10-23-2024 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
Q UEENSBUR YZONING BOARD OFAPPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 23RD12024
INDEX
Area Variance No. 36-2024 Stephen Haraden 3.
REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No. 226.12-1-74
Area Variance No.53-2024 Terry Brown 4.
Tax Map No. 30S.11-1-3S &30S.11.-1-3S.2
Area Variance No.54-2024 Eric McMahon&Megan McMahon 7.
Tax Map No. 301.13-1-55
Area Variance No.55-2024 Mack Jones 16.
Tax Map No. 2SS.16-1-52
Area Variance No.57-2024 Dave &Shannan Carroll 19.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-5
Area Variance No.5S-2024 Randy Savage 22.
Tax Map No. 301.7-2-4
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 10/23/2024)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 23RD,2024
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO,SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
ROBERT KEENAN
RICHARD CIPPERLY
RONALD KUHL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE- Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals,Wednesday,October 23rd, 2024. If you haven't been here before,our program is kind of simple.
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 his 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,poll the Board and then
proceed accordingly,but tonight we have a little administrative item that we have to take care of first. So,
you're on.
MR.BAKER-Good evening. For those who don't know me,I'm Stu Baker,the Senior Planner. I've worked
with the Town Board and continue to work with the Town Board on the local cannabis regulations, and
this evening I wanted to give the Board and public just a little bit more background and context as to how
our local cannabis zoning regulations came to be. In March of 2021, New York State legalized adult-use
cannabis by passing the Marijuana Regulation&Taxation Act(MRTA).This legislation created the Office
of Cannabis Management that's governed by the Cannabis Control Board to oversee and implement the
law. Collectively those two bodies,the Office of Cannabis Management and the Cannabis Control Board,
are referred to as OCM. The OCM issues licenses and develops regulations for eleven(11) defined types
of licensed cannabis businesses that can participate in this new industry in New York State. After the
adoption of the MRTA, municipalities had until December 31, 2021 to opt-out of allowing adult-use
cannabis retail dispensaries or on-site consumption licenses. Queensbury took no action on opting out.
Thus we opted in by default. MRTA and the subsequent regulations adopted by Office of Cannabis
Management,OCM,allows municipalities to pass local laws and regulations governing the time,place and
manner of adult-use retail dispensaries and on-site consumption licenses. The Queensbury Town Board
began work with staff and Town legal counsel on drafting local zoning regulations for cannabis uses in
June 2023. The OCM regulations pertaining to the local regulation of adult-use cannabis businesses
actually went into effect in late December 2023, so the Town was effectively developing our draft zoning
regulations at the same time that the State was further defining exactly how and what level of control
municipalities could have over such uses. In January 2023, the Queensbury Town Board adopted Local
Law Number 2 of 2023 to amend the zoning code to address cannabis uses. Section 1 of this Local Law
states the intent of these changes and it reads as follows: "The amendments are necessaryand desirable
to protect the public health, safety, welfare, and environmental resources, provide a consistent
regulatory pathway for the cannabis -industry consistent with state regulations, foster a healthy,
diverse and economically v-iable cannah s-industry that contributes to the local economy,and ensure
that environmental,public health, safety and nuisance factors related to both the cannah s-industry
and agriculture are adequately addressed" The language in this intent statement acknowledges that the
code changes adopted treat interior cannabis cultivation operations as commercial nurseries, a type of
agriculture,which commercial nursery became one of the new defined terms in the zoning code. So these
changes from Local Law 2 of 2023 collectively adopted changes to the following sections of the zoning
code:
• Article 2: Definitions and word usage
• Article 10: Special Use Permit Specific Standards.
• Table 2: Summary of Allowed Uses in Residential Districts
• Table 3: Summary of Allowed Uses in Commercial Districts,and
• Table 4: Summary of Allowed uses in Industrial Districts
The Town continues to monitor any proposed changes to cannabis regulations proposed by the Office of
Cannabis Management, and we may amend the local zoning as necessary to adjust to such changes. At
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
this point I'd welcome any comments or questions the Board may have regarding the local cannabis zoning.
I can speak a little bit to the base enabling State regulations as well.
MR. MC CABE-So first question is,so the 1,000 feet is a Town regulation to recreation centers,schools.
MR. BAKER-The 1,000 feet from those items, and you're referring to Section 179-10-070E(2). Those are
Town regulations. Correct. In 179-10-070EE(1) there's a required separation of 1,000 feet between
cannabis dispensaries,and that actually is the same as the State regulation.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else?
MR. KUHL-What is the Office of Cannabis Management,is that a State agency?
MR. BAKER-That is a State agency. It was created by the MRTA law.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-The OCM really didn't give the local zoning a chance to really get things going before they
started approving these sites really,right?
MR. BAKER-I'm sorry,can you repeat that?
MR. HENKEL-Well,didn't you say that the OCM approves,right?
MRS. MOORE-Hands out the license.
MR. HENKEL-Right. But they didn't really give a chance to the local towns or anything to get zoning
going.
MRS. MOORE-Yes,they're almost mirroring it,like they're right behind each other.
MR. BAKER-Yes,there was not a lot of time.
MR.HENKEL-They've got some problems in Moreau there with the smell in the neighborhoods and things
like that.
MR. BAKER-Yes,and that's from a grow operation.
MR. HENKEL-Right.
MR. BAKER-We do have one locally approved grow operation actually in Queensbury. It was approved
for a lot adjacent to the National Guard Armory, actually,but that's going to be entirely an interior grow
operation,and they are just beginning to receive their New York State licenses.
MR. HENKEL-That's good. It's by the airport. It'll get a lot of push probably by the planes.
MR. BAKER-Well they have an advanced HVAC system that they stated in their application before the
Planning Board in its review should address any and all odors.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody out there that has questions on this?
MR. URRICO-Stu,we've had two cases of dispensaries recently that have come before us,both required
variances. So the variances carry the same weight that any variance would carry in any case that we cover.
Right? So that it stays with the property? No,it doesn't?
MR. BAKER-No,it stays with that use.
MR. URRICO-With that use.
MR. BAKER-With that use.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. BAKER-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Because the two dispensaries,or one of the two,came to us,they said they had a license in
Massachusetts. They had experience in Massachusetts and that was one of the facts that they threw at us
is that,having established themselves,and what I read recently is that some of the Massachusetts licenses
are not being,they're being surrendered after the fact. So in other words if you.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MR. BAKER-Surrendered by the business?
MR. URRICO-They're being surrendered by the businesses, and my concern is that the dispensaries that
got the variances,if they surrender their licenses at some point,are we,if somebody else comes in and buys
that business,do they get the variance for that business:? Do they inherit that variance?
MR. BAKER-They could. That would be subject to Planning Board review actually,because Special Use
Permit review is also required by the Planning Board,and the local zoning specifically states that a Special
Use Permit may be transferred only with the approval of the Planning Board in the form of an amendment
to the Special Use Permit.
MR.KUHL-Of these retail outlets that have come in front of us,the product they sell,does that have to be
grown in this State?
MR. BAKER-I believe it does,under the State law.
MR.KUHL-State law? Okay. Again,backing up to what Roy said,the permit is to a company or a person
or both?
MR.BAKER-That's up to New York State to,well,the license is up to New York State. The local permits
is to the applicant,which could be an individual or a company.
MR. KUHL-But when they come to us,they came to us. We gave them a variance. Then they were going
back to the Planning Board for a use permit. Correct?
MR. BAKER-For Site Plan Review and Special Use Permit. Yes.
MR. KUHL-Okay. That use permit, that goes to X, Y, Z company, or it goes to John Smith X, Y, Z
company?
MR. BAKER-Whatever name is on the application.
MR. KUHL-Can that be transferred if John Smith sells it to Jim Jones?
MR. BAKER-Only by approval of the Planning Board,as per that section I previously cited.
MR. HENKEL-Even those a special use permit states with the lay of the land?
MR. KUHL-Well, I mean, the thing was, the one individual, well, anyway, had no experience in the
business. This is a very sensitive business.
