06-17-2020
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 17, 2020
INDEX
Area Variance No. 22-2019 Cathy Sweet 1.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.16-1-5.3
Area Variance No. 61-2019 Don Bernard 2.
Tax Map No. 239.8-1-15
Area Variance No. 6-2020 Kathy Sanders 7.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-42
Area Variance No. 7-2020 Ronald Miller 11.
Tax Map No. 227.9-1-5
Area Variance No. 10-2020 Kevin & Annie Dineen 14.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-46
Area Variance No. 11-2020 Adam Leonardo 17.
Tax Map No. 289.11-1-17
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY)
AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 17, 2020
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
MICHELLE HAYWARD
CATHERINE HAMLIN
JOHN WEBER, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
RONALD KUHL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board
th
of Appeals, June 17, 2020. If you’ve not been here before, our proceed simple. There should be an agenda
on the side table over here. We’ll call each case up, read the case into the record, allow the applicant to
present their case. If a public hearing has been advertised then we’ll open the public hearing, seek input
from the public, close the public hearing, poll the Board and then take action as indicated. First thing we
have to do, though, is make a couple of administrative moves here. We will ask you, as a presenter or as
an agent, only one person come to the podium at a time. When you’ve completed at the podium, we’re
going to ask you to wipe down the podium and the microphone and throw the wipe into a container that’s
alongside, on the left side of the podium. So the first thing we have to do is approve the minutes of our
th
last meeting, May 20. So can I have a motion?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May 20, 2020
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
TH
MINUTES OF MAY 20, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Michelle Hayward:
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-Okay, and the second item, we have a request here from Cathy Sweet and in 2019 we
approved an application for a garage, and due to the recent conditions she was unable to complete the
application within her 12 month requirement. So she’s asking to extend her application for six months.
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
CATHY SWEET (AV 22-2019) REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF 6 MONTHS
MR. MC CABE-I think this is relatively simple, and I just want to check and see, well I’m going to make a
motion.
Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to an existing 786 sq. ft. footprint home.
Relief requested from minimum setback requirements.
The Zoning Board of Appeals approved Area Variance 22-2019 on June 19, 2019
MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR AREA VARIANCE 22-2019, CATHY
SWEET. Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption; seconded by Roy Urrico.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Weber, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So now I’m going to call the first applicant, and this is Area Variance AV 62-2019,
and it’s Don Bernard, 20 Brayton Road.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2019 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DON BERNARD AGENT(S) AJA
ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DON BERNARD. ZONING WR LOCATION 20 BRAYTON
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING 1,048 SQ. FT. HOME
(FOOTPRINT) TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME (REVISED) 730 SQ. FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA
OF 2,643 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR LANDSCAPING AND STORMWATER.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. SITE PLAN AND FRESHWATER
WETLAND – NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 79-2019; FWW 8-2019 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY APA/LGPC; CEA LOT
SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040-5b3
JON LAPPER & CHRIS JONES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2019, Don Bernard, Meeting Date: June 17, 2020 “Project Location:
20 Brayton Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,048
sq. ft. home (footprint) to construct a new home of (revised) 730 sq. ft. with a floor area of 2,643 sq. ft.
Project includes site work for landscaping and stormwater. Site Plan and Freshwater wetland—new floor
area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief (revised) for setback in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. (The relief
for the previous setback (west side and south side), floor area and height are no longer being requested as
the plans have been revised.)
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements – Waterfront Residential Zone -WR
The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from the north side where a 9 ft. setback is proposed
where a 12 ft. setback is required. Then on the east side is proposed setback of 22 ft. as a front setback
where 30 ft. is required. Permeability was 60% and proposed is 71% as an increase in permeability relief is
not 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 limited due to the
configuration of the lot and proposed location of the new home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code for setbacks. The side setback relief is 3 ft. and front setback is 8 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 will have
minimal impact to the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and to upgrade the site of 0.28 acre odd shaped
parcel. The applicant has revised plans for request for setbacks – no relief requested for floor area or height.
The applicant has indicated the new home is to be in a similar location as the home to be demolished. The
plans show new areas of low native plantings, a rain garden area, lawn area and areas of vegetation to
remain. The existing garage is to remain along with the shoreline deck area, four sheds to be removed and
one shed to remain. The height is proposed to be 27 ft. 6 inches and the floor area is proposed to be 2,643
sq. ft. where 2,690 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.”
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper. I think that Laura’s Staff Notes were
pretty comprehensive. I just want to emphasize that when this was presented in January it was a much
larger house there was a pretty substantial floor area ratio variance requested. The Board wasn’t excited
about it. There was height variance and two other side setback variances. So we all put our heads together
with the applicant who’s here tonight and reduced the request. I think reducing it so that it complies
with floor area is a big change, and height, and as Laura pointed out, the reason for the side setback is
really just this odd shaped lot to try and get as much house as could comfortably fit on the site, but we
don’t think that this new application is pushing it or is asking for too much. It’s just kind of a couple of
tweaks for the setback variances. I noticed that the agenda still said that there was a permeability
variance, but Laura pointed out in the Staff Notes that because the permeability is getting better that that’s
not required. So it’s just the side setbacks. That’s really all I have. I’m going to ask Chris Jones from
AJA Architecture to come up and answer any technical questions.
MR. HENKEL-Now, Laura, even though the permeability is still below what’s required, that’s okay, that’s
forgiven?
MRS. MOORE-It’s getting better.
MR. HENKEL-I mean that’s great that they’re up to 71%, that’s great, but I just figured it still needs a
variance. No?
MRS. MOORE-No. That’s the way we’ve looked at it, Craig’s looked at it.
MR. MC CABE-So state your name for the record, please.
MR. JONES-Good evening, everyone. My name is Chris Jones. I’m an architectural designer with AJA
Architecture, the architect for this project. I’ll be here to answer any questions you have. As you guys
have very eloquently put, we went back and re-designed the building to try and make it meet as many
requirements as possible. Really the two things, the variances that we’re looking for would be setbacks.
A lot of that is just so that we can turn the building a little bit and give our clients a little bit better views
to the lake., It’s a very odd shaped site, and it’s a two-fold thing. It’s one to help try to get some views,
but also so that he’s not looking directly at his neighbor’s house. If you look at the site plan there, the red
dashed outline is the buildable area of the site and just the way, with the site being an odd shape, you end
up facing the neighbor predominantly. So that actually, the back setback there that we’re requesting a
three foot variance for is really solely determined on the fact that we’re trying to rotate the building just a
little bit, just enough so that we can give him some lake views and really dramatically affect visibility from
his place. We believe that the building that we designed is a positive for the neighborhood and the building
that was there is very long and low and very pressed up against the site lines. So what we’re going to do
is reduce it significantly, bring the majority of the building back within that buildable area and build him
a small home, a residence right there, and hopefully give him some great views out to the lake. If you guys
would like I could walk through the plans, talk about elevations.
