10-21-2020
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 2020
INDEX
Area Variance No. 29-2020 Stephanie Picard 1.
RE-AFFIRM MOTION Tax Map No. 279.-1-76.1
Area Variance No. 31-2020 Bill Pogonowski 2.
Tax Map No. 239.8-1-7 & 238.8-1-60
Area Variance No. 34-2020 Trevor Flynn 7.
Tax Map No. 239.18-1-22
Area Variance No. 37-2020 Mark Prendeville 11.
Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58
Area Variance No. 38-2020 Tom Caifa 23.
Tax Map No. 302.14-2-5
Area Variance No. 39-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 26.
Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84
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)
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 21, 2020
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
MICHELLE HAYWARD
RONALD KUHL
JOHN HENKEL
CATHERINE HAMLIN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals. From a safety standpoint I’d like to point out there are two exits on the north here where you
came in. There’s an exit in the far south, along the far south wall, and there are two exits in back of me to
the east. If you’ve not been here before, our procedure is fairly simple. We’ll call each application up.
There should have been a handout on the back table showing the order of the cases. The case will be read
into the record. The applicant will have the opportunity to present any pertinent material. We’ll ask
questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we’ll open the public hearing and
take input from the public. You can also call in from the outside. The number is 518-761-8225. After
public input we’ll close the public hearing. I will poll the Board to find out how the Board feels about the
application, and then we’ll proceed accordingly, but first I have a couple of administrative items, and so
th
first I’m going to look for a motion for the meetings of September 16.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
September 16, 2020
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 16, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Kuhl:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
AV 29-2020 (PICARD) RE-AFFIRM APPROVAL RESOLUTION DUE TO COUNTY
RECOMMENDATION TIMING REVIEW OF APPLICATION.
MR. MC CABE-Now we have a request to extend a prior resolution that we made, and, Laura, maybe you
could say a couple of words about this.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So actually it’s a re-affirmation of an approval resolution, and this is due to the
County recommendations and timing review requirement. So in approving this resolution we had not
received the County recommendation, and now we have, and therefore the Board can move forward and
re-affirm that resolution.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephanie
Picard. Applicant proposes to maintain an existing 912 +/- sq. ft. footprint of 1,482 sq. ft. floor area second
dwelling. The existing site has a 2,170 sq. ft. (footprint) home and a 7,714 sq. ft. (footprint) barn. The barn
and home have been on the property since about 1860. The applicant purchased the lot with all of the
buildings in the current configuration. There are no changes proposed to the site. Relief requested for
second dwelling.
Relief Required:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
The applicant requests relief for second dwelling in the Waterfront Residential Zone (WR).
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes to maintain a second home of 912 sq. ft. as the property was purchased with the
second building as is.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 16, 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 as these buildings have been on this property for years for a long, long time.
2. Feasible alternatives really are limited and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and
have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because of the size of the lot. The lot itself is 6.7 acres.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty could be suggested to be self-created since we look to have one lot and one
house, but again, this is 6.7 acres. It’s a large lot. These structures have been there for a long, long
time.
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) That this dwelling would never be used as a rental/air B N B property.
b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO REAFFIRM APPROVE AREA
VARIANCE NO. 29-2020 STEPHANIE PICARD, Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Mike McCabe:
Due to County Recommendation Timing Review of Application.
St
Duly adopted this 21 Day of October 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 31-2020, Bill Pogonowski.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BILL POGONOWSKI AGENT(S)
ETHAN P. HALL – RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) BILL POGONOWSKI
ZONING WR/LAKE GEORGE CEA LOCATION 24 RUSSELL HARRIS RD. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED 672 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) GARAGE WITH FLOOR
AREA OF 1.114 SQ. FT. THE GARAGE HEIGHT IS TO BE 23 FEET 3 INCHES WHERE 16 FEET IS
MAXIMUM FOR A GARAGE IN WR ZONE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,954 SQ. FT.
(FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,195 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR FLOOR
AREA & HEIGHT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 42-2020;
BP 99561-7931; BP 99562-7930; AV 27-1999; AV 28-1999; P20020807 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING OCTOBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.3 ACRES (7);
0.09 ACRES (60) TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60 SECTION 179-3-040
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2020, Bill Pogonowski, Meeting Date: October 21, 2020 “Project
Location: 24 Russell Harris Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a
detached 672 sq. ft. (footprint) garage with floor area of 1,114 sq. ft. The garage height is to be 23 feet 3
inches where 16 feet is maximum for a garage in WR zone. The existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (footprint)
with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. Relief requested for floor area & height. Site Plan for new floor area in a
CEA.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for floor area and height.
Section 179-3-040, 179-5-020 Garages – Waterfront Residential WR
The garage is to be 672 sq. ft. with a new site floor area of 4309 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 3,956
sq. ft. Relief is also requested for the height where 23 ft. 3 inches is proposed and 16 ft. is the maximum
height allowed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the garage is located
near Russell Harris Road.
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 to reducing the height and
floor area may be possible.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. Relief for the floor area is 353 sq. ft. more than allowed and height relief is 7 ft. 3 inches
more 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 project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a new garage on the site with associated site work. The plans show
the new garage and the lots are to be merged as part of the project.”
MR. URRICO-Then the Planning Board they made a motion and based on their limited review they
identified the following areas of concern: the amount of height relief requested. And that was passed on
th
October 20 by a unanimous vote.
MR. MC CABE-So we’re going to ask that each applicant only send a single representative to the podium
at a time. At the podium, after you’re done with your presentation, please wipe down the podium and the
mic with the wipes provided and then discard the wipe in the wastebasket just to the north there. So
state your name, please.
MR. HALL-For your records, my name is Ethan Hall, a principle in Rucinski-Hall Architecture. Here
tonight representing Bill and Wendy Pogonowski. So we are seeking two variances, once for the height
of the garage for the overall peak of the roof and an increase in floor area ratio over what is allowed by
Code. The height, the existing house is an A-Frame style house, very steep pitch chalet, and basically what
we’re trying to do is we’re trying to mimic the look of the house with the look of the garage. We’ve moved
the garage as far back away from the water as we could physically on the site. We put it right on the rear
property line. We’ve brought it right up close to the road. I submitted a picture to Laura today showing
the site from the very end of Russell Harris Road as you head towards it. The green tree that’s in the
middle is approximately where the garage is going to be located, that green tree right there is where the
garage would be located. Laura, did you have any of the other ones? Because as you get closer, you’re
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
actually only about 50 feet from their property line, the last photo, Number Four. This is actually you start
to get closer to the property, and then this is the last picture that actually shows the end of the house with
the steep pitch of the roof pitch here is what we’re trying to mimic, and this is about 50 feet from the
property line. The fence is right on the property line, and this is about the only place that you can start to
see the edge of the lake from here. So the views to the lake wouldn’t be compromised because you can’t
really see anywhere from their back. The piece of property behind it is a, I think it’s 60 acres. This is the
Bette Trust. There’s a lot of it that is wetland. This area behind it is pretty much just open field. The need
for the increase overhead, the existing house has a partially finished basement and the rest of the basement
is crawl space. It has no real storage. So anything that needs to be stored right now, they have in a shed
that’s in the back of the property. They want to get rid of the shed and build the garage and have the
overhead volume to store patio furniture and outdoor things.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, Ron. Is there going to be water and electric?
MR. HALL-No. There will be electric for lights and the garage door openers and things like that.
MR. KUHL-And the upstairs is just for storage?
MR. HALL-Just for storage.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Similar question, because you still could get storage. If you’ve got 16 feet, you still could
have like attic trusses in there, which would give you storage. You’d have to probably entre from inside
the garage. You wouldn’t have a stairway, because it almost looks like, I mean that’s almost another living
space up there. That’s 442 square feet is that second floor roughly.
MR. HALL-Yes. If you take a look at the area, if you look on your floor plan drawing, I’ve got a line that
shows the limits of five foot headroom in there which is basically shoulder height. From there down it’s
really not a lot of usable space, even for storage because of the steepness.
MR. HENKEL-Well it would eliminate, definitely, but then it would give you some storage and then you
would eliminate both variances. You wouldn’t need a variance for either height or, if you went to 16 feet,
or you would need the variance for the FAR.
MR. HALL-The only I think we would have to do is we would have to increase the footprint of the building
to get the stairs on the inside, and that’s going to increase our footprint.
MR. HENKEL-I didn’t see, what was the dimensions of the garage?
MR. KUHL-Twenty-eight by twenty-four.
MR. HENKEL-Twenty-four by twenty-eight.
MR. KUHL-But you can put stairs on the 28 length.
MR. HENKEL-That would drop down.
MR. HALL-We could\\. Again, we’re trying to mimic, with the roof pitch, we’re trying to keep it in line
with the house. So it looks more like a house.
MR. HENKEL-Sure.
MR. HALL-I think if we get down to a shallower pitch it doesn’t at all look like the rest of the house, and
that’s really what we’re shooting for is to try and keep them architecturally together.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing no more, there is a public hearing advertised and so at this
particular time I’m going to open the public hearing, ask anybody from the outside who has comments on
this project to call us at 518-761-8225, and,, Roy, do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. URRICO-There is one letter. “I am the neighbor to Bill and Wendy Pogonowski parcel located at
24 Russell Harris Road. My parcel is located immediately next to theirs. It is my understanding that they
are interested in constructing a garage structure on their property. Please accept this correspondence as
official notification that we are in support of this proposed project. The garage structure as proposed will
not hinder our view and/or encroach on our property lines. I am confident that the garage structure will
improve the appearance of the property as well as the neighborhood.” And that’s Kimberly Mariani. I
don’t see an address. That’s it.
MR. MC CABE-So is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this particular project?
MRS. MOORE-There’s people out in the waiting room. I’m also going to ask if there’s anybody out in the
waiting room?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. The property already
exceeds the allowable impervious cover on the property. Although it’s being minimally reduced, the
impervious cover will remain 50% greater than allowable. The property will now exceed the FAR, Floor
Area Ratio, which is, if granted, which is a planning design to size structure and buildings to land available
for adequate mitigation. There’s a concern about the cumulative variances on the property with this
property. It will actually have the most detriment to water quality, exceeding the impervious cover and
floor area ratio. It does not appear to meet the balancing test despite the fact that the proposed garage is
set back from the lake and that is maximized.
MR. MC CABE-So let me stop you right there. So I don’t see where we’re being asked to approve
permeability.
MRS. MOORE-It’s not. The permeability is increased. It still doesn’t meet the requirements, but it’s an
increase.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. I see. Okay.
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. Such things, there could be a reduction of impervious cover, which makes me think
the balance, no information contained, there are mature trees on the property. There’s no information
contained on the shoreline buffer which a lot of times is requested as a mitigation factor on applications.
There’s a lot of hard scape when you get closer to the lake. So we feel that there should be more of a balance
on this thing when you look at the variances requested. Thank you..
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So, Mr. Hall, would you like to address that? Is there anybody else?
MR. HALL-Certainly. Yes, we are increasing the permeability of the lot, and we understand that is an
issue. Our feeling with the Floor Area Ratio is these floor area ratios were written into the WR zone
which is a two acre zone. Applying that to a two acre lot, we would be well under what we propose to
be. This is an undersized, pre-existing lot. It’s only .32 acres. So when you take that size lot and add it
to the house that’s already there plus what we’re proposing, that that’s why the numbers seem highly
inflated because it’s an undersized lot. We have added stormwater mitigation to our plan for the proposed
garage. The existing building is well landscaped. There is a fair amount of landscaping between the house
and the shoreline, and that’s been there for many years. So those are the mitigation factors there.
