07-18-2024 REVISED (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
Q UEENSBUR YZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS
FIRSTREGULAR MEETING
JULYI8Tr,2024
INDEX
Area Variance No. 36-2024 Stephen Haraden 1.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-74
Area Variance No. 32-2024 Daniel Zotto &Carrie Hedderman 2.
Tax Map No. 2S9.9-1-S6
Area Variance No. 14-2024 Patten Property Development 5.
Tax Map No. 2S9.11-1-59.312
Area Variance No. 15-2024 Patten Property Development 11.
Tax Map No. 2S9.11-1-23
Area Variance No. 37-2024 Dave &Shannan Carroll 12.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-5
Area Variance No. 3S-2024 Ron&Jill Barton 16.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-23
Area Variance No. 39-2024 Kurtis Thornquist 19.
Tax Map No. 309.11-1-63
Area Variance No. 40-2024 Morgan Gazetos 22.
Tax Map No. 239.20-1-19
Area Variance No. 42-2024 Christopher Leonka 25.
Tax Map No. 30S.6-2-7
Area Variance No. 43-2024 Barbara Schagen 29.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-52
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 07/1S/2024)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 1STK,2024
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO,SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
RONALD KUHL
ROBERT KEENAN
MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
RICHARD CIPPERLY
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals, Thursday,July 1S`h, 2024. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is relatively simple.
Although we're going to mess it up a little bit tonight. There should bean agenda on the back table. We'll
call each case up,read the case into our record,allow the applicant to present the case. We'll question the
applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, we'll open the public hearing, take input from the
public, close the public hearing. We'll poll the Board to see where we stand, and then we'll proceed
accordingly,but first we have a couple of administrative items.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 19`h,2024
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF TUNE 19TH, 2024,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 1S`h day of July,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mrs.Palacino
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
MR. MC CABE-So we have one tabled.
AREA VARIANCE NO.36-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 STEPHEN HARADEN AGENT(S) JAKE
HOWLAND;JONATHAN LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) STEPHEN HAADEN ZONING WR
LOCATION 334 CLEVERDALE RD. APPLICANT REQUESTS AS-BUILT CONDITIONS FOR A
2021 PROJET FOR A NEW 3 BEDROOM HOME WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE AS-
BUILT CONDITIONS INCLUDE A HOME OF 2,751 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A 232 SQ. FT.
PORCH/DECK AREA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE,AND OTHER
HARD SURFACING. IN ADDITION THERE HAS BEEN RELOCATION OF THE RAIN GARDENS
AND HOUSE. SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE AND
REQUEST FOR AS-BUILT CONDITIONS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY AND
SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 36-2024;AV 13-2021;SP 11-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JULY 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.35 ACRES TAX MAP NO.226.12-
1-74 SECTION 179-3-040
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen
Haraden. Applicant requests as-built conditions for a 2021 project for a new 3 bedroom home with
associated site work. The as-built conditions include a home of 2,751 sq It footprint with a 232 sq It
porch/deck area,hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline, and other hard surfacing In addition, there
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
has been relocation of the rain gardens and house. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft of shoreline and
request for as-built conditions. Relief requested for floor area,permeability,and setbacks.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2024 STEPHEN HARADEN, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Robert Keenan.
Tabled to the October 16,2024 Zoning Board meeting with information due by September 16,2024.
Duly adopted this 1S`h day of July,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
MRS. MOORE-Do you want to open the public hearing?
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody here for the AV 36-2024? So we did advertise a public hearing and so
I'm going to open the public hearing now and then we'll leave it open until we actually hear the case.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 32-2024,306 Glen Lake Road.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DANIEL ZOTTO &z CARRIE
HEDDERMAN OWNER(S) DANIEL ZOTTO &z CARRIE HEDDERMAN ZONING WR
LOCATION 306 GLEN LAKE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ.FT.DECK TO BE ADDED
TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME OF 828 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 1,356
SQ.FT.ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE DECK IS TO BE LOCATED TO FACE THE
SHORELINE. THE AREA BENEATH THE DECK IS TO BE GRAVEL AND FILTER FABRIC. THE
DECK IS TO BE 12 INCHES IN HEIGHT FROM THE GROUND AND TO HAVE A STEP TO THE
GROUND. THERE ARE NO OTHER SITE CHANGES. PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF 2022 HAS
EXPIRED. SITE PLAN FOR NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE
AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 29-2024;AV 30-2022;SP 42-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO.2899-1-86 SECTION 179-3-040;179-4-080;179-13-
010
CARRIE HEDDERMAN,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 32-2024, Daniel Zotto &Carrie Hedderman, Meeting Date: July 17,
2024 "Project Location: 306 Glen Lake Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a
400 sq ft deck to be added to an existing home. The existing home of S2S sq ft and floor area of 1,356 sq ft
are to remain with no changes.The deck is to be located to face the shoreline.The area beneath the deck is
to be gravel and filter fabric.The deck is to be 12 inches in height from the ground and to have a step to the
ground. There are no other site changes. Previous approval of 2022 has expired. Site plan for new hard
surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief requested for
setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of deck addition in the Waterfront Residential
zone-WR. The parcel is 0.29 ac.
Section 179-4-OSO decks/porches
The 400 sq. ft. deck addition is to be 21.5 ft. to the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required and S ft. to
the east side property line where 15 ft. is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location of the existing home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor
relevant to the code. Relief requested for shoreline setback is 25.5 ft and relief for the east property
line is 7 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 to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq ft deck addition to the existing home as shown on the survey.
The deck is to be 12 inches off the ground per the plans. The deck will allow for additional space for deck
items. The applicant's previous approval had expired."
MS. HEDDERMAN-I'm Carrie Hedderman. Just here asking for approval again. We just lost sight of it,
and it was totally my fault that I let it expire. So we would just like to proceed with the project as we
originally petitioned for.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. So does anybody have any questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been
advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing, see if there's anybody in the
audience who would like to comment on this particular project. Do we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-Poll the Board and see where we stand on this issue. I'm going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it's reasonable. We previously reviewed it and approved it. So I don't have
a problem with it.
MR. MC CABE-Mary?
MRS. PALACINO-I agree. As long as you're not making any changes to what was previously approved,I
don't have a problem.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-I have no problems with it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I'm in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes,I'm in favor,Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-It's a little closer than I'd like to see,but there's no doubt,I don't see any problem. They've
been doing a good job of cleaning up the property. So I would be onboard with this.
MR. MC CAB E-And I,too,support the project. I supported it before so there's no reason why I shouldn't
support it now.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
MR. MC CABE-So,that being said,Ron,I wonder if you could generate a motion for us.
MR. KUHL-Why thank you,Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Daniel Zotto
&z Carrie Hedderman.Applicants propose a 400 sq ft deck to be added to an existing home. The existing
home of S2S sq ft and floor area of 1,356 sq ft are to remain with no changes.The deck is to be located facing
the shoreline.The area beneath the deck is to be gravel and filter fabric.The deck is to be 12 inches in height
from the ground and to have a step to the ground. There are no other site changes. Previous approval of
2022 has expired. Site plan for new hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline and expansion of a
nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of deck addition in the Waterfront Residential
zone-WR. The parcel is 0.29 ac.
Section 179-4-OSO decks/porches
The 400 sq. ft. deck addition is to be 21.5 ft. to the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required and S ft. to
the east side property line where 15 ft. is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday,July 1S,2024.
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:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because it blends in and is the only usable placement of the deck.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included
to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the applicant wants to add the deck within 50 ft of
the lake.
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.
32-2024 DANIEL ZOTTO &z CARRIE HEDDERMAN,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe.
Duly adopted this 18th Day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MS. HEDDERMAN-Thank you. I appreciate it. And thanks for moving me up on the agenda, too. I
appreciate it. Thanks,Laura.
MR. MC CAB E-All right. I threw a curve at you,Roy. Now we can start with AV 14-2024.
TABLED ITEMS:
AREA VARIANCE NO.14-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL (RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE) ZONING WR LOCATION
OFF HALL ROAD (BARBER RD) (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES A 641 SQ. FT. HOUSE
FOOTPRINT WITH A 299 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA. THE FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 1,351 SQ.
FT. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO DECREASE THE LOT SIZE FROM
20,632 SQ. FT. TO 14,411 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, WELL,
LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED LOT DISTURBANCE. SITE
PLAN FOR PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE,
AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 12-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
0.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.11-1-59.312 SECTION 179-3-040
ETHAN HALL,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.14-2024,Patten Property Development,Meeting Date: July 17`h,2024
"Project Location: Off Hall Road(Barber Rd) Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant
proposes a 641 sq ft house footprint with a 299 sq ft porch/deck area. The floor area is to be 1,351 sq ft.
