11-18-2020
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 2020
INDEX
Area Variance No. 22-2019 Cathy Sweet 2.
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No. 296.16-1-5.3
Area Variance No. 30-2020 William & Kathleen Bosy 2.
Tax Map No. 239.12-2-16
Area Variance No. 40-2020 Stewart’s Shops Corp. 6.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-65
Area Variance No. 41-2020 Thomas & Ann Ryan 10.
Tax Map No. 302.17-3-16
Area Variance No. 42-2020 Peter Sheehan, Co-Trustee 15.
Tax Map No. 289.13-1-20
Area Variance No. 43-2020 Keith & Sarah Barton 18.
Tax Map No. 279.17-2-11
Area Variance No. 44-2020 MH Imperial Homes 22.
Tax Map No. 279.17-1-65
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 18, 2020
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
MICHELLE HAYWARD
RONALD KUHL
JOHN HENKEL
BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
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
th
Appeals, November 18, 2020. Just from a safety standpoint, there are exits at the doors you came in, the
two doors to the north here. There’s an exit at the far end of, the south end of the room, and there are two
exits on the east behind me. If you’ve not been here before, our procedure is pretty simple. There should
have been an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each application up. We’ll read the application into
the record. We’ll allow the applicant to present his application. We’ll question the applicant. If a public
hearing has been advertised then we’ll open the public hearing and take input from the public, including
those hat wish to call in. At the end of the public hearing we’ll poll the Board, see where we stand with
the application, and then proceed accordingly. Tonight we have a couple of administrative items to take
care of, and so, John, I’m going to ask you to make a motion here.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
October 21, 2020
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 21, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Ronald Kuhl:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2020, by the following vote::
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
October 28, 2020
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF OCTOBER 28, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Brent McDevitt:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
APPROVAL OF MEETING CALENDAR FOR 2021
MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SCHEDULE OF MEETING DATES
FOR THE YEAR 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM:
CATHY SWEET (AV 22-2019) REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF 6 MONTHS (FROM DEC 17,
2020 – JUNE 17, 2021)
Applicant proposes construction of a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to an existing 786 sq. ft. footprint home.
Relief requested from minimum setback requirements.
The Zoning Board of Appeals approved Area Variance 22-2019 on June 19, 2019. A temporary six month
extension was approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals on June 17, 2020. With this resolution the Zoning
Board of Appeals grants another six month extension to June 17, 2021.
MOTION TO APPROVE A SIX MONTH EXTENSION FOR AREA VARIANCE 22-2019, CATHY
SWEET. Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption; seconded by Ronald Kuhl.
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November 2020 by the following vote:
MR. HENKEL-We’re going to extend it to six months from now, is that what we’re doing?
MR. MC CABE-So, yes, what happened here is the applicant was delayed construction due to COVID, and
so they weren’t able to complete their project within the timeframe, so they’re asking for a six month
extension here.
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
MR. HENKEL-So when did you say that extension is until?
thth
MR. MC CABE-It’s from December 17 to June 17, 2020.
MR. KUHL-21.
MR. MC CABE-That’s right. The notes are wrong here.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So we’re going to go to 2021, not 2020. That’s what I was looking at.
MR. MC CABE-Karen made a slip of the digits. All right. So our first application is AV 30-2020, William
& Kathleen Bosy.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY
AGENT(S) JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY ZONING WR
LOCATION 53 ASSEMBLY POINT RD. REVISED: APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A
HOME WITH 2,537.3 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,776.5 SQ. FT. HOME.
THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF SOME SHEDS, CONSTRUCTION OF A 384 SQ. FT.
GARAGE, INSTALLATION OF NEW LAWN AREA, PERMEABLE PAVER AREA. AND NEW
SEPTIC SYSTEM. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND
SHORELINE BUFFER. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
REF PT-193-2019; SEP 626-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2020
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-16
SECTION 179-6-065; 179-3-040
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2020, William & Kathleen Bosy, Meeting Date: November 18, 2020
“Project Location: 53 Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Revised: Applicant
proposes to remove a home with 2,537.3 sq. ft. floor area to construct a new 2,776.5 sq. ft. home. The project
includes removal of some sheds, construction of a 384 sq. ft. garage, installation of new lawn area,
permeable paver area, and new septic system. Project subject to Site Plan for new floor area and shoreline
buffer. Relief requested for dimensional requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The project has been revised reducing some of the relief requested. The new home is to have a floor area of
2,776.5 sq. ft. (29.1%) where 2,098.8 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed. North side setback is to be 5
ft. 1 inch and the south side setback is to be 8 ft. where a 12 ft. setback is required. The garage is to be 6 ft.
setback where a 12 ft. setback is required. Permeability is proposed to be 66.3% where 75% is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have a minor impact on the neighboring properties as the construction of the
home is 10% greater than allowed on the site.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be possible to meet
the requirements of the waterfront residential zone.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The north side relief is 6.9 ft., south side is 4 ft. The floor area is 7.1% in excess and
permeability is 8.7 less permeable for the site.
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. The
project includes a new septic system and the drinking water that is drawn from the lake is to remain.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a new home in the waterfront residential zone that includes site work,
new septic system and a new garage. The applicant has indicated the new home is in a similar location as
the existing home. The plans show the new home location including elevations and floor plans. The board
requested the applicant in the September meeting to provide updated plans to minimize the relief
requested. The applicant has reduced the floor area request by 3%, no longer needs a shoreline setback,
and has increased the hard surfacing by 0.3% from the previous proposal.”
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper.
MR. MC CABE-So let me make my little speech, Jon. We’d like only one person at a time at the
microphone. When you get done, please wipe down the podium and the microphone there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, sir. Laura’s notes did a good job of summarizing where we are. When this was
presented in September the Planning Board had recommended approval and you had sent the applicant
back to make it a smaller request. It’s not that this is a large house. It’s just that it’s a small lot, pre-
existing lot, and it’s got a pretty ratty camp on it. So we already sought approval and constructed the
septic system which is as far away as it can be on the lot. Since last time, as the notes indicated, the house
is now 50 feet from the lake. The floor area was reduced by three percent from the last request. This is
for their permanent home, their retirement home. So it needs to be a little bit bigger than what’s there,
but we think this is a very modest proposal. All the new construction is towards the road, slightly larger
garage and a slightly larger house. A bedroom was taken off upstairs from what was here last time,
substantial plantings were added along the lake, and the only reason that there’s a minimal increase there
in the impermeability is because when Chazen reviewed it, it had porous pavers near the septic system for
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
the driveway. It’s just a minor technicality, but it’s dramatically better than it was last time. The side
setbacks are essentially the same as what’s always been there. There’s no issues with the neighbors, no
complaints. It’s a much better application than presented last time because it’s really the minimum that
they need to make this their permanent home and fit it on this lot, but with the stormwater management
that’s included in the plan plus the landscaping, it’s a big improvement over what’s there.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? So, yes, I’m really impressed with the
changes that have been made and really the major problem is the permeability, but because of the size of
the lot, the .21 acres, it makes meeting the permeability requirements really pretty difficult and when you
figure it’s really just a little bit bigger than it was before, I think you guys have done a really good job. Any
other questions?