MR. URRICO-When is the merging going to take place?
MR. HALL-Pardon?
MR. URRICO-The merging of the lots, when is that supposed to take place?
MR. HALL-We’ve been in discussions with the client’s attorney and it’s a matter of them drawing up the
paperwork to get everything, just to merge the two deeds together.
MR. MC CABE-So, seeing nobody else, I assume our two minutes has expired, so at this particular time,
I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board on this issue.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with John.
MR. HENKEL-Can you skip me for a second here?
MR. MC CABE-Ron, he passed the ball to you.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. I appreciate the architect’s desire to mimic
the house, but I think that at 23 feet it sets a bad example. You could do other things. If upstairs is just
for storage, then storage it could be at 16 foot of height. You could reduce the nine foot one and an eighth
inch of the garage to eight or even seven and a half and gain what you need upstairs. So I think it sets a
bad example, and I appreciate the fact that you want to go along with the architecture of the house, but
for me, I would be against it.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement with Mr. Kuhl. I do appreciate your wanting to mimic the aesthetics
like you said, and I think it’s just unfortunately overbuilding on an undersized lot. So I can’t be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I agree.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we should be concerned on these smaller lots, and as I mentioned last
month, we’re looking at increasing the floor area ratio allowance for these substandard lots based on two
acres that we’ve got now. At the same time, though, I think that there’s mitigating circumstances here.
You’re 200 feet back. I don’t have a problem with you building a garage back there, and I understand what
you’re trying to do with the steep pitch of the roof there, but at the same time I think you could modify
slightly and lower the height of the building down, and I’m not that concerned about the runoff because of
the fact that you’re 200 feet from the lake. But I think you should go back and think about the height.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I would feel better if the lots were merged already, because if something happens then
we’re stuck with a floor area 350 square feet more than it should be, but even with the merger, the height’s
not going to change, and that would be a no, no for me. So I would not be in favor of the application either.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, similar to what Roy is saying, actually if the lots are not merged, you’re not allowed to
have a garage on a piece of property without a house. So that would cause a problem. There’s no way of
connecting that, having the garage attached to the house?
MR. HALL-We did look at that.
MR. HENKEL-Because then you wouldn’t have to have the variance. You could have the height, though.
MR. HALL-The end of the house that faces out into the yard, you can see all the windows that are on the
end of it, and if we connected it it would close off all of the windows.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I understand that.
MR. HALL-I’ve looked at what we can do to reduce height. I have looked at that because I knew that was
going to be an issue. If we bring the roof pitch down to a 9/12 from a 12/12, it puts our overall height at 19
feet 11 inches. That’s something that we could propose to do. That brings us closer into conformance.
We’d be looking for a four foot, three foot 11 inch variance at that point. It’s still close to what it is. I
mean the existing house is a 14/12. So that’s really driving where we were heading with the 12/12 trying
to mimic that and get it as close to that as we could. A 9/12 still brings it close but 6/12 makes it look too
flat. We’ve drawn it at six foot. Even at a 7/12 we’re still at 17 feet.
MR. HENKEL-So what would be the height?
MR. HALL-The overall height would be 19 feet 11 inches at a 9/12.
MR. MC CABE-Four feet is basically, instead of six, or what are we asking for now, eight?
MR. HALL-Seven foot three is what we’re asking for right now. We’d be asking for three foot eleven.
MR. MC CABE-So from my standpoint I could live with the floor area ratio because it is such a small lot
and we deal with that all the time, but we’ve quibbled over half a foot of height. We’ve been pretty
stringent on that. So I’d have to say even four feet would be too much for me.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’m still, also like I said the FAR variance doesn’t bother me too much, but like I said
you could eliminate everything by complying with the 16 foot height of garage and that would eliminate
everything. It would eliminate your FAR variance, too. So I would not be on board as is.
MR. HALL-I guess we’ll ask to table it for tonight and I’ll have to talk with my clients and see how they
want to proceed.
MR. MC CABE-So could I get a tabling motion, John? So when do you think you’d be ready? Do we have
any openings in November?
MRS. MOORE-Not in November. They would be tabled to a meeting in December. I would just table it
to the first meeting in December.
MR. HENKEL-With the paperwork due by the first of December.
MR. MC CABE-The middle of November.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
th
MR. HALL-The 15 of November.
th
MR. HENKEL-The 15 of November. Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Bill
Pogonowski. Applicant proposes to construct a detached 672 sq. ft. (footprint) garage with floor area of
1,114 sq. ft. The garage height is to be 23 feet 3 inches where 16 feet is maximum for a garage in WR zone.
The existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (footprint) with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. Relief requested for floor area
& height. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI, Introduced by John
Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
th
Tabled to the first meeting in December with a submittal date of November 15.
st
Duly adopted this 21 Day of October 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. HALL-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our second application here is AV 34-2020 Trevor Flynn.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN AGENT(S) TREVOR
FLYNN OWNER(S) JAMES S. DENOOYER ZONING RR-5A/LAKE GEORGE CEA
LOCATION 19 LOCKHART LOOP APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO PORCH ADDITIONS: AN
81.4 SQ. FT. COVERED FRONT ENTRY PORCH; A 224 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH; AND 213 SQ. FT.
OF ROOF-DORMER OVERHANG AREAS. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,540 SQ. FT.
(FOOTPRINT) AND FULL BASEMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. SITE PLAN
FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 44-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
OCTOBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.18-1-22 SECTION 179-3-040 & 179-4-080 (PORCHES); 179-13-010 (NONCONFORMING)
TREVOR FLYNN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2020, Trevor Flynn, Meeting Date: October 21, 2020 “Project
Location: 19 Lockhart Loop Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes two porch additions:
an 81.4 sq. ft. covered front entry porch; a 224 sq. ft. screen porch; and 213 sq. ft. of roof-dormer overhang
areas. The existing home is 1,540 sq. ft. (footprint) and full basement. Relief requested for setbacks. Site
plan for new floor area in a CEA.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for new construction in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The new front entry porch is 72.5 ft. from the south property line where 100 ft. is required, the new screened
porch is located 58.50 ft. from the south property line where 100 ft. is required. The new dormer on the
north side of the building is to be 88.50 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location of the existing home on a 7.84 ac parcel in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested from the south property line is 41.5 ft. and the north
is 11.5 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project 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 construct two porch additions, two dormer areas and relocate the driveway area
to assist with stormwater. The plans show the location of the additions and the driveway. The plans
indicate there is existing plantings and new planting to be installed in rain garden areas on the site.”
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board introduced a motion and based on its limited review did not
identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and
th
that was adopted October 20, 2020 by a unanimous vote.
MR. FLYNN-Hi. Good evening. My name’s Trevor Flynn, representing Mr. and Mrs. James Denooyer at
19 Lockhart Loop Lake George, NY. Currently our clients have a property located on the lake. It’s a three
story structure and they’re aging in place so they purchased this property and are looking to the future, a
one story ranch with the idea that they could live on one story. They’ve done some site improvements
since then. So looking at the existing structure there’s currently a garage that is right here on the structure
itself and also with the Zoning Code trying to limit the amount of garages on the site, so keeping the
existing detached garage intact for the vehicle storage, vehicle access. As mentioned, moving into this new
house, it’s a smaller footprint compared to what they’re used to. So they’re trying to create a somewhat
larger space with an open floor plan and re-locating some of the rooms, having a master bedroom and
bathroom in case they ever have to be in a wheelchair, a universal design. Once we started to look at the
interior floor space, and considering the detached garage, idea of an attached front entry came into play.
We looked at depressing that front entry into the existing footprint, but it really started to eat up what
was left of that existing footprint, and it’s an existing nonconforming lot. So this small area here, since the
entire site is a front yard setback, at 100 feet there wouldn’t be enough area to build within to be compliant,
since it’s an existing nonconforming structure. The screen porch was another effort to expand on the
space they have outdoors and patio area, fire pit. So the idea of creating that other space that could be one
story and off the side of the structure itself. Since the client has purchased the property, they’ve planted
over 90 trees, and that’s been an effort to screen from the road. I’m sure you guys are all familiar with what
this structure has looked like over the past 15, 20 years. So it’s just been a brown, board and batten house.
The idea was to bring it back to life and also bring the landscaping and really address some of the
stormwater issues as well. So even looking at the existing driveway and grading, at kind of the top or
crest of the hill after 9, the water slopes off, hits the hill, and then continues to slope down to Lockhart
Loop. Their goal is to try to prevent that with additional plantings, and also re-routing the driveway.
Currently the water just runs right down the driveway and kind of blocks up this storm drain. So in an
effort to re-create an approach to the house, and then also mitigate the runoff to the front of the driveway
from the west, and we are still working on a planting plan with our civil engineer, but there would be some
additional plantings and raingardens or shallow grassed area to absorb some of that runoff as well as the
front on the two sides and towards the rear to capture most of the previous runoff. As far as the setbacks,
we discussed the front entry and the porch. The front dormer that faces Lockhart, that was added for
more of an aesthetic approach, looking at the existing structure and rooflines we wanted to add that roof.
So the existing setback from Lockhart Loop is 75 feet, where this dormer is at 88.5. Similar for the screened
porch. You have the existing setback over by the detached garage which is 46 feet, where the screened
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
porch is only asking for 58.5 feet, and then again the entry porch, too, from 9 is 72.5 feet away from the
property line. Again, you know, as we start to look at the floor plan overall, you can see we’ve increased t
the size of the master bedroom and bathroom in an effort for wheelchair access throughout., three foot
doors, and that ended up moving the two bedrooms that were here down to the other side of the house,
and we did look at, again, this entry encroaching here, but there’s just, there wasn’t enough room at the
end of the day to squeeze it in, and then connecting kind of a kitchen, dining room and living to the exterior,
that was the reasoning for the screened porch towards 9N, and we’re really u sing that vegetative buffer of
all the trees that they’ve been planting to kind of create this kind of small oasis here in the center, the two
roads.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. FLYNN-And as far as the additions themselves, all the dormers do not increase the height of the
building. They stay within the zoning envelope. So we’re really trying to minimize the overall aesthetic
of the structure.
MR. MC CABE-No questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’d like
to open the public hearing and invite anybody from the outside who’s watching to give us a call at 518-761-
8225 if you want to comment on this particular application. Roy, is there anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment.
MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this
particular application.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, again. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We would actually
like to commend the applicant for the work that they’ve done on the property. We are not opposed to
what they are asking. We just wanted to recognize their investment in the property with the vegetation.
I forget when it was, 10, 15 years ago, the property was basically clear cut with great impact to that little
Loop. So we just want to recognize their environmentally responsible approach to the property. The only
comment I would have is that they reference stormwater management, raingardens as one of their criteria,
but then they don’t have it. I imagine they’ll have it for the Planning Board. I suspect they will, but it
would just be good to see if they’re getting a variance, but anyway, we support it. That’s all. Thanks.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you.
MR. HENKEL-Your concerned with the stormwater management. The permeability is way above what’s
required. Your concern with the raingardens and that, the stormwater management, but the permeability
is really quite good there.
MR. NAVITSKY-The permeability is good. I just, when people say they’re putting it in, but then it’s not
there. So that’s just my only comment. I imagine when they go to the Planning Board it will be there.
Not a real big concern.