MR. BAKER-It is, but like local review of any business, the Town really doesn't review or consider the
viability of the business. We review and consider the use.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? Thank you.
MR. BAKER-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 53.
MR. HENKEL-Are we going to table first?
MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. We have one more administrative item.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
REQUEST TO TABLE AV 36-2024 (STEPHEN HARADEN)TO DECEMBER 18,2024
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
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.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2024 STEPHEN HARADEN, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly:
Tabled to the December 1S,2024 Zoning Board meeting with information due by November 15,2024.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Now our first application is AV 53-2024.
MRS. MOORE-I apologize for interrupting. In this particular application, I had indicated an individual
driveway was required as part of the variance. That's incorrect. The only thing that this project's in front
of us for is for the second garage.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TERRY BROWN AGENT(S) VAN
DUSEN&z STEVES OWNER(S) TERRY BROWN ZONING MDR LOCATION 402 LUZERNE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SECOND GARAGE OF 273 SQ. FT. AND A LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT TO PARCEL 308.11-1-38.2 TO INCREASE TO 2.69 AC. FROM 2.5 AC +/-. THE
ADJOINING LOT 308.11-1-38.1 WILL BE REDUCED TO 2.64 AC.FROM 2.83 AC. THE LOT LINE
ADJUSTMENT AND THE LOCATION OF THE SECOND GARAGE MEET THE REQUIREMENTS
OF THE ZONE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE AND INDIVIDUAL
DRIVEWAY ON A COLLECTOR ROAD IF LOT WIDTH IS LESS THAN DOUBLE LOT WIDTH
REQUIRED. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 2.83 AC(38.1);
2.5 AC (38.2) TAX MAP NO. 308.11-1-38.1 &z 308.11-1-38.2 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040; 179-
19-020
MATT STEVES,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2024, Terry Brown, Meeting Date: October 23, 2024 "Project
Location: 402 Luzern Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a second garage of
273 sq ft and a lot line adjustment to parcel 30S.11-1-35.2 to increase to 2.69 ac from 2.5 ac+/-. The adjoining
lot 305.11-1-35.1 will be reduced to 2.64 ac from 2.53 ac. The lot line adjustment and the location of the
second garage meet the requirements of the zone. Relief requested for a second garage and incl z,dua
d4veways on a eolleetof foad if lot width is less than double lot width fequife4.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second garage and inc],Mdual d ;z e s o a eonoetor road as lot width
;s loss than double lotwidth r-equifecl. The project site is located in the Moderate Density Residential zone.
Section 179-5-020 garage and 179 2 040 44.,en4o l
Parcel 30S.11-1-35.2 proposes a new detached garage to be 273 sq It and to maintain the existing garage in
the home. The new gar-agegar-age will he aeeessecl ffem the existing separate d4veway they wish to maintai-fl.
b
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 amend the
driveway and or add an addition to the existing garage.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is for a second garage and to,.,,ai t., ,, a Sle-F,,,.,to
may.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 273 sq It detached garage and to maintain an existing sepaFate d4 e on
Luzerne Road. The plans show the garage to be installed near the driveway and the survey shows the
existing and proposed conditions."
MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves representing Terry Brown in this application. I'd just like to
get right into it. It's for a second garage and for his primary house,which is the westerly house,and it's a
12 by 24. It's more than a shed because it has a large garage door on it. He has a two car attached garage,
attached to the house,but he uses for storage of equipment and such. In 2001 got a lot line adjustment
done and filed with the County with the Queensbury Land Conservancy to the east,who acquired 30 feet.
So they have 200 foot of road frontage on both lots,which is double the lot width requirement in that zone.
So that's, therefore, why it's not necessary for a variance for a required shared driveway. They do have
double the lot width on both lots. So again,the variance is just for that second garage,and it is not a large
garage by any standards,but it is a second garage.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I've got a few questions. All this property was pretty much the Brown's property anyway,
right? So basically when he built this house,he built his garage on someone else's,on a neighbor's,sister's
property.
MR. STEVES-They were sharing it,and in case anything ever goes.
MR. HENKEL-Because I remember when that was built,it was built at the same time,the garage,pretty
much,and the house.
MR.STEVES-The house was built long before this other garage was placed there. The garage was actually
moved from I believe Northern Distributing property on a flatbed. It was placed thereon a slab. It was
one of those kind of portable or kit garages and then they re-sided it and cleaned it up and it's where it is
now.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. Great. Thank you.
MR. STEVES-You're welcome.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. KUHL-Are you going to have water and electric?
MR. STEVES-I don't believe,no water there,no. Whether they're going to run electric,that I do not know
the answer to.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised,and so at this I'm going to
open the public hearing,take input from the public, and I see that we have somebody who would like to
provide input.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
VAL BURLETT
MRS. BURLETT-My name is Val Burlett. My question is,is this done or is he asking to do this?
MR. STEVES-It currently exists.
MRS. BURLETT-So you're asking for permission after the fact.
MR. STEVES-My client is.
MRS. BURLETT-All right. Thank you. That's it.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular
application? Is there anything written,Roy?
MR. URRICO-There's no written comment.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board,and I'm going to start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-I mean,you know,with this 2.S acre of lot,I have no issue with it. I think it's a good project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm a little concerned that it was done before the fact,before coming to us first,but I'd be
in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-I'm not a huge fan of a second garage,but this is more of a shed. So I'll approve this.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I have no problem with it.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it whatsoever.
MR. MC CABEJohn?
MR. HENKEL-Those lot sizes are over the two acres anyway, and it's pretty much all on family property
anyway. So what he did I don't think was wrong anyway. I'd be on board as is.
MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project in this particular location,and I don't think a second garage
is a big deal. So with that in mind,I wonder,Bob,if you could fashion us up a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Terry Brown.
Applicant proposes a second garage of 273 sq ft and a lot line adjustment to parcel 30S.11-1-35.2 to increase
to 2.69 ac from 2.5 ac +/-. The adjoining lot 305.11-1-35.1 will be reduced to 2.64 ac from 2.53 ac. The lot
line adjustment and the location of the second garage meet the requirements of the zone. Relief requested
for a second gafage
fequife .
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second garage and indMdual d ;z e s o a e4eetor road as lot width
;s loss than double lotwidth r-equifecl. The project site is located in the Moderate Density Residential zone.
Section 179-5-020 garage and 179-3-040 dimensional
Parcel 30S.11-1-35.2 proposes a new detached garage to be 273 sq It and to maintain the existing garage in
the home. The new gar—age b separate d4veway they wish to maintai-fl.
b
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on October 23,2024.
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 this is an existing shed and it's small.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, and are reasonable and have been
included to-minimize the request.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's a small garage/shed on a large lot.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created because the applicant put the shed there
already and it's existing.
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.
53-2024 TERRY BROWN,Introduced by Robert Keenan,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John
Henkel:
Duly adopted this 23r0 Day of October 2024 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote,just make sure, I would somehow make mention in the motion
that it's only for the second garage.
MR. MC CABE-That's what you meant to say,right?
MR. KEENAN-Yes,it is,only for the second garage.
AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. STEVES-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 54-2024,Eric and Megan McMahon on 2 Mohawk Trail.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ERIC MC MAHON &z MEGAN MC
MAHON AGENT(S) GARY HUGHES OWNER(S) ERIC MC MAHON&z MEGAN MC MAHON
ZONING MDR LOCATION 2 MOHAWK TRAIL APPLICANT HAS UPDATED THE EXISTING
HOME WITH A KITCHEN ON THE MAIN FLOOR AND ONE IN THE BASEMENT. THE
PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLING 2 WINDOW ACCESS WELLS FOR THE LIVING AREA IN
THE BASEMENT. THE REQUEST IS TO MAINTAIN 2 DWELLINGS DUE TO THE KITCHENS.