MR. HENKEL-The only problem I can see is, you know you’re doing away with all your sheds,
unfortunately, and the 16 by 24 garage is awful small to house anything. It’s too bad you couldn’t have
incorporated that, especially as you say they’re getting older, it’s too bad you couldn’t have put the garage
into the house to walk right into the house from the garage. You talk about getting older, it’s nice to be
able to, especially in the winter months, to be able to, it’s going to be hard to have any equipment to
maintain that property.
MR. LAPPER-Well, they can always call in a lawn service.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, but you don’t want to do that. Otherwise, yes, it’s a good project.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time, a public hearing has been advertised, and so
I’m going to open the public hearing. I’m going to invite anybody on the outside who has comment on this
to give us a call at 518-761-8225, and see if there’s anybody in the audience who has comment on this
project? Roy, do we have any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment.
MR. HENKEL-The Waterkeeper.
MR. MC CABE-Sorry, I couldn’t see you back there. You’re blocked off. Would you come forward, please.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I appreciate
your scrutiny of this application in requesting the revisions to it and thank the applicant for that. I did
have a question on the permeability because in my view the application didn’t completely improve because
the permeability actually decreased from the last application. There’s more impervious. Jon provided a
reason for that with the removal of the permeable pavement near the septic system. My only suggestion
to that is there are such things as grass pavers that you can actually put down where it’s reinforced grass
turf. It probably might even been cheaper than asphalt which could be an option. Another comment
which may be more towards the Planning Board, they referenced more planting, shoreline buffer, but if you
look at the landscape plan, which is not up here, the landscaping is more along the side property line, and
along the house and it’s not really along the shoreline. So again it’s not compliant with the Code we feel
and gets away from the intent of a shoreline buffer. It shouldn’t be a sideline buffer. It should be a
shoreline buffer, but that may be more of a site plan issue, but those are my comments. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So, Jon, do you care to comment?
MR. LAPPER-I appreciate Chris saying positive things about the project. We’re happy to talk to the
Planning Board about both those things. I think that the answer is that the grass area would be the same
in terms of something potentially coming off the car and into the septic and it’s probably better to have the
impermeable. That was the Chazen comment, but we’ll certainly talk to the Planning Board about that at
site plan and because it’s a narrow lot, we really did add a lot of planting. There’s the boathouse. There
wasn’t a lot of room there, but it’s all along the lake. So we’ll talk about that if the Planning Board wants
that. It’s a site plan issue.
MR. MC CABE-So I think we’ve exceeded our two minutes. 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 John.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. HENKEL-I think they’ve done a nice job since the last time we’ve met with them. Definitely a new
septic system is going to be a good thing. They are leaving the shoreline undisturbed there. So that’s a
good thing. They are asking for 677 feet above the allowable FAR variance, but I think they’ve done the
best they can with a small lot and I’d be on board with it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I agree with John. I have nothing further to add. I’d be in favor of the project as presented.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement as well. I think it’s a good project for the lake.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I think it’s well thought out. A smaller request here. The new septic I see as a good
variable to this project. I think the applicant here has done the best they can with a relatively small lot
and accordingly I’d be in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problems. The modifications from the original are an improvement. So
I’m all for it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m basically in agreement with everybody else, but I’m still not quite understanding how
the permeability issue will be relieved by the Planning Board rather than us.
MR. LAPPER-What Chris suggested is that with the paved parking area, it could possibly be grass pavers
under it. I’m not sure if that’s going to work right next to the septic system.
MR. URRICO-So basically you don’t have a solution for that right now.
MR. LAPPER-No, I mean it was only .3%. It was a really minor change because we took some other stuff
away. We made the patio smaller to accommodate it.
MR. URRICO-So I’m in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE-And, yes, I think what we gain here, the new septic system, more than offsets what we
give away which is a small change in permeability, and so I’m in favor of the project. So at this particular
time I’m going to ask Ron to make a motion.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William &
Kathleen Bosy. Revised: Applicant proposes to remove a home with 2,537.3 sq. ft. floor area to construct
a new 2,776.5 sq. ft. home. The project includes removal of some sheds, construction of a 384 sq. ft. garage,
installation of new lawn area, permeable paver area, and new septic system. Project subject to Site Plan
for new floor area and shoreline buffer. Relief requested for dimensional requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 –Dimensional requirements.
The project has been revised reducing some of the relief requested. The new home is to have a floor area of
2,776.5 sq. ft. (29.1%) where 2,098.8 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed. North side setback is to be 5
ft. 1 inch and the south side setback is to be 8 ft. where a 12 ft. setback is required. The garage is to be 6 ft.
setback where a 12 ft. setback is required. Permeability is proposed to be 66.3% where 75% is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 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:
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties as this proposed structure blends in with the existing homes.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and are reasonable and we have included them to
minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial as we’re replacing an existing older dwelling.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty could be stated as self-created as there are some relief they’re looking for.
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.
30-2020 WILLIAM & KATHLEEN BOSY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
th
Duly adopted this 18 Day of November 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
MR. LAPPER-Thanks for working with us on this one. We really appreciate it.
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 40-2020, Stewart’s Shops Corp.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEWART’S SHOPS CORP.
OWNER(S) STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. ZONING CM LOCATION 1002 STATE ROUTE 9
APPLICANT PROPOSES A 280 SQ. FT. GENERATOR SHED TO THE REAR OF PROPERTY NEAR
THE DUMPSTER. PROJECT INCLUDES RELOCATION OF 100 SQ. FT. SHED TO A PARKING
SPACE. NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING 4,929 SQ. FT. STEWART’S SHOP OR 2,560 SQ. FT.
FUEL CANOPY. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLAN.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 50-2020; AV 47-
2009; VARIOUS BUILDING & SIGN PERMITS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER
2020 LOT SIZE 1.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-65 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-020
CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 40-2020, Stewart’s Shops Corp., Meeting Date: November 18, 2020
“Project Location: 1002 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 280 sq.
ft. generator shed to the rear of property near the dumpster. Project includes relocation of 100 sq. ft. shed
to a parking space. No changes to the existing 4,929 sq. ft. Stewart’s Shop or 2,560 sq. ft. fuel canopy.
Project subject to Site Plan modification to an approved plan. Relief requested for dimensional
requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Commercial Moderate zone.
179-3-040 Dimensional requirements,179-5-020 Accessory Structures
The generator shed is to be located 10 ft. to the rear property line where a 25 ft. setback is required.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
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
existing buildings on the site and parking arrangement.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The relief 15 ft. for the rear setback.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have
minimal impact to the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 280 sq. ft. generator shed to be placed on the Stewart’s Shop’s property in the
north east corner. The generator shed is located in proximity to the dumpster area and an existing shed.
The generator shed will replace the existing shed and the existing shed is to be relocated to the pavement
area.
MR. POTTER-Good evening. Chris Potter from Stewart’s.
MR. URRICO-Wait one second. The Queensbury Planning Board 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 on November 17 by a unanimous vote.
MR. MC CABE-So just state your name again for the record.
MR. POTTER-Chris Potter from Stewart’s. The location of it is actually where an existing shed is now.