MR. MC CABE-Well let’s see if we have any questions. Do we have any questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-They’re only looking for one side setback on the north of three feet. That’s it. Right?
Other than the, right?
MR. JONES-Well you have the three feet at the north and then you’d have the eight feet to the east.
MR. HENKEL-Eight feet on the east.
MR. JONES-That eight feet is a setback from the existing road that runs in the middle of the property. So
the client does own the property on the other side of that road as well. So it’s a setback from himself
technically.
MR. HENKEL-It’s a Town road.
MR. JONES-Yes.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else have questions? So seeing no questions. So a public hearing has been
advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing. I’m going to invite anybody
who’s on the outside watching us on t.v., if you wish to comment you can call in at 518-761-8225. You’ll h
have two minutes to do that, and at this particular time, ma’am, did you have input?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
EVELYN DUFRESNE
MRS. DUFRESNE-Yes, I do.
MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record.
MRS. DUFRESNE-Okay. My name is Evelyn Dufresne and we have a camp at 24 Brayton Road. My
question would be across the road is half of that island belongs to us and we basically want to know where
the septic and where that’s going to be.
MRS. MOORE-He’ll answer that when he comes back up to speak. So he won’t answer it right away.
MRS. DUFRESNE-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that has input on this particular matter? Are
two minutes up yet?
MRS. MOORE-About that, yes.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’ll have you come back and answer the woman’s question.
MR. JONES-To answer the question, if you look at Page, I believe it’s C-1, that is actually the septic plan
for the lot. The septic would be on that other portion of the lot that is in the island, but it is solely within
our client’s property and located as centered in there as we could get it. To be clear this layout was not
created by AJA. It was created by Rucinski Hall. As it’s designed, it’s designed to be in the middle of that
island.
MR. HENKEL-And obviously it doesn’t affect anything. All there is is just another shed on the other, the
Dufresne’s property and no water.
MR. JONES-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-So it doesn’t really affect anything.
MR. MC CABE-So, ma’am, does that answer your question?
MRS. DUFRESNE-No it does not.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Chris, you said C-1?
MR. JONES-Yes, that’s it. Where that black and white circle is. So if you actually look directly to the
northeast, if you look at the plan, that’s the existing shed, and then to the southeast, southwest if you will,
those are the two sheds that are to be removed from the site. So it’s centered effectively between those
two buildings, and obviously pressed up against the road as close as we could get it to be within the
setbacks.
MR. MC CABE-Are you okay now?
MRS. DUFRESNE-I don’t have a copy of that. So I don’t know, all I know is the land goes like this. So
where is the water going to run? That’s my question.
MR. JONES-The septic would be an in-ground septic. The surface water would.
MR. HENKEL-Who’s land goes like that? I walked it and the land you have is fairly flat.
MRS. DUFRESNE-You’re up on the hill. We’re down on the bottom here on that island.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
MR. JONES-There may be a small grade change there.
MRS. DUFRESNE-I don’t have a map so I can’t see where.
MR. JONES-We’re building a septic within a conforming positon to the lot. We’re placing it in the best
place we possibly can, and that really from our water, sorry, from our well to the house that is the most
logical place and also effectively the most isolated from everything.
MRS. DUFRESNE-Is it a holding tank or a septic?
ANDY ALLISON
MR. ALLISON-My name’s Andy Allison from AJA Architecture as well. A little bit about the septic works.
The septic field is designed to retain all of the effluent to the field itself and not let that leach out. It’s been
designed per New York State standards. By New York State standards, and by design it’s not going flow
downhill. It’s designed to meet all the standards.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to input on this matter? So, seeing
nobody, I’m going to close the public hearing at this particular time.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Catherine.
MRS. HAMLIN-I would vote for it but I would note that I don’t think the permeability is an improvement.
MR. MC CABE-So we’re not passing judgment on permeability. We’re only passing judgment on the
setbacks.
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. Considering all the other reductions, I would be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the side setback relief of three feet and the side setback of eight feet to me is
immaterial at this point. I think the Bernards are a perfect example of how you deal with a very small lot
on Waterfront Residential property. I think they’ve gone out of their way to make this work. It’s very
similar to the situation that we deal with all the time on Takundewide where you have only a small
footprint that’s available to be compliant. They’ve met the standard as far as I’m concerned and I’m all for
it.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m impressed with the improvements that you’ve made to the plan. I was not in favor
to begin with but I am now. I can live with the setbacks as proposed.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members. They’ve done a nice job of actually, that’s a huge
improvement. They went from way over the FAR variance to under the FAR variance and did away with
the height and did a great job on the permeability. They’re only asking for roughly four percent which is
not a concern to us with that. So, yes, it’s a great project. Good job. I’d definitely be for it.
MR. MC CABE-The other John.
MR. WEBER-Yes, I think they did a great job based on this because I remember the plans and we were
really too high and too close, and it just fit in a situation like you either needed a bigger lot or a smaller
house. So I have no problems with it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with my fellow Board members. I think this passes the balancing tests. I’d be
in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, am impressed with what the applicant has done to change the plans to better
fit our requirements. So at this particular time, Michelle, I’m going to ask for a motion on this application.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Don Bernard.
Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,048 sq. ft. home (footprint) to construct a new home of
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
(revised) 730 sq. ft. with a floor area of 2,643 sq. ft. Project includes site work for landscaping and
stormwater. Site Plan and Freshwater wetland—new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief (revised) for setback in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. (The relief
for the previous setback (west side and south side), floor area and height are no longer being requested as
the plans have been revised.)
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements – Waterfront Residential Zone -WR
The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from the north side where a 9 ft. setback is proposed
where a 12 ft. setback is required. Then on the east side is proposed setback of 22 ft. as a front setback
where 30 ft. is required. Permeability was 60% and proposed is 71% as an increase in permeability relief is
not required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2020;
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. The design of this property to fit in this odd shaped lot fits in perfectly with the
surrounding properties.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and changes were made to the plans presented tonight,
and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial based on the decrease in the variances he proposed.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. Actually it’s an improvement with the new septic.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, wanting to build on an odd-shaped 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;
8. 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.
61-2019 DON BERNARD, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 17th Day of June 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. JONES-Thank you very much.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 6-2020, Kathy Sanders, 119 Birdsall Road.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KATHY SANDERS AGENT(S) REDBUD
DESIGN LA (GEFF REDICK) OWNER(S) KATHY SANDERS ZONING WR LOCATION 119
BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RENOVATE AN EXISTING 1,245 SQ. FT.
(FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH A SECOND STORY AND AN OPEN DECK ADDITION TO AN
EXISTING DECK. THE HOME HAS AN EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 3,971 SQ. FT. AND
PROPOSED IS 5,856 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR RETAINING WALLS ON
LAND, REPAIRS OF SHORELINE RETAINING WALL, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT, AND A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. RELIEF IS SOUGHT FOR FAR, HEIGHT,
SETBACK, AND PERMEABILITY. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF
SP 9-2020; AV 26-2019; AST 458-2019; SEP 9-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT
SIZE 0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-42 SECTION 179-3-040
CLARK WILKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2020, Kathy Sanders, Meeting Date: June 17, 2020 “Project
Location: 119 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to renovate an
existing 1,245 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a second story and an open deck addition to an existing deck.
The home has an existing floor area of 3,971 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,856 sq. ft. Project includes site work
for retaining walls on land, repairs of shoreline retaining wall, landscaping, stormwater management, and
a new septic system. Relief is sought for FAR, height, setback, and permeability. Site plan for new floor
area in a CEA.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for FAR, height, setback, and permeability.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements of the Waterfront Residential Zone –WR
The additions to the home require setback relief from both sides: proposed is 10.8 ft. on the left side facing
the shoreline and 6 ft. from the steps; and 9.5 ft. from the addition on the right side where a 15 ft. setback
is required. The shoreline setback proposed is 47 ft. where a 50 ft. setback is required. The height request
is for 31 ft. 4 in. where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed. The floor area is proposed to be 5,856 sq. ft. (30%)
where 4,312 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed. Permeability existing is 54.37 and 50.7% is proposed
from RPS information where 75% is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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 to reduce
the relief requested.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for floor area is 8 % in excess. The height relief is 3
ft. 4 inches in excess. The setbacks relief is 4.2 ft. left side, 9 ft. from the steps and 5.5 ft. on the right
side then the shoreline is 3 ft. Permeability existing is 54.37 and 50.7% is proposed from RPS
information where relief is 24.3% less than allowed.
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 may be considered
to have minimal environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood. A new septic system was
approved by local board of health in January 2020.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The project includes constructing a second story addition of 912 sq. ft. over existing living space, with a
portion over the existing porch 72 sq. ft., a balcony area of 144 sq. ft. and 300 sq. ft. of new living space over
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
an existing enclosed porch/sunroom. The existing main floor has modifications to the layout and encloses
the porch facing the lake 216 sq. ft., the open deck is enlarged to 432 +/- sq. ft. from 300 +/- sq. ft., and a
new front entry covered porch 144 sq. ft. is proposed. The plans show views of each addition and the site.”
th
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board made a motion on February 25, 2020, and the motion was
the Planning Board recommended that based on its limited review they identified the following areas of
concern. One, clarification of height variances. Two, further discussion of the Floor Area Ratio, and,
Three, shoreline buffering with added plantings. And that was passed unanimously.
MR. MC CABE-Good evening.
MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. For the record my name is Clark Wilkinson with the Environmental
Design Partnership representing Miss Kathy Sanders on this application. Miss Sanders is in the audience
tonight as well as the builder/landscaper, Geff Redick from Redbud development. They’re both with us
today. I wanted to just kind of go over the project because this is the first time in front of this Board for
this application. The proposal is to literally raise up from the existing house to get a second store to add
two bedrooms and actually it’s an attic, a one bedroom, from the original house, but all bedrooms will be
on the upper floors rather than, there’s currently one bedroom in the basement. There is no plumbing in
the basement because we can’t get septic gravity feed and that’s the reason to try to get the back bedroom
onto the upper floor. So that proposal is, again, just to raise up the existing, within those existing walls,
and for the record also this is an existing nonconforming use. It’s a 19,600 square foot lot where the zoning
requirement is two acres for this zone. So the Floor Area Ratio is based on that two acres, 22% is what’s
in the zoning, and because this is a smaller lot any small increase increases that Floor Area Ratio
dramatically because of the small area involved in this lot. If you’ll also look at the plan, there’s an existing
stairs and stone walkway that actually encroaches on the adjoining property, and that, under the proposal,
is proposed to be eliminated to eliminate that intrusion onto the adjoining property,. and that is the reason
for including a portion of the deck to be able to get around the property, utilizing the deck, rather than
that existing stairway that encroaches on the adjoining homeowner. Also there will be improvements
along the water frontage. We’re not increasing or decreasing, unfortunately, the setback from the lake.
We’re holding the line of the building where it is today, and again, just raising it up straight. The side
setbacks, if you look at this plan, the lower left, that is the 10.8 and that will remain for existing and
proposed, and the 5.5 on the upper right in the center of that, that will also remain existing and proposed.
I went over the deck with Laura again today. The wraparound deck is actually, I don’t know if you can
show the proposed site plan. See where it says deck there, where the stone stairs are down. That deck,
because it’s attached to the house, it’s considered part of that structure and that’s where you would have a
six foot setback to those steps on that deck and to the proposed conditions, but again the intent is to
eliminate that existing walkway and stairway that encroaches on the neighbors’ and get it all onto this
property so that it helps the whole situation between the neighbors. Again, we are doing a small decrease
in the impervious area to try to help and give some benefit, and also by planting, doing plantings along the
lake and creating a raingarden along the lake to try to pre-treat stormwater before it goes into the lake.
Also proposed under this is something to be looked at as part of Site Plan approval when we get to that
point. So we’re here tonight for four separate variances. A Floor Area Ratio variance. Again, it seems
significant. I can’t remember the percentage, but seven percent or eight percent was the number quoted
that it’s over, but square footage wise it’s approximately 1400 square feet which is not significant. The
reason why the percentage is significant, again, is because it’s an existing undersized lot. So if you do any
expansion, even 100 square foot expansion on a 19,000 square foot lot raises the Floor Area Ratio about one
percent, roughly half a percent actually. So with that in mind we don’t think there’s a significant increase
in Floor Area Ratio based on the existing configuration of the lot and the fact that we’re staying within the
existing walls to add this addition. The building height, we, again, are, kind of for lack of a better way of
saying it we’re stuck with existing conditions on the lakeside. We’re utilizing the existing basement
structure and where step out of it on this picture the wall to the left is existing and will remain, and there
is, once you get behind that wall the grade change is about three to four feet, which is what we need for
getting the height. So the height is literally at the face of the building, and once you step over that wall we
now conform to height along that side of the building, but the way the measurement goes is from the lowest
point at that point to the peak at that point. So underneath that where the screened porch is underneath
that is where we have the three feet of an extension above what’s required for building height. Again, we
don’t think it’s significant, just raising up a second story. If you look at the existing height is 22 feet.
We’re raising nine feet. That’s 31 plus some change in the roof line or whatever to make that 31 feet 8.