THE EXISTING HOME IS 2582 SF FOOTPRINT AND 550 SF FOOTPRINT OF PORCH DECK
AREAS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR 2 DWELLINGS IN THE MDR ZONE WITH PROPERTY SIZE
OF 0.52 AC (LESS THAN 2 AC) WITH ON SITE SEPTIC &z MUNICIPAL WATER. CROSS REF
2024-0062 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO.301.13-
1-55 SECTION 179-3-040
GARY HUGHES,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.54-2024,Eric McMahon&Megan McMahon,Meeting Date: October
23rd,2024 "Project Location: 2 Mohawk Trail Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has updated
the existing home with a kitchen on the main floor and one in the basement.The project includes installing
2 window access wells for the living area in the basement. The request is to maintain 2 dwellings due to
the kitchens. The existing home is 2552 sf footprint and 550 sf footprint of porch deck areas. Relief
requested for 2 dwellings in the MDR zone with property size of 0.51 ac(less than 2 ac)with onsite septic
&municipal water.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for 2 dwellings in the MDR zone with property size of 0.51 ac.
S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The applicant has installed a kitchen on the main floor and in the basement area;the two-family dwelling
is located on a 0.51ac parcel 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. 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 remove
one of the kitchens.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for the lot size 1.49 ac.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to maintain a 2-family dwelling due to the two kitchens currently installed in the
home. The plans show the kitchen areas for each unit. The applicant has recently installed window wells
for access as required by building and codes."
MR.HUGHES-I'm Gary Hughes. I'm representing the McMahons. I'm hereto answer any questions that
you might have on the paperwork.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I do. I see that your septic system basically goes back to 1990, and that was approved for
the house that is there now with the amount of bedrooms and kitchens and bathrooms. You've got a 1,000
gallon tank with 200 feet of leach. Now all of a sudden you're going to increase the amount of bathrooms,
bedrooms and kitchens,and there's nothing done to that septic system.
MR. HUGHES-That's right. That's for a three bedroom home right now,and,yes,that would have to be
brought up to spec for I guess a five bedroom,six bedroom home.
MR. HENKEL-It's going to be double the washers probably. So that hasn't been considered before any of
this? They don't have to make plans for that before it comes in front of us?
MRS. MOORE-They would have to meet with Building and Codes.
MR. HENKEL-After.
MRS. MOORE-And at this point,that's not part of this application. Right.
MR. HENKEL-But it's still conditions that impact the environment. It impacts the neighborhood, you
could say,when they're saying no impact to the environment and the conditions, that's something that's
an impact. Right?
MRS. MOORE-Other than they would have to install a compliant system.
MR. HENKEL-Right. I understand that. Okay.
MR. HUGHES-It would probably be a larger tank and a couple of more lines.
MR. HENKEL-Right.
MR. HUGHES-And that would have to be designed by a licensed engineer.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MR. KUHL-Is the purpose of this work to turn this house into a two family house?
MR. HUGHES-No. The real purpose is for abed and breakfast for the ski area and for Saratoga.
MR. KUHL-A bed and breakfast?
MR. HUGHES-Not abed and breakfast. I'm using the wrong term.
MR. HENKEL-Air B N B.
MRS. MOORE-Air B N B.
MR. HUGHES-Air B N B. I'm sorry. In other words families would rent.
MR. KUHL-What's going to be the Air B N B,downstairs or upstairs?
MR. HUGHES-Either one. It's like if a family, like myself, being grandfather, if had myself, my
grandchildren go on vacation and stay there to go skiing, let's say, I'm from out of the area. That's the
intent.
MR. KUHL-So are you saying that this is for personal family use,or is this for profit? Are people going to
pay to stay there?
MR.HUGHES-Yes,you would. Let's say if I myself,not from the area,I'm going to bring my family to this
area and rent from the McMahon's like a two week or a month or whatever stay to go skiing at West
Mountain or to go to Saratoga in the summer, that type of thing. So I might bring my son and daughter
and my grandchildren and there'd be enough space,and they could come and go as they please and I could
come and go as I please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question for Staff. Is Short Term Rental allowed in that neighborhood?
MRS. MOORE-Short Term Rental is not limited. So a Short Term Rental has,if I'm correct,I believe it's
approved to be there,but it's not. It's not subject to this review. It's totally separate. So this review is
specific to a two family dwelling. So the Short Term Rental is not part of this review.
MR. HENKEL-Well the State of New York allows it to be done anyway.
MRS. MOORE-So our local Town law allows them through the appropriate application that they have to
submit.
MR. HUGHES-What's generally considered, and a lot of people do it,is what's called an In-law or guest
apartment,whatever and the different between that would be a kitchen and the issue here is the kitchen,
the kitchenette, and the difference is that you take the stove out. That's the difference. I talked to the
clients about it,probably the best way to go about this would be to take the stove out and keep the sink,
the refrigerator,the microwave,and just take the stove out. That is the difference.
MR. URRICO-It's currently being rented,it's currently being used as an Air B N B,as a single family?
MR. HUGHES-I don't think it's occupied. It is?
MR. KUHL-Maybe it's just me,but when I asked you about the use,you seemed to be directing the use to
family members. Did I understand that correctly?
MR. HUGHES-The example is,I don't know them. I've looked it upon the Internet or whatever,about a
place to stay, and I don't know these people, I looked it up. I find that I want to go skiing at West
Mountain or wherever about the area or I want to go to Saratoga to a race,and I want to bring my family.
They don't know me from Adam.
MR. KUHL-Again,it must be that I'm thick.
MR. MC CABE-It's an Air B N B.
MR. HENKEL-Air B N B.
MR. KUHL-Air B N B. And it's being listed as an Air B NB?
MR. HUGHES-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. At this particular time I'm
going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to address us
on this particular application. Yes,sir. So you need to give up the table here. So I'm going to need your
name.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS AUFFREDOU
MR.AUFFREDOU-My name is Chris Auffredou. Just a quick comment on this thing,just a clarification.
The examples he was giving was two of the same families renting. It could be completely different families
renting at the same time.
MR. MC CABE-We understand that.
MR.AUFFREDOU-So my name is Chris Auffredou. I live next door to 2 Mohawk Trail with my wife and
my three young kids. I come here tonight not only to represent myself and my family but many in the
neighborhood. I have here a petition with 92 signatures representing 62 homes in the neighborhood,
which includes all of the immediately surrounding properties who voiced their opposition to this variance.
I bring this petition for the Town's consideration and to display just how loud the voices in opposition to
this request are. I would ask you to ask yourselves the logical question here. What's next? What is this
being used for? Why would anybody seek an area variance typically used for dimensional requirements
to maintain two dwellings? Because it's easier to argue than a use variance. The property has operated as
an Air B NB for over three years. This is not a request for an in-law suite to help an elderly relative. This
is a business trying to grow as a business. When seeking an area variance,as has already been stated,one
has to show the granting of the variance does not produce an undesirable change to the character of the
neighborhood. I don't see how anyone could justifiable argue that having a multi-unit rental in a
historically residential neighborhood,one of the restrictive covenants that forbid exactly that as well as an
commercial use of property,doesn't change the character of the neighborhood,but in case you need more
concrete examples, here are some. We've had our children go out in the backyard to play only to find
strangers on the swing set. We've had people ringing our doorbell at 11 p.m. asking if it was the Air B N B.
We've had strangers standing in our garage in the pitch black asking if they were at the right place for the
party at the Air B N B. We've had fireworks set off in the yard. We've had shirtless men at a bachelor
party trespassing on our property, again, while small children play outside, car engines revving at three
a.m. and waking a newborn baby as multiple renters leave for the Lake George car show. Parties with as
many as 15 cars parked in the street which we have photographic evidence of. My point,the character has
already been changed,and doubling down on units does nothing but add to this problem. The owners live
in Ballston Lake and are nowhere near when these events are taking place. Additional,this would devalue
adjacent properties,including my own should we need to sell. I lose equity in my home for their greedy
financial gain. One also has to show that the relief requested is not the result of a self-created difficulty.