Project includes a lot line adjustment to decrease the lot size from 20,632 sq ft to 14,411 sq ft. Site work
includes new septic, well, landscaping, stormwater, and other associated lot disturbance. Site plan for
project within 50 ft of 150/o slopes. Relief requested for lot size and setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for permeability,lot size,and setbacks for construction of a new home. The
site is to be 0.35 ac in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040
The new home is to be 12 ft 10 inches from the front and 25 ft 10 inches from the rear where 30 ft is required,
and the lot size has been reduced to 0.33 ac where 2 ac 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. The project
may be considered to have minimal impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be considered to not
reduce the property size and develop a home to minimize the setbacks relief requested.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant
to the code. Relief is requested for front 17 ft 2 inches, for the rear 4 ft 2 inches and 1.65 ac deficient
from 2 ac required.
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 new home with associated site work. The reduction in lot size is to
allow the adjoining lot to have direct access to Hall Road. Each lot will have access to Hall Road Extension
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
directly. The plans show the location of the home and driveway access to the home. The revision includes
permeable pavement for the access road to the adjoining lots. "
MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall
Architecture, here tonight representing Chris Patten and Patten Property Development for the property
on Hall Road. This is a two part project. The first is the smaller of the,the lot which adjoins Hall Road
directly. He owns both properties. The one that's on Hall Road Extension which wraps down around
the corner, the only way to get to that lot currently is by going across two other properties, well three
properties total,including this one we're talking about. So what he's looking to do is develop the lakeside
lot and provide an access directly to Hall Road from that. So we're proposing a property line,boundary
line adjustment to do this. It creates this smaller lot. We've worked very hard to put a very small footprint
building on. Our reason for asking for the variances is so that we can turn the building so that it has a lake
view. We're obviously not on the lakefront but we can see between the two buildings with this
orientation, and it does give us, Roy, one of the things I think that was in there was permeability for the
variance. We've lifted that. We don't need a permeability variance anymore. We're pulling up the
roadway that runs between Hall Road and the adjoining lots and replacing all of that with permeable
pavement. So our permeability numbers are now within what's required per the Code. So all we're really
looking for are the two variances for front and rear.
MR. MC CABE-So questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-Okay I understand that the properties are owned by the same people. The problem I have
is that we could solve the problem of the other property on the lake if you built a garage separate,because
you've got a height, and I know it has nothing to do with this project, but it kind of does. You have a
height variance problem with the house on the lake. Whereas you could build a detached garage on a
piece of property if you slid that house,the other house,over,that you're trying to get the variance for right
now and that would give you some room to build that garage and still have a leach,you know,it would be
a detached garage,and that would lower that house down to what you need for height.
MR. HALL-We did kind of take a look at that. It's desirable for them to have the garage attached to the
house.
MR. HENKEL-I understand it's nice to have a garage that you can walk into,but I'm just saying that if we
approve this project now,that could cause a problem with,to address the other problem on the other piece
of property. That's just my concern.
MR.KUHL-Does the square footage for the right of way,does that border both sides of this property,does
that come off the floor area ratio? How does that affect that? I mean it's got right of ways,right?
MRS. MOORE-The property is the property.
MR. KUHL-The property is the property,just because there's a right of way,it doesn't mean anything.
MRS. MOORE-No. There's still this.47 that's being reduced to .33.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. UNDERWOOD Just a little commentary. Last night the Planning Board, I went to the meeting to
hear what their comments were on the project and they were concerned with the size of the lot. It is a
buildable lot,you know, as it exists now. We're making it smaller. The lot on the waterfront,which is
the one I think we should be more concerned with, it's only a .29 acre lot. With the addition of that
property on the back it's going to give them a little bit more land for the floor area ratio, but they're
proposing a house that's over 4,000 square feet,you know,and the last one we just approved minutes ago,
that's a.29 acre lot with a 1300 square foot house on it. So I think we should consider the impacts of the
other project that we're going to be discussing next also and keep that in mind.
MR. HENKEL-We're increasing that property to .43.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Right.
MR. KUHL-Do you happen to know,Mr. Hall,what his intentions are for this house?
MR. HALL-For this house?
MR. KUHL-Yes,we're talking about the 14-2024 project.
MR. HALL-He's going to put that up for sale as a model home.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
MR. KUHL-Is he?
MR. HALL-Yes,it will not be a rental. He's not looking to do it. He's just looking to build a model home
on there that he can sell.
MR. KUHL-I mean here we are on two acre zoning. Okay. I'm going to be quiet.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm
going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to comment on
this particular project. Go ahead.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
RON MACKOWIAK
MR. MACKOWIAK-Good evening. My name's Ron Mackowiak. I live at 9 Glen Hall Drive. I'm the
adjoining property owner on the north side of this small vacation home. I'm here tonight, full
transparency, I'm also the Vice President of the Glen Lake Protective Association. However, these
comments are strictly my own and have no concern,they are not endorsed or anything by the Boar. The
reason I'm here tonight is quite frankly I oppose this variance,the Area Variance. I just heard Mr.Hall say
that he's only asking for a front and rear variance, but there's also a lot size issue, and that wasn't even
addressed. The lot size is extremely small and it's been made smaller since. So I'm opposing both the lot
size and the front setback, and I'll get back to that in just a minute why. Last night I also attending the
planning meeting and there's several incorrect statements that were made, and they were sort of made
again tonight. There was no opportunity for public comment. So there would not be until the next public
hearing. So there was nothing I could say or do to try to correct those statements at the time. The first
one is that the right of way gravel road easement,whatever you want to call it,it's used by seven waterfront
homes. It's not two or three. All of Glen Hall Drive is also on that road. So there are seven lots that are
dependent on that right of way. Okay. Approximately 300/o of that lot is a gravel road. That just makes
the usable,buildable area that much smaller than what is reflected in the floor area ratio. The location of
the planned well that is shown on this drawing is shown very close to my property line. When you come
down on the right of way, it's on the right side. The property line is right there. If you look onto my
property,behind the shelter logic shelter,you'll see a bunch of boulders. That's a leach field for 3 Glen
Hall Drive. That hasn't been addressed and I can assure you that it's less than the 100 foot separation
criteria that's required. I don't personally believe there's a place you can get 100 feet on that,on that lot,
but I'd leave that to the architect, engineer to determine. It's not shown on the drawings, but there is a
leach field and it serves 3 Glen Hall Drive. You can check the deeds or the property drawings and you'll
see that.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So that's not a concern of ours. That's the Town Board concern.
MR. MACKOWIAK-Right. I couldn't make that comment last night. I'm making the point of views that
I saw were wrong that couldn't be made. Directly across the road are large lots. They are three acre lots.
They're rural residential three,three acre lots. So here we have,on the other side of the road from this lot,
you have a.33 acre that was previously a little larger,and you've got three acre lots across the road. I think
that if you look at it you'll see what my point would be in just a second on that. The applicant last night
indicated that the only thing that could be put on this lot, to meet the zoning requirements, is a narrow
mobile home. I hear what he's saying,but as far as I'm concerned this is a difficulty that's being self-created
and there are drainage issues,Hall Road. Water comes down Hall Road,crosses,comes right down the
right of way,goes through one of the neighbor's lots. He's put in a gravel trench to try to slow down the
water and whatever,but there are severe drainage problems here that are only being increased because that
lot,as far as I can tell,is going to be a major problem in the future with water. It's just going to add to the
problem. I think abetter purpose of some of that property would be a settling basin or a settling pond in
that area to control that water. You don't have that shown anywhere on the drawings. The facts on the
lot size itself,on the application I read it request relief from a variance. It states that the requested relief
for variance is moderate and not substantial. It's hard for me to believe that S3.S%relief on the acreage is
not substantial. I look at the term that they use,they indicated that it was moderate,and to me moderate
is average or around 500/o. I think this is a substantial variance that needs to be addressed. I believe it's up
to the Zoning Board to address that issue not me. Okay. I can only bring it to your attention. The
applicant indicated there's no undesirable changes in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to
nearby properties. On Hall Road and on Barber Road there are four new houses that are built on between
two and three acre lots. Now we are putting a small little house next to all these,sandwiching it between
houses that are much larger on Hall Road and up on the hill on Barber Road. I thought the purpose of the
Comprehensive Plan was to try to mitigate some of the housing density as you get away from the lake.
This is not waterfront property. It's second tier development property. Okay. Bear with me. As I said
also because of the fact that you're also building a very small house,the house on the lot next,right across
the street,is a three acre. Those houses fit. This is not in the character of the neighborhood,and I believe
that's the purpose of the site, or the Town's Comprehensive Plan. I can agree with the upcoming
S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
application for the waterfront house a lot easier than I could ever agree to this. That's waterfront. The
house that is there was probably built 75 years ago. I understand that there was a footprint. There's never
been a footprint on this property. It's just been a piece of treed land up to a point where the developer
came in and cut down,clear cut every tree on that lot and on his lot. I do have a little bit of a problem with
that, too. All the neighbors in the area were very concerned about that. It was done in the middle of
winter. I wasn't even in the State,but it's just a little bit astounding that this could happen without an
approved site plan and it was done in the dead of night as far as I'm concerned. As far as the small vacation
home, I've spoken, that's troubling to a lot of the neighbors around that I've spoken with. The small
vacation home means to me air b n b or a rental party house,and there's inadequate parking there. Unless
you're using or restrict,unless they use or restrict the right of way,there will be no parking for numerous
vehicles. I think you're lucky you can get two vehicles in there. I don't know, a vacation house to me
means a lot,if you're going to be on a lake it would appear that you would at least have lake rights onto the
lake.
