP AN EXISTING INDUSTRIAL SITE WITH 11 NEW SELF-STORAGE BUILDINGS
FOR A TOTAL OF 478 UNITS. THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT TOTAL IS 61,800 SQ.FT. THE SITE
WORK INCLUDES ACCESS FROM BAY ROAD AND CONNECTION WITH THE EXISTING
ACCESS FOR THE ADJACENT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. THE SITE WILL HAVE PARKING
AREAS, SECONDARY CURB CUT, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND LANDSCAPING.
SOME BUILDINGS ARE WITHIN THE SETBACKS TO THE EXISTING STREAM AND
WETLANDS - NO WORK IS PROPOSED IN THE WETLANDS OR STREAM. PROJECT
INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH 302.8-2-20 AND LOT MERGER OF 307.8-2-17,
302.8-2-21, AND 302.8-2-24. SITE PLAN FOR NEW COMMERCIAL USE IN THE CLI ZONE,
HARD SURFACING WITHIN 100 FT. OF THE WETLAND. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR
SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 45-2023; FWW 9-2023; AV 66-2018; SP 17-2002; SP 24-2002
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2023 LOT SIZE 6.78 AC(21);2.55 AC(17);0.17 AC(20);
&z 5.28 AC (24) TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-21&z 302.8-2-17, 302.8-2-20 (LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT);
&z 302.8-2-24 SECTION 179-3-040;CHAPTER 94
JON ZAPPER&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No . 22-2023, Bay Road Self Storage, LLC, Meeting Date: June 21, 2023
"Project Location: 290 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to redevelop an
existing industrial site with 11 new self-storage buildings for a total of 47S units. The building footprint
total is 61,500 sq.ft. The site work includes access from Bay Road and connection with the existing access
for the adjacent self-storage facility. The site will have parking areas, secondary curb cut, stormwater
management,and landscaping.Some buildings are within the setbacks to the existing stream and wetlands
—no work is proposed in the wetlands or stream. Project includes a lot line adjustment with 302.E-2-20
and lot merger of 307.5-2-17,302.5-2-21,and 302.5-2-24. Site plan for new commercial use in the CLI zone,
hard surfacing within 100 ft.of the wetland. Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of storage building. The project is located on a
9.IS ac parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone.
Section 179-3-040 CLI dimensional&Chapter 140 Wetlands dimensional
Building 10 of 6,300 sq.ft.for 50 units is located 65 ft.from the wetland where a 75 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 considered to relocate
the building.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant
to the code. The relief is for 10 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.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant has provided plans for the construction of 11 self-storage buildings. There are to be 47S units
for this Phase II where in Phase I there were 9 buildings constructed for 365 units. Buildings 10-13 are 6,300
sq. ft.,Building 14 is 3,300 sq. ft.,Building 15 is 6,600 sq. ft.,Building 16 is 6,000 sq. ft.,Building 17 is 1,200
sq.ft.,Building IS&I9 is 6,600 sq.ft.,Building 20 6,300 sq.ft."
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
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 adopted
June 20`h,2023 by a unanimous vote.
MR. ZAPPER-Good evening. For the record,Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson from Environmental
Design, the project engineers and John Davidson behind me, a member of Bay Road Self Storage LLC.
Before we get started,Laura,could you put up the drawing that Brandon sent you today. It kind of shows
the variance a little bit better. So this is the second phase of the existing and previously approved self
storage project right next door,right next to the bike path that everybody passes every day on Bay Road.
The existing project is very neat and clean, nicely landscaped. I drive by it all the time. You never see
anybody there,but it is full. John says that they get a lot of commercial users because of Quaker Road,the
businesses that need to use it in addition to residential. So this is a permitted use in the Commercial Light
Industrial zone,but it's a pretty low impact use because other uses that you could have in that zone,just
with site plan review,permitted uses are a lumber yard,a logging company,a truck depot,you know,stuff
that would have truck traffic near a residential area. This is a quite use and the variance that we're asking
for,which Brandon will get into more detail on,is a very small portion of one building in brown up there,
the wetland itself,that figure that comes out,we're maintaining the vegetative buffer that exists around it.