This in my mind is as easy as it gets. They did the work without a permit,got caught,and are now seeking
forgiveness. Any hardship that has been created is a direct self-inflicted result of the greed of the property
owners and their refusal to either sell the house or use it for its originally intended purpose. To my
knowledge the property has never been listed for sale since it has operated as an Air B N B. The owners
can't reasonably say that they're in any position of hardship with the granting of this variance as their only
relief. This is a slippery slope and it won't just be my neighbors and it won't just be my neighborhood.
This could set a precedent for the Town of Queensbury that I don't think any of us or the Town itself want
to see. The Town has already realized that Short Term Rentals have created issues that none of us,
including local laws and regulations were prepared for,and what recent change to SDR regulations show
that they're trying to remedy this,things like a five night minimum stay in the summer months,things like
120 days annually,which brings me to the question,are they now allowed 240 days? Has anybody thought
about these questions? We are prepared to answer many of these. The lack of concern for the impact of
the property owner's selfish ambitions on a beautiful family residential neighborhood is astonishing.
While the owners have made it abundantly clear their lack of respect in regard to the neighborhood and
they view us beneath them, for many of us here tonight represented our properties are our dream home.
The home where we raise our kids,where we spend time with our families in the yards and on bikes in the
street. I implore the Town to make the right decision while there's still time and stop this while we can.
Thank you for your consideration.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have a copy of the petition?
MR.AUFFREDOU-There's several copies.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to approach us on this particular subject? Go ahead.
CAROL COFFEY
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MRS. COFFEY-My name's Carol Coffey. I've been a resident in the Tyneswood neighborhood since May
of'S9. We started building in'SS. We were the second family to reside in this development. I have a copy
of the original covenants pertaining to this development.
MR. MC CABE-I'll just tell you that covenants hold no weight with us. That's within the neighborhood.
MRS. COFFEY-All right. Well they do say that it's construction of a single family house,no business or
commercial building may be erected on any lot,no business may be conducted thereof. An Air B N B is a
business. IRS considers Air B N B house to be small business owners. Two Mohawk Trail is not a
residence for the owner. It is a business to make money for the owner. Our Tyneswood covenants say
that no business maybe conducted on any part thereof. The owners'concern is to make a profit. Soto
that end they are manipulating the Queensbury policy of 120 day maximum rental by trying to divide their
single family home into two dwellings,likely thereby having 240 days of rental available. I strongly object
to this variance because it'll change the character of the neighborhood and will set a precedent for other
single family homes in Tyneswood to be purchased and divided into multi-family Short Term Rentals. The
same would hold true for other residential neighborhoods in Queensbury. If the owner's prime concern is
to make money,I would suggest they sell the house,take the profit and go elsewhere. Your Air B N B as it
now exists is not welcome in this neighborhood. It is advertised as a multi-family escape. The definition
of Queensbury's Short Term Rental is for one family. You enclose the porch in order to make a three
bedroom house into a six bedroom house to give them a Short Term Rental house in Queensbury, there
could be six cars and fourteen people at the house. You have no idea if the renters are engaging in drug
use,drug manufacturing or illegal or illicit activities. You have no ideas if the renters are criminals,felons
or sex offenders. By reliable source reports there've been wild parties,inconsiderate and disruptive noises
at 2:30 a.m. and incidents of renters entering neighbor's yards uninvited. There was also an incident of
several men showing up and never emerging until their departure. So what activity were they engaged in
for several days. As I said earlier, an Air B N B is not a welcome addition to our quiet residential family
neighborhood. We residents of Tyneswood are certainly not receptive and are strongly opposed to having
it be subdivided into two family dwellings to enhance the owners' financial gain at the expense of the
character and safety of our neighborhood. So if you want a copy I have a copy of the covenants for you.
MR. MC CABE-No,we don't need them. Thank you.
MELISSA KOROT
MRS.KOROT-My name is Melissa Korot. I live in the neighborhood we've been speaking about. I wasn't
sure, never appeared before the Zoning Board before, I sent in a letter,which I know was received. Are
those read at a later time?
MR.MC CABE-So you can either have Roy read it,who's an excellent orator,or you can provide it yourself.
MRS. KOROT-I'll read it.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. I'm writing to express my concerns regarding the request for zoning approval for
applicants Eric & Megan McMahon at 2 Mohawk Trail in North Queensbury which is currently being
used as a short-term rental property. Asa neighbor who has lived in this community for over 20 years,I
am aware that the current owner is seeking permission to recognize the property as two separate dwellings
due to the addition of a second kitchen. My primary concern is that if the property is officially classified
as two dwellings,it will likely lead to an increase in short-term renters. This increase in occupancy could
result in more frequent turnover of tenants,which raises several concerns for our neighborhood. First,
there is the potential for increased traffic,which could pose significant safety risks,particularly in a family-
oriented neighborhood. Many children regularly ride their bikes, families walk their dogs, and parent
push strollers with small children throughout the area. Increased traffic from short-term renters
unfamiliar with the neighborhood could endanger those who use the streets for these activities. The quiet,
residential nature of the community fosters a safe environment for families, and we are deeply concerned
that more renters could compromise this safety. Moreover, the introduction of more short-term renters
may erode the strong sense of community that we have helped build over the past two decades. Our
neighborhood is characterized by long-term residents who take pride in maintaining their properties and
fostering a friendly,tight-knit environment. With the transient nature of short-term rentals,there is less
opportunity to establish relationships, build trust, and preserve the continuity that makes this
neighborhood unique. A revolving door of renters,with little investment in the community's well-being,
could significantly alter the character of our neighborhood. In addition,more short-term renters bring the
possibility of noise disturbances and unruly behavior, which may disrupt the peace and quiet that our
neighborhood currently enjoys. As the area is zoned for single-family residential use,a shift towards short-
term rentals for multiple units goes against the spirit of the zoning and may undermine the residential
character of the community. Furthermore,the potential increase in disruptive behavior from short-term
renters could negatively affect property values in the area. As long-term homeowners,we are invested in
maintaining the quality and value of our properties, and we fear that these changes could have a
detrimental impact. We respectfully request that the Zoning Board consider the concerns of the
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
neighborhood and maintain the current zoning designation to preserve the integrity,safety,and character
of our community. Thank you for your time and consideration.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular project?
FRANK HOHMAN
MR. HOHMAN-Good evening. I'm Frank Hohman. I live at 26 Mohawk Trail. I have been there since
1992. I work for Herly Construction that actually built the Blondin home in 1990. It had one cherry,dark
cherry kitchen worth a lot of money at the time. An additional kitchen obviously has been put in since
2014. So my question is, these people have done things and now they're asking as it said earlier for
forgiveness. What else have they done or what else will they do? The septic was made in 1990 for a three
bedroom house,with a 1,000 gallon tank. Now it's going to be probably at least a 1500 gallon tank,at least
two or three more leach fields. Now the setback on the house itself,as I put the curbs in,there's curbs on
the driveway, and the driveway packs six cars tightly. So now we're going to talk 10 or 12 cars, 10 cars?
So the driveway's going to have to be expanded. Is that going to meet the setbacks from the road, from
the front,because it's a corner lot from both setbacks with these additional leach fields? The things that
bother me the most,because I'm on the other side of Mohawk Trail, is we also have people, strangers in
our neighborhood that I don't know,and my wife and I are out all the time. We see people walking by we
have no clue who they are,and we pretty much know the local neighbors. So we have people,foot traffic.
We don't know these people,but we also see the additional traffic,the additional noise,you know,people
making wrong turns, turning around in your driveway and that's when things happen, but I also have a
question on the square footage. When it was listed in 2014 on Balfour Realty,it was originally IS75 square
feet for the three bedroom,one kitchen,two and a half baths,and Realty.com had it back then,too. It had
two permits,two for solar panels in 2016 and one for an addition of 600 square feet. If you take the IS75
and add to the 600 square feet,you get 2475. Well when I looked on the website, it said 2909. So we
added 434 square feet with no permit or nohow did it get here. So how much of the basement is finished?
How much of the basement will be finished? Now I know Harold Blondin,I knew him personally before
he passed. He and his wife did not put a kitchen down there. We were friends,as I said,I work for Herly.