We’re trying to minimize the impact as much as possible but still get this addition on to increase the
number of bedrooms to be able to live here more permanently. So that’s the building height. The building
from the front, the new front portion of that for the new entrance, that conforms, and literally all the way
down to that face of that rear building all conforms to height, but at that one point it does not. I’d also
mention that there’s no buildable land behind this that we’d be blocking views from the lake or anything
in that regard. So, again, the three feet of relief we don’t think is significant. As far as the setback variances
go, again, we are going straight up from the existing walls. We’re not adding except at the deck which is
being added to eliminate a problem that’s on the adjoining property. So we’re reducing that from I believe
nine and a half feet to six feet. So we’re asking for a little bit more relief on that side , and again it’s because
of the deck that’s attached to the house that’s not actually part of the structure. It’s an open deck, and all
the other setbacks are as existing. Again, for the waterfront setback is 47 feet existing today and it will
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
be 47 feet when we’re done, and the other side setbacks are the same. They’re 10 and a half feet. It’s going
to remain 10 and a half feet. As far as permeability goes, I mean, it’s an existing nonconforming lot. The
permeability is very low, and we understand that and we’re doing our best by still creating this addition
we’re doing our best to increase the permeability and decrease the impermeability on the property, and
we’ve done that a few percentage points. So we’re making an existing condition better as well as creating
the treatment prior to the lake which also aides in that. Even though we’re over we aide in trying to treat
that water before it gets to the lake. So with that in mind, I would turn it over to the Board for questions,
comments.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-What was it you said about you couldn’t, I notice you do have a utility laundry room in
the basement, but for some reason?
MR. WILKINSON-It’s utilities. I’m not sure, are you going to do laundry down there, too? Laundry is up
above. It’s mainly utilities. It’s mainly the heaters and air conditioners and things like that, and also I
believe it’s going to be some storage as well.
MRS. HAMLIN-But there was a reason you said.
MR. WILKINSON-There was a reason why we didn’t have, the bedroom currently exists in the basement,
but it doesn’t have a bathroom down there.
MRS. HAMLIN-Right.
MR. WILKINSON-So if you’re staying in that bedroom you’ve got to walk all the way upstairs to go to the
bathroom at night. There is no plumbing down there. It’s all up on the first floor, and again that’s because
we needed to make sure we have gravity feeds and septic system, and again that septic system is all re-
designed and the only variance that we received from the Board of Health was on our property. We’ve
met all the setbacks for all of the property lines, and I will say that existing septic system was a drywell
which does not provide pre-treatment and it’s gone to an Elgin type system which provides much better
treatment than a drywell, and we’ve increased the setbacks.
MR. HENKEL-Now you’re saying with that size lot, you almost have a half acre there, there’s no way of
increasing that permeability? There’s got to be.
MR. WILKINSON-Well part of the problem is that the existing road runs through the center of the lot.
MR. HENKEL-Right.
MR. WILKINSON-That’s part of the problem, and that counts towards our impervious because it’s not a
dedicated road, and that’s a fairly significant portion.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised and so
I’m going to open the public hearing and first I’m going to request that anybody who’s watching on t.v.
that wants to comment on this matter, call us at 518-761-8225, and if there’s anybody in the audience who
would like to speak on this matter, please come forward. Seeing nobody, Roy, I forgot on the last one to
check the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There was no public comment on the last one, but there are four here. These all seem
favorable to the applicant. So, “We have no objection to the application submitted by Kathy Sanders, 119
Birdsall Road, for renovation and addition. We support her request without question.” That’s Kathleen
and Wallace Hirsch at 145 Birdsall Road. “Dear Planning and Zoning Board members: We are neighbors
of Kathy Sanders and reside at 103 Birdsall Rd. We have been appraised of the plans for her building
project and support it in full. The new septic system, improved stormwater management, and lake front
landscaping will go a long ways towards protecting the lake environment and will provide a much
improved situation over the present situation. Please grant approval of the project and the associated
variances as described in the application. Doing so will benefit the immediate surroundings and the Town
as a whole. In advance we thank you for your approval. Sincerely, Carol and William Merritt” This was
a phone call received from Susan Moosbrugger. She called the Zoning Office for public comment for Kathy
Sanders’ project. Susan is in full support of the project. I don’t have an address for her. And then “I am
writing to show my full support for applicant Kathy Sanders of 119 Birdsall Rd, for renovation of existing
home. She is a respectable and well liked person looking to spend more time in the North Country. She
has fallen in love with the area and we welcome her and her family with open arms. The upgrades rare
appropriate and much needed and will be an asset to the neighborhood. Maureen Valenti” And I’m not
spotting an address for that either. That’s it.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
MR. MC CABE-Is our two minutes up?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing, and I’m going to poll the
Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to be cautious when we get on these small lots on Glen Lake and on
Lake George, and in this instance here it’s understandable what you’re trying to do to improve the property
by adding another floor on there, but in essence what you’re building is a three story building because
you’ve got that semi exposed lower portion underneath the house, and I think that’s what kicks it up into
that 31 with your over height that you’re requesting for the height of the building. As far as the actual
Floor Area Ratio, where you’re entitled to 4,312 square feet at 22%, what you’re proposing at 5,856 square
feet to me is way over the top and I think on such a small lot we have to be careful. When you scale things
in you look at how things look. I think if you eliminated that whole side that obvious two story thing
where your mudroom is where you come in on the back of the house there, that would get you more into
compliance. I might consider the project at that point, but without significant modification there’s no
way I would approve this project.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I concur with Jim. My concern is the number of variances and the scope of the project.
I think it’s just way too much for that size property.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree. Looking at the property, there’s quite a bit of blacktop. There could be
some permeability change there. I have no problem with the side setbacks. You’re going to get that on
any small piece of property on the lake. The height does bother me a little bit and also the FAR variance
is a little bit too much for me, too, the 1434 feet you’re asking for there, but definitely the permeability is a
big thing for me around the lake, and I think there’s too much blacktop. So I would not be on board with
this project.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. WEBER-I kind of agree. I think we’re in a situation where unfortunately the house is too big and
the lot is too small. I think they’re squeezing a lot on the property, and that’s why I agree with the other
members.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I hate to jump on the bandwagon, but if there were just one or two variances I would say
we could overlook it and attribute it to the size of the lot, but we’re talking about quite a number of
variances and there are alarm bells going off all over the place regarding this. I think there’s some scaling
back that needs to be done. I would not be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-The height particularly bothers me. The FAR not so much, but the permeability, if we
could improve on that, and the Planning Board mentioned that. So think something needs to be done.