Then there's a stormwater basin,then the parking,the pavement area and then the building. It's just that,
because of the way these buildings work and the roof system, and the need to have paved access around
them,you can't just move the building back 10 feet,it would just mess up the site,but if you look at it it's
about 100/0 of the building. It's really,that area where we're not within the 75 feet,but we're 65 feet from
the wetland,but there's no impact at all in terms of the nature of the variance. There's no impact on the
wetland because there's no water going into the wetland. It's going into the stormwater facility where it's
going to be treated and infiltrated. That blue that you can see is the stormwater,then the green is all the
existing trees which will be maintained. So that 10 feet on a very small part of the building is very minor,
but if we were to move the building back it would really impact the site plan. So with that I'll hand it over
to Brandon to show you that in more detail.
MR.FERGUSON-Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design Partnership. So the overall parcel is 9.IS
acres,but there is this existing Army Corps Wetlands that flows through the site. We did submit plans
to Army Corps. They did come back with an e-mail stating that there's no permit necessary on this
project. So we had reached out to them. We're not doing anything that impacts the wetlands as far as
they're concerned. As far as the variance, I think Jon touched on it pretty well. The only thing I'd really
like to add, if you could go back to that, Laura, there's a second page to it. I just kind of want to show
what's there now. So a large portion of the site is wooded and vegetated. That area right now is not.
That's actually kind of a large kind of a gravel material storage/equipment storage area,and you can see the
trees have already been cleared out in those areas of the wetland. So really that variance is in kind of the
least impacted portion of the site compared to the rest of the site. The rest of the site we're maintaining it
looks like a 35 foot buffer to the wetlands,meeting the wetland setbacks for all the buildings,stormwater
management. Everything flows into these stormwater areas,these swales along that,the pavement goes
to these infiltration basins, but nothing's flowing directly to the wetlands, nothing that would pollute
them, keeping them protected, and there's a fence around this whole site as well to keep any, somebody
drops a box of papers,that won't go into the wetlands as well. So we feel like we're doing a great job of
protecting the wetlands on the site and in this case we're just,that one building is just a little bit closer,at
10 feet.
MR. ZAPPER-I also want to add that when you drive by on Bay Road,you see that there's a line of pretty
mature trees on this site,on this site which is north of the existing Phase I,and those trees are all going to
be maintained. That's all going to stay there. So these will be behind these trees. So if you're driving on
Bay Road those trees will be there to shade,to protect this and shield it.
MR. FERGUSON-And as Jon is saying about the building layout, the site layout, and why that building
kind of is where it is. We have all the buffers we're trying to maintain on the site as well. We have a
buffer to Bay Road that we're trying to maintain,a vegetative buffer there, as well as buffers to some of the
neighboring parcels as well.. They have 50 foot buffers around them. So we have a lot of restrictions that
are pushing the site kind of where it is. Trying to push that building back would push us into those buffers
for other areas as well.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant?
MR. KUHL-Why the cut on Bay Road? Why not just the two entrances on the entrance to Duke
Concrete?
MR. FERGUSON-So the reason is,there's two entrances for Phase II,but those two,the rear section and
the front section don't actually connect because of the wetlands.
MR.KUHL-Okay.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MR. FERGUSON-So that second Bay Road entrance will provide secondary access for not only for people
using it but also for emergency vehicles. If there was every any kind of a fire or anything in one of these
storage buildings and they couldn't get to it from one access, this provides secondary access as well. So
we're thinking of it not just from a customer standpoint but also from a safety standpoint on site.
MR. KUHL-Well,you know,from a security standpoint,Phase I is on the Duke Concrete,you know,the
Duke entrance. You're just causing yourself three different gates,three gates.
MR.FERGUSON-Well,to that section of it there would be two gates,one to Duke Concrete and one from
Bay Road.