MR. MC CABE-I've got to speed you up here. You've taken way more than three minutes.
MR. MACKOWIAK- One more thing and then I'll be done. I'm sorry. There's no boating, kayaking,
swimming or fishing. Now what kind of vacation house is that when you can't do anything other than sit
there? Last but not least,the applicant states that the project is consistent with the Town of Queensbury
Comprehensive Plan because the project is a single family residence. That's all he says it's a single family
residence. Is that all our Town Comprehensive Planning document is,to allow the single family residence?
Doesn't it talk about density? Doesn't it talk about the environment and numerous other things that are
not addressed in the applicant's statement? I take issue with that. Finally I guess the best thing I can say
is that on his front setback, 12 foot S inches,coming from Hall Road,you go over to Hall Road Extension
or Barber Road. The address across the street is 3 Barber Road. You come down to that,that is notably
an icy issue on that curb,okay. It's bad news. The way it is elevated,on the far side of the road,you have
water that drains in there and pools around and it's an icy situation. Anybody that lives in that area knows
that. Now you get into an icy situation. You have snow melt or whatever,it ices up. You're 12 foot S off
of the edge of the road with this house. Guy goes around the corner a little fast,I can see an accident just
waiting to happen. If it happens, I personally think the Town could be liable for that and I think it's
something that should be considered. Okay. My recommendations are,of course you know that already,
I would recommend you deny this variance. Or at least table it until it can be resolved with the Planning
Board whether this lot is consistent with the Comprehensive Planning document. That's all I'm asking.
We did not have a chance to comment. If you approve this zoning tonight, the Planning Board already
will be ready to rubber stamp.
MR. MC CABE-The Planning Board doesn't rubber stamp. We're two separate, and the Town Board is
separate. We're all three separate Boards.
MR. MACKOWIAK-I'm sorry, and I will take back. My concern is that the Comprehensive Planning
document for Queensbury and for Glen Lake and the surrounding area has not been adequately addressed
by this application,and I would request that it be tabled. Secondly I would request somehow that this be
returned back to the Planning Board to evaluate what I've spoken about there with the well. Those are
my comments.
MR. MC CABE-The well isn't the Planning Board. The well is the Town Board.
MR. MACKOWIAK-Okay. All I can do then is recommendation one, then you deny the request. I
appreciate your comments and your time. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else who'd like to address us on this particular project? Do we
have anything written,Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,for the record I want to say that we have a letter from Mr. Mackowiak as well. I will
not read it in because he covered everything in his comments. There's another letter from Daniel Barber,
and it says "Our subdivided property directly across the road demanded 3 acres per lot. The proposed
construction in WR Zoning demanding 2 acres. It was my understanding that the reasons for these large
lots was to decrease the density of structures near Glen Lake which is already too over built. How can
you justify granting a variance for a structure on.35 AC? It's utterly ridiculous. Daniel R. Barber" And
that's it.
MR. MC CABE-So do you want to come back up.
MR. HALL-So I'll kind of go through these as best I can. I was not aware there were seven homes on the
lot,but I think regardless,it is still an ingress and egress easement across there. It is gravel right now,and
by your Code that's considered completely impermeable. What Chris is talking about doing is opening
this up, digging it out, putting in permeable pavement that will drain that, will help in that drainage
problem that they're discussing. It was brought to my attention today that there is a catch basin in there
but it's completely silted in. I talked to Laura about it. We don't know who installed that. I don't believe
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
it was a Town thing. She looked with the Highway Department. They didn't have any record of him
doing that. So I will work with the developer to get that looked at. It's probably never been cleaned out.
It's on private property. The permeable pavement has to be maintained. We have to have a maintenance
agreement as everybody is aware of. The well shown on the property,we were made aware of the septic
system last week. We have the survey team that's getting ready to go out to locate where that is so that
we can figure that out. As you said that it's a Town Board issue. I believe that we can get that within 100
feet so that we're outside the 100 foot boundary. This is an existing lot.
MR. MC CABE-Right. And so it's not two acres,is it?
MR. HALL-Correct.
MR. MC CABE-And so it's considered not major because it's relative to the size of the lot.
MR. HALL-The size of the existing lot. So we are taking 6,000 square feet admittedly to get the septic
system and the driveway for the adjoining property. It's already a small lot and that's why we stuck with
a 624 foot footprint. It's a small house. We understand that. We've made it that small so that we didn't
ask for, we're not asking for height variance. We're not asking for floor area variances. We're simply
asking for the front yard setback. It was brought up that that's 12 feet 10 inches from the road. It's not 12
feet 10 inches from the road. It's 12 feet 10 inches from our property line. The distance between the
property line and the road is about the same amount. We're about 25 feet from the road,and as I mentioned
it is uphill. I don't see there being an issue. If somebody comes around that corner on Hall Road that fast,
with the house there,I don't think the road conditions would bean issue. The cutting of the trees. The
cutting of the trees was done with the full knowledge of the Zoning Administrator. Chris came in and
asked the question,is a permit required to cut the trees on the lot, and he was told,no,there's no permit
required,you're outside the 50 foot boundary,you can do whatever you want. We're currently working
with Pure Perfection Landscaping on a landscaping plan for this lot if it's approved so we can re-foliate it.
In order to do anything on it,it had to be cleared. For us to put a driveway for the other house,for us to
put the septic system for both lots and to build the house. So it's just,in preparation,it was easier to do
it in the middle of the.
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-Thankyou,Mr. Chairman. I would have preferred to see this applicant combine the two lots
and then build one house. As far as I'm concerned,it concerns me with the well to the septic. I don't agree
with the applicant's agent here. I believe we can get within 100 feet of the septic. I'm not going to approve
this until I know that that can happen. Aside from the fact of being within 50 feet of a 150/o slope, and,
really,you know, clear cutting? Come on. It's kind of like this applicant appears to have just gone and
done what he wanted to do and then asked for forgiveness. I think he could have been a better agent of
the land. So I am not in favor of this project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy? I tend to agree with Ron. I think,you know, there's, taken in isolation,yes,you
could make a case that this was an existing lot of this size,but it's not isolated. There's another application
connected to it and it could have been handled in away that would have been better for the area. This is
not,I don't think what we want to see being developed when we're trying to create better lots and homes.
For me this is pushing the envelope way too much and I would not be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-Yes, I'm looking at this as both the applications that are in front of us, and I don't really
agree with building the two houses. I think somehow we can find a way to put one large house on there,
if that's what was wanted,but I think trying to divide this and make this into two separate homes, even
with a small home,it's too much for the area. So I wouldn't approve this.
MR. MC CABE-Mary?
MRS. PALACINO-And I concur with my other committee members. I think the size of the lot is not
consistent with the other properties in the area,which I think diminishes their imprint on the community.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I agree with everybody else. I think there's no hardship here at all,because if you
want to build a house on that lot you can access directly off of Hall Road. You don't need to create a whole
other driveway coming into access that other property down on the waterfront. I think that the fact that
it was clear cut is a bad idea on waterfront residential properties. Construction's supposed to be carried
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
out in a timely manner to preclude erosion and runoff into the lake and I think that this has been totally
ignored through the process, and when that property first was cleared there was no silt fencing up or
anything at all. It's just been an eyesore since it's been done. All the trees on the other lot that we're going
to discuss next were all cleared out of there,too, at least eight trees down there on the waterfront on the
neighbor next door. It was a travesty.
MR. MC CABS John?
MR.HENKEL-Yes,I stated my problem before we got into this,and I agree with all my Board members. I
think it could be a very nice house using both pieces of property. So I would not be on board with this
project.
MR. MC CABE-So,Ethan,I need some guidance here.
MR. HALL-So obviously we're going to table this and I'll have to go back to Chris and see how he wants
to handle it. I'm not sure how this affects the second application. That's contingent upon the first one.
MR. MC CABE-Yes,so,well,let's get to tabling this first. John?
MR. HENKEL-When do you want to table it to?
MR. HALL-That I can't tell you.
MRS. MOORE-Do you want to table until October?
MR. HALL-Yes,let's go to October.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Would it make sense to refer it back to the Planning Board at this point?
MRS. MOORE-No, it's in front of the Zoning Board. They've made their comments. That information
wasn't necessarily read into the record,but they did make their comments. It got referred to this Board
with no comments. I believe there were two of them that voted no,no against referring it.
MR. HENKEL-So do you want to do October 16`h or 23ra.
MRS. MOORE-We can do the first Zoning Board meeting.
MR. HENKEL-The 16`h
MRS. MOORE-And just to clarify,the tree cutting was,the individual came to the Zoning Administrator
and that was a permitted clearing. I mean it was beyond the 50 feet. So just to be clear, that was an
allowed cutting.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Patten Property
Development. (Revised)Applicant proposes a 641 sq ft house footprint with a 299 sq ft porch/deck area.