So that will be moved over to the other side of the dumpster. So it will be the shed, dumpster and the
generator storage area, and it’s just for storage of generators that would be used during power outages for
shops around the area. They’re not going to be running in that location. It’s strictly for storage and we
looked at some other spots on the site and felt it would be better in the back versus towards the front and
we have stormwater, you know, basin on the other side. So there’s really, at this location, no other
alternatives that would really work with the generator, trailer and the van that would be pulling in there,
back it in. It really needs to be in that spot to maneuver it in there. That’s about it.
MR. MC CABE-So the generators are mobile. They’re not fixed.
MR. POTTER-Correct.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? Go ahead, Ron?
MR. KUHL-Will this be left on the site all the time?
MR. POTTER-Yes, unless there’s a power outage, you know, somewhere where they would need it. Then
they would get moved to that location for the time being and it would be brought back to this location.
MR. KUHL-You’re stating that this is not going to be there for this shop all the time. It’ll be moved to
other shops?
MR. POTTER-Yes.
MR. KUHL-So we shouldn’t see other shops coming looking for generator support, like the one up on
Route 9, further on up by the outlets?
MR. POTTER-Potentially it could be moved there during a power outage if they need it, yes, but the
generators that are here, if there’s a power outage with the shops that are neighboring it, they would move
it as needed from shop to shop to keep the coolers and freezers back down to temperature then they would
rotate it out.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. KUHL-Is this a new initiative by Stewart’s based on power failures or the fact that they’re just going
to have them just in case?
MR. POTTER-We have them at other locations just like this. We used to house them all at our warehouse
in Saratoga, but response time, you know, for them to go there, pick them up and drive them back to the
stores, we lose valuable time when they’re down. So we have districts that the shops are in. So we’ve
been trying to incorporate these things on separate districts so each district has their own set of generators
so during power outages they can dispatch them as needed.
MR. HENKEL-Makes sense.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So we do have a public hearing advertised this evening. So at this
particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and I’m going to invite anybody on the outside who is
interested in inputting on this project to give us a call at 518-761-8225, and I’m going to ask if there’s any
written correspondence?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There is no written correspondence.
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to see if anybody in the audience has an interest in addressing us on this
particular application? So we’ve just got to wait for two minutes for people to call in from the outside. So
what does this district comprise? Is Warrensburg part of this district per se?
MR. POTTER-I don’t believe Warrensburg is. Each district is usually like 10 to 12 stores.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So like 149 probably would be?
MR. POTTER-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Bay Road.
MR. POTTER-Bay Road. Aviation Road, Exit 19, probably Exit 18.
MR. MC DEVITT-Would Ridge Road in Glens Falls, the new one you guys did by Sanford and Ridge?
MR. POTTER-Yes, probably. It’s just geographically the shops that are close by.
MR. HENKEL-That makes sense. It’s good to be proactive.
MR. MC CABE-So it doesn’t look like we’ve generated any interest from the outside. So at this particular
time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to ask Michelle to make a motion here.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MRS. HAYWARD-I can offer you my comments, but I’m not ready to make a motion.
MR. MC CABE-I’m getting ahead of myself. I’m sorry about that. Actually so I’ll start the comment from
you, Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-Well I’m in favor. I really don’t think it’s going to change the character of the
neighborhood. You considered several different scenarios. So I think this is the best solution. So I’m in
favor.
MR. MC CABE-So, Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think the way they’re putting it, the property’s out of the way, and there’s a building there
they’re going to move forward. I have no issue with this.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I also think it makes sense. They’re only asking for a minimal, for relief of 15 feet on that
one side, and it’s not going to bother anybody. So it’s a good project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I agree. The relief is minimal and it sounds like it’s a good plan. I’d be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. UNDERWOOD-It makes perfect sense.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-Like Jim, it makes perfect sense. I have no problem with it.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, see it as certainly a minor request, and so I’ll approve it. So now I’ll ask Michelle
for a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stewart’s
Shops Corp. Applicant proposes a 280 sq. ft. generator shed to the rear of property near the dumpster.
Project includes relocation of 100 sq. ft. shed to a parking space. No changes to the existing 4,929 sq. ft.
Stewart’s Shop or 2,560 sq. ft. fuel canopy. Project subject to Site Plan modification to an approved plan.
Relief requested for dimensional requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Commercial Moderate zone.
179-3-040 Dimensional requirements,179-5-020 Accessory Structures
The generator shed is to be located 10 ft. to the rear property line where a 25 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 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 discussed this project will seamlessly fit in with the character of the neighborhood
and I don’t think anyone will notice the change from the street.
2. Feasible alternatives were discussed and have been considered by the Board and are reasonable
and have been included to minimize this request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s a shed to house generators in the back of the store.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but doesn’t have bearing on tonight’s proceedings.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
40-2020 STEWART’S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
th
Duly adopted this 18 Day of November 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. POTTER-Thank you.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 41-2020, Thomas & Ann Ryan.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II THOMAS & ANN RYAN OWNER(S)
THOMAS & ANN RYAN ZONING MDR (SFR-10 – HIDDEN HILLS) LOCATION 10
PLEASANT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 435 SQ. FT. IN-GROUND POOL
WITH A SURROUNDING PATIO. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A PRIVACY
FENCE. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 2,412 (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH NO CHANGES.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF P20130236
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2020 LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
302.17-3-16 SECTION 179-5-020
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 41-2020, Thomas & Ann Ryan, Meeting Date: November 18, 2020
“Project Location: 10 Pleasant Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a
435 sq. ft. in-ground pool with a surrounding patio. Project includes installation of a privacy fence. The
site has an existing 2,412 sq. ft. (footprint) home with no changes. Relief requested for dimensional
requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Moderate Density Residential zone.
Section 179-5-020 – Accessory structure -pool
The applicant proposes a pool to be 8 ft. from the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The proposed
pool may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the character of the neighborhood area.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited
due to the existing home and septic location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief request may be considered to be
minimal relevant to the code. The relief is requested 12 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 requested variance may have
minimal to no adverse impact of the environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The requested variance may be considered to be
self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to place an in-ground pool to the rear of the existing home. The plans show the
location of the septic field area and the proposed pool.”
MR. MC CABE-So does that reflect the corrections that were made?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. So the correction is, I e-mailed the entire Board a correction. You should
probably insert that information there, and that is the survey shows a setback, to the property line of eight
feet. The applicant has indicated that it’s to the fence. The pool itself is 12 feet 6 inches to the property
line, and myself as Staff confirmed with the Zoning Administrator the distance to an in-ground pool is
from the water’s edge to the property line, and so the setback was to be 12 feet 6 inches and the relief is 7
feet 6 inches.
MR. MC DEVITT-So the relief is 7, 6, Laura, the relief?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. URRICO-So you got that, Roy?
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. URRICO-Yes. I don’t know, was it advertised that way?
MRS. MOORE-So it happened the way it was advertised was for dimensional requirements. So that’s an
acceptable way so that when a situation like this shows up we can address it.
MR. URRICO-Okay. So the relief now is requested at what?
MR. MC CABE-Seven feet six inches.
MR. URRICO-Seven feet, six inches.
MR. MC CABE-So are Thomas or Ann Ryan here? Are they there?
MRS. MOORE-I will e-mail them. I apologize.
MR. MC CABE-So we’ll just hold on to this and move on to the next one.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Or we could proceed.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Can we do that without them here?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We can open the public hearing anyway.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, well we have to open the public hearing. So, yes, I suppose, does anybody have any
questions? It seems pretty straightforward.