MR.KUHL-Yes,I've got it.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm
going to open a public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address us on
this particular project? Seeing no one, Roy,do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes,I have two letters. "The proposal for the expansion of the Bay Road Storage facilities,
should adhere to the restrictions placed upon them for the wetland setbacks. That is after all the whole
purpose of protecting the stream which houses wildlife and water which I believe eventually feeds Lake
George. Furthermore, residents of Homer Ave, of which I am one, will obviously see the new units from
their homes. Is there a plan to mask the visual presentation to the residents homes? I realize our home
exists in a light industrial zone of which the town is trying to eliminate the residential housing,obviously
it was originally a residential,not a light industrial zone of which the town chose to make it industrial.We
have already had to put up with increased taxes on a road which had a burnt down house owned by the
Pontiffs for over two and a half years and now this. Who would actually believe our home values are
increasing when empty lots continue to grow wild because they can only be used for light industrial
facilities. Are we going to be able to stop such growth? No,but some respect to the residents of Homer
Ave and to the wetlands behind our house is needed. Kevin Golonka" "In regard to the proposal for the
Kubricky expansion of the Bay Road Self Storage LLC, I am against a lot line adjustment and building
within the already in place setbacks of our wetlands and stream. I am sure many studies were previously
done to create the existing setbacks that were put in place to protect the area from pollutants and
chemicals leaching into the stream and wetlands. In my opinion 47S new units seems extreme as Kubricky
has already placed several new storage buildings on their access road and there is another new facility at
the end of Homer Ave. Since these two facilities have been built acres of wildlife habitat have already been
destroyed. I am also concerned about the amount of traffic this will create in my backyard at all hours of
the day and what lighting will be visible. I believe I will be able to see these units and that the lighting
may be intrusive in my home and backyard. I have been on Homer for over 20 years. I chose this area
because it still had woodlands and wetlands and was a pleasant, quiet place with a private backyard. My
property tax increases year after year despite the fact that I am being closed in on by Storage facilities and
condos,burned out ghost houses and empty lots that are not maintained and are overgrown. I have to ask,
is this going to be one more eyesore that will potentially devalue my property? What steps will be taken
to assure that the residents on Homer won't see the buildings,bright lighting pointed into their windows
or hear additional traffic? How do you plan to police the area so that there are no disturbances in my
neighborhood? There is a plan to pave this area which will put the wetlands at risk.How do the Kubricky's
propose to guarantee that no petroleum&chemicals will ever leach from the pavement into the stream?
Is there a plan to protect the buffer from accidental spills should chemicals be stored in these units? Will
the town be allowing lot line adjustments to residents that live near the stream as well as a large company?
These are just some of the questions that I feel warrant being asked. Clearly, I am against the lot line
adjustment. There is no dire emergency that would suggest that this project absolutely needs the extra
building that will encroach in the already in place setbacks. In my opinion the Kubricky's there is no
reason to have even proposed a project that easily could be adjusted by limiting the number of new
buildings so that there are no new buildings and pavement within the already in place setbacks that were
put in place to protect this area. If we allow one person a lot line adjustment,we are setting a precedent
for lot line to be adjustment for every other person/company along this stream. Theresa DeNatale Homer
Ave Resident" That's it.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Bob.
MR. KEENAN-I think it's a pretty minor encroachment on the stormwater. You could build one less
building and not have this issue at all,but I think it's minor enough that I think I would approve it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MR. URRICO-I would like to hear the applicant address those letters,some of the concerns.
MR.ZAPPER-Sure. To start with,combining the properties,they'll just be on the same parcel as the Phase
I,just to put it all together. That has no effect on anything other than it's just smart rather than having a
bunch of little parcels. There's nothing to that. There's nothing that impacts anybody. And again, as I
started out,for the uses that you have in the Commercial Light Industrial, this is really the simplest and
quietest and neatest for what they could have. Duke Concrete is in the back with lots of truck traffic and
all of the uses that I mentioned are heavy truck traffic that could easily be put there. So this is really
compatible in a mixed area that has medical manufacturing across the street and some houses still on
Homer,a daycare,church,all these different uses,but the best answer is just to say when you drive by there
now,this is going to be the same color,landscaped just as nicely. It's just simple,neat and clean. They do
a really good job of maintaining this and it's going to just be a second phase of exactly what's there now.
No noise, no traffic, no trash. It's just a well maintained facility. So I think it's pretty much the least
impactful of what's on the list of Commercial Light Industrial
MR. URRICO-Would there be any lighting in the area?