MRS. MOORE-That’s accurate., It should be present before the Planning Board.
MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Flynn, would you like to comment?
MR. FLYNN-As far as the stormwater, we do plan to have that for the next Planning Board meeting. As
far as I’m aware, we can only just provide enough stormwater management for the runoff of the newly
added structures, or pervious area, and we’re going to provide that, and that’s the overall goal, an as
mentioned, we’re really trying to bring this back to a wooded site, a natural site, in between the two roads.
MR. HENKEL-When were the original buildings built? Quite a few years ago, weren’t they?
MR. FLYNN-I want to say was the house was in the 70’s.
MR. HENKEL-It’s been there a long time.
MR. FLYNN-And then there’s a couple of additions to the garage itself.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Cathy.
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m a little confused about this setback exactly, the numbers. So we’re looking for what?
MR. MC CABE-We’re looking for relief on three setbacks, south property, so it would be the north and I
guess the porch is on the south property line. So two setbacks on the south property line.
MRS. HAMLIN-All right. Well one of them is kind of substantial, but still, with the permeability being
as good as it is, and taking in all the improvements they made to the property. So I would have to say yes
as presented.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Neither of these additions as requested is going to trigger anything in my mind as
far as negative here. It’s all driven strictly by the fact that it’s five acre zoning, and I think if it was one
acre zoning we wouldn’t even be here at all. So I think that it’s minimal relief requested. I don’t think
there’s any negative physical effects on the environment. It’s a positive for the applicant.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-In my judgment they meet the test and I’d be in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-It’s a weird shaped property because it’s got all fronts. Wherever they go they’ve got to
deal with the front setbacks and they’re still way off the road. So it’s no problem at all. It’s a good project.
Aesthetically it’s going to be nice for the neighborhood, curb appeal. It’s a great project. Good looking.
I’m all for it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-If this was Waterfront Residential we wouldn’t be here. I think t’s a good project. It’s a
shame it’s in the five acre zone but it’s a good project. I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. It’s also improving the environmental conditions in the area and I
think it’s a modest request, given the neighborhood. It’s basically surrounded by much smaller lots. I’m
in favor.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, commend the applicant for the work that they’ve done to help the environment
here, and I think that the setbacks are basically caused by where the house was placed originally. So I
don’t see any big problems. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion from Ron.
MR. KUHL-Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn.
Applicant proposes two porch additions: an 81.4 sq. ft. covered front entry porch; a 224 sq. ft. screen porch;
and 213 sq. ft. of roof-dormer overhang areas. The existing home is 1,540 sq. ft. (footprint) and full
basement. Relief requested for setbacks. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for new construction in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The new front entry porch is 72.5 ft. from the south property line where 100 ft. is required, the new screened
porch is located 58.50 ft. from the south property line where 100 ft. is required. The new dormer on the
north side of the building is to be 88.50 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 21, 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:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because this is a large piece of property (1.83 ac) in the 5 ac zone requiring the 100 ft.
setback
2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have
been included to minimize the request;
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the lot is in the 5-acre zone;
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district;
5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because lot is within a 5-acre zone;
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.
34-2020 TREVOR FLYNN/DENOOYER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
st
Duly adopted this 21 Day of October 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 37-2020, Mark Prendeville.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 37-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MARK PRENDEVILLE AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) MARK PRENDEVILLE ZONING WR/GLEN LAKE
CEA LOCATION 102 ASH DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-STORY ADDITION WITH A
BASEMENT AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE ADDITION IS 3,844 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA
AND 1,518 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE HOME WILL HAVE A FOOTPRINT OF 2,296 SQ. FT.
WITH 923 SQ. FT. PORCH & DECKS WITH THE NEW FLOOR AREA OF 5,808 SQ. FT. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND PREVIOUS
SHORELINE VEGETATION REMOVAL. CROSS REF SP 48-2020; P88723-1824; P90279-8236
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-58
SECTION 179-3-040 (SETBACKS & PERMEABILITY)
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 37-2020, Mark Prendeville, Meeting Date: October 21, 2020 “Project
Location: 102 Ash Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-story addition with
a basement and associated site work. The addition is 3,844 sq. ft. floor area and 1,518 sq. ft. footprint. The
home will have a footprint of 2,296 sq. ft. with 923 sq. ft. porch & decks with the new floor area of 5,808
sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks and height. Site Plan for new floor area and previous shoreline
vegetation removal.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and height in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR
Section 179-3-040 – dimensional requirements, 179-13-010 –expansion of nonconforming structure
The new addition is to be 10.7 ft. from the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The
building height of the addition is to be 28.9 ft. and 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. The existing
home is pre-existing non-conforming.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
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 due to the
location of the existing home on the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for side setback of 9.3 ft. Height relief is 0.9 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 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 construction of 1,518 sq. ft. footprint and a floor area of 3,844 sq. ft. two story
addition with a basement area. The submission includes site drawings of the addition to be built. The
floor plans of the existing interior arrangement are provided. The addition is to be constructed away from
the shore.”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board met and adopted a motion which did not identify any areas of
significant impact that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed seven
to zero unanimously.
MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins with Hutchins Engineering, Queensbury.
Here on behalf and with owner/applicant Mark Prendeville and his wife Julie. We’re here to, let me step
back a little. The Prendeville’s own what I’m told is one of if not the oldest remaining houses on Glen
Lake. I’m not a Glen Lake historian, but it’s certainly one of. They do not propose to remove the house.
It is an existing seasonal dwelling. They wish to maintain it, keep it as a seasonal dwelling. They wish to
construct an addition that will be winterized and will be a place where obviously they can reside in the
winter and then use the existing house additionally in season. We’re requesting relief from a side setback
from the south property line, right at that point there. It’s 10 feet, obviously, our side setback is 20. The
dashed line running through there is a 20 foot side setback. The existing house is some seven to eight feet
from that property line. We’re requesting to build an addition at 10. The other variance we’re requesting
is for height, and that has to do with the function of the building design. This ridge running this way is
28.9 feet by height definition, which is partially to a low area along that profile, and partially to the
architecture that we’re trying to maintain because we have a long roofline off to the north. That ridge is
lower than the ridge of the existing house by approximately a foot. So it’ll tie in perpendicular to the
existing ridge, but it will be lower than the ridge. So from the lakeside you won’t see the height.
MR. MC CABE-So in essence you aren’t increasing the height of the house.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re not increasing the height of the house. The addition we are constructing is .9
feet over height as we have to do it by Queensbury standards, which takes into account existing. So that’s
what we’re asking for is the proposal includes a replacement wastewater system, stormwater controls for
the building and the drive, with the drive modifications, and I guess in keeping with that I’d turn it over to
the Board for comments. I would add there’s a fair amount of large trees along the shoreline. I’m sure
you’re familiar with the site, and the intention there is to maintain what’s there and improve the length of
the shoreline landscaping. So with that, I’d turn it over to the Board.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Ron, you’re a historian. Is that the oldest
house on Glen Lake? Jim?
MR. KUHL-He’s got time on me. He’s got time on me. He was there when they were digging the canal.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s got to be right up there.
MR. MC CABE-Everything else has been torn down. So do we have questions of the applicant?
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. KUHL-The older cottage that’s going to remain, is that just a seasonal cottage? Is that what you’re
saying, Tom?
MR. HUTCHINS-That is seasonal, yes.
MR. KUHL-No heat in it?
MR. HUTCHINS-There’s no heat. There’ll be an insulated wall, an insulated door at the connections.
MR. KUHL-Any reason? I mean I see the pictures, the design. Any reason you didn’t just go along with
the same coloring?
MR. HUTCHINS-The building color?
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-Mark, do you want to opine on that?
MRS. MOORE-I’m just going to add something. I believe there’s people in the outside room that are
waiting to sit for possibly this application, and if you’re not here for this application at this time, would
you mind giving up your seats so others can come in and sit down?
MR. MC CABE-So we’ll ask you to state your name for the record.
MARK PRENDEVILLE
MR. PRENDEVILLE-My name is Mark Prendeville, 102 Ash Drive, Lake George, NY.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So you can provide an answer to Ron’s question.
MR. PRENDEVILLE-Why did I leave it green?
MR. KUHL-No, the question is your addition. You’re adding on to the cottage. You say your cottage has
got some historical significance. Correct?
MR. PRENDEVILLE-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Why aren’t you blending in with that color scheme?
MR. PRENDEVILLE-I think I may take the siding it’s the new diamond coat siding that’s almost like
plastic, and I may do the second story in that, in the same color.
MR. KUHL-So this doesn’t represent what the final product is going to be?
MR. PRENDEVILLE-As of right now it does, yes.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Any other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing was advertised. So
at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing. If anybody on the outside would like to give
us a call on this application, we’re at 518-761-8225. Do we have any written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes, there are a few letters. “I have seen the architectural drawings and the site plan for
Mr. Prendeville’s project and find them to be reasonable and doable. He has taken every precaution to
protect the lake and the interests of his neighbors. Sincerely, H. David Hodgson Margaret D. Hodgson
86 Ash Dr., Lake George, NY 12845” “This letter is in support of Mark Prendeville’s request of a variance
for his construction of an addition on his Ash Dr. house. He has showed us his plans and we believe the
new construction to be an improvement for our neighborhood. The variance would allow the house to be
within 10 feet of the property line. Sincerely Pat and Sally Russo Never Rest Ln.” “I would like to
approve of Mr. Prendeville’s addition to his home on Ash Dr. He has shown me his plans and I believe the
new addition will be an improvement for our neighborhood. Sincerely, Jacqueline Touba 96 Ash Dr.”
That’s it.
(Incoming phone call)
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So you should be on speaker phone right now. Say something. I can hear you.
I’ve got you now. State your name, please.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
DENNIS FREDETTE
MR. FREDETTE-My name is Dennis Fredette. I live at 69 Birch. I have a house at 69 Birch on the lake.
There’s one house between me and our house and the Prendeville’s house. I would like to know, I’ve
looked at it and I don’t understand for sure what the intended use is.
MR. MC CABE-The intended use is to extend their existing house.
MR. FREDETTE-It looks to me like there are separate entrances and there may be.
MR. MC CABE-So your comment is there are too many entrances?
MR. FREDETTE-I just want to know if this is going to be multiple use, if there’s going to be three separate
areas that could be rented by three separate families.
MR. MC CABE-No, that’s not part of the application.
MR. FREDETTE-Is this going to be rented in the summer by three separate families or in the winter to
three separate families? Is it going to be?
MR. MC CABE-So your basic question here is, is this going to be a multifamily?
MR. FREDETTE-Short term rentals.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. I can’t answer that, but we will note your concerns.
MR. FREDETTE-Yes, I assume that’s what my question is. I’m looking at what’s the impact in terms of
number of people on the lake.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Anything else?
MR. FREDETTE-Both in the summer and in the winter.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anything else?
MR. FREDETTE=Well, I have other questions, but I’d like to start with that.
MR. MC CABE-Well the public hearing is for you to state your opinion, not to ask questions. So I’m
trying to get at your opinion here. So you’re not in favor of this being a multi-family house.
MR. FREDETTE-I don’t know. I can comment at later meetings on that, right?
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. FREDETTE-I’d like to have more information first.
MRS. MOORE-Let him know he needs to come back.
MR. FREDETTE-Should I wait, then, until other meetings, or try to get this information off line and not
here at this meeting?
MR. MC CABE-Are you watching? Did you see the presentation.