MR. URRICO-Why aren’t they here?
MR. MC CABE-Well, we’ll see if we have any questions. So with no questions then I think at this
particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and invite anybody on the outside who’s watching to
give us a call at 518-761-8225.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC CABE-(Phone ringing). Here they are. That’s them. Hello. This is the Queensbury Zoning
Board of Appeals. Can you hear me? Laura, do you want to? I can hear you. Okay. All right. So you’re
Mrs. Ryan?
ANN RYAN
MRS. RYAN-I am.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So were you watching? Did you hear the presentation?
MRS. RYAN-Yes. Hold on just a second.
TOM RYAN
MR. RYAN-Hi, this is Tom Ryan.
MR. MC CABE-Yes. So did you see the presentation?
MR. RYAN-Yes. We did.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’ve opened the public hearing. The only problem is
you’re on the line where if anybody wants to call in, this is the line that they’d use. So we don’t have any
questions at this particular time. So if you will wait until I announce that the public hearing is closed, and
you call back in, then you can address any problems that arise. Is that okay?
MR. RYAN-Okay. So we’ll hang up at this point.
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. RYAN-Okay. Thank you.
MR. KUHL-That’s a first.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. MC CABE-Yes, it is. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And for the Ryans I’m going to poll the Board. Actually we don’t really need any more
input from them. Do we? Unless some questions arise during the polling of the Board?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So for the Ryans you will not have to call in unless we request it. So I’m going to
start the inquire with Brent.
MR. MC DEVITT-I don’t have any questions, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE-So are you in favor or not in favor of the project?
MR. MC DEVITT-I am a little bit concerned, to be honest with you. I guess what I would say is I want to
kind of table my answer to that and hear what my fellow Board members have to say. My concern is that
this thing may be a little bit over built, okay. So that would be my answer at this point.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we’ve dealt with pools on numerous occasions previously and I don’t see that
this is any different. I think we’ve had these ones that are shoehorned in to these smaller properties, but I
don’t see that there’s any negative public comment against this. So I would be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with Jim. Especially since it’s been reduced since the earlier application
came in. So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-It is a problem because it is a small lot and the house sets back 50 feet from the road. So
that doesn’t leave much room for, with the septic system and leach field there and everything it’s really
tight, and since there’s no neighbors against the project, and there’s going to be some special screening as
far as the type of fencing and that, I don’t see any problem with it as is. So I’d be on board.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-The only question I have is what’s the privacy fence, how high?
It’s standard.
MR. KUHL-Is that four foot?
MR. HENKEL-No, six.
MR. KUHL-No, six foot is over standard.
MR. HENKEL-No, six foot in the back. It’s in the backyard.
MR. KUHL-Yes, but that would be the back of the property. We’re talking about a privacy fence around
the pool. I don’t think six foot works.
MR. MC CABE-Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I’m not certain.
MR. HENKEL-I guess that’s a question you’d have to ask the people. Because they’re showing us here
that’s in the back.
MR. MC DEVITT-The fence we’re referencing is in the back. Correct.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s already there.
MR. KUHL-I have no problem with the pool going where it is. My question is what’s the height of the
privacy fence. That’s all.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. MC CABE-So that’s not part of what we’re approving or disapproving.
MR. MC CABE-We’re just approving the location of the pool, offset from the property line.
MR. KUHL-The project includes a privacy fence.
MR. HENKEL-Right, which is not there. The fence is not there yet. It’s going to be.
MRS. MOORE-The privacy fence is on the property line. It’s not an issue around the pool.
MR. KUHL-It’s not going around the pool?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Well then again, what’s the privacy fence going to be?
MR. HENKEL-Well it says a black aluminum fencing around the perimeter of the pool.
MR. KUHL-Right.
MR. HENKEL-Which has to be a certain legal height anyway.
MR. MC DEVITT-The question is what is that legal height?
MR. KUHL-That’s right. I believe it’s four foot.
MR. HENKEL-That’s exactly right.
MR. KUHL-I’m just asking what it is. The Ryans can answer that.
MRS. MOORE-I guess if it’s Code compliant with Building and Codes.
MR. KUHL-Yes, what’s the Code for a fence around the pool?
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. KUHL-Thank you very much. That doesn’t work.
MR. MC CABE-So you’re not in favor of it?
MR. KUHL-No, no, my question is I won’t approve it until I find out what the height of the privacy fence
is.
MR. MC DEVITT-He wants to know the height of the fence.
MRS. MOORE-So are you asking for the height of the fence around the pool, or the privacy fence that’s?
MR. KUHL-No, the height of the fence around the pool.
MR. HENKEL-Well the legal height is four feet for a pool. Right? So it has to be the legal height. It could
be higher, but.
MR. MC CABE-If it was higher then we’d be asking for a variance, and we aren’t being asked for a variance
here. Right?
MR. MC DEVITT-We’re talking about a vinyl fence here.
MR. HENKEL-It says black aluminum.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It shows it on the plan.
MR. HENKEL-Black aluminum pool fencing around the perimeter.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s internal.
MR. KUHL-You can pass on me, Mr. Chairman, and go to somebody else.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor as proposed. I think it’s a minimal request. It fits in with the character of
the neighborhood.
MR. MC CABE-So, Brent, back to you.
MR. MC DEVITT-I would also just, while I do believe it’s a little bit out of the scope, I would also like to
just know the answer to that. I am in favor of the project the more I look at it. I don’t see opposition from
the rear neighbor Eggleston or the Hunts, and looking at it I do believe that it’s a relatively small lot. That
what we’re looking for here is actually not that major. So I would be in favor, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to ask Jim to make a motion here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thomas & Ann
Ryan. Applicant proposes to install a 435 sq. ft. in-ground pool with a surrounding patio. Project includes
installation of a privacy fence. The site has an existing 2,412 sq. ft. (footprint) home with no changes. Relief
requested for dimensional requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Moderate Density Residential zone.
Section 179-5-020 – Accessory structure -pool
The applicant proposes a pool to be 8 ft. from the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The
relief is modified by Staff to be seven feet six inches. The setback is 12 feet six inches.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 2020.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. It’s a small lot. It is a little bit shoehorned in.
2. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to where the septic system and the existing
home are. The existing home is 50 feet back from the road.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s considered to be minimal. The relief is seven foot
six inches.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. It will have minimal to no impacts on the environmental conditions in the
neighborhood.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created by the fact that they want to put a pool on their property.
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.
41-2020 THOMAS & ANN RYAN , Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brent McDevitt:
th
Duly adopted this 18 Day of November 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Kuhl
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
MR. MC CABE-So to the Ryans, you have an approved project. There was a question on the height of the
fence around the pool, but we believe that it will be within specs.
MR. MC DEVITT-Or Code.
MR. MC CABE-So next project is Area Variance 42-2020, Peter Sheehan, Hutchins Engineering.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PETER SHEEHAN, CO-TRUSTEE
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) PAUL & MARGARET SHEEHAN IRREV.
TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 31 BIRCH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 224 SQ. FT.