MR. FERGUSON-So there will be lighting on the site, and we've done a photometric plan and we
submitted that to Laura for site plan review as well. So we have that, and we're well below the reburied,
or the maximum allowable lighting on that site.
MR.KUHL-Do the lights stay on all night or is there a time they shut down or don't you know?
JOHN DAVIDSON
MR. DAVIDSON John Davidson for the applicant. The lights stay on 24/7 mostly for security. They're
down lit. So they're right on the side of the building looking down. If you drive by the existing facility
you'll notice.
MR. KUHL-The houses on the north side, they're not going to be shining on them? They're going to be
shining down?
MR. DAVIDSON-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Okay, and what, I mean I'm not trying to get picky here,but what's the vertical on them? I
mean how tall are they,the lights themselves? I mean there's just an eight foot stack?
MR. DAVIDSON-The building is approximately eight feet. So it's just at the top of the eaves.
MR. URRICO-All right. I would be in favor of the project, but I would also like to see some kind of
shielding of the traffic,the lights of the traffic that's entering the property,and make sure that they're not
shining into the neighboring properties,if there's some way to do that.
MR.FERGUSON-Yes,I mean,so I can probably address that a little bit for you right here. So the entrance
coming off of Duke, when you come off of Duke Drive into there, there's actually a vegetative buffer
between that and the closest house and you're quite a ways from that house at that point, and then that
northern entrance off of Bay Road,you're actually going to be facing towards the buildings and into the
site and not towards any of the residences.
MR. URRICO-What about coming out?
MR. FERGUSON-So coming out, right across the street is the medical manufacturing, B & B
manufacturing. They're right across the street.
MR. KUHL-And the fencing you're using on the north side is the same kind of fence you have now with
Phase I?
MR. FERGUSON-Yes.
MR.HENKEL-It's not going to be a stockade type?
MR. FERGUSON-It's a chain link.
MR.HENKEL-Was there any thought about maybe doing away with Building 10? I mean that's not going
to make a big difference in that project.
2S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MR. FERGUSON-1 mean we looked at a number of different layouts, different buildings, and we actually
had a more intense layout at one point,believe it or not, and we kind of fell back to this one. This gives
them the number of units that works for them financially on the site as well.
MR. ZAPPER-It just doesn't help anybody to takeout Building 10. It's just such a minor variance because
of that little section of that building.
MR. FERGUSON-And that building is actually one of the furthest away from the existing residences,and
I think,too,with the wetland area there,that building has an area of existing development. So it's not like
we're putting in that building and taking out an acre of extra trees. This is very limited removal of any
kind of buffer in that area. We're maintaining that vegetative buffer, and actually we're putting in
stormwater around that area which will keep any pollutants from potentially flowing into that wetland.
MR.ZAPPER-Again the stormwater facility is between the building and the wetland and the trees around
the wetland. So it's fairly well designed, and right now that whole thing gets used, as Brandon said, for
stockpiling materials at different times,different projects,concrete stuff,trucks there. Sothis is a cleaner
use.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-I'm in favor of the project. I'm impressed with Phase I and I believe this second phase will go
along. It's kind of a shame that the people upon that Homer Avenue are so against it. I'm impressed at
the cleanliness of the first phase and I know Mr. Lapper riding shotgun on them it will never be a problem
in Phase II.
MR. ZAPPER-I've got to drive by it every day to get to work.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-I'm on board. I mean there's no doubt there are problems with some of these storage places
because of what people store in them,but I'm on board as is.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You're 65 feet back from the wetland. It only requires 10 feet of relief. So I don't
see why we would worry about it.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I think when you spend light industrial, this is about as good as you're going to get. I
mean you could put all the other things that fit light industrial except for a brewery,and there it is. I think
the people's concerns, the neighbors' concerns, should have stepped up a long time ago when the zoning
changed for what the uses were going to be permitted. It's kind of after the fact, here's, we're going to
spend something in your backyard sooner or later you're going to spend that property,and this is probably
the best they're ever going to get.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. What we're being asked for is very minimal. So since
Ron did such a good job asking questions,I'll ask him to make a motion.