The floor area is to be 1,351 sq ft. Project includes a lot line adjustment to decrease the lot size from 20,632
sq ft to 14,411 sq ft. Site work includes new septic,well,landscaping,stormwater,and other associated lot
disturbance. Site plan for project within 50 ft of 150/o slopes. Relief requested for lot size and setbacks.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2024, PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT,
Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl.
Tabled to October 16,2024 with any new information by September 16,2024.
Duly adopted this 1S`h day of July 2024,by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-So,in addition,do you want to re-open the public hearing?
MR. MC CABE-Yes,I should re-open the public hearing.
AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. MC CABE-So the second one depends on the lot line adjustment,right?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT
AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL (RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE) OWNER(S) PATTEN
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 96 HALL ROAD (REVISED)
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,482 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH
47 SQ.FT.PORCH/DECK AREA WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 4,639 SQ.FT. THE EXISTING HOME
HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED AND THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS TO BE DEMOLISHED AS WELL.
THE PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE LOT SIZE FROM
12,690 SQ.FT.TO 18,200 SQ.FT. THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ALLOWS FOR DIRECT ACCESS
TO HALL ROAD FROM THE LOT (PREVIOUS ACCESS WAS THROUGH ADJOINING LOT).
SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC,WELL,LANDSCAPING,STORMWATER,AND OTHER
ASSOCIATED LOT DISTURBANCE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ANEW DOCK SYSTEM ALONG
GLEN LAKE. SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND
NEW FLOOR AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS,FLOOR AREA,ROAD FRONTAGE,
AND NUMBER OF GARAGES. CROSS REF SP 11-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A
LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.11-1-23. SECTION 179-3-040
ETHAN HALL,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
MRS. MOORE-So this was discussed this morning. Craig and I had a discussion about some of the
outcomes that may occur,and if the project with the smaller lot didn't move through,then there's no way
to process the next application. So you,the Board,would have to table this application as well,but you
could potentially open up the public hearing.
MR. MC CABE-Yes,I have to do that because the hearing was advertised. So I'm going to open a public
hearing for AV 15-2024. You'll obviously want to comment on that, also, but I would suggest maybe
waiting until,you know,we have the actual meeting. Is that all right with you? Okay.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HALL-Is there a chance that we could hear those,just so that we know what we're looking at? I
mean I would like to know what the public comments are so I don't get blindsided when I come back.
MR. MC CABE-Well,so,he's going to go through that whole spiel again. Is that?
MR. HALL-I'm fine with that. I just want to know if there's anything else.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. You're on.
MR. KUHL-By the way,you have three minutes. You have three minutes.
RON MACKOWIAK
MR. MACKOWIAK-Okay. Well I can probably do it in a minute this time.
MR. KUHL-Well,you're on the clock.
MR. MACKOWIAK-The other property is on a grandfathered piece of property. It was built along time
ago. I do not have the issues that I have with the vacation home. Mine are primarily due to the vacation
home. Yes, there's a lot line adjustment. Yes, the lot becomes less conforming where the vacation home
becomes more non-conforming,but in all reality,my concern is the single family vacation home,the size of
the lot, the consistency with the Town plan. I really don't see a need. That's the only comment I had
pertaining to Patten's 96 Hall Road.
MR. HENKEL-You really can't call it a vacation home. It's a single family home. Anybody can do what
they want with it. It's called a single family home,not a vacation home.
MR. MACKOWIAK-Well,I'm only using the developer's words.
MR. MC CABE-So basically you don't have a lot of objections.
MR. MACKOWIAK-A lot of objections to that. As I said,I do understand that it is waterfront. It has an
intrinsic value. I could obviously criticize what's happened there because it is a water zone there, and if
it's not re-vegetated properly it's going to be an eyesore for the neighborhood. I want to leave it at that,
and I would hope you would take into consideration my comments.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that's going to comment on this? Okay.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2024)
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Patten Property
Development. (Revised)Applicant proposes to construct a new 2,482 sq ft(footprint) home with 47 sq
ft porch/deck area with a floor area of 4,639 sq ft. The existing home has been demolished and there are
other items to be demolished as well. The project includes a lot line adjustment to increase the lot size
from 12,690 sq ft to 18,200 sq ft. The lot line adjustment allows for direct access to Hall Road from the lot
(previous access was through adjoining lot). Site work includes new septic, well, landscaping,
stormwater, and other associated lot disturbance. The project includes a new dock system along Glen
Lake. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline and new floor area. Relief requested for
setbacks,height,floor area,road frontage,and number of garages.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2024, PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT,
Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl.
Tabled to October 16,2024 with any new information needed by September 16,2024.
Duly adopted this 18`h Day of July 2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
MR. HALL-Thank you. I appreciate your time.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 37-2024,21 Heron Hollow Road.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 DAVE &z SHANNAN CARROLL
AGENT(S) FLYNN DESIGN STUDIO (TREVOR FLYNN) OWNER(S) DAVID M.CARROLL&z
SHANNAN CARROLL ZONING WR LOCATION 21 HERON HOLLOW RD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES SEVERAL ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME INCLUDING REMOVAL OF
EXISTING FLOOR AREA, INTERIOR ALTERATIONS AND TO CONSTRUCT A 115 SQ. FT.
DORMER OVER THE EXISTING GARAGE AND AN 85 SQ. FT. NEW SECOND STORY
ADDITION OVER THE EXISTING ENTRY PORCH. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS INCLUDE
WINDOW AND DOOR REPLACEMENT AND RELOCATION FOR SOME,ALSO SOME WORK
ON THE EXISTING ROOFLINE NEAR THE SHORELINE. THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS AT 7
REMAINS THE SAME. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING
WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR
AREA. CROSS REF SP 37-2024; SP 55-89 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2024
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.6 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-5
SECTION 179-3-040
TREVOR FLYNN&r LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2024, Dave & Sharman Carroll, Meeting Date: July 17, 2024
"Project Location: 21 Heron Hollow Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes several
alterations to an existing home including removal of existing floor area, interior alterations and to
construct a 115 sq ft dormer over the existing garage and a 85 sq ft new second story addition over the
existing entry porch. Exterior alterations include window and door replacement and relocation for some,
also some work on the existing roofline near the shoreline.The number of bedrooms of 6 remains the same.
Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft of the shoreline. Relief requested for
setbacks and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for alterations to an existing home.The project sits
on a 0.58 ac parcel in the Waterfront residential zone
Section 179-3-040WR dimensional
The new dormer addition is to be 15.3 ft from the front setback where 30 ft is required. The porch on the
shoreline side is to be 41.0 ft where a 50 ft setback is required. Floor area relief is in excessive of the
maximum allowed of 5,595 sf where 7,812 sf is proposed to remain but in different locations of the building
noting it is reduction overall by 168 sf.The home's existing floor area is 7,980 sf noting the building was constructed in
1980 where floor area in unfinished basement areas were not accounted for.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
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 home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minimal relevant to the code. The relief is for 14.7 feet to the front property line and 9 feet to the
shoreline. Floor area relief is 2,217 sf.
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 to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes alterations to the existing home for replacement of multiple windows,removal of
some covered entry areas and to improve the area above the garage for playroom area. The project includes
a dormer addition above the garage and a second story addition of the home to access the new area. The
plans show the existing and proposed conditions of the alterations to the existing home."
MR. FLYNN-Good evening. Trevor Flynn with Flynn Design Studio and Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering,representing Dave and Sharman Carroll,21 Heron Hollow. I just thought I'd open up with a
brief history of the project itself. The goal of this project is a multi-generational home. Dave and Shannan
purchased the home from their parents,Tom and Joanie Moynihan and their goal is to transition it and to
turn it over to their children and grandchildren. That's the main goal for this project. We're renovating
the lower level and renovating the upper level with the bedrooms and the future playroom as the basement
is very short and unusable. As noted the lot is 290/o,you know, it's a pre-existing, non-conforming lot,
roughly 290/o of what's allowed. Our main goal,overall,with the project was to reduce anything we could
overall,but renovating and connecting that second floor,that future playroom area for their grandkids to
the second floor over that existing area. So,Laura,can you jump to the next sheet please. So just walking
through some of the setbacks,the first one is the shoreline. The first variance is the shoreline setback at
that 41 feet. It was discussed early on with Laura and Craig that we're doing so much work to the existing
windows on the lake that we said hey let's just get a variance on the lakeside, even though we're not
changing that wall at all,but we just wanted to make the Town aware,get that variance with removing so
much glass and putting other glass back.
MR. MC CABE-So what you're saying is that setback already exists right now?