MR. FREDETTE-Yes, I’m watching the meeting.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we’ll clarify.
MR. FREDETTE-Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. So do we have anybody else that wants to address us on this particular variance?
MR. MC CABE-So state your name for the record, please.
LISA DOSTER
MRS. DOSTER-Good evening. My name is Lisa Doster. I live on Ash Drive, very close to the Prendeville
property. There are many issues with this application. Several of those are Site Plan related, such as
change in property class, adequate stormwater, adequate septic, 911 address issues. The issues we are here
for tonight are zoning variance related for height and sideline setback. I would like to address the sideline
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
setback. The problem is related to the survey, actual survey map. The problem is related to the survey
map that they have submitted. The Town Code A 183-24, surveying and mapping, states, the survey
procedure is required to follow the latest revision of the New York State Association of Professional Land
Surveyor Codes of practice for land surveys. In the New York State Code adopted October 1966, in the
seventh and most recent revision, July 18, 1997 states only a survey map marked with an original or the land
surveyor’s embossed seal shall be valid. There’s no stamped seal on this.
MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, there is a seal. So it did not show up on the scan, but there is a seal.
MRS. DOSTER-Okay. The survey used for this application is from the Year 2000. It’s outdated and
inaccurate. Why isn’t the most recent survey from 2020 being used for this application? I have firsthand
knowledge that Richard Bennett, Licensed Surveyor, performed a survey on the Prendeville property in
2020. I personally met with him and talked with him directly. He went over that he was surveying this
again for the Prendeville property for this application. I discussed with him how the other property rights
tie into the Prendeville property. He discussed all the errs stemming from the most recent prior
subdivision completed without an abstract. Not just the errors in this subdivision but all the previous
survey maps and subdivisions that include the Prendeville property. I questioned why the map Bennett
created in 2000 for Prendeville didn’t include the correct items, including why the correct number of the
land adjacent is not listed. For example, the map constructed in 2000 shows the adjacent land owner to
Prendeville as Pogonowski. The same Pogonowski that was here this evening for a variance. Pogonowski
never owned land adjacent to Prendeville. So that is incorrect. Also there were errors for land adjacent
to Prendeville by the Town of Queensbury when they approved the three lot prior subdivision in April
1990. The result was the Town of Queensbury recognized four parcel property lots and four tax map
numbers. When factually only three parcel lots for the entire subdivision were approved by the Town.
Mr. Bennett stated that there have been many contradicting surveys, including one February 2020 filed in
Warren County adjacent to the Prendeville property. This map was completed without an abstract of
title and subject to any facts one might find. It is obvious there are boundary line issues and the only way
to get it all corrected was through a proper abstract. A completed, valid abstract needs to be included in
this application before approval. You cannot trust the sideline measurements until there’s clarification of
true lines through an abstract. Any future survey that utilizes the erred Prendeville survey or the erred
Town approved subdivision map of record will not be correct., Further, this property is burdened to the
rights or others into and adjacent to the property. These are listed in the adjacent property deeds and
need further acknowledgement and definition so anything approved by the Planning and Zoning does not
obstruct or effect the property rights of others. The Clark property, the Russo property, the Doster
property, all have deeded rights and these rights cannot be obstructed. The landowner has placed
landscaping that blocks such rights and must be removed. The foregoing property deeded 618 Page 394,
Ledford to Prendeville lists another deed, 490 of ‘90 originally conveyed subject to an indenture with the
Town of Queensbury as listed in the deed. This presents another strong point for a need for an abstract of
title. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have anybody else who would like to speak on this matter? If you have any
handouts, they go right here. State your name for the record, please.
CAROL CLARK-SNYDER
MRS. CLARK-SNYDER-Hi. Carol Clark-Synder, and I’m here to voice concerns regarding the project on
the Prendeville property. I’m just going to read you this short little page and a half that I wrote to gather
my thoughts. One issue that I want to address is the water runoff. So, the Prendeville property is long
and narrow property and the house addition is located on the lower portion nearest to Glen Lake. The
remainder of the property behind the proposed building site is on a hill and that hill slopes down towards
the Prendeville, Clark and Russo properties. Previously the hill had lush vegetation and mature trees. This
summer much of the trees and vegetation on the hill were significantly removed by Mr. Prendeville, and
my concern is that the property being cleared of what had previously been the watershed protection, with
these continued changes on the slope property above the construction site, what will the effects of the
watershed be? The new house and garage proposed in the small area at the bottom of this slope, together
with the original house, and the increased size of proposed sidewalks, driveways, being that the land at
the bottom of this slope will now be significantly covered with impermeable surfaces. In addition, it is
unclear if the existing ground level will be raised and if the trees that existed on the lower property where
proposed trenches are to be constructed will be removed as well. What are the ramifications to
neighboring properties and to the health of the lake with the proposed water run-off and is there an
engineering report to substantiate that the proposed trench is capable of handling all this? My second
issue is the variance for the height. Mr. Prendeville has indicated all his year-round living area is on the
first floor. No living area is proposed for any second story structure, either the new house or the garage.
The second story is all reserved for unfinished storage and unfinished bonus areas. It is unclear if this area
will even be considered year round living space. So, why the need for a height variance? In my opinion the
additional height will sacrifice the beautiful views from the Clark home which is only 28 feet away from
the new proposed structure. The original house has a roof line that runs from north to south. The new
proposed structure runs east to west, and that will infringe on the beautiful views of the neighboring
homes. Therefore I ask that the height variance not be granted. As for the setback, with 5,808 square feet
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
of proposed total floor area, it seems to me that Mr. Prendeville can abide by the building code and not ask
for a setback variances, especially assuming that only 866 square feet of this entire building project, the
new and the existing, are considered year round living space. The remainder of the space, 4,942 square feet,
is to be considered seasonal residence and storage area according to the proposal. Therefore, I object to
issuing a setback variance for the south side of the property. Our third point is the existing structure.
Given the fact that the existing seasonal structure is one of the oldest homes on the lake, I have concerns
for the potential fire hazards to this house and to neighbors in close proximity, as access for fire trucks in
the new confined driveway will be precarious. Will the existing structure be electrically upgraded as part
of this building project? And lastly, as Mr. Prendeville has for years, continually conducted a rental
business at this seasonal residence, it is my concern that, with the amount of undisclosed square footage
in the new building project, there is a greater risk that Mr. Prendeville will increase the size of his Oak
Knolls business. Will this property continue to be rented, week by week, during the summer,, in addition
to the winter now? What protection do we have that the property to be built will not be a revolving door
to vacationers? Thank you for listening. Do you have any questions?
MR. MC CABE-No. Do we have anybody else that would like to speak on this application? Please state
your name for the record.
LINDA CLARK
MS. CLARK-Linda Clark. I live at 3 Ben Most Bur, which is the land next to Mr. Prendeville’s home. I
am also on the trust for my mother’s house, which is 10 Ben Most Bur. It’s the house on the lake. I am
here representing the trust, my mother, and the other members on that trust. So with that said, I do have
a packet, for those of you who are comfortable about accepting it. I’d like to give that to you.
MR. MC CABE-You’re just going to give the packet right here.
MS. CLARK-You won’t be able to see what I’m talking about unless you.
MR. MC CABE-That’s okay.
MS. CLARK-Does anybody want it or not?
MR. MC CABE-He’ll take it right here. So we have it for the record.
MS. CLARK-You won’t be able to see what I’m talking about.
MR. MC CABE-We’ve all gone and looked at the property.
MS. CLARK-But you haven’t looked at this.
MR. MC CABE-That’s okay.
MS. CLARK-Okay. As you are about to see, with the magnitude of the faulty, incorrect and incomplete
information that Mr. Prendeville submitted to the Board to consider this addition, the Board should table
this application and require that the applicant follow through on all the Town’s expectations. That said,
I appreciate the opportunity to be heard on this application. Because of the situation I’m asking that all
questions I’m about to convey to you are answered and all corrections and required documents be provided
to the public and a public comment session be made available prior to any approval. Although it is
understood that he applicant can place a house on his property of a particular size using the square footage
of the lot - the layout, size, and conditions of the run-off and septic of this plan are all unacceptable. After
review of the plans, it is clear that the addition is 2 1/2 times the size of the existing house, and the layout
creates a possibility that the building could be used as three or four apartments. The front house with its
own entrance has a full kitchen, living room, bathroom, and 3 bedrooms; the center house with its own
entrance has a full kitchen, living room, 2 bathrooms, and one or two bedrooms, the upstairs with its own
entrance and two large unfinished rooms can be converted to a studio or a one bedroom apartment, and
the basement with its own entrance does not indicate the intended use finished or unfinished and can also
be converted to a studio apartment. Although the applicant indicates in his proposal that this is a one
family house, the potential for over usage of the entire property is a concern. Furthermore, the applicant
has a long history of renting, and I have for you right here in these packets one of his advertisements for
rental from last Christmas whereby in that advertisement he advertises that the house has ice fishing, ice
skating and snowshoeing, all based on these winter activities in the advertisement, we believe he already
has renters in line for the new addition. Most concerning is that this would definitely impact the demand
on the septic. In fact, the septic plan does not indicate how many bedrooms it is designed for and the
engineering report is lacking in this application which is unacceptable. Why isn't the proposed septic
system engineering plan included with this application? The Town should expect that all areas that are
unfinished in the plans be considered bedrooms, as per town code, and insure that the septic is in
compliance for a six or more bedrooms. Also, according to the tax records, see the enclosed tax
information, that is document right here which I provided for you in the packets, the house is currently
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
considered a seasonal home and is rated as such with the town. Will this addition make it a year-round
home? If so, the town code requires a full site plan review and approval. Town code 179-5-050 must be
applied for the conversion of a seasonal dwelling. Why isn't this part of the application? Additionally,
since the existing house was built in 1903, shouldn't there be an engineering report done to determine that
the connections to the old and new, especially the electrical, will not be a fire hazard? The new structure
includes a gas stove as a heat source and mechanicals in the basement which one can assume is a furnace.
There is no indication where the gas stove in the new living room will get the fuel source and no indication
what kind of fuel source will be used for the furnace. Since the new structure is insulated and has two
sources for heat, to reiterate it seems that the building and the site needs to go through the proper reviews
as a conversion to a year-round home. Plot and survey plan The submitted plot plan and survey map do
not reflect the property lines as described in the Prendeville deed.
MR. MC CABE-So we’ve already heard that. Okay. You’re supposed to have three minutes. We’ve
already heard the argument against the survey not being right.
MS. CLARK-You haven’t heard what I have to say on it. There’s more detail here.
MR. MC CABE-The things you’re getting into are far beyond the Zoning Board. Okay.
MS. CLARK-But you guys are considering a setback that has to do with the placement of a house that’s
not placed correctly on the property and the property is not the right, correct.
MR. MC CABE-Listen to me. You’re providing input for us. All we’re passing judgment on here is a
setback from one side and a height.
MS. CLARK-The setbacks are wrong because the house.
MR. MC CABE-I understand that because we had testimony from another person. All right. So we’ve
already heard that. So we’ve got a bunch of other cases tonight. So we’re going to ask that you just limit
your input to stuff that we haven’t heard yet.