MR. KUHL-Why thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate the effort that you're putting forward
leading this committee.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Bay Road Self
Storage LLC. Applicant proposes to redevelop an existing industrial site with 11 new self-storage
buildings for a total of 47S units.The building footprint total is 61,500 sq.ft.The site work includes access
from Bay Road and connection with the existing access for the adjacent self-storage facility. The site will
have parking areas, secondary curb cut, stormwater management, and landscaping. Some buildings are
within the setbacks to the existing stream and wetlands—no work is proposed in the wetlands or stream.
Project includes a lot line adjustment with 302.E-2-20 and lot merger of 307.E-2-17, 302.E-2-21, and 302.5-
2-24.Site plan for new commercial use in the CLI zone,hard surfacing within 100 ft.of the wetland. Relief
is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of storage building. The project is located on a
9.IS ac parcel in the Commercial Light Industrial zone.
Section 179-3-040 CLI dimensional&Chapter 94 Wetlands dimensional
Building 10 of 6,300 sq.ft.for 50 units is located 65 ft.from the wetland where a 75 ft. setback is required.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on June 21,2023.
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 as this is their second phase, and after the first phase and the first phase was done very
well. We anticipate this to be the same.
2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered by the Board. They are reasonable and
have-been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's a good use of the property.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. Although the alleged difficulty might be considered as self-created, it's only because of the
wetlands.
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.
22-2023 BAY ROAD SELF STORAGE,LLC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,
seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 21"Day of June 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-You have a project.
MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. We really appreciate it.
MR. MC CABE-So the next application is AV 23-2023.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II SEAN PALLADINO &z SARAH-
LOCKHART-PALLADINO AGENT(s) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S)
WALTER&z KAREN LOCKHART ZONING SPLIT LOCATION 1635 BAY ROAD APPLICANT
PROPOSES A TW-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 25.1 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 IS TO BE 15.05 ACRES
AND WILL MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME ACCESSORY BUILDINGS WITH NO OTHER
WORK FOR LOT 1 PROPOSED. LOT 2 IS TO BE 10.05 ACRES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. SITE PLAN FOR LOT 2
CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR LOT WIDTH.
CROSS REF SP 46-2023;SUB 4-2023;SUB 5-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2023
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 24.79 ACRES (OR 25.1?) TAX MAP NO. 265.-
1-43 SECTION 179-19-020
LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 23-2023, Sean Palladino & Sarah Lockhart-Palladino, Meeting Date:
June 21,2023 "Project Location: 1635 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
a two-lot subdivision of a 25.1 acre parcel. Lot 1 is to be 15.05 acres and will maintain the existing home
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
accessory buildings with no other work for Lot 1 proposed. Lot 2 is to be 10.05 acres for the construction
of a single-family home and associated site work. Site plan for Lot 2 construction of a single-family home.
Relief is requested for lot width.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for lot width for a two-lot subdivision.Project occurs on a proposed 15.05 ac
parcel & a proposed parcel of 10.05 ac. The parcel is split zone of Land Conservation 10 acres with the
relief for lot width in the Rural Residential 3 acres zone.
Section 179-3-040 RR zone lot width
The lots do not meet the required lot width average. Lot I will have an average lot width of 615.1 ft.and Lot
2 proposes 400 ft.where S00 ft.lot width 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 character 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 lot
shape.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief for lot width for lot I is ISI.9 ft. and lot 2 is 400 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.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision. Where Lot 1 will maintain an existing home and Lot 2 will
be used for the construction of a new home. The plans show lot width calculation for the subdivision. The
plans also include the plans and site development of lot 2."