MR. MC CABE-So as I view this, first of all I’m impressed that the applicant has talked to the neighbors
and has full support of the neighbors, and I kind of agree with the agent that each one of these is kind of
minor, but the trouble is there’s a bunch of them. So I think the setbacks are certainly reasonable, but at
least one of the others has got to change significantly before I would support a project like this, and I’ll just
say that we had an application kind of around the corner that was similar, and we finally reached
agreement with the applicant where they reduced the number of requests in the variance, and so I think
that that’s what needs to be done here before I would okay it. So you’re like 0 for 7 here. So you have a
couple of choices. You can ask to table this application to another time. You can call for a vote.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I make a couple of suggestions, too. Almost all the properties on the east and
southeast side of Glen Lake are built into the hillside and have pump up septic systems from the cellar for
the rooms that are down in the lower portion of the house, and I think your negativity about having it be
able to pump up from the cellar with the bedroom down there probably is not valid because everybody else
has overcome that problem o that whole side of that lake over there. So I think you’re going to have to
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
look at that same situation and think about keeping the bedroom in the cellar, re-doing your upper story,
making it as palatial as you want to within the realm of the Floor Area Ratio, but adding that extra floor
on top is too much icing on the cake for me, and I think for most of the Board. So I would hope you would
go back to the drawing board and re-think the whole thing again and come up with an alternative.
MR. WILKINSON-There’s a couple of comments I’d like to make. If you look at the site plan or the
existing conditions plan, part of the reason the Floor Area Ratio is as high as it is, is because the garage is
a larger footprint than the actual house and we have to count that in for our Floor Area Ratio, but I would
like to request to table.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kathy Sanders.
Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 1,245 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a second story and an open
deck addition to an existing deck. The home has an existing floor area of 3,971 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,856
sq. ft. Project includes site work for retaining walls on land, repairs of shoreline retaining wall,
landscaping, stormwater management, and a new septic system. Relief is sought for FAR, height, setback,
and permeability. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2020 KATHY SANDERS, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
Tabled to the first meeting in August with new information to be submitted to the Town by the July
deadline date.
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June 2020, by the following vote:
MR. WILKINSON-Again, one of the things I’m going to look at and discuss with the client is the fact that
there’s something we can do with that property. Currently existing is a three bay garage with a storage
shed on the back. Maybe by releasing some of that square footage we could get it down, and maybe that’s
an alternative. We have alternatives.
MR. MC CABE-So you have a pretty good idea of what we’re looking for.
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Weber, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. WILKINSON-I appreciate that, and again, to reiterate, the side setbacks are what they are today.
MR. MC CABE-And I don’t think anybody will argue about that.
MR. WILKINSON-And as far as the permeability goes, we’re trying to improve the square footage. You
see that road goes right through it and so there’s not a lot we can do with that either.
MR. HENKEL-But there is quite a bit of paving there.
MR. WILKINSON-Yes, there is. We cut out some, but we’ll cut more.
MR. HENKEL-Well, the other thing is permeable pavers.
MR. WILKINSON-It also puts maintenance on the owner that I don’t like to do, but there’s other things
we can do. We’ll look at it and we appreciate your time.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So our next applicant is Area Variance 7-2020 Ronald Miller, 107 Rockhurst.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RONALD MILLER AGENT(S) JARRETT
ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) RONALD MILLER ZONING WR LOCATION 107
ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 282 SQ. FT. DECK
TO CONSTRUCT 282 SQ. FT. DECK WITH A 63 SQ. FT. ADDITION AND A 50 SQ. FT. STAIR
AND LANDING AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES REPAIR OF BOATHOUSE FOUNDATION AT
WALL. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. SITE PLAN EXPANSION
NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND HARD SURFACE WITHIN 50 FEET. CROSS REF SP
11-2020; AV 50-2012; SP 57-2012; AV 73-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2020
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY MARCH 2020 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-
5 SECTION 179-3-040A
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2020, Ronald Miller, Meeting Date: June 17, 2020 “Project Location:
107 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 282
sq. ft. deck to construct a 282 sq. ft. deck with a 63 sq. ft. addition and a 50 sq. ft. stair and landing area.
Project includes repair of boathouse foundation at wall. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability.
Site plan expansion non-conforming structure and hard surface within 50 feet.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and Section 179-4-080 Decks – Water front Residential Zone
–WR
The applicant proposes to remove an existing deck and to replace with a larger deck. Relief is requested
for shoreline setback where proposed is 36 ft. 7 inches and required is 50 ft., existing is 37 ft. 3 inches. Relief
is request for permeability where 69.1% is proposed and 75% is required, existing is 69.4%.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location of the existing home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The shoreline setback relief is 13 ft. 5 inches, and the permeability is 5.9% less than
required.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal 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 project includes the removal and new construction of a 282 sq. ft. deck. The new deck to be
constructed will also have a 63 sq. ft. addition. The deck access is to be modified so it is even with the
pavement where additional pavement may be needed to level the surface. There are to be new steps
installed to access the lower ground level stone patio area. The applicant has also explained foundation
repair to occur with the existing boat house.”
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board met an based on its limited review they did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was
th
adopted on June 16 with no objections. It was passed unanimously.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening. My name is Tom Jarrett and I’m with Jarrett Engineers representing Ron
and Kathleen Miller. They live on Rockhurst and they’re proposing the project that you have before you.
The crux of the project is replacing that deck on the north side of the house. What they’d like to do with
replacing it is get better access from the driveway, which you can see from the photo and the renderings
we’ve provided, and they’d like to put a little sitting area on the lake end of the deck. Now they went to
great pains to design that sitting area parallel to the lake. They extended it to the north and got closer to
the lake, but the technicality of the shoreline is eight inches closer at that north end of that new deck than
where the old deck was. So we need a variance for the additional eight inches. Permeability was
noncompliant before. Back about seven years, eight years ago, this Board and the Planning Board approved
additional site improvements to reduce the permeability even further, but those were never built. So now
we’re back with a modified application and not asking for as much relief as was actually approved seven
years ago. Lastly the boathouse extends onto the shore. So technically it’s zero setback structure and we
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
are going to work on that. So that’s technically a variance as well. I hope the package is pretty clear. It’s
a pretty straightforward application. So I’ll open it up for question.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? You must have done a good job.
MR. JARRETT-Either that or I totally confused them.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised and so I’d like to open the
public hearing and I’d like to invite anybody watching on t.v. who wants input to call us at 518-761-8225,
and I’ll request that anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this matter, could you approach
the podium. So I’ve got to wait for a couple of minutes to make sure nobody calls in.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-While we’re waiting, there’s no written public comments.
MR. MC CABE-And there’s no written comment. So, it doesn’t appear like anybody’s calling in. So at
this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Yes, this one’s easy. I think it passes the test.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. John W.?
MR. WEBER-I agree. I think it’s probably, I mean it has a little bit of things, but it’s nothing I think should
be declined with.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-A lot of it’s maintenance, you could say, and the ramp makes sense, better sense than what’s
there, for safety reasons.