MS. CLARK-Well you haven’t heard that there is a 1977 survey map that Mr. Prendeville and my father
prepared when they actually had this property, when they purchased it, and that survey map is stamped
and certified with all of the correct perimeters that match the deed.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MS. CLARK-Okay, and I have that map, survey map, for you right here. I also, I don’t understand why in
these setbacks you are only allotting for 20 feet of area of the property which borders my mother’s house
for all of the drainage going down towards the lake.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MS. CLARK-There is a driveway and a walkway being proposed here that extremely limit the permeable
area of that low section.
MR. MC CABE-But he’s not exceeded any permeability limits here.
MS. CLARK-The driveway and the walkway haven’t even been listed in the plans. They just show up in
the pictures.
MR. HENKEL-We can only go by what we have here. We can’t predict what the future is. We can only
go by what they’ve presented in front of us here, and that’s all we can go by.
MS. CLARK-Okay. So you’re saying that they can present anything they want?
MR. MC CABE-We’re not the only Board that they have to present to. Most of the issues that you’re
bringing up are Planning Board issues. They have nothing to do with the Zoning Board.
MS. CLARK-Well, my focus tonight was on that survey map, which is not correct and does not match
their deed in any way, shape or form, and there are three properties that are associated with this property
that he’s using as a means of justifying the size of the house.
MR. HENKEL-Laura, is this a Staff question? Is this a legit, what we have here, is this a legit survey?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MS. CLARK-It can’t be. It doesn’t match the deed. It can’t be legit.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MRS. MOORE-So that would be a civil matter.
MR. HENKEL-Right. This is what we’re presented with.
MS. CLARK-You mean to tell me I have to take the Prendeville’s to court over a civil matter because they
are submitting a deed that’s not proper to the Town and the Town refuses to accept the fact that there’s
actually a deed that has been submitted to you that shows conflicting information. That deed that you are
working off of, in your packets that Mr. Prendeville submitted does not match his survey map.
MR. HENKEL-We can only go by the information we’re given.
MS. CLARK-But you’re given two different pieces of information.
MR. HENKEL-We’re not. This is what we’re given.
MS. CLARK-But you are. The deed shows different lines.
MR. MC CABE-So we’re going to cut this off. We understand here that you’re contending that the deed
is not proper.
MS. CLARK-It is absolutely not correct and you have conflicting information in your packets that has to
do with the placement of that house.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MS. CLARK-In addition to that, let me just say this. My mother’s house was built in 1868. It was the
Glen Star Mason home for the Masons in Glens Falls to come out and have a good time. All right. The
property, one of the pieces of the Prendeville property is actually a 30 foot swath. So there’s a 30 foot
swath, a 95 foot swath, and then the back property. He’s using all three of these to justify the house. You
don’t have it because you don’t have the right survey map. It doesn’t show, but if you look at the deed,
the deed will show there’s three different properties. The deed shows three different properties, okay, and
if you look at the numbers you will see that the house, the 30 foot lot was actually sold to the previous
owners of the Prendeville house because the house sat on the Glen Star property. A corner of the back
porch was actually on the Glen Star property. So the house, if you look at those maps, sits two feet closer
than what they’re putting on this map right here to my mother’s line. Which means they’re out of
compliance on that side of the house as well. Which means the variance they’re asking for on the Russo
side is not correct. So you’re making a decision based upon evidence and information that’s given to you
that’s conflicting and incorrect.
MR. HENKEL-We can only make a judgment on what we’re presented. You’ll have to fight that.
MR. MC CABE-So are you done?
MS. CLARK-I just want to add that there are six different easements that encumber this property that are
not on this survey map that according to the Town Code needs to be on the survey map in order for this
project to be addressed. Six different easements.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MS. CLARK-I’m disappointed that the Town has refused to allow me to submit my evidence to you. I
think it’s compelling. I think that you don’t understand the magnitude of the issues here and I certainly
hope that you take the time to look at the packet that I did provide because it does submit a lot of proof as
to what’s going on here. There is, in that packet, my entire presentation, and again, all the evidence.
MR. MC CABE-Is there? Yes. State your name for the record, please.
MARY HILLIARD
MRS. HILLIARD-Yes.. My name is Mary Hilliard. I live at 79 Ash Drive in Lake George. I just want to
say I do appreciate what you do, and I think you do know your business. So thanks for that. I’ve lived on
Glen Lake, Ash Drive for 30 years. I’ve known the Prendeville’s for 30 years. I know they’ve lived there
for 60 plus years and they’ve been good neighbors. They’ve been respectful, very respectful to the lake and
the surrounding community. I think this project, from what I read, enables the family to live in their home
year round, which has been a long time for both of them. They’re not tearing it down and re-building, you
know, something that’s not either environmentally or ecologically or aesthetically sound. I think this
house, you know, this is a good project. Looking at the project as far as the neighboring community, which
is me and several other neighbors, the project improves the value for all our properties, and it improves the
neighborhood. As far as the setback things, first of all, some of the material presented tonight, as far as I’m
concerned, have not been presented by professionals, and they’re not experts in this area. So I would leave
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
that to the experts. The setback concerns, the way I read it, one family, and that is the Russos because
they’re looking for I think it’s 10.8 feet and Mr. Russo, I heard, supported this project, and I certainly think
that nothing in this plan, including some of the stuff about right of ways, has nothing to do with this
project. This is a good project and most importantly it allows the family to live here year round that has
not been able to live there year round for 60 years, and it is for them, it is not for rental. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Sir?
WILLIAM CLARK
MR. CLARK-My name is William Clark. I’m the son of Dan Clark, co-owner of the family trust of Anne
Clark. Mr. Prendeville needs to work from updated, certified surveyed lines and make sure that all of us
follow the rules and regs that are specified and clarified. Next I’m concerned of the lines of declamation
on Mr. Prendeville’s site plot plan. They do not seem certified, like the uncertified survey plot plan. If
they are not accurate, this could result in water flow change onto Anne Clark’s, Russo’s, Fredette and
others which then would result in a chain reaction of lawsuits going right across. I’m also concerned of
the lines of declamation proposed. The water flow goes directly down into Glen Lake. If you look at t the
lines of declamation, from the top all the way down, all the water flows right down towards the lake. So
if he paved the entire road that goes into his home, all that water is going to run down that, between the
Clark house and Prendeville’s house. This leads me to the water flow on roof, driveway going to Glen
Lake, Anne Clark’s or Russo’s property. Is there a retention area? I do not believe the gravel area proposed
is adequate for the size of the building project proposed. Is there a certified environmental engineering
report with perc test checking flow of the amount of water that is coming from the roads all the way down
through? Right next to my mom’s house all the water’s going to end up flowing right through there. It’s
going to be like a creek going right into Glen Lake. It’s just not possible. I think more certified studies,
technical information, needs to be done before approvals move forward with variances, setbacks and
general approvals. More certified information needs to be in place. Please make factual choices. The
whole neighborhood is going to need it, because if you don’t follow proper procedures, there’s going to be,
it’s going to be a mess. Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else?
RUSS HILLIARD
MR. HILLIARD-My name’s Russ Hilliard, 79 Ash Drive, and I share a property line with Mark Prendeville.
I consider him a friend. He’s a good neighbor. I’ve looked at the plans and I don’t see a problem. It’s a
chance for them to be on the lake.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Anybody else?
MIKE MASHUTA
MR. MASHUTA-My name is Mike Mashuta, 41 Birch Road, Glen Lake. I’ve lived in the Glen Lake area
since 1965. I’m very familiar with all the properties, and everyone’s emotional ties to this project, and I
know you’ve heard a lot of hypothetical, emotional testimony tonight, and I would just only ask you to
please follow your responsibility with the engineer stamped surveys and plans as they’re submitted to you.
Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Anybody else? Anybody on the outside there? So a number of questions
have been raised here. So, first of all, Laura, I’d like to ask you about the survey question.
MRS. MOORE-So my understanding of the way we’ve done that is that the applicant supplied a stamped,
signed survey and the plans have been prepared by a licensed engineer, those are accurate as they have been
submitted. So for someone to come in and say that it’s not accurate, I can’t, there’s nothing that I have in
front of me. This is as accurate as received.
MR. HENKEL-So we’ve got to base our decision on this.
MR. MC CABE-All right. So, now, Tom, we’ll have you come back, and we’ll ask you about runoff. Have
you taken into consideration runoff that will be created by the addition?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, we have. We’ve done it by infiltration trenches and infiltration devices work quite
well around Glen Lake if you catch the runoff early in the cycle and don’t have a creek before it gets to your
infiltration area. We’re capturing it as close as we can to the source, and fortunately Glen Lake is pretty
much surrounded by relatively permeable well drained deep sands and that’s pretty much the standard
procedure for stormwater management around Glen Lake for a lot of engineers, not just myself, and, yes,
we developed it based upon accepted criteria from within Queensbury Codes and so, yes, to answer your
question, yes.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. HENKEL-And also the concerns about the septic. That was another concern.
MR. MC CABE-Well the septic is a whole different deal. That’s the Town, but out of this we’re getting
a new septic system. Is that right?
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re getting a new septic system, yes.
MR. MC CABE-So that certainly has got to meet the current Codes and how is this system sized?
MR. HUTCHINS-This system is sized for a four bedroom residence, which is as shown on the plans. There
has been some discussion with regard to counting some of the storage rooms as bedrooms as Code accounts
for, and frankly if it comes to that, we can do that. This is designed for single family, four bedroom
residence complying to current Town standards, Town DOH.
MR. MC CABE-So let me just have you clean up and I’m going to have Mr. Prendeville come back in just a
second.
MR. HENKEL-That septic system’s well over 100 feet from the lake, too, isn’t it?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. It’s compliant.
MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Prendeville, will you come back for a second? So let me ask you. Do your plans
involve making this a multi-family house?
MR. PRENDEVILLE-No, and if you look at the plans, you can see that there’s two bathrooms. They’re
both in the same hallway in the winterized section. There are no bathrooms in the seasonal section.
There are no bathrooms in the storage section upstairs. Not a multi-family house. It was designed with
all the bathrooms in one section so it couldn’t be a multi-family house. Can I answer some of the other
questions?
MR. HENKEL-What about the rental that she had brought up, that said it was supposedly advertised as
a rental?
MR. PRENDEVILLE-Whatever she had is made up. I never, ever could or would rent it in the winter
because it’s not insulated. It’s not winterized. It’s not capable of anyone being there in the winter.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. What about the summer?
MR. PRENDEVILLE-In the summer I had rented it several years, but I didn’t at all this year and now with
the new law in Queensbury I have no plans to as of now, and when they talked about the surveys being
different, it may be, in 1977 the magnetic north, which surveys are tied to and they’re written down as of
that date, may have been a little different. So the survey may be an inch or two different 10 years later or
15 years later. Maybe that’s what they’re talking about. I can’t figure it out, but the gentleman did the
survey. He was a licensed surveyor. I paid him for it. I don’t know what I’m supposed to do. I mean I’ve
got a licensed, signed survey, and when they talk about easements over my property and everything, there’s
only one easement on my property at all and that is my next door neighbor Mr. Russo has an easement for
a driveway at the top of my property. There are no other easements for anyone else. Period.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. (Phone ringing) This is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. He indicated
that he doesn’t plan to rent it at all. Can you hear me? Okay. Hold on a second. So, Mark, if you could
approach the podium.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. McCabe, could you also state who the person is that’s calling?
MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. Yes, I have to do that. What was your name again? Dennis Fredette.
MR. HENKEL-That’s the same guy who just called.
MR. MC CABE-So Mr. Fredette wants indication that you wouldn’t rent this property to any more than
one family at a time either winter or summer.