MR. FLYNN-Yes,it's an existing setback, and we're just doing a lot of work to that wall so we said,hey,
let's go for it anyway and we're going to re-do the roofing material,etc. There was a small path that we did
add just from the screened porch, you know, that we're relocating it. We are moving the deck to the
southwest and also a covered porch to the northeast. We're also removing this shed that's also to the
northeast, you know, improving that setback, increasing it, and the, you know, with these other two
renovations, you'll see the two poched areas. This is that second floor addition to get to the already
existing attic space above the garage, and then we're adding that dormer to get in more natural light and
vent per Code and we're not increasing the setback. This is an existing setback as well to the garage,but
since we're changing that roof shape, now that's what triggered that other variance. Overall we're
decreasing the impervious area, decreasing the FAR, and we think it's a great project. We've tried to
mitigate everything as we weighed the test. Can we just jump to the planting plan, Laura? And I also
wanted to note,I think it's noted seven bedrooms. It's six bedrooms,and we've designed the septic for six
as well. The existing of the planting plan,please. That was the previous septic tanks were replaced in
2019. That's when Dave and Sharman purchased it. In an effort to just increase and better the overall site,
we're also,you know,updating the absorption held, too, and Lucas can answer any questions to that as
needed. Other than site improvements,we're also adding more shoreline buffer,you know, to meet the
Code, and even in substantial discussions afterwards over the past month we're looking to increase that
more, too,once we start to work with our landscaping on the project, and also looking in to some more
stormwater to handle the roof runoff,too,to the southwest,but overall that's most of the improvements.
I'll open it for any questions.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. KUHL-This house is for the children and grandchildren and after that. I kind of wonder, though,I
have a serious question. Seven bedrooms,six?
MR. FLYNN-It is six. It was noted as seven.
MRS. MOORE-It's an error.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Now,what's the measurement of the septic system for the number of bedrooms? Is it
the box,the casket or the field? The absorption field?
MRS. MOORE-I'll let Lucas answer that because I'm not an engineer.
MR. DOBIE-For the record, Board, Lucas Dobie, Hutchins Engineering. Mr. Kuhl, the number of
bedrooms is what drives the septic tank sizing,in addition to the leach field also.
MR. KUHL-Okay. So for six bedrooms,what's the size of the tank?
MR. DOBIE-Six is 1750 gallons,minimum. We have 2500 gallons from the project in 2019 that we did as
part of the transfer inspection.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. DOBIE-Thankyou,sir.
MR.HENKEL-How come in 19SO or whatever they don't count floor space in the? What happened there?
Because this has happened to us before.
MRS. MOORE-So there is no,I have no explanation,no history back from that time when they did not do
that.
MR. HENKEL-Did something change later that you've got to count all?
MR. FLYNN-Most of that basement's around six feet tall and there's other areas that are just over five feet,
but we included it anyway. If you were to remove the basement,it would be closer to 26.50/o FAR.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm
going to open the public hearing. I'm going to see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to
address us on this particular project. Roy,do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes. We have a letter from the Waterkeeper,and since he doesn't appear to be here,I will
read it in. "The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed
professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper has concerns about the
balance of the variance requested and feels more action could be taken for the environmental benefits for
this property located within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. It appears there
are options to further increase permeability to reduce noncompliance and environmental impacts and
balance the excessive FAR variance request. Additionally,the applicant should be required to incorporate
stormwater management to improve compliance with Town Code. Lastly, the applicant should clarify
the number of bedrooms as the agenda states 7 bedrooms,which would correctly consider the office as a
future bedroom, and the plans indicate 6 bedrooms. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning
Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically § 179-14-OSO Variance Criteria, during your
deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. It is the recommendation of the
Waterkeeper that the Zoning Board of Appeals table the application and have the applicant consider
alternatives to increase site permeability, provide stormwater management measures, and clarify the
number of bedrooms. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed.
Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely,Christopher Navitsky,PE Lake George Waterkeeper"
MR. MC CABE-So would you like to comment?
MR. FLYNN-As previously stated, I think the narrative had seven bedrooms. It is six bedrooms, and I
think we've adequately designed the septic field and the existing tanks that are in place to handle that
capacity,and that's what I also mentioned. As far as the stormwater and additional shoreline buffers,we
are looking to increase this area as well,you know,continue it across for a shoreline buffer,so to add more
than what's required, and then we're also looking at this area, too, for a small raingarden to handle the
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2024)
stormwater, you know, the existing roof drains. So we're happy to make those adjustments moving
forward.
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 Bob.
MR. KEENAN-The floor area relief looks pretty excessive to me, but I think when you consider the
basement that's probably not really usable, it's probably not as bad as it appears. And it looks like you
have reduced it. I think I could approve this project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I think I would be in favor of the project. There is concern about the size of the septic,
but I think we got that covered. It sounds like they're adequately protected,even if they use the office as
a seventh bedroom. So I think I'm going to say yes on this project.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes,I have no issue with the way it's presented. I'm in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-Obviously if they came to us with a new project of this size it would probably not be
accepted,but they're downsizing a little with the FAR variance. So I'd be on board as is.
MR. MC CABEJim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The playroom area you're not adding bathrooms up there.
MR. FLYNN-No,just playroom.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Then I would approve it,too.
MR. MC CABE-Mary?
MRS. PALACINO-I have no challenges to the application.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think what we're giving up is very little compared to
what we're gaining which is stormwater management and overall improvement of the lot. So with that in
mind,Bob,I wonder if you could give us a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dave &z
Shannan Carroll.Applicants propose several alterations to an existing home including removal of existing
floor area,interior alterations and to construct a 115 sq ft dormer over the existing garage and an 85 sq It
new second story addition over the existing entry porch. Exterior alterations include window and door
replacement and relocation for some, also some work on the existing roofline near the shoreline. The
number of bedrooms at 6 remains the same.Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within
50 ft of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for alterations to an existing home.The project sits
on a 0.58 ac parcel in the Waterfront residential zone
Section 179-3-040WR dimensional
The new dormer addition is to be 15.3 It from the front setback where 30 It is required. The porch on the
shoreline side is to be 41.0 It where a 50 ft setback is required. Floor area relief is in excessive of the
maximum allowed of 5,595 sf where 7,812 sf is proposed to remain but in different locations of the building
noting it is reduction overall by 168 sf.The home's existing floor area is 7,980 sf noting the building was constructed in
1980 where floor area in unfinished basement areas were not accounted for.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday,July 18,2024.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2024)
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 because there are some site improvements being made to the property.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable,and have been included to
minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the FAR is being significantly reduced and
improving the property.
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 of the improvements to the house.
6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,-
S. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
37-2024 DAVE &z SHANNAN CARROLL, Introduced by Bob Keenan, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl.
Duly adopted this 18th Day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. FLYNN-Thank you. We appreciate your time.
MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 38-2024,74 Bay Parkway.
AREA VARIANCE NO.38-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RONALD &z JILL BARTON AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC;CURT DYBAS,R.A. OWNER(S) RONALD&z JILL BARTON
ZONING WR LOCATION 74 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES A RENOVATION OF
AN EXISTING 1,155 SQ. FT. HOME WITH 625 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA. THE PROJECT
INCLUDES REMOVAL OF AN UPPER LEVEL OPEN DECK AND AN ENCLOSED PORCH TO
CONSTRUCT A NEW 185 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT BASEMENT AND FIRST FLOOR ADDITION
AND A NEW UPPER DECK/TERRACE AREA. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 4,150 SQ. FT.
WITH A NEW TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF 4,240 SQ. FT. PROPOSED. SITE WORK INCLUDES
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW
FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND NEW FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 38-2024;SP 1-2004;
AV 16-1992; SP 11-92;AV 37-1989;AV 36-1989; SP 19-89 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY
2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-
23 SECTION 179-3-040
CURT DYBAS&r LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 38-2024, Ronald&r Jill Barton,Meeting Date: July 17,2024 "Project
Location: 74 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicants propose a renovation of an
existing 1,155 sq ft home with 625 sq ft porch/deck area. The project includes removal of an upper level
open deck and an enclosed porch to construct a new 185 sq ft footprint basement and first floor addition
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2024)
and a new upper deck/terrace area.The existing floor area is 4,150 sq ft with a new total floor area of 4,240
sq ft proposed.Site work includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings.Site plan for new floor
area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and new floor
area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and new floor area in a CEA for alterations and additions to an
existing home. The project site is on a 0.25 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone.
179-3-040 WR
The addition is to be 34 ft from the shoreline where a 50 ft setback is required. A portion of the existing
porch is to be renovated and is to be 32.4 ft from the shoreline where a 50 ft setback is required. Floor area
relief is in excessive of the maximum allowed of 2,513 sf where 4,240 sf is proposed. The home's existing floor
area is 4,150 s f noting the building was constructed in 1973 and renovated in 1986 where floor area in unfinished basement
areas were not accounted for.
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 home and alterations proposed.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the addition is 16 ft and the porch area is 17.6
ft. The floor area relief is 1,727 sf.
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 will have minimal impact
on the physical or environmental conditions.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes the alteration to the existing home to remove a portion of the home and construct
the new addition. The plans show the expansion of the bedrooms on the lower level,improving the dining
and breakfast area on the first floor,and an open terrace on the second floor. The plans show the exterior
views of the existing and proposed conditions."
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 adopted on July
17`h,2024 by a unanimous vote.
MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board. Thank you. Again, for your record Lucas Dobie with Hutchins
Engineering,representing our clients Ron and Jill Barton at 74 Bay Parkway,which is the northeast portion
of Assembly Point about four properties south of the Point,and the project architect and mastermind Curt
Dybas is with us. He did a lot of the legwork and all the site planning to improve the property. Again,I
appreciate Staff, the nice write up on it. Our clients purchased the property in 2002 and the home was
built in'73 and renovated in'86 and it needs a renovation again. They're proposing to re-work the inside
and the main area of focus is what I call„ and I'll stand up because it's easier to show it on the Board. I
don't have a laser pointer, but to demo what I call the sunroom which is at the first floor level,which is
their dining room, and also the second floor balcony deck, demo those and to construct a new basement
level and first floor level addition, and then it'll have a terrace at the second floor level. So the two
structures go away and then to construct an addition in here which is situated a little further back from
the shore. The sunroom now is 31 feet. The addition is 34 feet,and with re-working the site,it amounts
to a 45 square foot reduction in impervious coverage and a 90 square foot increase in the floor area. So we
believe it's a very minimal request for the Board,and that's our two variances that we're asking for. Again,
the shoreline setback at 34 feet where 50 is required,and then the 90 square feet increase in the floor area
ratio. To provide the mitigation,we provided stormwater management where there is none now in a series
of four raingardens and some infiltration trench along the garage and then an area of shoreline buffering
along the southerly portion of the boathouse. So we feel our clients have gone the extra mile to improve
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
the property and we feel the request is very reasonable. So we'd be happy to answer any questions the
Board may have. Excuse me. Let me add that last June the septic system passed the Lake George Park
Commission and I wrote a letter basically reverse engineering the sizing for modern criteria that meets
that. So it's,the septic,we certified it. The Park Commission passed it. So we're very comfortable with
that as well. So we'd be happy to answer any questions, and we're here to ask for your approval tonight
so we can go back to the Planning Board next week,and they'd like to do the project starting around Labor
Day is my understanding. So,thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? You must have done a pretty good job here,no
questions. So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public
hearing, see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to address us on this particular project?
Roy,do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No written comment.
MR. MC CABE-So 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 Mary.
MRS. PALACINO-I have no difficulty with the project at all. I think what you're doing in reducing the
square footage is fine.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR.UNDERWOOD-It's a minor change from what exists. I think it's slightly improving the permeability
on the site and also the capture of groundwater. So I'm all for it.
MR. MC CABEJohn?
MR. HENKEL-I guess the good outweighs the bad. So I'd be on board.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I have no problem with it. I'm glad you brought Curt along.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. It satisfies the criteria.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-Yes,I think the small changes here are an improvement. So I'm for it.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think that what we're giving up is very minimal and
we're gaining stormwater management which is always a good deal. So with that in mind,Jim,I wonder
if you could compose a motion for us.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald&z Jill
Barton.Applicants propose a renovation of an existing 1,155 sq It home with 625 sq ft porch/deck area.The
project includes removal of an upper level open deck and an enclosed porch to construct a new 1S5 sq It
footprint basement and first floor addition and a new upper deck/terrace area. The existing floor area is
4,150 sq It with a new total floor area of 4,240 sq It proposed. Site work includes stormwater management
and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft of shoreline.
Relief requested for setbacks and new floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and new floor area in a CEA for alterations and additions to an
existing home. The project site is on a 0.25 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone.
179-3-040 WR
The addition is to be 34 ft from the shoreline where a 50 ft setback is required. A portion of the existing
porch is to be renovated and is to be 32.4 ft from the shoreline where a 50 ft setback is required. Floor area
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2024)
relief is in excessive of the maximum allowed of 2,513 sf where 4,240 sf is proposed. The home's existing floor
area is 4,150 s f noting the building was constructed in 1973 and renovated in 1986 where floor area in unfinished basement
areas were not accounted for.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday,July 18,2024.
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 because it will slightly improve the situational runoff on the property.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included
to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's a flat line compared to what they started
with.
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.
6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh 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.
38-2024 RONALD &z TILL BARTON, Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Keenan.
Duly adopted this 18th Day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. DYBAS-This was Larry Corbett's house and it was built by Bob Ruggles.
MR. MC CABE-Two famous names here.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much,Board.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 39-2024,Kurtis Thornquist,25 Caroline Street.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KURTIS THORNQUIST OWNER(S)
KURTIS THORNQUIST ZONING NR LOCATION 25 CAROLINE ST. APPLICANT
PROPOSES A 6 FT. PRIVACY FENCE IN FRONT YARD OF CORNER LOT OF 105 FT. IN
LENGTH. THE EXISTING HOME OF 880 SQ. FT., PORCH AREAS OF 330 SQ. FT.,DETACHED
GARAGE OF 400 SQ. FT.,ND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OF 140 SQ. FT.ARE ALL TO REMAIN
WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR FENCE LOCATION, HEIGHT OF FENCE,
AND TYPE OF FENCE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2024 &z
GLENS FALLS LOT SIZE 0.67 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-1-63. SECTION 179-5-070;179-3-
040
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
KURTIS THORNQUIST,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2024, Kurtis Thornquist, Meeting Date: July 17, 2024 "Project
Location: 25 Caroline St. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 6 It privacy fence in
front yard of corner lot of 105 ft in length.The existing home of SSO sq ft,porch areas of 330 sq ft,detached
garage of 400 sq It,and accessory structure of 140 sq ft are all to remain with no changes. Relief requested
for fence location,height of fence,and type of fence.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for fence location,height of fence,and type of fence to be installed in a portion
of the front yard. The project site is 0.67 ac located in the Neighborhood Residential.
Section 179-5-070 fence
The fence is to be located on the front yard along Fourth Street including four sections. The sections are
15 It, 50 ft, 15 It, and a 20 ft section all to be 6 ft in height and privacy type. Fences of privacy of 6 ft in
height are not allowed front yards.
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 proposed
fence may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the character of the neighborhood area.
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 home and the fence type.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered to be
substantial relevant to the code. The relief is for a privacy fence, 6 ft height, and location in the front
yard.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The requested variance may have
minimal to no adverse impact of the environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The requested variance may be considered to be
self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a six foot privacy fence to be located in the front yard. The plans show the location
of the fence along Fourth Street. The applicant has explained the fence would be for privacy and to keep
the dogs in the yard."
MR. THORNQUIST-My name is Kurtis Thornquist. I'm here seeking approval to install the six foot
privacy fence in my front yard facing Fourth Street.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-You installed a six foot tall fence on Caroline Street,right?
MR. THORNQUIST-Yes,I did.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. You've got some of it.
MR. THORNQUIST-When I talked to Craig Brown I believe it was he said that I did not need any form
of permit for that side because I was not jogging out past the footprint. I stayed right in line with the
house.
MR. HENKEL-Gotcha.
MR. KUHL-Any reason why it's not four feet instead of six?
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
MR. THORNQUIST-It's just privacy in general. I mean I didn't realize,when I was purchasing a house
on a corner lot,that it was considered two front yards. So my whole backyard was just visible to everybody
walking by. That's all.
MRS. PALACINO-If you're asking for a variance to put fencing up for your dogs,I'm not seeing where the
design of the fence is enclosing those dogs. The rest of your property appears to be all open.
MR. THORNQUIST-It's not at all. The entire yard is going to be fenced in. There's already an existing
fence. There's already existing fencing between the house in my backyard and the side of the house there.
MRS. PALACINO-Okay.
MR.KEENAN-Yes,that picture doesn't show where he put the fence between the house and the backyard.
MRS. PALACINO-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm
going to open the public hearing, see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to address us on
this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes. "I'm writing in regard to the variance request by Kurtis Thornquist at 25 Caroline St.
Ward 4 Queensbury,NY 12SO4. I approve of this request and ask that you approve it. Thankyou,Gerald
Chandler 22 Caroline St. Queensbury N.Y. 12SO4" That's it. Is he next door?
MR. THORNQUIST-He's right across the street. He's an older gentleman. I've talked to him since I've
moved in. He always wanders over and says hello.
MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board,and I'm going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project. Corner lots are always tricky. This is a good project.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes,I agree with what Roy said. I have no problems with this.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-It's a corner lot,like Roy said. It's not going to cause any problems with traffic,you know,
with seeing around the corner. So,yes,I'd be on board as is.
MR. MC CABEJim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I can't see any reason to deny it.
MR. MC CABE-Mary?
MRS. PALACINO-I agree to the project.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-Yes,you're far enough back with those fences it's not going to cause a problem. I have no
issue.
MR. MC CABE-I can't break the chain. So I agree also. So,Mary,I wonder if you could give us a motion
here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kurtis
Thornquist. Applicant proposes a 6 ft privacy fence in front yard of corner lot of 105 It in length. The
existing home of SSO sq ft,porch areas of 330 sq ft,detached garage of 400 sq It,and accessory structure of
140 sq It are all to remain with no changes. Relief requested for fence location,height of fence,and type of
fence.
Relief Required:
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
The applicant requests relief for fence location,height of fence,and type of fence to be installed in a portion
of the front yard. The project site is 0.67 ac located in the Neighborhood Residential.