SUNROOM ADDITION. PROJECT TO INCLUDE A DECK ABOVE OF 224 SQ. FT. EXISTING
HOME HAS A FLOOR AREA OF 4,279 SQ. FT. WITH A 2,528 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT; NEW FLOOR
AREA OF 4,503 SQ. FT. WITH A NEW FOOTPRINT OF 2,650 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW
FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS AND
EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 51-2020; RC 396-2020;
P20130303; P20130318; SP 76-2012; 89508-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
0.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-20 SECTION 179-4-080, 179-13-010
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2020, Peter Sheehan, Co-trustee, Meeting Date: November 18, 2020
“Project Location: 31 Birch Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 224 sq. ft.
sunroom addition. Project to include a deck above of 224 sq. ft. Existing home has a floor area of 4,279 sq.
ft. with a 2,528 sq. ft. footprint; new floor area of 4,503 sq. ft. with a new footprint of 2,650 sq. ft. Site Plan
for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for dimensional requirements and expansion of a
nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements, setbacks of porches and expansion of a
nonconforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040, 179-4-080and Section 179-13-010
The 224 sq. ft. sunroom is to be located 46.9 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 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 being considered may be
limited due to the location of the existing home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minor where 3.1
ft. of relief is being requested.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a 224 sq. ft. sunroom addition with an open deck above. The project
includes removal of the existing porch area for the construction of the sunroom. The project will include
stormwater management with an eave trench to the front of the structure. The plans show the location of
the sunroom addition.”
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. URRICO-And then Queensbury Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was
adopted on November 17, 2020 by a unanimous vote.
MR. HUTCHINS-Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineering, here on behalf of Peter Sheehan, custody of the
Paul and Margaret Sheehan Trust. Peter is with us. I would question one of the items mentioned in the
description and that has to do with expansions of a non-conforming structure. This, I believe, is a
conforming structure. The house was constructed in 2014 and I believe that may be in error. What the
Sheehan’s propose is to add a 14 by 16 sunroom on the shoreline side of the lake, a single story. It would
have a rubber roof and a deck above it that can be accessed from above. There presently is a much smaller
deck in this precise location. It’s about six feet wide and they want to take that out to 16 feet with a room
beneath it. What we’re asking for, what happens with this layout, is right here that little triangle is in
excess of the 50 foot shoreline setback. So we’re asking for relief of 4.4 feet from the shoreline setback to
that corner of the structure that is kind of because the house isn’t, the shoreline makes a dip there obviously
and the setback is at the rear of the house, per se. The property has been in the family for some 60 years.
Paul and Margaret Sheehan re-built this residence in 2014. It’s very well kept. The shoreline is very well
buffered. There’s a, well it’s not a new septic system now, but it was new in 2014, and there’s well -
functioning stormwater controls, and we seek your support for this variance. We’ve looked at some
options, and for one reason or another this is what fits their needs and meets their goals and works with
the confines of the geometry of the house. So with that I’d turn it over to the Board for questions.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAYWARD-I have a question. I know it’s a minor request. Was there consideration to build it
within the confines of the setback, to shave off a couple of feet and make it a little smaller?
MR. HUTCHINS-Well we’ve tried to make it, we looked at some options of geometry and there’s two
valleys on this roof, and this is the same width as the existing depth, and they know from experience that
those valleys, we can’t go any wider because the valleys will drain onto this deck. So the thought of making
it a little wider and less deep doesn’t work for their needs because of that reason primarily.
MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised for this evening and
so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and invite anybody who’s watching from the
outside to give us a call at 518-761-8225. Roy, is there anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this particular project?
So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think this is a very minimal request. This would allow these people to enjoy
their home. It’s a well-crafted site. There’s no issues that I foresee.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I agree. Very minimal request, and I would be in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I agree. It’s a minimal request and they’ve considered other options that weren’t viable.
So I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. It’s one of the larger properties on the lake, and it’s a very minimal request of 4.4 feet
of relief, so, yes, I’d be on board with it.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. KUHL-Did you say one of the larger properties?
MR. HENKEL-One of the larger properties on Glen Lake. Am I wrong or right?
MR. KUHL-Wrong.
MR. HENKEL-Well one of.
MR. MC CABE-Is it directly across from you, Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s kind of off to the right.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m okay with the project. I’m in agreement with everybody else.
MR. MC CABE-It’s a beautiful property, and I think what’s being requested here is minimal. So I, too,
support the project. So at this particular time, I’m going to ask Ron if he’d make a motion.
MR. KUHL-Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate that.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Peter Sheehan,
Co-Trustee. Applicant proposes a 224 sq. ft. sunroom addition. Project to include a deck above of 224 sq.
ft. Existing home has a floor area of 4,279 sq. ft. with a 2,528 sq. ft. footprint; new floor area of 4,503 sq. ft.
with a new footprint of 2,650 sq. ft. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for dimensional
requirements and expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements, setbacks of porches and expansion of a
nonconforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040, 179-4-080and Section 179-13-010
The 224 sq. ft. sunroom is to be located 46.9 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 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 this request blends right in.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included
to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial as it blends in well with the whole lake property line.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest 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.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
42-2020 PETER SHEEHAN, CO-TRUSTEE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by James Underwood:
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
th
Duly adopted this 18 Day of November 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
PETER SHEEHAN
MR. SHEEHAN-Thank you, folks.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 43-2020, Keith & Sarah Barton.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KEITH & SARAH BARTON AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) KEITH & SARAH BARTON ZONING WR
LOCATION 120 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO AN EXISTING
HOME AND TO CONSTRUCT A 900 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF
1,800 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES GRADING, EROSION CONTROL, STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT, AND NEW SEPTIC. NEW HOME IS TO BE LOCATED IN SIMILAR
LOCATION AS THE PREVIOUS HOME THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED. RELIEF REQUESTED
FOR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF DEMO 283-2020; SEP 533-2020
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17.2-11
SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2020, Keith & Sarah Barton, Meeting Date: November 18, 2020
“Project Location: 120 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demo
an existing home and to construct a 900 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a floor area of 1,800 sq. ft. Site work
includes grading, erosion control, stormwater management, and new septic. New home is to be located in
similar location as the previous home that has been removed. Relief requested for dimensional
requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The new home is to be located 5.5 ft. from the north side property line where a 12 ft. setback is required.
The front setback is proposed to be 17.3 ft. where a 30 ft. setback is required. The height proposed is 31 ft.
where the maximum allowed is 28 ft. Floor area is to be 1,800 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 1,742
sq. ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The new home is in a similar location as the previous
home but further from the 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 may be considered to locate
the building in the setbacks - although this would require additional disturbance and be closer to the
lake.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The relief to the north is 6.5 ft., the front setback is 12.7 ft., the height is 3 ft. and the floor
area is 58 sq. ft.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes
stormwater management for the new home and a new septic system to be installed. The septic system
received a Local Board of Health variance approval.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to remove an existing home to construct a new home with a garage on the first
floor and a two bedroom home on the second. The plans show the location of the existing and new home.
The elevations are included showing the views of the new home.”