MR. PRENDEVILLE-Never would.
MR. MC CABE-Mr. Fredette, did you see that? Okay. You’re all set. Sure. Okay. Thank you. So at
this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And poll the Board and I’m going to start with Jim.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s always interesting when we deal with incidences on Glen Lake, past, present
and future, and I think that one thing we have to keep in mind is the fact that we’re dealing with
professionals when we’re dealing with engineers and when we deal with surveys, and I’m confident in the
fact that the engineering on this project will be done properly. A lot of these are Site Plan Review issues
that will be dealt with by the Planning Board, not by us, and I think in keeping, in that same light, the
survey that was submitted to us has been documented by Staff that it’s accurate as presented. If there is a
discrepancy with that, then you will have to take that up with the State of New York because I’m not a
professional engineer or a professional surveyor. I’m confident that the applicant’s representative has
presented to us something realistic not something that is made up at this point in time. As far as what’s
being asked for here as far as relief this evening, the setbacks that are required are going to be less than
what currently exists on the house as it exists on the lake. My recommendation would be that if the house
is going to have the addition created on the back, that you would also at the same time upgrade the front
addition with reasonable up to date electric, plumbing, etc., and bring it up to Code, and I think that
probably will be required by the Planning Board when they review the project, too. As far as the building
height, the building height in the back, all the new construction is going to be done away from the lake. I
think it will have a minimal effect as far as increasing any detriment to the lake, and it will be, even though
it’s going to be slightly over height, I think it maintains the fact that it’s not going to be the highest building
on the lakeshore. I paddled by the house today from the lake and tried to think of what it would look like.
I don’t really see that there’s going to be any detriment and I think the stormwater is going to be dealt with
adequately on the property, and I think that the issues that were brought up by some of the near neighbors
about rentals and things like that can be alleviated also. So I’d be in favor of the project as presented.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I mean, to clarify, there will be a Site Plan Review, yes, and the Town Board will also
review the septic.
MRS. MOORE-You said something about the Town Board reviewing the septic, the Building Department.
MRS. HAMLIN-I thought there was a Town Board involvement.
MR. URRICO-It’s a separate department.
MRS. HAMLIN-And nothing gets built without a permit and stamped survey. Correct? Okay. I still
don’t see why it has to be quite so high. I know it’s not very much, but I don’t paddle on the lake so I guess
I’ll have to take your word for it that you gave it the eyeball. It isn’t a terrible amount over so I would be
okay with that. I do feel the side setback, I mean we already are at half, but so many of the other factors
that have been presented, permeability, seem to be in compliance, given that it’s a noncompliant lot. I
would also like to say that I’m sure that if down the line we discovered that you’ve got two residences there
instead of one, that would be a code enforcement issue, and they have stumbled across that in the past. So
I’m going to have to rely on our Staff to make sure this is done right, and vote for an approval of the variance
request.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor of the project as well. As far as the height, it’s lower than the existing
building. So aesthetically it’s a little shorter than the existing building. So I don’t think that’s a big issue
to me personally. Also the setback issue, you know, the existing home is 7.8 feet away from their property
line. So this addition is going to be farther away at 10.7 feet. So I’m also, don’t have a real issue with that
either. I know it’s a big project, but I can see that, based on the evidence that’s been presented tonight by
the professionals that the stormwater will be mitigated, and my other issue was about the rentals. It’s not
a zoning issue, but I know the owner of the property has already provided testimony about that.
MR. MC CABE-So you’d be in favor of the project?
MRS. HAYWARD-I said I was in favor, yes.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I was encouraged to hear that the neighbor, Russo, was in favor of this project, but for me on
a .59 acre lot, it appears that he’s making a second home. I think we’re not granting a minimum relief. I
think it’s overkill. If, in fact, the upstairs is not going to be used, why does he need a height relief? Why
not just make it one floor? So, based on that, I am not in favor of this project.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I do respect the neighbors’ inputs on both sides, and what we’re presented with ,this
survey, this professionally done survey, I think what they’re asking for is very minimal for what they’re
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
going to improve the site as far as stormwater and new septic. That height of only granting them only .9
is very minimal and the setbacks are, with what we’ve done in the past is very minimal also. So I would
have to be on board with the project as is, with what we’re presented with, with the information here.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m going to be halfway there. I’m okay with the side setback of 9.3. I’m trusting the
survey maps, but height relief is height relief, and if he’s not going to be using that part of the building
structure, then why not make it so you don’t need a variance at all? I just think it’s unnecessary relief that
could be alleviated very easily. So I’m halfway there.
MR. MC CABE-But basically you’re not in favor.
MR. URRICO-Not at this point.
MR. MC CABE-So, as I look at this, the request, the side setbacks, just about every property that has had
some sort of work done on Glen Lake, we’ve looked, or we’ve been looked to to grant a variance on side
setbacks. So certainly that’s in concert with what we’ve done in the past, and the height doesn’t bother
me either since it’s lower than the existing house, and what we’re getting for this is a new septic system
and I think overall an improvement in the appearance of the property and also improvements in controlling
runoff and so I would support this project. So, that being said, Jim, I’m going to ask for a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mark
Prendeville. Applicant proposes a 2-story addition with a basement and associated site work. The
addition is 3,844 sq. ft. floor area and 1,518 sq. ft. footprint. The home will have a footprint of 2,296 sq. ft.
with 923 sq. ft. porch & decks with the new floor area of 5,808 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks and
height. Site Plan for new floor area and previous shoreline vegetation removal.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and height in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR
Section 179-3-040 – dimension requirements, 179-13-010 –expansion of nonconforming structure
The new addition is to be 10.7 ft. from the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The
building height of the addition is to be 28.9 ft. and 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. The existing
home is pre-existing non-conforming.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 21, 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:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties most all old buildings on Glen Lake are being upgraded all the time this home will be
upgraded and it is keeping the old house on the front (shoreline) as part of the original charm;
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, the side setbacks are reasonable and have
been minimized and the height variance is minimal.as it is less than the original building;
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the narrow lots on Glen Lake require side
setback relief and height relief is considered not substantial as it is less than one foot.;
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district, where Site Plan review will be part of the review and the septic and stormwater will be
handled by proper engineering;
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the size 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;
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
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.
37-2020 MARK PRENDEVILLE, Introduced by Jim Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by John Henkel:
st
Duly adopted this 21 Day of October 2020 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-I would just advise some clarification. You identified in one of your requests the relief that
was requested, and I just want to confirm that the new addition will be 10.7 feet from the south property
line and the height is 28.9 feet, and in reference to Question Five, the alleged difficulty, I wasn’t sure what
you had mentioned. Can you just clarify what the alleged difficulty is?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean the alleged difficulty is created by the size of the lot. It is self-created.
MRS. MOORE-And then Question Six where you discussed whether the requested variance would
outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood. I’m sorry you
mentioned the second option and I believe it’s the first option.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I don’t note any detriment to the health, safety and welfare.
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 38-2020, and, so, Laura, I’m going to have to ask you,
did you notify Glens Falls about this application?
MRS. MOORE-That was the requirement, so Glens Falls was notified.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TOM CAIFA AGENT(S) JAMES
BENEDETTI OWNER(S) TOM CAIFA ZONING NR LOCATION 139 DIXON ROAD
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REDUCE A 2.97 ACRE PARCEL TO 0.97 ACRES AND TO
MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME, GARAGE, AND OTHER OUT BUILDINGS. THE
REMAINING 2 ACRES IS TO BE MERGED WITH THE ADJOINING GLENS FALLS PARCELS.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE. CROSS REF SUB 8-2019; P20060143 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING OCTOBER 2020 LOT SIZE 2.75 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.14-2-5 SECTION 179-
3-040
JAMES BENEDETTI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2020, Tom Caifa, Meeting Date: October 21, 2020 “Project
Location: 139 Dixon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to reduce a 2.97 acre
parcel to 0.97 acres and to maintain the existing home, garage, and other out buildings. The remaining 2
acres is to be merged with the adjoining Glens Falls parcels.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for lot size in the Parkland Recreation 42 acre zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes to reduce a 2.97 acre parcel to a 0.97 acre parcel where 42 acre is required. The
0.97 acre parcel would maintain an existing home, garage and other out buildings and the remaining 2 acres
would be merged with the Glens Falls property.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as
the existing 2.97 ac parcel is located in the Parkland Recreation 42 acre zone and is adjacent to Glens
Falls property.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is creating a lot that is further non-conforming.
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 reduce an existing non-compliant parcel from 2.97 ac to 0.97 ac parcel. The
applicant intends to maintain the existing home and out buildings then the remainder of the property is to
be merged with Glens Falls property.”
MR. BENEDETTI-Good evening. My name is James Benedetti and I’m here representing Tom Caifa.
We’re looking for an Area Variance to basically remove the boundary so that we can convey two acres of
green space to the City of Glens Falls, to be added to Coles Woods so it will maintain green space that’s
good for the environment and it will still leave us .97 of an acre for the house which I believe everything
around it is Neighborhood Residential and it would still fall within that, even though this property is the
last of the kind that’s PR-42.
MR. MC CABE-So it’s pretty straightforward. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No. Just as a point of reference, I was involved with building the trails over on the
City of Glens Falls section, part of the cross country ski trail system that’s not lit up yet or anything, and
that parcel I always kind of wondered why people hung onto it for all those years back there because it
seemed it should be more Parkland because you’ve got all the other people over there. I know Rick
Garrand was in on it.
MR. BENEDETTI-I don’t know previously, but Tom had required it because his sister has passed away
and the estate went to Tom and he decided to go ahead and sell the two acres.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So I think it’ll be an addition to the City of Glens Falls. It’s Parkland. It’s not going
to be developed.
MR. MC CABE-That’s why I asked whether we informed Glens Falls about this project.
MRS. MOORE-It was part of the project.
MR. MC CABE-So any other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, we do have a public hearing
advertised, and at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask that anybody on the
outside who would like to call in with reference to this project give us a call at 518-761-8225, and do we
have any written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There’s no comment.
MR. MC CABE-No comment. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this
particular application? Seeing nobody, I have to wait for two minutes to allow people to call in. Okay.
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 Roy.
MR. URRICO-I have no problem with this project.
MR. MC CABE-John?
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. HENKEL-He makes a good request. No problem.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I have no issue.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood, and it’s a bonus to the
City of Glens Falls.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Absolutely.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem.
MR. MC CABE-And I have no problem. So I’m going to ask Michelle for a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tom Caifa.
Applicant proposes to reduce a 2.97 acre parcel to 0.97 acres and to maintain the existing home, garage,
and other out buildings. The remaining 2 acres is to be merged with the adjoining Glens Falls parcels.
Relief requested for lot size.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for lot size in the Parkland Recreation 42 acre zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes to reduce a 2.97 acre parcel to a 0.97 acre parcel where 42 acre is required. The
0.97 acre parcel would maintain an existing home, garage and other out buildings and the remaining 2 acres
would be merged with the Glens Falls property.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 21, 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:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because the size of the proposed property is keeping with the neighboring properties;
2. Feasible alternatives where considered by the Board and are part of the record and are reasonable
and have been included to minimize the request;
3. The requested variance is substantial however it is keeping within the character of the
neighborhood;
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district;
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created;
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
38-2020 TOM CAIFA, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jim
Underwood:
st
Duly adopted this 21 Day of October 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. BENEDETTI-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 39-2020, Jeffrey Godnick.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JEFFREY GODNICK AGENT(S) JON
LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) JEFFREY GODNICK ZONING WR, GLEN LAKE CEA
LOCATION 312 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 188 SQ. FT.