Section 179-5-070 fence
The fence is to be located on the front yard along Fourth Street including four sections. The sections are
15 ft, 50 ft, 15 ft, and a 20 ft section all to be 6 ft in height and privacy type. Fences of privacy of 6 ft in
height are not allowed front yards.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday,July 1S,2024.
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 applicant is adding to the existing fencing.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to
minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because applicant intends to keep the fence in their yard.
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.
39-2024 KURTIS THORNQUIST,Introduced by Mary Palacino,who moved for its adoption,seconded
by Michael McCabe.
Duly adopted this 18th Day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. THORNQUIST-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 40-2024,Morgan Gazetos,2930 State Route 9L.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MORGAN GAZETOS AGENT(S)
MORGAN GAZETOS OWNER(S) REV TRUST GREGORY FRANCIS AMD &z RESTATE 2024
ZONING WR LOCATION 2930 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT
A 320 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT GARAGE WITH 320 SQ. FT. STORAGE ABOVE. PROJECT WORK
WILL BE NEAR AND ON THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES
INSTALLATION OF ELECTRIC FOR LIGHTING IN THE GARAGE. THE existing 1306 SQ. FT.
HOME FOOTPRINT AND 1262 SQ.FT.DECK/PORCH AREA TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES.
ONLY SITE WORK AT THE GRAGE LOCATION,NO CHANGES TO THE REMAINING SITE OR
SHORELINE AREA. SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A GARAGE AND NEW FLOOR
AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT. CROSS REF SP 42-2024;AV 25-2022;
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
SP 35-2022; AV 85-2014; SP 72-2024; 2024-0107 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2024
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 092 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-19
SECTION 179-5-020;179-3-040
MORGAN GAZETOS,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2024, Morgan Gazetos, Meeting Date: July 17, 2024 "Project
Location: 2930 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a
320 sf footprint garage with 320 sf storage above. Project work will be near and on the existing driveway
area. Project includes installation of electric for lighting in the garage.The existing 1,306 sf home footprint
and 1,262 sf deck/porch area to remain with no changes. Only site work at the garage location,no changes
to the remaining site or shoreline area. Site plan for construction of a garage and new floor area in a CEA.
Relief requested for height.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for height for construction of a detached garage. The project site is on a 0.93
ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 WR,179-5-020 garage
The proposed garage is to be 19 It in the rear of the building where a 16 ft height is the maximum allowed
for an accessory structure in a CEA.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.Minor to
no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for
the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to
have a building height of 16 ft in height.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minor relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 3 ft for height.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical
or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a detached garage of 320 sf with storage above. The plans show the
location of the garage on the site. The plans include the elevation and open floor plan for the garage and
storage area."
MR. GAZETOS-Good evening. Morgan Gazetos, Lake George Docks. The most basic project I've ever
brought before you. Guy wants a little one car garage. He says when you come up to Dunham's Bay,you
come off the road,everybody's got their parking area and then,down to the bottom,and so where do you
put your snowblower? Where do you put your jet skis when you're not using them? They're not getting
into that basement with anything that rolls,because I did the dock and boathouse and I hiked a lot of wood
up and down the stairs. The problem with the lot is on the one flat spot, so it's the worst driveway in
America,like all of them over there. It comes down. He's got this awful turnaround that you have to get
the four wheel drive to get back up,and it just happens off one side to the north there's this relatively flat
spot tucked behind this big boulder or outcropping,and so when you go to do the second floor,the thing
with storage is if you make the numbers weird, you make everything weird. So a standard driveway is
seven by nine,that's all the guys wants,but they need a foot of headroom above the door for the tracks and
all that kind of stuff. Then I've got a foot of headroom for my framing, so it shortens the ceiling in outer
area, and eventually you're hitting your head. So if you're ever in Ballston Spa and you want to see my
garage,I did to make it perfect 16 feet, and it's like six foot and a half inch, so it just catches me here, and
so I talked to Laura about the problem and she said why don't you just get a variance. It's not unreasonable,
and so that's why in the pictures, anyway, it's just, the hill tapers just enough, and you come to set the
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
foundation,you want to be a foot above grade, and when you do that,you cut down your stubs, and that
part's fine,but I'm so nervous to try to hit it perfect. I don't actually need all three feet. I'm going to end
up being like 24 inches, 26 inches, but God forbid I ask for two feet and I'm 2S inches. I thought, nice
round number.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Sounds good. So do we have any questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I went on the lake and I also went down the road there but I couldn't see it from the boat.
MR. KUHL-Are you going to do water and electric?
MR. GAZETOS-No water. Outlets on every wall, a couple of extra in the back power to his work bench.
You know how it goes.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. GAZETOS-Carriage lights probably on each side of the door,maybe one of those farm lights they love
up above.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this point I'm going to open the public
hearing,see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to address us on this particular project? Do
we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No, but I forgot to read in that 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 adopted July 17`h,2024 by a unanimous vote.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So 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 definitely makes total sense. I would be on board.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would approve as proposed.
MR. MC CABE-Mary?
MRS. PALACINO-I'd be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-I have no issues.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of the applicant has presented.
MR. MC CABE-And I support the project,too. What we're giving up here is very little and it protects you.
So with that in mind,I'm going to ask you to craft up a motion.
MR. KUHL-Thankyou,Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Morgan
Gazetos.Applicant proposes to construct a 320 sq It footprint garage with 320 sq ft storage above.Project
work will be near and on the existing driveway area. Project includes installation of electric for lighting in
the garage. The existing 1,306 sq It home footprint and 1,262 sq ft deck/porch area to remain with no
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
changes. Only site work at the garage location,no changes to the remaining site or shoreline area. Site plan
for construction of a garage and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for height.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for height for construction of a detached garage. The project site is on a 0.93
ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 WR,179-5-020 garage
The proposed garage is to be 19 ft in the rear of the building where a 16 ft height is the maximum allowed
for an accessory structure in a CEA.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday,July 1S,2024.
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 the garage is located well within the property.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to
minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the additional 3 feet being requested may not be
used but is being requested to err on the side of caution.
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.
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.
40-2024 MORGAN GAZETOS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Mary Palacino.
Duly adopted this 18th Day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. GAZETOS-Thank you all very much.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 42-2024,Chris Leonka,29 Charlton Lane.
AREA VARIANCE NO.42-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II CHRISTOPHER LEONKA OWNER(S)
CHRISTOPHER &z MICHELE LEONKA ZONING MDR LOCATION 29 CHARLTON LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 384 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING HOME OF 1,926 SQ. FT. WITH AN EXISTING 732 SQ. FT. GARAGE AREA THAT IS
INCLUDED IN THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT. THE PARCEL IS PART OF AN APPROVED
SUBDIVISION THAT INCLUDED A NO CUT BUFFER ZONE OF 20 FT. ON THE WEST AND
SOUTH PROPERTY LINES. SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION FOR WORK WITHIN THE NO-
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2024)
CUT BUFFER ZONE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF GARAGE BAYS AND SIZE OF
GARAGES. CROSS REF SUB (M) 6-2024; SUB 14-2005; 2024-0173 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.6-2-7 SECTION 179-5-020;179-3-
040
CHRISTOPHER LEONKA,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 42-2024,Christopher Leonka,Meeting Date: July 17,2024 "Project
Location: 29 Charlton Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of
a 384 sq It garage addition to an existing home of 1,926 sq It with an existing 732 sq It garage area that is
included in the house footprint.The parcel is part of an approved subdivision that included a no cut buffer
zone of 20 ft on the west and south property lines. Subdivision modification for work within the no-cut
buffer zone. Relief requested for number of garage bays and size of garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for number of garage bays and size of garage for a garage addition to an
existing home. The project site is on a parcel of 0.55 ac in the Moderate Residential zone (SR1A Hayes
&Hayes Subdivision)
Section 179-5-020 garage
The proposed garage is to have four bays where only three are allowed. In addition,the garage space is to
be 1,116 sf where the maximum size is 1,100 sf. (Noting the side setbacks are 30 jt sum with a 10 jt minimum and the
applicant proposes 13.81 jt—nosidesetbackreliefisrequired)
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 to reduce the size of
the garage.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for size of 16 sf and an additional bay.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct 384 sf of a 4 bay garage addition to an existing home. The plans show
the location of the existing home and the addition."
MR. LEONKA-Chris Leonka. I'm the property owner. I propose to build a 16 by 24 foot garage off of an
existing carport with the same roofline.
MR. MC CABE-So the garage is to be to the right of the carport?
MR. LEONKA-It's going to blend right in with the existing roofline of the carport.
MR. MC CABE-So what is the carport considered here?
MRS. MOORE-A garage.
MR. LEONKA-That's one of the variances.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. I see . So that's the third of the fourth. Okay. I understand.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/IS/2024)
MR. LEONKA-And a note,as far as the 20 foot no cut buffer zone,there is none. The contractor that built
the house clear cut the lot. There is no buffer zone there now.
MR. HENKEL-That was Clute.