MR. JARRETT-It is an improvement.
MR. HENKEL-It’s needed. When I walked around it, it’s a lot of improvements and maintenance. So I’m
definitely on board with it. It’s not going to interfere with anybody. So it’s a good project.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor as well. I think it’s a small thing to ask to be able to have a little spot to
enjoy lake, and you’re only talking eight inches. I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a minor change from what’s existing. I don’t see that the impact is anything to
worry about at all.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I agree.
MR. MC CABE-As do I. I think we get a lot more from this project than we give up and so I’m in favor.
So at this particular time, Jim, I’m going to ask you to make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald Miller.
Applicant proposes to remove an existing 282 sq. ft. deck to construct a 282 sq. ft. deck with a 63 sq. ft.
addition and a 50 sq. ft. stair and landing area. Project includes repair of boathouse foundation at wall.
Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Site plan expansion non-conforming structure and hard
surface within 50 feet.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and Section 179-4-080 Decks – Water front Residential Zone
–WR
The applicant proposes to remove an existing deck and to replace with a larger deck. Relief is requested
for shoreline setback where proposed is 36 ft. 7 inches and required is 50 ft., existing is 37 ft. 3 inches. Relief
is request for permeability where 69.1% is proposed and 75% is required, existing is 69.4%. Shoreline
setback where 36 ft. 7 inches is proposed and 50 ft. is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2020.
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. We do not feel this is the case. This is a minor change to what currently exists.
2. As far as feasible alternatives, I guess you could have them build a deck as it currently exists and
live with that, but the request seems very reasonable with the improvements that will be noted on
the property.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. We all recognize the small nature of the lots on
Rockhurst, and this is not unreasonable as it’s been proposed.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. There’s a slight increase in the amount of impermeable land created, but the vegetation
and other improvements are going to improve the situation from what currently exists.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to replace something that’s in need of
repair.
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;
8. 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.
7-2020 RONALD MILLER, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 17th Day of June 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. JARRETT-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 10-2020, Kevin & Annie Dineen, 149 Birdsall Road.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN AGENT(S):
ETHAN P. HALL OWNER(S): KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN ZONING: WR LOCATION 149
BIRDSALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 135 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME
AND TO RELOCATE DECK STEPS TO A NEW LOCATION TO ACCESS THE DECK. THE
EXISTING HOME HAS A FLOOR AREA OF 4,588 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 4,723 SQ. FT.
RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR
AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 12-2020; AV 208-2016 & OTHERS WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-46 SECTION 179-3-040
ANNIE DINEEN, PRESENT
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2020, Kevin & Annie Dineen, Meeting Date: June 17, 2020 “Project
Location: 149 Birdsall Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 135 sq. ft. addition
to an existing home and to relocate deck steps to a new location to access the deck. The existing home has
a floor area of 4,588 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,723 sq. ft. Relief is requested for setbacks and permeability.
Site plan for new floor area in a CEA.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setback and permeability requirements for the Waterfront Residential
Zone -WR.
Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements.
Setback relief for the new deck stairs proposed to be 11 ft. 8 inches and the new mud room proposed to be
15 ft. 2 inches to the north property line where 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is requested for the
mudroom at the shoreline where 50 ft. is required and 49 ft. is proposed. Permeability where 64.9 % is
proposed, 65.4% is existing and 75% is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts
to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The project as proposed allows for interior alterations for an
expanded kitchen and mudroom entry.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to
minimize the size mudroom.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. The north side setbacks range from setback relief from 4 ft. 10 inches to 8 ft. 4
inches. Then shoreline relief is 1 ft. Permeability relief is 10.1%.
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 impact to the neighborhood. The applicant has indicated the existing
septic is compliant.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes improvements to the home to include a mudroom addition of 135 sq. ft. The
mudroom addition area will also include interior alterations of the kitchen. The plans show the existing
conditions of the deck and the new mudroom proposed. Elevations of the mudroom and interior
arrangement of the kitchen also provided.”
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board said that based on its limited review it did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was
th
adopted on June 16, 2020 by a unanimous vote
MR. MC CABE-Hello.
MRS. DINEEN-Hi. I’m Annie Dineen. So I guess this variance, we had done it like three years ago. You
approved this and we were making it smaller. We thought about, we hadn’t done this kitchen over yet
and the mudroom.
MR. MC CABE-I thought this looked familiar.
MRS. DINEEN-Yes. I didn’t really like that plan. So we just revised it and this is actually smaller. The
plan makes more sense to me.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing no questions, I’m going to, there’s
a public hearing advertised, and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and invite
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
anybody that’s watching on t.v. to call us at 518-761-8225 to make comment, and if you’re in-house here
and wish to make comment, please approach the podium.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. HENKEL-So, Laura, some of this information on this site plan was not correct, according to the
blueprints and the survey. Right?
MRS. MOORE-I guess. The only modification is the shoreline. That’s the only one that didn’t show up.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. I thought a side setback, too. No?
MRS. MOORE-There’s a side setback to the steps as well as the deck itself.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. Because I’ve got 15’ 2” here, and we’ve 13’ 9” here.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, so the side setbacks I identify are due to the drawing versus his data.
MR. HENKEL-It’s not a big deal. I was just wondering where they got the different.
MRS. MOORE-Sometimes applicants take it, I ask them to take it from the new construction component.
Sometimes they take it from the existing building situation.
MR. MC CABE-So I don’t see anybody inputting. Do we have any written input?
MR. URRICO-Well actually we have two, but they’re from the same people. “We have no objection to
the applicant submitted by Kevin & Annie Dineen, 149 Birdsall Rd., for a 135 square foot addition and
relocation of the steps. We support their requests without question.” That’s Kathleen and Wally Hirsch
from 145 Birdsall Road. And they also sent in a website the same thing. The same thing. They still
supported them on this, too.
MR. MC CABE-That’s good. So they’re consistent. Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close
the public hearing and poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with John.
MR. HENKEL-It’s a project that makes sense. They’re only asking for an additional 135 square feet there.
It’s larger than a half-acre lot which is a good size lot for Glen Lake and I don’t see any problem with it.
It’s not a detriment to the neighborhood or the environment. So it’s a good project. I’m for it.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. It seems a minimal request, a minimal change in permeability. I
think it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. So I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. I paddle by your house numerous times over week.
It fits in and it looks like it belongs on the lake, and I think where you’re proposing the improvements for
it’s not going to have any negative impacts on the lake or anything else. It’s a slight change from what we
approved previously. I’m in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-There’s no change in terms of encroaching towards the shoreline. So I’m okay.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the application. I think it satisfies the test.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. WEBER-I agree. I don’t think it’s a major problem.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, agree. I find the request minimal and so it sounds like you’re doing pretty well
here. So I’m going to, Michelle, ask for a motion.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kevin & Annie
Dineen. Applicant proposes 135 sq. ft. addition to an existing home and to relocate deck steps to a new
location to access the deck. The existing home has a floor area of 4,588 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,723 sq. ft.