SHED THAT HAD BEEN INSTALLED IN 2019. THE SHED IS LOCATED 3.9 FT. FROM THE EAST
PROPERTY LINE WHERE A 20 FT. SETBACK IS REQUIRED. THE EXISTING HOME IS 4,259
FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,931 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES THE 188 SQ. FT. SHED.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. SITE PLAN NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF
SP 49-2020; AV 71-1994-21320; AV 71-1994-21321; AV 71-1994-21322; SP 95-21323; P20080016-34534;
95106-149; 95303-4144 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.49 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 289.9-1-84 SECTION 179-3-040A(5)(b)(3)
GREGORY TERESI, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2020, Jeffrey Godnick, Meeting Date: October 21, 2020 “Project
Location: 312 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a 188
sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The shed is located 3.9 ft. from the east property line where a
20 ft. setback is required. The existing home is 4,259 footprint with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft. which
includes the 188 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability and floor area. Site plan new floor
area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability and floor area.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements, 179-5-020 Sheds
The storage shed is proposed to remain at 3.9 ft. setback from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback
is required. Shoreline setback is requested where 44 ft. is to remain and 50 ft. setback is required.
Permeability is proposed to remain at 64% where area variance AV 71-1994 granted permeability at 69%.
The site has a floor area of 5,774 sq. ft.; the 188 sq. ft. shed creates 5,962 sq. ft. floor area and the maximum
allowed is 4,527 sq. ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to minimize
the relief requested for setbacks.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested is 16.1 ft. to the side setback and 6 ft. to the shoreline
setback. Relief for floor area is 188 sq. ft. over the existing 1,247 sq. ft. of the currently existing floor
area (existing floor area 5,774 without shed, 5,962 sq. ft. with shed). Permeability is 5% more than
allowed where 69% had been approved for 1994 variance
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
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 188 sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The survey shows
location of the shed and the photos show the appearance of the shed. (Note at the time of construction indicates
floor area of basements was not accounted for in unfinished basements –ZBA minutes 3/15/1995)”
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any adverse
th
impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted October 20,
2020 by a unanimous vote.
MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please.
MR. TERESI-Good evening. My name is Gregory Teresi. I’m one of the attorneys with Bartlett, Stewart,
Pontiff & Rhodes. I’m pinch hitting for Jon Lapper this evening. Our client, Jeffrey Godnick, is proposing
to the Zoning Board area variances by way of setback on the sides, floor area and permeability related to
the distance to the lake. When our client initially put this shed up his intent was really two-fold. One to
create a buffer between, an additional buffer between he and his neighbors, as well as the great goal here
is to provide storage for lawn furniture, recreational type uses and not realizing that he needed to come
before this Board to seek a variance for that. The house was built in 1996. It’s a tastefully done house. It
adds to the neighborhood. The landscaping on our client’s property is beautifully done. If you look at the
photos of the shed, it’s very well camouflaged. It’s set back into the trees. It’s painted a dark green color.
It’s not noticeable from the lake. It’s not noticeable from the road, and actually we’ve included some
photos that were taken by some of the neighbors that show that really you can’t even see it from the
neighbors’ aspect. We’re hoping that the Board sees the greater good with respect to the shed. We’re
hoping that the Board agrees with us that really my client was attempting to try to add to the sanctity of
his property and to the sanctity of the neighborhood and keeping all of this summer furniture and summer
water activity devices in a nice neatly confined area. Fortunately, because of the configuration of this
property, the east side of this property is really the only place where a storage shed could go. If my client
was to push the shed 20 feet off the property line as the setbacks would indicate it would put it right in
the middle of his lawn, prohibiting him from having any access for bringing boats or anything down to the
water. That’s why he put the shed where he did. With respect to the floor area, as stated before, when
the house was built, the basement at the time the Town Code didn’t include a basement. So we’re asking
for some leniency with respect to the floor area. Again, the goal here was to add to the character of the
neighborhood, provide additional buffer between my client and the neighbor. We think it’s a good case.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. KUHL-I think he’s learned from Mr. Lapper. No, I have no questions.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else have a question?
MRS. HAMLIN-What was the year it was built?
MR. TERESI-1996. The home you’re referring to?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes.
MR. TERESI-1996.
MR. URRICO-I do have a question. Now you said that your client was not aware that a variance was
needed, but there’s more than one variance needed. So it’s just not a slip here that we’re going to allow
this to establish a precedent where you don’t come forward when a variance is needed. There’s more than
one variance here needed. It’s kind of moderate, too. So I need a better explanation than it just slipped
my mind.
MR. TERESI-Well, I think in looking at the variances that he’s requesting, the area variance was one that,
for lack of a better way of saying it, the rules of the game have changed as far as the square footage of the
house. So at the time that he constructed this he was fully compliant. It wasn’t until the Town changed
the requirements related to the basement that now has negatively impacted his ability to add on to the area
which he uses. With respect to the setback of the lake, we’re six feet away from the 50 required. If the
Board says, hey, look, Mr. Teresi your client is pushing it in too many different arenas here and wants us to
move that shed six feet to achieve the 50, I’m certainly willing to talk to my client about that and certainly
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
willing to advise him that that would be a smart proposal. The greatest variance that we’re looking for is
with respect to the three feet that my client is to the property line. Obviously 20 feet, looking for us to do
something like that would push the shed into the middle of his yard, block an alleyway access for him to
provide access to the lake, and the western side of the property, although I’ve never been to the property
myself, I could explain to you that the terrain is not such that he’d have the ability to access it. So I don’t
disagree with you that he could have done things a little bit more forward thinking. Certainly now that
he’s hired the services of our firm we’ve explained to him that, hey, next time just knock on the door and
save yourself some headache, but I think in the grand scheme of things the largest variance he’s looking for
is with respect to the neighbors, and like I said, from his perspective, in part one of the reasons that he put
it there was if you look where the realty front of his yard begins or where his deck begins, it provides some
privacy between he and the neighbors. It provides some buffer, for noise, for visuals, such that the shed
really, in his estimation he was trying to do a service for not only himself but for his neighbors, and he did
talk to, the neighbors to his east, my understanding is it’s owned by a trust. Some of the trustees are in
favor of it. Some of them aren’t. My client had talked to some of them that were in favor and said, what
do you think. Some of them thought that made sense. So he was actually trying to add to the benefit of
the neighborhood as well as his own benefit.
MR. HENKEL-So floor area that we’re asking for here is only for the 188 square feet.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-Not the 1400 square feet that they’re over because of the house.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So I was just looking at that. Okay. Because otherwise it’s greatly over when you
look at it from the 1400 square feet.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-That wasn’t counted in when they built the house, the cellar? That didn’t have to be at
that time?
MR. TERESI-No. At the time my understanding is that the basements weren’t factored in.
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. I looked it up. I reviewed the minutes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MRS. HAYWARD-Do you know how many square feet the basement is? Is it a full basement?
MRS. MOORE-It’s a full basement.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. That’s a pretty good size house, though, significant. Okay. Thank you.
MRS. HAMLIN-I do have a question. With regards to this area variance that was granted prior to building
the house for permeability. So you’ve been in non-compliance status before the house was built. Are you
familiar with that? Maybe Laura should answer that.
MR. TERESI-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry I don’t recall all the area variances that were applied for for this project. I know
that there were a few.
MRS. HAMLIN-In 1994 you were granted 69% permeability instead of.
MR. TERESI-So I think I understand your question. Prior to the house being constructed, they applied
for the variance, at least the way it was explained to me, it wasn’t an after the fact, hey we’ve got this house
here now we need the variance. It was prior to construction. Does that answer your question?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised. So I’m
going to open the public hearing and ask that anybody on the outside who wants to call in and comment
on this, just give us a call at 518-761-8225, and, Roy, do we have any written correspondence here.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. URRICO-I do. I just have a question for the rest of the Board. I have one letter here that is only
identified as a Glen Lake Road resident. There’s no name and there’s no address provided. Do you want
me to read this in or not?
MR. MC CABE-So if it’s anonymous, no.
MR. URRICO- Okay. “We write to you as heirs to the estate of Verona/Peter C. McNeil (316 Glen Lake
Rd.). Our property is adjacent property to 312 Glen Lake Rd., owned by Mr. Jeffrey Godnick; Please let it
be stated, as 33% ownership of 316 Glen Lake Rd., neighboring property to Mr. Godnick, that we support
the variance for our neighbor Mr. Godnick in his request for setback relief because: 1. The shed not only
serves as a noise buffer but also 2. The shed is barely visible from our 316 Glen Lake Rd. property. 3.
Please also let it be known that Ms. Erinn McNeil who brings the claim forth to the Queensbury Zoning
Board tonight, has no authority to speak on behalf of all of the cousins who are heirs to the 316 Glen Lake
Rd property. (9 heirs to the estate) Thank you for your consideration. Mrs. Lynne McNeil Rutnik Mrs.
Whitney Bell” “I am writing with reference to the Public Hearing for Area Variance (AV-39-2020) for the
property located at 312 Glen Lake Rd owned by Jeffrey Godnick. I have personally known Mr. Godnick
for over 10 years and have lived directly across the street for the last two years. I am familiar with the
previous shed and the new shed that Jeff is requesting relief from the setbacks. The new shed is painted
a shade of green that blends in perfectly with the existing foliage. It does not detract from the surrounding
environment and even provides a sound buffer between his property and the property at 316 Glen Lake
Road. As a former member of the Niskayuna Planning Board I see absolutely no reason not to allow the
setback relief for this shed. Jeff maintains his property at all times and is an excellent member of the
neighborhood. If you have any questions or would like more information please feel free to reach out to
me at any time at my number below. Best regards, Brian r. Backus, Colonel, United States Air Force,
retired” “I am writing in support of Jeff Godnick having his shed on his property. I have been on the lake
for my entire life with my parents, and grandparents . I reside at 308 Glen Lake Road from the end of May
until the beginning of August when I return to Florida where I teach International Business, International
Finance and international Law. I am in full support of Jeff's kayak dock's location and I am full support of
his shed size, location and color. Let's begin with understanding Jeff Godnick. He is a first-class neighbor,
one who goes above and beyond for his neighbors and anyone on the lake. He has an impeccable yard, with
well thought out designs, materials and great lake aesthetics. His house and landscaping are immaculate.
His dock is a top of line, well built, well maintained dock. Jeff has always cared about the pleasing of
neighbors prior to building his house, dock, shed etc. Jeff has always cared for his neighbors and would
never intentionally interfere or harm them or their use of our majestic beauty the lake. If anything, he is a
part of the rare beauty of living at Glen Lake. Jeff is the first person to assist anyone on the lake, he is
always willing to go the extra effort. Jeff has been such a stellar part of our lake family. His generosity and
good nature is evident when you see his relationships. Examples of even more important relationships lead
me to my personnel views. These relationships were with my grandmother Electa Choppa, until she was
99 and passed away, he came to see her everyday here at the lake as well as looking after my Mother, Nancy
Choppa, and my father Eugene Choppa Jr. Jeff has assisted my family since he relocated there with every
aspect of projects, house, boats and emergency situations. He has been the saving grace in our sustainability
of a multigenerational house at Glen Lake. He is a remarkable lifetime friend to myself and continues these
relationships with my son, Anthony as well as Anthony's two daughters age 2 and 4. So generational
relationships are extremely important as is the well-being of all and the precious life on our dear lake . So,
as I write this letter in complete support for Jeff in writing to show support of his shed. Jeff is meticulous
in his work and it is evident in his building of the shed. It adds value to the lake as it is the same color of
the foliage surrounding it. He literally took tree leaves and had his shed paint color made so it matched the
color to the foliage. The old shed never was any issue, in a similar location. It provides pleasing aesthetic
and blends into the scenery of his well-designed lake house. As I agree with my father who is a retired
architect, we both are extremely pleased with the construction, location and color of the shed. If anything,
others on the lake should try to be so pleasing with their lakeside buildings. Hence, all generations are in
full support of my neighbor Jeff Godnick having his kayak dock and his shed. I thank him for taking into
consideration the lake and the upscale additions which he has brought to the lake. Sincerely, Margaret E.