MR.URRICO-And 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 motion was adopted June 20`h
2023 by a unanimous vote.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board. Thank you for having us. For the record, Lucas Dobie,professional
engineer with Hutchins Engineering representing the Lockart family, which are the landowners, and the
Palladino family which is their son-in-law and their daughter Sarah Palladino. The property's been in the
family since the mid-1920's and the Lockharts owned what I call the farmhouse with the barns which are
proposed to be maintained on Lot One with no changes to that lot, and then we're looking to create a 10
acre vacant building lot over the southerly portion of the property which right now there's an existing
logging trail up through there which we're going to construct the driveway, the majority of it, over the
logging trail. The project site is moderately wooded. It's been logged over the years. So it's not a virgin
pristine forest by any means, and the home will be 250 feet off Bay Road. So we believe it fits with the
rural character of the neighborhood, and it's a compliant subdivision, aside from the fact that any new
subdivision on Bay Road you need double the average lot width. For this zone,the three acre zone,it's 400
feet, and so times two, S00 feet per lot is just not feasible. They don't have enough north/south road
frontage because they own the 25 acres that goes up the backside of French Mountain quite a ways. So all
kinds of available densities. We don't believe we're intruding on the land at all and it's been in the works
I think for some time,for several years on and off and now they're ready to build their home this fall. So
we're excited about that,very comfortable with the layout and just for the balancing test of the possible
alternatives, there really are none. It's not practical to re-locate the driveway on the common property
lines. It would pretty much ruin the Lockhart's lot by trying to bring a road parallel with Bay Road and
connect to their existing driveway. So we believe it's a very nice layout. There'll be 600 feet between the
driveways, and then the southerly neighbor, their driveway is 350 feet south. So it's not a stack up of
driveways by any means, and we're here to ask for your approval tonight so we can go to the Planning
Board and hopefully wrap it up tomorrow night. So thank you for having us.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
MR. MC CABE-So it's pretty straightforward. Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. CIPPERLY Just a quick question. When you look at it,you've got the weird piece at the back that
ends up being attached to the original property that almost would have made sense to, down the road,
draw a straight line up and ask for more variance, and I certainly would support that.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you, sir. I think the magic number they were willing to convey is 10 acres. So that's
how the surveyor,Don Pidgeon,laid it out back in the day.
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes, it just looked kind of, I have a bunch of clients with things like that that gets lost.
So the people that own where the logging road's going to end up suddenly is going to end up on somebody
else's lot, and strategically it makes more sense to include it with the other property,but that's not what
you have.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm
going to open a public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address us on
this particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy,do you have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
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 Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the lot widths that are proposed are more than adequate. I see no reason to
have an S00 foot wide lot. I mean it doesn't make sense. I'd be all in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes,if this is what you want,I'm certainly supportive.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR.KEENAN-Yes,I have no issues with this.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-Yes,I'm in favor of it,Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-Usually with a subdivision it's someone buying it to build many houses and this is nice.
It's staying in the family. It's subdividing it and they're going to provide a home for their family. So I'm on
board as is.
MR. MC CABE-And as I view this it's a minor request of the Board. So I'm happy to support the project.
So with that in mind,Dick,I wonder if you'd make a motion for us here.
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sean Palladino
&z Sarah Lockhart-Palladino. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 25.1 acre parcel. Lot 1 is to
be 15.05 acres and will maintain the existing home accessory buildings with no other work for Lot 1
proposed. Lot 2 is to be 10.05 acres for the construction of a single-family home and associated site work.
Site plan for Lot 2 construction of a single-family home. Relief is requested for lot width.
Relief Required:
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/21/2023)
The applicant requests relief for lot width for a two-lot subdivision.Project occurs on a proposed 15.05 ac
parcel & a proposed parcel of 10.05 ac. The parcel is split zone of Land Conservation 10 acres with the
relief for lot width in the Rural Residential 3 acres zone.
Section 179-3-040 RR zone lot width
The lots do not meet the required lot width average. Lot I will have an average lot width of 615.1 ft.and Lot
2 proposes 400 ft.where S00 ft.lot width is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on June 21,2023.
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 because this is just a simple subdivision.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and there really are none. If this is what the owners
want,this is the best outcome.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. We're not adding, subtracting or doing anything
construction wise.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. Were there any alleged difficulty it would be self-created because they made the application.
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.
23-2023 SEAN PALLADINO&z SARAH LOCKHART-PALLADINO,Introduced by Richard Cipperly,
who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 21"Day of June 2023 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much.
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to make a motion that we close tonight's meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
TUNE 21IT,2023,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 21"day of June,2023,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe,Chairman
33