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins with owner/applicant Keith Barton, and this
property is at 120 Sunnyside North. It’s been in Keith’s family for more than 40 years, and he also owns
and lives in the adjoining residence to the north. This had a mobile home on it for some, since before they
owned it, so more than 40 years, and the mobile home was used and renovated at least once and has fallen
into disrepair and it has actually recently been removed because it’s so far in disrepair that it had to be
removed just because they couldn’t keep it. What they propose to do on this property is to construct a 30
by 30 residence, second floor residence, with a garage below, and again this parcel is like a lot of parcels on
some of the small lakes is a very small parcel. It’s 7900 square feet. So to construct anything in full
compliance on a parcel of this size is challenging it at the least. This would suit their needs, and we have
been to the Town Board who has approved variances for a compliant septic system that serves the
residence. Just a little note on the variances we’re asking for. We’re asking for front setback. We’ve
actually moved the proposed residence 17 feet further from the road than the entire mobile home. The
entire mobile home was basically on the, one corner of it touched the limit of the road, the right of way, not
the road itself, and there’s a fairly wide right of way here in the field, so you’re not actually on the road, but
we’re asking for 17 feet. The reason we don’t move it further back is that the slope really takes off toward
the lake, and the further back we go, again, we’re trying to have a drive in garage with this residence at
well. So it would exacerbate the height issue. It would exacerbate disturbance, and we’re trying to find
a happy medium with that location and you’ve got to look at it. It’s roughly staked out in the field where
we’re proposing. The side setback we’re asking for is for the north side which is the side on Keith’s house
and we’re proposing five and a half feet. What that allows us to do is maintain the 12 foot side setback on
the other side and it’s also in excess, the prior home was 3.7 feet from that north side setback. So we’ve
increased that and we’re able to maintain the 12 feet on the other side. As far as height, the proposed
structure from floor to ridge is 26 feet. The reason we run into a height variance is, again ,the slope on the
rear of the structure drops off and as you know we have to measure height from existing grade. So that’s
the reason for that. There’s a point on the plan that says point where height’s measured, which is right
there and because the grade drops off. So the height is 31 feet that we’re asking for, but from the roadside
view it’s 26 feet high which would be compliant, and floor area ratio, we’re asking for a very slim floor area
ratio. Again, it’s a very, very small lot. They’d like to work with a 30 by 30 structure, which suits their
needs and it’s kind of a standard size in terms of materials and such. We’re only 56 square feet over
allowable floor area ratio. So that’s, in essence, that one. We have been there with, as I said the Town
Board has seen it and we’ve met and reviewed with the Building and Codes Director what we propose to
do and he’s given us input. So with that I’ll turn it over to the Board for questions.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-So you’re saying if you bring it closer to the lake you’re not going to take care of that height.
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s going to make it worse.
MR. KUHL-It’s going to make it worse.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So, yes, I mean it’s really kind of tough, but it’s not really much different
than a number of the other properties that are very close to it. So a public hearing has been advertised.
So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and if anybody watching from the outside
wants to comment on this particular application, give us a call at 518-761-8225, and, Roy, do we have any
written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment.
MR. MC CABE-So at this time, is there anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this
particular project?
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. HENKEL-You probably don’t have any idea how many homes are on that lake, that are on the lakeside,
that are of that height. Do you ?
MR. HUTCHINS-That are of that height?
MR. KUHL-You can’t say that because of the slope of the property. And are you looking at the road? It’s
only 26. I mean that’s just the terrain of that property.
MR. MC CABE-So the top of that property versus, what is it, 122, the next door house. Where is that?
MR. HUTCHINS-Gosh, I don’t know.
KEITH BARTON
MR. BARTON-That’s Sue Dougher’s property. That’s about the same height. Actually I think hers is 27
feet.
MR. MC CABE-But I mean not official measurement, but if you were looking, which property would be
taller? So I guess to be official here, you should step down, wipe it down, and Mr. Barton can come up. So
what you need to do is state your name.
MR. BARTON-My name is Keith Barton, 118 Sunnyside North. I’ve been a resident of Sunnyside for about
40 years.
MR. MC CABE-So the question we proposed is how does the top of this new property compare to the
height of the property directly to your east?
MR. BARTON-About the same.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. KUHL-How many properties are on that lake there?
MR. BARTON-I believe there’s about 80.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, I think 40 of them have been before us. Okay. Thank you.
MR. BARTON-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. I’m going to poll
the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with John.
MR. HENKEL-Generally we don’t give height that high when we’re granting three feet there, but in this
case there’s not much you can do I guess to give it a second story. Otherwise you’d have to have a ranch
there to get what you wanted. You have to ask for that 31 feet. So I don’t really want to, but I guess I’d
be on board with the granting of that and also the granting of the 58 feet above the allowable floor space.
So, yes. I’d be on board with the project.
MR. MC CABE-Ron, how do you feel?
MR. KUHL-I think it’s an improvement to what was there, and the fact that they’re building a solid
structure with the septic, I’d be in favor of it the way it’s presented.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD- Although it seems substantial because of the number of variances you’re requesting, I
think it’s a terrific improvement to the neighborhood. I’m going to miss that old trailer, but seriously it’s
a nice project. So I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-So Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I agree with Michelle. I think it’s a good project. It’s an improvement. Its’ a compliant
septic system. All of the above. As Michelle indicates, when you kind of read this thing it’s like, there’s a
lot of variances being requested, but in their entirety I think it’s a good project, and noting the way that
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
slope really takes off towards the lake, you’ve got to contend with that. So, Mr. Chairman, I’m in favor of
the project.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s an improvement with the setback off of Sunnyside North road which is one of
the requests, too, and no one mentioned that one, but I think the house is going to be constructed as far
back from the lake as possible. If it were closer to the lake you’d need even more height relief. So I’m in
favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with everybody else. I think they’ve done the best they can to mitigate
some of the problems here, and overall I think they’re going to do a good job with it. So I’m in favor of the
project.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. We get an improvement to the environment with a new
septic system. We get an improvement to the neighborhood with a much more attractive structure. So I
think overall it’s a winner. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Michelle for a motion here.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Keith & Sarah
Barton. Applicant proposes to demo an existing home and to construct a 900 sq. ft. (footprint) home with
a floor area of 1,800 sq. ft. Site work includes grading, erosion control, stormwater management, and new
septic. New home is to be located in similar location as the previous home that has been removed. Relief
requested for dimensional requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The new home is to be located 5.5 ft. from the north side property line where a 12 ft. setback is required.
The front setback is proposed to be 17.3 ft. where a 30 ft. setback is required. The height proposed is 31 ft.
where the maximum allowed is 28 ft. Floor area is to be 1,800 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 1,742
sq. ft.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 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. Based on the information provided there’s really an improvement in some of these
setbacks. Even though the building is a little bit taller, on paper, but in appearance I think it’s
going to really fit in with the character of the neighborhood.
2. Feasible alternatives were considered and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the
request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. Even though there are several variances requested, each
one is minimal.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but that doesn’t have bearing on tonight’s proceedings.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
43-2020 KEITH & SARAH BARTON, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brent McDevitt:
th
Duly adopted this 18 Day of November 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. BARTON-Thank you, Board.
MRS. HAYWARD-You’re welcome.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is Area Variance 44-2020, MH Imperial Homes.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MH IMPERIAL HOMES AGENT(S)
GREG HEWLETT OWNER(S) DIANA GORDON ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 175
SUNNYSIDE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 1,675 SQ. FT. HOME WITH
ASSOCIATED PORCHES. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A DRIVEWAY
AREA, A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, AND WELL. THE PROJECT HAS AN EXISTING GARAGE TO
REMAIN (1,056 +/- SQ. FT.) RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS.
CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2020 LOT SIZE 0.46 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 279.17-1-65 SECTION 179-3-040
GREG HEWLETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 44-2020, MH Imperial Homes, Meeting Date: November 18, 2020
“Project Location: 175 Sunnyside Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a
1,675 sq. ft. home with associated porches. Project work includes installation of a driveway area, a new
septic system, and well. The project site has an existing garage to remain (1,056 +/- sq. ft.). Relief requested
for dimensional requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Rural Residential three acre zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The new home is to be located 81 ft. from the front property line and 76 ft. from the rear property line where
a 100 ft. setback is required; then the home is to be located 20 ft. from each side property line where 75 ft.
is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
size of the parcel (0.46 acres) within the three acre zoning district.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The front relief is 19 ft., the rear is 24 ft. and the sides are 55 ft.
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
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 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 not
self-created as the lot is pre-existing at less than three acres.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to place a new home on the existing vacant parcel. The parcel is to maintain the
existing garage to the rear of the property with no changes. The site will have a new septic system and a
new well. The plans show the location of the house site and the existing garage.”
MR. MC CABE-So you’ve got to tell us your name first.
MR. HEWLETT-Greg Hewlett, MH Imperial homes, and, yes, I was here two months ago to have the same
discussion about 173, which is next door. This is similar and yet a little bit different. Again we’re under
contract to purchase this, contingent upon being able to receive a variance to actually build on it. With
the sideline setbacks the way they are on the lot, in lot size it’s a negative building lot or envelope right
now. So a variance would be necessary to be able to utilize the land for any construction whatsoever. The
two primary differences with this one versus the last one is this one has an existing structure on it, which
is the garage. It’s a three car garage at the back of the parcel, which we would like to keep because it’s
structurally sound. We’ll clean it up a little bit. It needs a paint job and it needs to be cleaned up a little
bit, but other than that it’s actually a really solid structure, and I didn’t specify a particular house on this
because I don’t actually have a particular house that I’m intending to build on that, so much as kind of an
inventory to make available to customers of mine that are looking to build in Queensbury. So what we
did was we created a footprint that would be a not to exceed footprint. The way it’s drawn on the map
that’s the outside footprints, including building and any accessory structures, so decks and stairs which
would be required. None of the decks or stairs would exceed that building envelope and the actual house
structure would be a little bit probably smaller than that, because obviously you need three feet in the front
and back for decks and stairs for egress.
MR. MC CABE-So pretty straightforward. Do we have any questions of the applicant? So a public hearing
has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and anybody watching
from the outside who wants to call in with reference to this project, give us a call at 518-761-8225, and, Roy,
do we have any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment.
MR. MC CABE-So we do have somebody who wants to comment on this. So if you would wipe down the
podium. So state your name for the record, please.
DAVE NOWAK
MR. NOWAK-My name is Dave Nowak. I live next door. I bought the house. My lawyer has called to
put a hold on this for at least 30 days or longer because there’s a deed screw up on it. My name is on the
property that this gentleman is trying to purchase, not my house. The lady that owns it and the lawyers
are trying to work that out. Secondly, I’m not in favor of the project being built because I talked to the
Town people here, not you folks, but the zoning person there, I don’t remember his name offhand, and he
advised me there needs to be 75 feet between my property and this existing property. There isn’t any 75
feet. There’s only 20 feet measured off my house to the line there. There isn’t 75 feet in the back because
that’s owned by another person. They bought the lot next door. I was told you can’t by two lots an build
on them. They have to be individual. My well is in the back. My main concern is the well being polluted
from this project. Like I say, it’s not a feasible idea to put a house on there. There’s not enough room, and
right now I’m letting you know that it’s being tied up right now because of the wrong thing. So I don’t
know how this can go forth being approved tonight or giving the approval for it when it’s not correct at
this time. We have been working on it, we’re trying to get it corrected, but at the same time I want my
feelings known that I’m against this project because there’s not enough room for a house to be built on it.
It was sold in three different lots. I bought the house. The other house, or the lot next to me that has the
garage is very small. It’s only 63 feet wide by 200 feet. I was told you have to come back 100 feet from the
roadway to build. So that only leaves you 100 feet by 63.
MR. MC CABE-So that’s what he’s asking for is relief on these particular dimensions.
MR. NOWAK-No, I’m not in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. So, just for Staff, can you give us some guidance here?
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MRS. MOORE-So with the deed issue and that, the applicant has submitted information about the
contract that’s under for sale, the issue between the two property owners. That is a civil matter. I have
information in our file from the client that says they’re under contract to purchase the property.
MR. MC DEVITT-There’s a copy of the purchase contract with the contingency, as the applicant indicates
here, to close. I believe there’s two issues going on here. First and foremost is, the reason Mr. Hewlett is
here this evening is the relief being sought. My question to Staff, though, and I think I understand this,
but just to be clear, is that the title or the deed issue that’s potentially being contended here is not really
in our purview. Is that correct?
MRS. MOORE-That’s correct.
MR. MC CABE-I mean, the dimensions that the last gentleman mentioned are basically applicable to an
RR-3A property. What we have here is a building lot that existed before that zoning, and so it’s too small,
but it’s a legal building lot as I understand it, and this is the same situation that we faced with the other
two applications from Mr. Hewlett.
MRS. MOORE-There was one other application.
MR. MC CABE-Well he had one about a couple of years ago. Correct?
MRS. MOORE-A couple of years ago. Correct.
MR. MC CABE-And that was basically the same thing.
MR. HENKEL-But that was one lot divided in two, right? At one time that was one lot. Right?
MR. MC CABE-Well it was an undersized lot for that, but it wasn’t really much different than any of the
other properties.
MR. HENKEL-Right, existing. I understand that.
MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. I’ve got another speaker.
KYLE OGDEN
MR. OGDEN-My name is Kyle Ogden. I live at 180 Sunnyside. So I’m across the road. I agree with Dave.
I’m not for it. It’s not that I wouldn’t like a nice new building put up on our road, but I agree. I think the
lot is just too small. When you look at it, the property lines are exactly the width of that three bay garage,
and even in my opinion that three bay garage is not that big. I only have a two bay garage on my property
and it looks to be almost the same size. Like I said, I think it would be a little too close to Dave’s house,
and it would kind of give me that trailer park vibe in a way, which I feel would decrease the face value of
my house. So again I’m not really for it. Again, it’s not anything against his company. I just wanted to
voice my opinion.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Great. Thank you.
MR. OGDEN-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Hewlett, do you have any comment?
MR. HEWLETT-Yes, I don’t know if there’s a little confusion. He said the lot width was the same as the
width of the garage and the other gentleman talked about it being 63 feet wide. This lot’s 100 feet wide.
Lot 173 was 100 feet wide, and actually the lot has an existing structure on it on there. Lot Two is only 90
some odd feet wide. So the lot is consistent with the sizing of all the other lots in that neighborhood. So
I’m not really sure what the perception is there, if there’s a misperception as to what the width of the lot
is. It’s the same as all the other lots in the area, and as for the title issue, yes, he’s correct. There’s some
confusion. This is purchased through an estate that was transferred and apparently there was some legal
work that wasn’t done properly and they are working on resolving that. obviously we’re not going to
proceed with the purchase unless we can get clear title and all that documentation is correct. So
essentially the purchased is contingent on both things being cleaned up. One the variance and two getting
the title work proper.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-So is there a chance that the dimensions will change.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. HEWLETT-The dimensions of what?