Relief is requested for setbacks and permeability. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setback and permeability requirements for the Waterfront Residential
Zone -WR.
Section 179-3-040 Establishments of District Dimensional requirements.
Setback relief for the new deck stairs proposed to be 11 ft. 8 inches and the new mud room proposed to be
15 ft. 2 inches to the north property line where 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is requested for the
mudroom at the shoreline where 50 ft. is required and 49 ft. is proposed. Permeability where 64.9% is
proposed, 65.4% is existing and 75% is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2020.
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 the appearance of this addition will blend in with the character of the
neighborhood and it’s a minimal request.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. They were previously approved for a larger addition
and chose to do this smaller addition.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it’s a smaller request than previous and it is
minimal in relation to the whole project.
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 does not have bearing on tonight’s proceedings.
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;
8. 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.
10-2020 KEVIN & ANNIE DINEEN, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 17th Day of June 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 11-2020, Adam Leonardo, 12 Hall Road
Extension.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ADAM LEONARDO AGENT(S) TOM
JARRETT OWNER(S) ADAM LEONARDO ZONING WR LOCATION 12 HALL ROAD
EXTENSION APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 606 SQ. FT. HOME WITH AN 82 SQ. FT.
DECK TO CONSTRUCT AN 888 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 288 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING
HOME HAS A FLOOR AREA OF 606 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS A 2,173 SQ. FT. HOME.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, HEIGHT AND
PERMEABILITY. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 14-2020
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-7
SECTION 179-3-040
TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Staff Notes, Area Variance No. 11-2020, Adam Leonardo, Meeting Date: June 17, 2020 “Project Location:
12 Hall Road Extension Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a 606 sq. ft.
home with an 82 sq. ft. deck to construct an 888 sq. ft. home with a 288 sq. ft. deck. The existing home has
a floor area of 606 sq. ft. and proposed is a 2,173 sq. ft. home. Project includes site work, shoreline plantings,
and stormwater management. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, height, and permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, height, and permeability.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements. Waterfront Residential Zone –WR
The new home is to be located on the property with a 7 ft. to the north side (entry roof) and 5 ft. to the
south side (chimney) where a 12 ft. is required. Floor area proposed is 23% where 22% is the maximum
allowed. Permeability is proposed at 56.3% where 75% is required. The applicant has confirmed the height
to be 27 ft. 10 inches so no relief for height is requested.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
arrangement of the septic system and a portion of Hall Road located on the applicant’s property.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The side setback relief is 5-7 ft. and the floor area is 1% in excess of the maximum allowed.
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 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 improve an existing waterfront property removing an existing dwelling and to
replace with a new home in a similar location, reduction to the patio/deck area and other permeability
proposed. The application has provided a planting plan for the shoreline area to assist with stormwater
management on the site and to be reviewed by the planning board.”
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed June 16,
2020 by a unanimous vote.
MR. JARRETT-Good evening again. Tom Jarrett of Jarrett Engineers, representing the Leonardos who
bought I’ll call it the distressed camp on Glen Lake, Hall Road Extension. Adam Leonardo is with me
tonight in case you have any questions for him. The camp that they purchased, if you went to the site, is
in need of a lot of help. So this is a classic tear down and re-build. They’ve gone to great lengths to try to
design a home that meets standards and meets their needs, which often clash which you hear on this Board
all the time. With a lot of effort they’ve gotten it down to a Floor Area Ratio just barely above standard
but they really feel they need what they’re asking for. They did get the height down to a compliant number.
So we do not need a variance for that. We do need variances for shoreline. Fifty’s required. We’re at 44
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
and change, 44.2 I think it is, two side lines and permeability, which is aggravated, you heard it in a prior
application, is aggravated by the fact that Hall Road Extension is on this property. So we counted that as
impervious, as we should, and that aggravates the permeability. The Leonardos already have approval
from the Town Board for a new wastewater system, State of the Art enhanced treatment unit in the rear of
the property which you may see in light shading on your plan, and that forced, that, with stormwater
management in a driveway forced the house closer to the lake. So everything is a chain, domino effect here,
and you’ll notice we have stormwater management provided for the driveway and for the house and then
we have a buffer on the lakeshore to try to enhance aesthetics and capture runoff so it does not get to the
lake. I think that covers what I would like to bring to your attention. Adam, do you have anything you
want to add right now?
ADAM LEONARDO
MR. LEONARDO-Just permeability. I’ve heard if you increase things then you don’t need a waiver or you
don’t need a variance?
MR. JARRETT-No, no, that’s a different situation. So we need a variance here.
MR. MC CABE-So the only question I have is that you said you’re seeking relief for shoreline setback, and
that’s not in our documentation here. Unless I’m reading this wrong.
MR. JARRETT-It should be.
MR. UNDERWOOD-They’re at 47 instead of 50.
MR. MC CABE-I thought I heard 44.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, 44.2.
MR. JARRETT-44 and 2 inches, and I thought that’s in the variance we requested I believe.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s not going to change from what it is.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, relief of setbacks. It’s just on shoreline setback.
MRS. MOORE-So as part of your resolution, I would suggest you add that.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. 44 versus 50.
MR. JARRETT-44.2 versus 50.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-So five feet ten inches request.
MR. MC CABE-Yes. Okay. So do we have questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward.
So at this particular time, again, you’ve done a really good job here. You don’t get any questions. So at
this particular time, a public hearing has been advertised, and so I’m going to open the public hearing and
I’m going to request that anybody who’s watching on t.v., if they want to input on this project, call us at
518-761-8225, and I’ll ask anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this project to step forward,
and seeing nobody, I’m going to ask Roy if there’s any written information.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
th
MR. URRICO-Yes, there’s one. On June 16, Staff, Land Use Planner Laura Moore received a phone call
in reference to the Site Plan and Area Variance for the Adam Leonardo project with a tear down, new build
with associated site work. The caller, Margaret McCurry has property at 20 Hall Road Extension and is
a neighbor to the proposed project. She expressed concern about the site vegetation along the south
border of the property, requesting trees and other vegetation remain or additional plantings as the building
would be five feet versus twelve feet. In addition the applicant was concerned about construction timing
to ensure the roadway was not blocked so that she and her neighbors can access the property safely.
That’s it.
MR. JARRETT-Reasonable concerns.
MR. MC CABE-So would you like to speak to her concerns?
MR. JARRETT-Well we do need to take pains to make sure the roadway is not blocked. That is absolutely
a must, and so that timing will be critical and we’ll have to make sure that road’s stays open. We’ve
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
already given that some thought, and that could be a condition of approval if you wish. We don’t intend
to remove any plantings along the south line, but Adam may wish to even enhance them a little further. I
don’t know.