So where did all this extra square footage come from? And why isn't it documented with permits at the
time of the addition to the house. So if these people are going to be deceitful about all that already,what's
ahead down the road? Yes, they can take the oven or the stove out of the basement. Are they going to
take all the electrical with it,too? And who's going to monitor that? Who monitors how many nights a
year they rent it? Who monitors all this stuff? Are we going to have to be the watchdogs? I don't want
that. I didn't move there to be a watch dog. All I'm saying is I'm not going to add anything more than
anybody else did, but these are the things that we haven't covered yet, and I want you to take that into
consideration. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else who would like to address us?
VAL BURLETT
MRS. BURLETT-My name's Val Burlett and I live on Algonquin, just three houses down from the
McMahons,although I've never actually met them or seen them. Two things that have not been brought
up. The actual listing on Air B N B for this property is for 1S people, 1S people in a six bedroom house.
How many cars is that? How big does your septic field have to be for 1S people? I have a four bedroom
home. There has never been more than six people living in my home ever,maybe a sleepover I've had eight,
but IS? That's just mindboggling, and that's listed on Air B N B for this property. The other thing that
nobody's brought up yet is the buses. My kids all went to Queensbury schools, and the bus stop is right
there on the corner on that house,where that house is, and it's not just during the school year,it's all year
long because they go to Q Club. So the school buses are right around the corner from that house, and
you've got 1S people in that home. How many of those people do they check out, do they go all the way
down the line and all 1S of them are vetted and okay to rent? Those are the three things that I didn't hear
be brought up and I really think it's important, because my kids all got on that bus, and I walk the
neighborhood just like the other gentleman. Never seen the McMahon's,wouldn't know them. They don't
know me. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to address this project? So, Roy,is there anything
else written?
MR. URRICO-Yes,there are a few letters.
MR. HENKEL-We've got someone else.
MR. MC CABE-I'm sorry. I didn't see your hand.
RACHEL HAJOS
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MRS. HAJOS-I'm Rachel Hajos. I live at 29 Algonquin, which is I think seven houses down from the 2
Mohawk Trail address that we're talking about. Val just touched a little bit upon this. I'd just like to,
one, echo every sentiment that's already been shared and expressed. A second piece I would like to
mention,and again somewhat to what Val just brought up,is I'd like to draw a parallel to the United States
and our open border. We've all witnessed what an open border over the last few years has done to this
Country. Approving this request would basically be opening up our neighborhood to anything that could
come in with a credit card and sign a piece of paper,because like she said, no one's vetting these people.
They might pass a litmus test of having a valid credit card to make a payment,but for the potential 17 other
people they're bringing with them,who are they? I mean do we naturally leave our doors open and let
anybody come into our house? No. By passing this type of a variance,that's what you would be allowing
to happen to our neighborhood. You'd be giving basically the key to the castle to anybody who wanted to
come and rent in this neighborhood, and the reason no one would recognize Val, the McMahons or vice
versa is because that house hasn't been occupied. It's vacant. The only time it's occupied is from week to
week when there's people renting there and you see one out of state license plate after another. Multiple
cars and all of the escapades and incidences that the Auffredous next door have shared. So no reason to
really belabor all of the other points that have been brought up,but I,for one,am really strongly urging you
to not approve this because I do not want anybody else having the key to our neighborhood than the people
who live there and pay the taxes and reside there, 365 days a year,not an occasional visit here and there.
People who live there, we work there,we raise our families there, and the number of children, children,
school bus children, as Val was describing,the neighborhood has turned over. Every house,for the most
part,has young,young children in it. There is no way,in this day and age,that we should be allowing a
variance such as this to be approved and allowing Lord knows what from God knows where coming into
our neighborhood. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else, any hands that are up? So, Roy, do you want to start with your
letters?
MR. URRICO-Yes. "My name is Scott Cronin and my Family and I live at 6 Mohawk Trail. We live two
houses down from 2 Mohawk Trail and are vehemently against both the Air BNB and changing the home
to a two family residence. We moved to this neighborhood to be a family development. Since the Air
BNB has been in place, there have been countless nights of loud parties, cars squealing tires at 2-3 am.
Mind you we are two houses away. This was a single family neighborhood and personally I think we
should keep it this way. It's a dangerous slope to allow single family homes to become multi-family homes
which sometimes allows people who don't necessarily care about this neighborhood or the home. No you
cannot guarantee who you're renting to. So in closing my family and I do not want to see single family
homes turned into multi-family homes. And neighborhood homes should not become AirBNB's as it's very
disruptive and rude to everyone in the neighborhood." "I reside at 7 Mohawk Trail and received a notice
of a zoning variance request for 2 Mohawk Trail to be reviewed by the board on Oct 23. I am traveling on
business this week and cannot attend the meeting. With this email, I am voicing my objection to the
variance. The owners of the property do not reside in the home it is used as a rental property. The variance
should be denied." That's Tom Ferari. "Thank you for accepting this letter/email into record with regard
to the property at 2 Mohawk Trail in Queensbury, NY. My husband and I have lived directly across the
street at 1 Mohawk in this beautiful residential area since 1997. We raised our family knowing that our
neighbors owned and occupied our single family homes for all of these years, including now visiting
grandchildren and new neighbors with families. It is disturbing to think that this quiet home-town
neighborhood is now opening up to the possibility of unknown rentals/occupants that are or may be short
term or permanent occupants in what was intended to be a single family home is now being considered as
multi, potentially duplex or triplex home. We are not comfortable with them renting the property and
basically turning it into a hotel—it is currently being rented as an air b-n-b. This is a private neighborhood
and we need to maintain that not only for safety but also our home equity! Very respectfully submitted,
Karen Howe Guy Brennan 1 Mohawk Trail, Queensbury, NY 12SO4" "Hello, I am writing this email in
response to a letter I received from the Board of Zoning Appeals regarding the property at 2 Mohawk Tail.
Unfortunately, I cannot make tonight's meeting. For the record, I oppose changing this one family
residence into a to family for several reasons. 1. This will greatly reduce the property value of all the single
family homes in the neighborhood. For many,their home their biggest asset. 2. This property is used as
a short term rental. I do not feel safe in my own neighborhood when strangers are coming in and out we
have no idea who these people are. 3. This will set a negative precedent for the rest of the town if a two
family is allowed in this neighborhood. Other short term renters will want to change their properties into
2 families. 4. The owners of this property are trying to find a loophole in the short term renal rules of the
town in an effort to maximize their profits. Other short term renters are going to do the same if the zoning
board approves their appeal. Thank you. Jennifer Monahan Roca 12 Mohawk Trail" That's it. By the
way,there are 95 signatures on the petition.
TERRY GOODEMOTE
MR. GOODEMOTE-Good evening. My name is Terry Goodmote, a co-owner at the residence at 2
Mohawk Trail,signed a mortgage with my daughter in 2014 when it was purchased,and continue to be a
property manager across the street, but living right in the neighborhood. I'm not going to get into the
arguments of what fabrications were made or what the facts are. We're not here to argue whether it's
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
continuing as an Air BNB. That's for another day. The basement stove was put in with the intent that his
parents were going to move out as a mother-in-law basement prior to becoming an Air BNB. So all they're
looking for,they're not looking to change anything. They're not looking to change the listing. It's just one
Air BNB that'll continue as an Air BNB that was just the variance to bring up to code the kitchen that was
put in for the mother-in-law. Thank you.
MR. HENKEL-Hold on. Mr. Goodemote, then at that time when that kitchen was put in,it was never
approved to be put in. Right?
MR. GOODEMOTE-Correct. They never applied.
LAURA AUFFREDOU
MRS. AUFFREDOU-Laura Auffredou. I live next door. I believe maybe somebody must have whistle
blown because that is not the construction I believe was here. There were bulldozers that rolled up this
summer and egress windows put in so that you guys can rent out the rooms downstairs for profit. Right?
Why do you need egress windows for a mother-in-law?
MR. MC CABE-So,ma'am,what you do is you provide us with information. You don't talk to him. This
is information that we're going to use to make our decision.