MR. LEONKA-Yes. I wasn't going to mention any names,but.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. KEENAN-You're not enclosing the carport?
MR. LEONKA-That's going to be open. The garage is going to be to the right of that and it's going to
basically has the same appearance as the rest of the house.
MR. HENKEL-You're still going to have a need for the shed?
MR. LEONKA-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So,any other questions? 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 out there in the audience who has input on
this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No. No written comments.
MR. MC CABE-So 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 normally consider it to be out of character. If you have a defined need for it, I
would say go for it.
MR. LEONKA-I do have a defined need for it. I'd like to be able to fit a full sized vehicle in a garage, and
there's storage,a storage room above it for household storage.
MR. MC CABE-Mary?
MRS. PALACINO-I would approve it.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-I think you get into something sticky when you get into a neighborhood that small,but I
think that I would approve it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. LEONKA-The carport's set far enough off the line. Basically there's only two houses that are going to
be out there.
MR. HENKEL-You're winning. You don't need to talk yourself out of it.
MR. URRICO-I would say no. I don't think we should be approving four bays.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Ron?
MR. KUHL-I agree with Roy.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-On a size property like that I like to see a little bit less,but I can see where there's a need
for it. So I'd go for it.
MR. MC CABE-And so I, too,would support the project. I'd much rather see this than a request for a
separate garage,which would really stand out. So this,I think,is a much better application. So with that
in mind,Bob,I wonder if you'd give us a motion here.
2S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/18/2024)
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Christopher
Leonka.Applicant proposes the construction of a 384 sq ft garage addition to an existing home of 1,926 sq
ft with an existing 732 sq It garage area that is included in the house footprint. The parcel is part of an
approved subdivision that included a no cut buffer zone of 20 ft on the west and south property lines.
Subdivision modification for work within the no-cut buffer zone. Relief requested for number of garage
bays and size of garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for number of garage bays and size of garage for a garage addition to an
existing home. The project site is on a parcel of 0.55 ac in the Moderate Residential zone (SR1A Hayes&
Hayes Subdivision)
Section 179-5-020 garage
The proposed garage is to have four bays where only three are allowed. In addition,the garage space is to
be 1,116 sf where the maximum size is 1,100 sf. (Noting the side setbacks are 30 jt sum with a 10 jt minimum and the
applicant proposes 13.81ft—nosidesetbackreliefisrequired).
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday,July 18,2024.
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 because it is an improvement to this use.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to
minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the applicant is improving his property with
more storage.
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 of the changes requested by the applicant.
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.
42-2024 CHRISTOPHER LEONKA, Introduced by Robert Keenan, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Mary Palacino.
Duly adopted this 18th Day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Kuhl
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. LEONKA-Thankyou.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 43-2024,Barbara Schagen,33 Honeysuckle Lane.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BARBARA SCHAGEN OWNER(S)
KURT &z BARBARA SCHAGEN ZONING WR LOCATION 33 HONEYSUCKLE LANE
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE TWO DECK ADDITIONS,ONE OF 240 SQ.FT.AND ONE
OF 160 SQ. FT. AND TO CONSTRUCT TWO NEW DECKS IN A SIMILAR LOCATION. THE
NEW DECKS ARE TO BE 288 SQ. FT. AND 160 SQ. FT. WITH A FOOT BRIDGE OF 59.5 SQ. FT.
CONNECTING THE TWO DECKS. THE EXISTING 1,403 SQ. FT. HOME IS TO REMAIN
UNCHANGED WITH NO OTHER SITEWORK. THE PARCEL IS A CORNER LOT. RELIEF IS
REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF 2024-0208 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY
2024 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO.226.19-1-52 SECTION 179-3-040;179-4-080
KURT SCHAGEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2024, Barbara Schagen, Meeting Date: July 17, 2024 "Project
Location: 33 Honeysuckle Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove two
deck additions,one of 240 sq ft and one of 160 sq ft and to construct two new decks in a similar location.
The new decks are to be 2SS sq It and 160 sq ft with a foot bridge of 59.5 sq It connecting the two decks.
The existing 1,403 sq ft home is to remain unchanged with no other sitework. The parcel is a corner lot.
Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of two new deck sections. The project site
is O.1S2 ac located in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 WR
The new deck section of 240 sf is to be 26 ft from the Honeysuckle Lane side property line and 17 ft from
the front property line. The new deck section of 160 sf is to be 13 It from the Cherry Tree Lane side and 26
ft to Cherry Tree Lane 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 home on the parcel.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 4 ft to the Honeysuckle Lane side,13 It to
Honeysuckle Lane,17 ft from the Cherry Tree Lane side,and 4 ft from Cherry Tree Lane.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes no changes
to the existing conditions.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct two new deck additions replacing the existing decks to an existing
home. The decks are to be joined with a footbridge of 59.5 sf. The plans show the location of the addition
and the elevations."
MR. SCHAGEN-I'm Kurt Schagen. I'm owner with my wife Barbara. So we bought the house in August
of last year. The decks needed to be replaced. They were not constructed properly to begin with,and on
top of it they were beginning to fall apart and rotting. So they needed to be replaced. They also support
doorways that are eight feet,well,I didn't actually measure it,but they're eight feet plus. So each deck has
a door that goes out from the inside of the house,one from the mudroom and one from the family room. So
there needs to be something there,otherwise there's just a drop off. We essentially are doing what's there.
The only difference was the back deck which is the smaller deck had a staircase that goes to the backyard.
We didn't seethe need for that. We have no reason to go from that deck to the backyard. So we decided
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
to create a footbridge. So you can see where it says footbridge in yellow. We're going to connect the
decks. Instead of having the staircase that came off pretty much in the same spot, actually to the side of
the deck towards the house. So that's going to be gone,and then there'll be a footbridge that'll connect to.
We did extend it out a little bit, like two feet of what the front deck was only 10 feet by 24. We're
proposing 12 feet, only because the construction of the other one was such that it kind of stopped at the
joist. The only thing also I wanted to clarify with actually Laura is that the steps you see in the front. So
the deck is 1S feet,just like kind of the front of the house to the property line. Then there's the steps,and
it says 17 feet which I'm not sure where the 17 actually came from.
MRS. MOORE-But there was at least a notation of steps.
MR. SCHAGEN-So the contractor said,three feet,which if you look at the picture of the house,with the
deck that's there,that's what's there,that's currently steps coming off the front of it, deck,onto a cement
pad that's already there. So it's not really changed,but it's actually I guess technically 15 feet not 1S feet.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So what's existing now is coming off.
MRS. MOORS Just the deck pieces, the decks. The decks are coming off. The stairs are staying. The
stairs that are on the Honeysuckle side.
MR. HENKEL-But the wood that I saw that's all cupped and stuff,that's all coming off. Right? Because
there's wood that's up there now.
MR. SCHAGEN-The pressure treated that's up there?
MR. HENKEL-Yes,it's all cupped. I mean how are you going to put?
MR. SCHAGEN-Yes,I know.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. Because I didn't know,it's all cupped. You're not going to get a nice flat decking on
that.
MR. SCHAGEN-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-So I thought that was coming off.
MR. SCHAGEN-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm
going to open the public hearing and do you have anything to add to this project? Roy,do we have anything
written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No,there's no written comment.
MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing, and I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to
start with Bob.
MR. KEENAN-I think you're in general replacing what's already there that's existing, although you're
adding the bridge. I don't think I have any issues with the project.
MR. MC CABE-Mary?
MRS. PALACINO-I have no issues with the project.
MR. MC CABEJim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a replacement,and I think having a land bridge will help you to defend the castle
better.
MR. MC CABEJohn?
MR. HENKEL-It makes sense,yes.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/1S/2024)
MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this project. It amazes me that when you go like to like to replace it that
you've got to come and spend the money,but. I have no problem with the application.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. It's perfectly reasonable. You can't have decks that are
falling apart. So,with that in mind,Jim,I wonder if you could give us a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Barbara
Schagen.Applicant proposes to remove two deck additions, one of 240 sq ft and one of 160 sq ft and to
construct two new decks in a similar location. The new decks are to be 2SS sq It and 160 sq ft with a foot
bridge of 59.5 sq ft connecting the two decks. The existing 1,403 sq It home is to remain unchanged with
no other sitework.The parcel is a corner lot. Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of two new deck sections. The project site
is O.1S2 ac located in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 WR
The new deck section of 240 sf is to be 26 ft from the Honeysuckle Lane side property line and 15 ft from
the front property line. The new deck section of 160 sf is to be 13 It from the Cherry Tree Lane side and 26
ft to Cherry Tree Lane where a 30 ft setback is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday,July 1S,2024.
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 there are few alterations.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are not possible given the
configuration of the lot.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because of the lot configuration.
6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,-
S. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
43-2024 BARBARA SCHAGEN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe.
Duly adopted this 18th Day of July 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mrs. Palacino,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/IS/2024)
MR. SCHAGEN-Thankyou.
MR. MC CABE-So I make a motion that we close tonight's meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY
IW',2024,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this IS`h day of July,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe,Chairman
33