MR. LEONARDO-There’s some trees that have to come down that are in the way of the house, but that’s
all, and only if it’s impacting the house.
MR. HENKEL-No more re-planting? You’re not going to plant anything else there to satisfy that lady?
MR. JARRETT-We hadn’t planned any to date, but I think certainly some plantings along that shoreline
could be considered.
MR. HENKEL-It wouldn’t be the shoreline. It would be the side setback, right?
MR. JARRETT-Did I say shoreline? I meant the south property line.
MR. HENKEL-Yes.
MR. LEONARDO-If you look at the heavily wooded lot on her side, and she’s probably 120 feet towards
the water from where I am, down, up on the hill, so I don’t know if it really affects her.
MR. JARRETT-Her house is down here, right here in this lower left corner of this photo, and the new
house is here. There’s a tree there that’s staying. There’s a couple of trees here that have to come down
for the house but I don’t think they ruin.
MR. LEONARDO-It’s heavily wooded.
MR. JARRETT-Yes, but certainly we could consider something if we lose the vegetation on that line.
MR. HENKEL-When I walked it, it looked like you had some vegetation there and it didn’t look like.
MR. LEONARDO-Yes, and I did speak with her, or my wife did the other day, just regarding a tree on her
property that’s leaning over, over the top of the new house. We did approach her about asking her if it
was okay if we took that down, which is probably where the phone call.
MR. HENKEL-Did she give you the okay or no?
MR. LEONARDO-She said she wanted to look at it. We’re meeting her this weekend. She wanted us to
show her exactly what tree.
MR. JARRETT-Would it be fair to ask the Planning Board to look at that issue with us? Is that a fair way
to do it?
MRS. MOORE-You can. Planting is typically something that the Planning Board does. I have seen the
Zoning Board condition on additional plantings.
MR. JARRETT-You can certainly do that and we’re not objecting to looking at that situation, whatever’s
reasonable.
MR. MC CABE-So we’ve had no input from the outside. So let’s close the public hearing and poll the
Board and see where we’re at with this particular project.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to start with you, Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the proposal as proposed is quite reasonable. As far as the waterfront
setback at 44.2, that’s atypical for Glen Lake as you well know. Most places are much closer to the water.
So I don’t really think that’s a concern. I don’t see that as a negative. As far as the Floor Area Ratio being
slightly over, it’s a small lot. I think one percent over doesn’t trigger anything major in my mind. It would
be nice if it was compliant, but they’ve made an argument that they need space that they’ve designed
appropriately for the property. So I think that’s reasonable, too. As far as the side setbacks, I guess I’ll let
everybody else talk on those. In general I think I’m in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I noticed that in general actually they did a lot to reduce the noncompliance. The
amount of parking spaces is reasonable to ask for. That’s what they noted by they couldn’t get further back
from the shore, and again it’s not a huge come back from the 50. The side yards are getting there if you
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
look at it in terms of the percentage above the whole thing. I think overall it balances. So I would probably
be in favor. I wouldn’t mind if we had some confirmation that this issue with the plantings is resolved,
but that’s through the Site Plan Review process.
MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, how do you feel?
MR. URRICO-The project I think won’t have any detriment to the neighborhood. I think the alternatives
are limited because of the house location and where it’s located. I think the side setback relief is actually
not that bad. It could be worse, and the Floor Area seems non-consequential to me. So I don’t see any
environmental impacts and it’s self-created only because it’s such a small piece of property. So on balance
I would be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-John A?
MR. WEBER-I don’t have any issue with that. I just have a question on that tree, though, that you’re
talking about your neighbor. Is that leaning? Is that going to affect your house building?
MR. LEONARDO-It’s leaning. It would be right over the top of the house. It’s on her property, but it is
leaning.
MR. JARRETT-Right laterally to the new house.
MR. HENKEL-By law you have to give her a letter that that’s a problem for her to pay for that. Otherwise
your homeowners would pay for it if it comes down. So the smart thing would be to send her a letter.
MR. WEBER-Send her a registered letter that says that you’re aware that his tree could fall on your house
and you’ve made her aware of that, because then she’s responsible for that, for any damage to your house.
MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry I have to interrupt you. This is not part of our process.
MR. JARRETT-We digress.
MR. WEBER-But, no, I don’t see any problem with it. I’d go along with it.
MR. MC CABE-So you’re a yes, John?
MR. WEBER-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. You’ve got a septic system that’s over 150 feet from
the lake. You’re only asking for 87 feet above the FAR variance. The setbacks, you have a retaining wall
that’s really creating some of that problem. The house itself is not really creating the whole problem of
the setback there. So I think you’ve done everything possible you could with that small lot and also like
you said Hall Road Extension goes through your property which kills your permeability a little bit, too.
So I think it’s a good project for Glen Lake. I’d be all for it.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. Nothing else to say.
MR. MC CABE-So I think the new house will be a vast improvement and I think what we’re gaining here
versus what we’re giving up, we’re way on the plus side. So I would support this application. So I’m
going to, Jim, ask for a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Adam
Leonardo. Applicant proposes to remove a 606 sq. ft. home with an 82 sq. ft. deck to construct an 888 sq.
ft. home with a 288 sq. ft. deck. The existing home has a floor area of 606 sq. ft. and proposed is a 2,173 sq.
ft. home. Project includes sitework, shoreline plantings, and stormwater management. Relief requested for
setbacks, floor area, height, and permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, height, and permeability.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements. Waterfront Residential Zone –WR
The new home is to be located on the property with a 7 ft. to the north side (entry roof) and 5 ft. to the
south side (chimney) where a 12 ft. is required. Floor area proposed is 23% where 22% is the maximum
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/17/2020)
allowed. Permeability is proposed at 56.3% where 75% is required. The applicant has confirmed the height
to be 27 ft. 10 inches so no relief for height is requested. Waterfront zone requires a 50 foot setback and
44.2 feet setback is being approved.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2020.
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. It’s in dire need of an upgrade from what it’s current conditions are and a new upgrade
will be an improvement to the situation that exists.
2. As far as feasible alternatives, it could be built compliant but it’s just slightly larger than what we
would allow by one percent. We feel that that’s reasonable. It’s a very small lot to being with and
the proposed home is very modest.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s the minimum necessary.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. It will have a compliant septic system.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to improve the property from its current
condition.
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;
8. 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.
11-2020 ADAM LEONARDO, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Michelle Hayward:
Duly adopted this 17th Day of June 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So is there anything else that we should talk about this evening? So I
make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
TH
JUNE 17, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle
Hayward:
th
Duly adopted this 17 day of June, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamline, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Weber, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe, Chairman
23