MRS. AUFFREDOU-1 do not think that is why we were are all here today. I think it was a completely
different project that they're kind of saying now it was a kitchen, but I'm pretty sure that there were
windows put in to the basement to call that square footage that you could escape. That's one of the Air
BNB laws. If you sleep in a room it needs to have an exit. Okay.
MR. HENKEL-Any time you finish off a basement you have to put an egress anyway,for safety reasons.
MRS.AUFFREDOU-Correct. Yes.
MR. HOHMAN-It's coming back to me. Frank Hohman, 26 Mohawk Trail. I worked with Herlihy
building that house . There's an exit from the basement up to the garage. That's one. It has a second exit
under the stairs from the front of the house up into the kitchen. There are two exits in that house already.
So unless you're putting bedrooms downstairs in the entire basement,there's no reason for egress windows
because it already had two ways out.
MRS. HAJOS-Let me reinforce the previous information that was presented by them on Algonquin. She
presented the ad that's currently listing the Air BNB for upwards of 1S people. So which is it? Is it the
anticipation of grandma living with us three years ago or is it we're making a sale for a two,two unit Air
BNB that can accommodate upwards of 1S people for your bachelor party or bachelorette party, your
reunion,whatever the case may be?
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else? Ma'am.
LINDA AUFFREDOU
MRS. LINDA AUFFREDOU-My name is Linda Auffredou. I actually live at 9 Stonepine,which is in the
Pines, not Tyneswood, but I am Chris' mom, and the grandmother of the three grandkids that live next
door. My concern that I would like you to all consider is if a variance were to be granted to make this
single family home into a two family home,that it could affect other neighborhoods such as,not just theirs,
which would totally impact the environment of their neighborhood,but neighborhoods like where I live
as well,and for the whole Town of Queensbury. So I'd just like you to consider that.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. So is there anybody else? All right. So at this particular time I'm going to close the
public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I know,as badly as you people would like us to make a judgment on whether that Air
BNB should be here or not, that's not our judgment. If we did that, we'd get sued and we'd lose. The
decision that we're going to make here is whether you can have a kitchen on two levels,basically make it
a two family house, on a half acre, as opposed to two acres. That's the decision that we're making.
Anything to do with Air BNB or renting the place out is beyond our scope. So I just want everybody to
understand that. That's not the decision we're making. We're making the decision whether the kitchen
can remain on a half acre lot as opposed to the required two acre lot.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-It doesn't say kitchen. It says multiple dwellings in a zoned single family
residence.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MR. MC CABE-This is,what makes it a multi-family dwelling is the kitchen. All right. So with that in
mind,Gary,I will give you an opportunity to say anything if you want.
MR. HUGHES-My only comment is I totally understand the situation,and,again,that's up to you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board here. I've closed the public meeting. Right? And
I'm going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it doesn't matter whether we're in this neighborhood or over on Lake
Sunnyside,Glen Lake,Lake George,everybody's up against the same battle right now with these Air BNB's,
and I think the situation is reflective of,you know,changes that we're seeing and the Town hasn't really
gotten on top of the situation to enable anybody to keep ahead of the curve inhere. When you're talking
about 1S people renting a place out,you know,I think that's a little bit over the top,in consideration of a
single family residence in a neighborhood, but at the same time, we've granted variances previously for
granny apartments,you know, where they were used for family members. In this instance here, I don't
believe that's the case. I think that you're in violation with the second kitchen your dwelling as proposed
here and I don't think that I would approve.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-A lot of this has to be addressed to our State representatives as to our concerns about Air
BNB's,but that's not what we're here for. What we're being confronted with is this is allowable in a lot
of.51 where two acres is required, and with the consideration of the neighborhood, which you need to
consider,I would say it's not acceptable. So I would not approve this project.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-I mean we're charged with giving minimal relief,and based on that,with a.5 acre lot and you're
needing two acres,that's not minimal relief. I am not in favor of this as presented.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,in looking at the test,I think this will definitely have an impact on the neighborhood.
I think there are feasible alternatives, including removing the kitchen. I think the relief is substantial.
Even though we say moderate,it's really,we're being asked to give relief of 1.49 acres,which is a lot. The
project may have some physical or environmental conditions in the area depending on the use of the septic
system that's going to be attached to this,and the difficulty is definitely self-created. So I would be against
it.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-I'm going to agree with most of my fellow Board members. I think the relief we're being
asked for is too much. I would not approve this.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I,too,am not in favor of the project. I think when I look at issues such as septic systems,
trying to enlarge something on a half acre lot that's already got a house on it, and adding another kitchen
and in fact it's in violation today,not only from the size. It's probably in violation of the septic as well. So
I'm not in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, can't support this project. As a Board we've been pretty stringent on
allowing mother-in-law apartments. In fact we've done it on a couple of occasions with a limit to the time
that it could be used for this, five years or the death of the person who was residing there. So to be
consistent with the decisions we've made in the past, I,too,don't support this. So now I have a dilemma
because you don't have enough votes to get this by. You can re-group and present something else to us.
You can ask for a vote,but that's not going to go well. You can withdraw the application. So I need some
guidance from you.
MR. HUGHES-I'd like to be tabled.
MR. MC CABE-Any particular timeframe?
MRS. MOORE-The next meeting available would be potentially the December meeting. Okay. So,John,
a motion.
MR. HENKEL-With the new information by?
MRS. MOORE-November 15`h
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MR. HENKEL-November 15`h. Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Eric McMahon
&z Megan McMahon. Applicant has updated the existing home with a kitchen on the main floor and one
in the basement.The project includes installing 2 window access wells for the living area in the basement.
The request is to maintain 2 dwellings due to the kitchens. The existing home is 2552 sq ft footprint and
550 sq ft footprint of porch deck areas. Relief requested for 2 dwellings in the MDR zone with property
size of 0.51 ac(less than 2 ac)with onsite septic&r municipal water.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.54-2024 ERIC MCMAHON&z MEGAN MC MAHON,
Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to the December 1S`h,2024 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with new information by November
15`h,2024.
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NONE: Mr. Underwood
MRS. MOORE-You'll also have to re-open the public hearing.
MR. MC CABE-Yes,so at this particular time,with your permission,I'll re-open the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our next application is AV 55-2024,Mack Jones,103 McCormack Drive.
AREA VARIANCE NO.55-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 MACK JONES AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN
&z STEVES (MATT WEBSTER) OWNER(S) MACK JONES ZONING MDR LOCATION 103
MC CORMACK DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 224 SHED. FT. SHED ON A .070
ACRE PARCEL WITH A DOOR WIDTH OF 6 FT. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,587 SQ. FT.
FOOTPRINT IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE HOME HAS AN EXISTING 576 SQ.FT.
ATTACHED GARAGE THAT IS PART OF THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT. THERE ARE NO OTHER
SITE CHANGES PROPOSED. RELIEF FOR SETBACKS WHERE A REAR SETBACK OF 15 FT. IS
PROPOSED AND 30 FT.IS REQUIRED,AND RELIEF FOR A SECOND GARAGE DUE TO DOOR
WIDTH. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.7 ACRES TAX
MAP NO.288.16-1-52 SECTION 179-5-020
MATT WEBSTER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;MACK JONES,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2024, Mack Jones, Meeting Date: October 23, 2024 "Project
Location: 103 McCormack Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 224
sq ft shed on a.070 acre parcel with a door width of 6 ft. The existing home of 2,557 sq ft footprint is to
remain with no changes. The home has an existing 576 sq ft attached garage that is part of the existing
footprint. There are no other site changes proposed. Relief for setbacks where a rear setback of 15 ft is
proposed and 30 ft is required,and relief for a second garage due to door width.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and relief for a second garage due to door width.
Section 179-5-020-accessory structure&z Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The proposed shed is to be 224 sf and is considered a garage do to the width of the door. The shed is to be
15 ft setback where 30 ft is required. Relief is also required for a second garage.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
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
locate the building 30 ft from the rear property line.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant
to the code. Relief is requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. Rear setback relief of 15
ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to place a 224 sf building in the rear of the property. The floor plans show the
building area to be an open floor plan. The applicant intends to store lawn equipment and other associated
items. The survey shows the location of the shed on the property."