Choppa 308 Glen Lake Road” That’s it.
MR. MC CABE-So is there anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this application?
AMANDA KUKLE
MS. KUKLE-Hello. My name’s Amanda Kukle. I’m an attorney with Caffry & Flower, and I’m appearing
on behalf of Erinn McNeil, the neighbor to the east who’s not in favor of this project. I brought with me a
packet of photos and some extras. I’ll leave that with you for the record. Miss McNeil opposes any
variances for the placement of this structure on the property. Four variances are needed for this structure
to be legal in the place that it’s currently located, shoreline setback, side yard setback, the percentage of
floor area and percentage of impermeable surface. The current application before the Board on paper only
requests a side yard setback. We believe the applicant should file additional applications, specified as
three additional variances needed which have already been discussed. Regardless our positon is that this
project qualifies for none of those variances. So let’s take a look at the first factor as to whether or not
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
there will be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby
properties. And the answer is yes. The structure has had and will continue to have a detrimental effect
on one of the neighbors at least, and if you go through the photos that I brought, the first photo is an
excerpt of the survey of 316 Glen Lake showing the location of a stone wall to the boundary, and that’s
useful because the first photo that I have shows the distance of that structure, of the shed structure, to the
stone wall, and measuring that it appears to be much closer, about one and a half feet as opposed to 3.9.
The next set of photos shows what this 188 foot structure actually looks like from the neighbor’s home and
parts of the yard as opposed to the photo that was in the application showing it from an angle from the
street and vehicle photos from the perspective of the applicant. From my client’s property essentially is a
wall that is over 20 feet long and 10 feet high barely off the boundary of her property, and their house,
which was built in the 40’s, is just 10 feet from the property line. So it’s right there. Runoff from the
structure falls onto her property. Over time that could cause erosion issues. It could cause ice issues with
their water pipe that is close to that boundary line. I’ve also included four photos of other sheds in the
neighborhood which are smaller and they’re non-lakeside. So this structure is out of character with the
neighborhood. I’m just going to jump to the third factor, and I’m not going to go through all the variances,
just the permeability and the side yard setback. The side yard back requires 20 feet. The application says
it’s 3.9. Whether it’s one and a half or three point nine, either way that’s either 80% of what’s required or
almost 90%. Either is substantial, and as to the permeability requirement, in 1994 the applicant was
granted a variance that would allow for reductions in lieu of the 75% permeability to just 69% permeability.
As seen in the applicant’s survey attached to their application, the amount of impermeable surface on the
property has increased since 1995, apparently without variances, and this is not just the basement. These
are walkways and other impermeable surfaces that have added to that. So currently there’s 35%
impermeable cover instead of the approved 39%. This project would reduce the permeable surface to just
64%. That’s 11% less than what is required by the general district that it’s located in, and that’s over 1,000
square feet more than what was approved in 1995. Small project by small project the applicant has slowly
overburdened this parcel. This project is just merely the latest that the applicant has constructed without
a variance and it increases the impermeability of the property. Like the reduction in side yard setback,
the change in permeability is negative, and finally as to the adverse impact on physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood, the impervious surface is negative, and I don’t need to lecture the ZBA
about the importance of reducing runoff to Lake George. The quality of Lake George’s water is dependent
upon each person doing their part.
MR. UNDERWOOD-This isn’t Lake George, though.
MR. MC CABE-It’s Glen Lake.
MS. KUKLE-Glen Lake. I don’t need to lecture you on the impacts of the water quality on Glen Lake. The
more variances that the ZBA grants, the harder it becomes to deny more in the future, and this shed, again,
it’s lakeside. It’s bigger than other ones. It’s right on the property line. So for the reasons I just described,
the balance between the applicant’s interests and the detriment to the neighbors, weighs against granting
the variance. I can answer any questions the Board has.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. You wanted to speak?
THEODORE MC NEIL, JR.
MR. MC NEIL, JR.-Good evening. My name is Theodore McNeil, Jr. I’m one of the family members that
owns the property at 316 Glen Lake Road which is immediately to the east of the property. So his shed
would be bordering on our property. I am one of the family members who do not have a problem with
this. I agree Jeff is a good neighbor. The landscaping is fine. It doesn’t pose a problem. The shed is there.
It doesn’t bother me. It doesn’t bother me aesthetically. It doesn’t crowd me. It does offer a little buffer
between the two properties. There is a small tree/bush line going through the properties that kind of
protects the shed from our view. I don’t see any problems with any adverse water running off the roof
onto our property. Ninety-nine percent of all the water just runs off everything and goes right to the lake.
If anything I think this property is a little downhill from ours. So he probably has our water running on
his property like that. So I just wanted to voice my opinion. I do not have a problem with the shed being
located where it is.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Anybody else that would like to speak on this particular matter? Seeing no
one, at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing, and poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. URRICO-I do have a question for Laura again. I just wanted to go back to this permeability issue.
The 64% is what is there now based on everything that’s there?
MR. HENKEL-With the shed.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. URRICO-Okay. Because I know you said something about, I can’t hear everything you’re saying at
that end. You said something about at the time this was built the basements weren’t counted, but are
they counted now? Because now, you know, they’re doing something new to the property. Doesn’t that
trigger a new review of the permeability?
MRS. MOORE-It triggered in reference to, you’re only looking at the shed and the requirements that
trigger the shed issue at this time.
MR. URRICO-So we’re pretending that the basement doesn’t exist because it was okay back then?
MRS. MOORE-No, no, not in reference to the basement, and that’s why the floor area request is there.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So then when the house was built.
MR. URRICO-So it’s the floor area that’s affected, not the permeability.
MRS. MOORE-But I accounted for permeability as well.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-On the surface it seems like such a small request, but when I look at an almost 6,000
square foot house on a small lot, and I said it earlier tonight about overbuilding on a small lot, I still feel the
same way. I appreciate the need for storage. Trust me, I’ve got a tiny little basement, but I think I’d be
remiss if I approved it. So I’m going to say no. I’m not in favor.
MR. MC CABE-So you’re not in favor.
MRS. HAYWARD-No, I am not in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that this shed blends in with the tree line. I think you
don’t see it. I understand 20 feet would put it in the wrong place. I also have observed vehicles driving
up and down that side of the house when I go past it, not all the time but sometimes when they have to get
to the lake. I understand what they want. I also believe that the shed is probably used for storage and I’d
be in favor of it the way it’s presented. I mean I appreciate the fact that a lawyer that has never seen the
site, as he admitted, said that he would push it back six feet. You shouldn’t admit. You should go do your
homework, son. You should do your homework, but as it stands now, I’d be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I’ve just got one question about the permeability. If they were granted 69% and now we’re
down to 64, why isn’t that a concern in this project, then?
MRS. MOORE-You’re only looking at the shed.
MR. HENKEL-I understand that, but the shed is decreasing the permeability, though.
MRS. MOORE-Correct, but that’s why they’re asking for relief, as part of the application.
MR. HENKEL-Okay, because I don’t see that. They’re saying floor area request and setback.
MRS. MOORE-Setbacks, floor area and permeability is included in my Staff Notes.
MR. HENKEL-I’m okay with this project, but I have a problem, I think they should give the permeability
back to the 69% that was granted. Is that?
MRS. MOORE-That’s a reasonable suggestion.
MR. HENKEL-Otherwise I have no problem with the shed where it is and the location and all that, but I
do think they should get back to their 69% permeability that they were granted.
MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to put you down as a no?
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
MR. HENKEL-I’d be a no because of the permeability.
MR. MC CABE-So Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m going to go back to my old way of looking at projects that come to us after the fact,
because in the end this is what it is. Had they come to us with clean hands, I would not approve this at
this time, with what you’re presenting. So in order for you to satisfy what I would want, I would want
the shed moved back six feet and I would want the permeability to be at where it was prior to this project,
69%, but as presented I would not be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you look at where the shed has been placed it’s probably the appropriate
place for it. You can’t put it in the middle of the lot. You can’t put it on the other side because they said
the access is not available on that side over there. If you look at it from the lakeside, I paddled by it this
afternoon, just to look at it, you have that big group of arborvitae between there and the lake. There’s no
impact from the runoff from the shed. It is a larger shed than normal, but I think that at the same time
they tried to do the right thing. It’s painted green. It blends in. It’s not something that sticks out like a
sore thumb. You’re not going to please everybody with this one, and I think that at some point in time the
Town has to be realistic about where you put sheds. Most people want to put sheds on the side of the
property, and I think that’s the appropriate place to put them. You don’t place them in the middle of your
yard, in the middle of your view shed down on the water. I would be okay with the request as requested.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-For all the reasons others have stated, an after the fact request is not something I think
that should be encouraged. The substantiality of the side yard is a 75% request for relief and that’s big.
Again, as he said if you came before the shed was put in I would find that substantial, and the permeability
has gotten out of compliance. It’s gone from 69 to 65%. So I’m a no.
MR. MC CABE-So from my standpoint it kind of bothers me that it’s an after the fact. We’re getting more
of this, and as Roy pointed out, it kind of gives us a black eye, you know, it’s okay if you just put something
up but, you know, and I guess that, I can’t support that. So I can’t, I’m not in favor of this project, either.
So it sounds like if you want to get this by, you’re going to have to make some changes here, and I would
guess that the most substantial would be permeability. If you could somehow bring the permeability back,
I think you’d probably garner enough votes here, despite the fact that it’s after the fact. We’ve had several
neighbors say that that’s not going to bother them.
MR. TERESI-Yes, so based on all your comments and feedback from the public, I appreciate it. I’d like the
opportunity to bring that back to my client, talk with him about the permeability and talk with him about
the setback, see if there’s a better explanation than what I’ve provided as to why I’m here after the fact.
I’m not promising I’ll be able to give you a better answer, but I certainly want to have some additional
conversations with him. So I would respectfully request the Board table the application.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any room in December?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. So you would potentially table it to a meeting in December, the first meeting in
December.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So can you supply y our information by the middle of November?
MR. TERESI-Absolutely.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey
Godnick. Applicant proposes to maintain a 188 sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The shed is
located 3.9 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The existing home is 4,259 sq.
ft. footprint with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft. which includes the 188 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested for
setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Site plan new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of
the shoreline.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK, Introduced by John
Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl;
th
Tabled to the first meeting in December with a submittal date of November 15.
st
Duly adopted this 21 Day of October 2020 by the following vote:
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020)
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Thank you.
MR. TERESI-See you in December.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to make a motion to adjourn tonight’s meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
OCTOBER 21, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle
Hayward:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of October, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe, Chairman
34