MR.WEBSTER-I'm Matt Webster. My name is Matt Webster with Van Dusen&Steves,here on behalf
of our client, Mack Jones who is here with us as well. As presented by Mr. Urrico, this is a relatively
straightforward project. I understand that relief is required for the second garage,but of course, as you
can see there will be no driveway. It will not be storing vehicles. At best it might store a ride on mower,
but it does have that six foot door opening. I visited the site today,too,just to make sure that I was up to
speed and Mr.Jones has maintained a beautiful backyard and the intent of this is just to make sure that
the shed is on the perimeter of his mowed and maintained area,as opposed to sticking out in the middle of
the lawn.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. KUHL-Is there any water and electric there?
MR. WEBSTER-So there would be no water to this. There may be electric at some point in the future,
but it would be for nothing more than maybe a light and maintaining a battery or something like that.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. I'll open the public hearing
and see if there's anybody out there that would like to address us on this particular project? Seeing no
one,is there anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There's nothing written.
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-This is pretty straightforward. I think it's a nice spot for the shed and I have no problems
with it.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-No problem.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-There's no confusion. It's not going to be a garage.
MR. MC CABEJohn?
MR. HENKEL-All good.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-=I have no issues with this. I approve it as presented.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. If it was a little bit skinnier door we wouldn't be here,
but that's the way it goes. So,Ron,you were pretty docile here. So maybe you could make the motion.
MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the fact that you are assigning me this responsibility.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mack Jones.
Applicant proposes to install a 224 sq ft shed on a.070 acre parcel with a door width of 6 ft. The existing
home of 2,557 sq ft footprint is to remain with no changes. The home has an existing 576 sq ft attached
garage that is part of the existing footprint. There are no other site changes proposed. Relief for setbacks
where a rear setback of 15 ft is proposed and 30 ft is required, and relief for a second garage due to door
width.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and relief for a second garage due to door width.
Section 179-5-020-accessory structure &Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The proposed shed is to be 224 sq ft and is considered a garage due to the width of the door. The shed is
to be 15 ft setback where 30 ft is required. Relief is also required for a second garage.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on October 23,2024.
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 as this is simply a shed and he put it way back at the end of 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. It's more moderate.
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 only because the wide opening brings it on as a second garage,
but we know it's not a second garage. It's a shed.
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.
55-2024 MACK TONES,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard
Cipperly:
Duly adopted this 23r0 Day of October 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR.JONES-Thankyou.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 57-2024,Dave &Shannan Carroll,21 Heron Hollow Road.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVE &z SHANNAN CARROLL
AGENT(S) FLYNN DESIGN STUDIO (TREVOR FLYNN) OWNER(S) DAVE &z SHANNAN
CARROLL ZONING WR LOCATION 21 HERON HOLLOW RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES
DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE OF 1,322 SQ.FT.TO REPLACE WITH A NEW GARAGE
WITH THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND AN UPPER LEVEL OF 548 SQ.FT. THE OVERALL FLOOR
AREA IS BEING REDUCED FOR THE ENTIRE HOME WHERE EXISTING IS 7,980 SQ.FT.AND
PROPOSED IS 7,812 SQ.,FT. THE PROJECT WAS PART OF A RECENT APPROVAL AND.,UPON
BUILDING INSPECTION, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS NOT
SUITABLE FOR ORIGINAL PROJECT. THE GARAGE WILL BE REBUILT IN THE SAME
FOOTPRINT AS THE 2024 PROJECT PLANS AND WITH THE UPPER LEVEL CONSTRUCTION
AS WELL. RELIEF FOR SETBACKS AND GARAGE SIZE. CROSS REF AV 37-2024;SP 37-2024;
SP 55-89 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
ALD ZONING 0.6 ACRES TAX MAP NO 227.17-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040
TREVOR FLYNN,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 57-2024, Dave &Shannan Carroll, Meeting Date: October 23,2024
"Project Location: 21 Heron Hollow Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
demolition of existing garage of 1,322 sq ft to replace with a new garage with the same footprint and an
upper level of 548 sq ft. The overall floor area is being reduced for the entire home where existing is 7,980
sq ft and proposed is 7,812 sq ft. The project was part of a recent approval and,upon building inspection,
it was discovered that the foundation was not suitable for original project.The garage will be rebuilt in the
same footprint as the 2024 project plans and with the upper level construction as well. Relief for setbacks
and garage size.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and garage size for the construction of a new garage as existing
garage is not suitable for previously approved project.
Section 179-5-020 garage,Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The new garage is to be 1,322 sf and the maximum allowed is 1,100 sf. The garage is to be located 15.3 ft
from the front setback 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. The proposed
project may be considered to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby
properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited
due to the existing house location. The garage may be reduced in size to be compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for front setback 14.7 ft and garage size is 222 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 relief requested maybe considered
to have minimal environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The project is for the removal of an existing garage and construction of a new garage. The project is part
of a house renovation that received approvals for site plan and variance. The new garage would be in the
same location as the previous. The plans show the location of the existing and proposed. The project
includes removal of floor area on the main level and modifying the floor area on the partial second floor."
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
MR. MC CABE-So this looks familiar.
MR. FLYNN-Yes. Apologies for being in front of you guys again. I do also have another image of the
foundation that's,too,but Trevor Flynn with Flynn Design Studio,representing Dave and Shannan Carroll
at 21 Heron Hollow Road. Shannan is with us this evening as well if you have any additional questions,
and I do have a correction on one of the square footages as well. We started the demo process,got a demo
permit,and they were removing some areas and checking around the garage and we noticed a crack in one
of the corners and we realized that we're doing all this work up on the second floor to re-build roof and
those spaces above and the garage was only 1S inches below the soil. It was more of a monolithic slab. So
as we slowly started to move things out of the garage and in certain areas we found that it was failing in
multiple spots and the loads would not be adequate for the additional work. I do want to state that we
were, the existing,if you go to, Laura,please, go to Page Seven,it's the floor plans, the existing footprint
was 1,322 square feet. We're removing the two sections of the garage and the one shed roof side. So the
proposed square footage is 1,215 square feet. So we are reducing that footprint of the garage.
MR. MC CABE-So one of the reliefs that you're looking for is only 115 square feet.
MR. FLYNN-Yes, and the main goal was to keep that existing footprint intact for excavation purposes,
too. Stepping back,we have decreased the FAR on the site and we've stayed within the impervious areas,
reduced as much as we can in areas on the project and in short we're adding on to the breezeway and the
connection between the two spaces,that's the area table that we provided,that's both on the site plans.
MRS. MOORE-So this is what you're saying then.
MR.FLYNN-Yes. And then you'll see from this diagram,too,the red areas are what we're removing square
footage wise. So we're removing this and the side of it, and then this upper area is existing area, we're
removing that, and then adding the dormer for light egress and then connecting it to the second floor. So
these are really the only two additional areas on that upper level portion and as far as what we presented
at our last meeting,we have not changed the envelope at all from what we previously presented.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-So we're still adding 7,SI2 feet,is that what it is?
MR. FLYNN-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-All right. So you're still over 2,000 feet. I mean when we approved this it was based on,
because you thought that garage was going to stay there. Now this is anew project. Still,that's a lot of
square footage over what's allowed. We approved it based on saying that that was a stable building.
MR. MC CABE-Well,it's the same square footage.
MR. HENKEL-Right,but I'm just saying we approved it based upon.
MR. MC CABE-So if we held him to this then we're going to make him put that structure on an unsafe
foundation.
MR. HENKEL-Right,but when he came to us we thought it was stable,but now he's telling us it's not.
It's basically a new project. That's 2,000 square feet over what the FAR variance allows.
MR. MC CABE-That doesn't say that we have to approve FAR.
MR. HENKEL-But we're approving a new project,though.
MR. KUHL-You can have your opinion.
MR. HENKEL-Right. We approved it based on thinking that garage was going to stay there. Now the
garage is not. So it's a new project. Is it not a new project?
MRS. MOORE-It's a new project for a garage. There's not a new variance for the floor area.
MR. HENKEL-I realize that,but we approved that floor area because thought that that was a good,stable
garage. Okay. That's just my opinion. To me it's a new project.
MR. MC CABE-That's okay. Other questions?
MR. FLYNN-And I'd like to add to that,if we didn't remove the garage and didn't do any of the additions
to the second floor areas, both here and here, and ended up keeping the footprint, we would end up
increasing the FAR if we left the existing garage as is. So we're still reducing the square footage of the
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
garage. And I do want to say we're also,it's still reducing the side yard setback requested relief We were
at 17 and a half feet. Now we're at 21 and a half feet, and if you go back to the site plan notes from our
approvals in July,you'll also see we've added 1000/o more of what's required for buffer for the lake for the
raingardens as well. So we've actually gone overboard and it's in the client's best interest to protect the
lake and what was required by site plan with the Town.
MR. HENKEL-Thankyou.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'd
like to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there who would like to approach us on this
particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No written comments.
MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-Poll the Board and I'm going to start Ron.
MR. KUHL-We approved this project before, and what can you do when you find that there's a problem
and you've got to tear it down and completely re-do it. John wants a new project. I don't believe so. I'll
approve this as presented.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-I've stated my opinion. I think it's a new project because it's a new garage,and like I said
when we approved it before the garage was going to stay and there was less disturbance to the lake by
doing that, but now you're probably going to disturb the lake anyway by doing that construction there.
So to me I think it needs to be smaller. So I'm not for it.
MR. MC CABEJim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think my opinion on this project was that it was way overbuilding on such a small,
.6 acre lot,but at the same time what you're proposing here is less than what you proposed previously. So
I would approve it.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I think there's actually a gain for the environment so I'm in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Bob?
MR. KEENAN-I understand John's objection, but I think based on what we approved before, I would
approve this now.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I don't think we were mislead or anything on this. It's
something that happened. It wasn't built and then he came to us for approval afterwards. It was
something he discovered during the building and now they're trying to adjust. So I'm in favor of it. It's
still a minimized project compared to what was there before.
MR. MC CABE-And so we've actually had this situation a couple of times in the past where we got into
construction and found out and it was basically approved because it was in the same foundation as it was
before,but it's not. An argument was made that it's a new project because it's not the same foundation,
but it is the same foundation. It wouldn't be right to force the applicant to use an unsafe foundation. So
I support the project. So with that in mind,I wonder,Dick,would you make a motion.
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes,I would. Thankyou.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dave &z
Shannan Carroll. Applicant proposes demolition of existing garage of 1,322 sq ft to replace with a new
garage of 1,215 square feet and an upper level of 54S sq ft. The overall floor area is being reduced for the
entire home where existing is 7,950 sq ft and proposed is 7,SI2 sq ft. The project was part of a recent
approval and,upon building inspection,it was discovered that the foundation was not suitable for original
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
project. The garage will be rebuilt in the same footprint as the 2024 project plans and with the upper level
construction as well. Relief for setbacks and garage size.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and garage size for the construction of a new garage as existing
garage is not suitable for previously approved project.
Section 179-5-020 garage,Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The new garage is to be 1,215 sq ft and the maximum allowed is 1,100 sq ft. The garage is to be located 15.3
ft from the front setback where a 30 ft setback is required
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on October 23,2024.
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's just basically within the envelope of what we approved the first time.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included
to-minimize the request. It's an unsafe situation.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's in the same footprint as the original.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty really is self-created because of what they discovered during construction.
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.
57-2024 DAVE&z SHANNAN CARROLL,Introduced by Richard Cipperly,who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Robert Keenan:
Duly adopted this 23r0 Day of October 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr.Henkel
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a second project.
MR. FLYNN-We get to keep going. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 58-2024,Randy Savage,303 Aviation Road.
AREA VARIANCE NO.58-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RANDY SAVAGE OWNER(S) RANDY
SAVAGE ZONING MDR LOCATION 303 AVIATION RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 157.3
SQ. FT. COVERED PATIO ROOF ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 342.4 SQ. FT. SHED. THE
PROJECT SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1568 SQ. FT. HOME AND A 600 SQ. FT. TEMPORARY
GARAGE THAT ARE TO REMAIN. THE PROPOSED COVERED PATIO AREA IS ADJACENT TO
THE POOL AND WILL REPLACE A POP=UP CANOPY. THE COVERED PATIO WILL ALSO
BETTER HANDLE THE RAIN. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR SETBACK. CROSS REF AV 60-2011; AV 41=2011 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO.301.7-2-4 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-
020
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
RANDY SAVAGE,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2024, Randy Savage, Meeting Date: October 23, 2024 "Project
Location: 303 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 157.3 sq ft covered
patio roof addition to an existing 342.4 sq ft shed. The project site has an existing 1,56E sq ft home and a
600 sq ft temporary garage that are to remain. The proposed covered patio area is adjacent to the pool and
will replace a pop-up canopy.The covered patio will also better handle the rain.There are no other changes
to the site. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of a roof addition for a covered patio to an
existing shed.
Section 179-5-020 shed&z Section 179-3-040 Dimensional
The new roof will be 14.1 ft from the side property line where a 25 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 appear limited as the existing
shed received similar variance for a setback.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minimal relevant to the code. Relief is 10.9 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no 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 a covered patio roof addition to an existing shed. The applicant has indicated there
is portable canopy in this area and they would like a permanent structure to enjoy the pool. The survey
shows the existing shed and photos of the existing canopy arrangement. The plans show the roof
addition."
MR. SAVAGE-We're just trying to build a place where we can cook. Randy Savage,Aviation. We're just
trying to build a place to put our cooker next to the pool all winter long with an actual structure. It's an
open air,just a roof.
MR. MC CABE-It's pretty straightforward. Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. KUHL-Are you going to keep the ground as grass,or is it going to be concrete,asphalt?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Grass.
MR. KUHL-You're going to leave it as grass?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes.
MR. KUHL-Okay,and access is going to be from the building next to it,the shed next to it?
MR. SAVAGE-From the pool shed.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
AUDIENCE MEMBER-So the backside that you can't see. There's a doorway there and a window actually,
and that's where we go in now to cook.
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 out there that would like to approach us on
this particular project? Seeing nobody,Roy,do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No public comment.
MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-Poll the Board,and I'm going to start with Bob.
MR. KEENAN-This is pretty straightforward. I don't have any issues with it.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-No problem at all.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Temporary roof replaced with a permanent one. It's a good fix.
MR. MC CABEJohn?
MR. HENKEL-No matter what you do there, it's a very narrow lot. So you're always going to need
permission no matter what for setbacks. So,yes,it makes sense.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I'd be in favor of this as presented.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project.
MR. MC CAB E-And I,too,support the project. So with that in mind,Jim,I wonder if you would fashion
us a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Randy Savage.
Applicant proposes a 157.3 sq It covered patio roof addition to an existing 342.4 sq It shed.The project site
has an existing 1,56E sq It home and a 600 sq ft temporary garage that are to remain.The proposed covered
patio area is adjacent to the pool and will replace a pop-up canopy. The covered patio will also better
handle the rain. There are no other changes to the site. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of a roof addition for a covered patio to an
existing shed.
Section 179-5-020 shed&Section 179-3-040 Dimensional
The new roof will be 14.1 ft from the side property line where a 25 ft setback is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on October 23,2024.
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;it's an addition replacing temporary roofing with a permanent one.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024)
2. Feasible alternatives aren't really available because of the narrow nature of the lot and the location
where it's proposed. It's a minimal request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. Because I think it's already pre-existing of a temporary
nature.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but it's because of the narrow nature of the lot.
6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,-
S. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
58-2024 RANDY SAVAGE,Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption,seconded by
John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 23r0 Day of October 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. SAVAGE-Thank you.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
OCTOBER 23RD,2024,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 23rd day of October,2024,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe,Chairman
26