MR. URRICO-Of the lot.
MR. HEWLETT-No, the lot’s the lot. I mean it’s on a tax map. It’s really, as I understand it, at the time
that the deed paperwork was filed with the transfer from the estate, the County recorded it incorrectly on
the wrong lot.. So his lot is showing that it’s the one that’s in question here, Lot 175, and it’s saying that
he doesn’t own the lot, but he actually lives there. So it’s really just a, it was a function of a mis-recording
from what I understand.
MR. URRICO-Can you tell me what, in the back there’s some fading, but it says Lot Five, Lot Four, Lot
Three, Lot Two, Lot One. The boundaries of Lot Four appear to be wider than what you have indicated
there. Is that accurate or is that something else?
MR. HEWLETT-The boundaries of Lot Four.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. HEWLETT-No, that lot’s exactly the same dimensions as Lot Three. They’re the same size.
MR. URRICO-Then what’s Lot Five?
MR. HEWLETT-Lot Five, they’re not actually lots that way. They only put it on the mapping that way
for reference, for having a discussion like this. They’re not defined as Lots One, Two, Three, Four, and
Five. Lot Five is the lot that this gentleman’s house is on.
MR. MC CABE-So 100 by 100 is the old standard lot size.
MR. HEWLETT-I think most of the lots over there on Sunnyside, that area of Sunnyside, are all.
MR. MC CABE-Well, not only Sunnyside, but just about all of Queensbury.
MR. HENKEL-That’s kind of weird that they kept the RR-3 Acre then.
MR. HEWLETT-As I understand it, they only changed the north side of Sunnyside and the south side of
Sunnyside is the other zoning district.
MR. HENKEL-That doesn’t make sense because none of those lots are three acres.
MR. MC CABE-So are we all set here? 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’ll start with Brent.
MR. MC DEVITT-Recognizing the neighbors here and fully appreciating and understanding their
thoughts on things, I have to come back to so many of these lots from many, many years back, being the
size that they are, etc., I am in favor of the project as it’s proposed.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-This is not a self-created problem because it was created when they created these
lots whenever that was, and I think that in this instance here what’s being requested, I think the issue with
the neighbors is going to have to be worked out. They’re still going to have to go through Site Plan Review
for the project. Not at all? Well I guess I would reluctantly be in favor of the project, even though it’s on
such a small lot.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m going to come down on the negative side of this. I just still think there’s some questions
remaining to me as far as size, and so I’m going to say no.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-This is tough. I don’t like approving a project that they’re saying they don’t know what
the building’s going to be on there. I’d feel better about approving it knowing what the size of the building
is going to be. I know it says not to exceed, but I still think we should have an idea of what the building
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
is going to look like and where it’s going to be exactly. So until they show us exactly where it’s going to
be and the size of it I don’t think I can really say I approve it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-You’re looking for a blank check, and I don’t sign blank checks/ So I would not be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I also had a question about the Site Plan Review which you answered Laura, but Mr.
Nowak brought up a concern about his well. I think that’s a valid concern.
MR. MC CABE-Well, the well would be under the Town Board.
MRS. HAYWARD-That’s right. I knew it wasn’t us. I misspoke, but even so I just think there are too
many variables here and I think with the variance, if we were to pass it, it runs with the land, and I just,
again, don’t want to sign a blank check, just like my colleague said . So, no I’m not in favor at this time.
MR. MC CABE-I guess the way I view it is it’s not really a blank check. I mean, he’s shown us the outline
of whatever the structure is going to be, and the only variance he’s looking for are these setbacks which
we’ve approved in several other locations, not too far away, including some pretty severe ones with the last
case. So I’d have to say that I would support this particular project. The concerns of the other gentlemen
here, particularly the one with his septic system, that would have to be approved by the Town Board.
That’s not really part of our purview here, but unfortunately I’m not enough to swing the deal here. So it
doesn’t look like you’re going to get approval here. So your options are to table this and come back at
another time when you can be a little bit more definitive about the building, because I think that’ll sway
the thought here.
MR. HEWLETT-Again, my purchase is contingent on, so in this case I just obviously won’t proceed in
purchasing the property, which means probably the existing landowner is really going to be the one that’s
going to have a circumstance that they’ll have to deal with if they can’t build on it.
MR. MC CABE-Do you want to withdraw the application, table it or we can take a vote and it’ll get turned
down.
MR. HEWLETT-Okay. So explain to me what the difference is.
MR. MC CABE-If we table it, then you can take a look at your plans and propose something different. If
you withdraw, then you have to pay the fees and go through the whole project again. If we turn it down
then you’ve got to pay the fees and go through the whole project again.
MR. HENKEL-I don’t have a problem with it. It’s just if we knew exactly what that building’s going to
be.
MR. HEWLETT-And I completely understand that, but you understand as a builder my intent in
purchasing it is to offer it to somebody else to put the house that they want on it and I guess my hope was
that by limiting it and saying we’re not going to go bigger than what we did next door, but if potentially
they picked a different style house that was smaller, if they picked a cape that had a much smaller footprint,
but was taller, does that, by doing it this way we give some latitude. If somebody wants to build a little
tiny 30 by 30 two story colonial, we would increase our setbacks. So my hope was that by saying, hey,
maximum size is this, which would be a big ranch, not even a big ranch, a 1400 square foot ranch, and yet
giving myself latitude to do something smaller if the next customer comes through my door and wants to
live in Queensbury, wants to build and doesn’t own land, wants something smaller or wants a two story,
we would have latitude and not be tied to an approval that said specifically you can only build this house.
That was the intent and the reason that we proposed it the way we did. Obviously if somebody wants to
put a 1500 square foot two story colonial, 28 by 28, it actually is just better in that the setbacks are much
greater on both sides. So my intent was just to leave some latitude.
MR. MC CABE-So again we need some input from you as to how to proceed.
MR. HEWLETT-Well at this point I’ll have to take the vote and get declined because that’s the only way
that I’m going to have the contract. So if it’s denied, then I’m out of the contract.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, Jim, why don’t you make a motion here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. At this point in time, having carefully considered the request for this
property, it appears the Town Board, I mean the Zoning Board of Appeals is not amenable to.
MR. MC CABE-So what you should do is make a motion in the affirmative and then let us deny the motion.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-You could potentially table it and come back and get the same result, but if you came back
with a little more information about the project, it may give them some more clarity.
MR. HEWLETT-And I appreciate what you’re suggesting, but to own a piece of land that I’m tied to only
being able to build something and hoping that somebody’s going to come through my door and want to
build exactly what I’m approved for, obviously at that point it doesn’t even make sense. So I appreciate
the offer.
MRS. MOORE-So that purchaser could always come back for another variance if they didn’t meet the
approval of the setbacks. They could come back for a variance.
MR. HEWLETT-Correct, but I would own the land and have to go through the process again, and that’s
not really the intent of purchasing it for us.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you want an approval.
MR. MC CABE-So just make a motion like you’re going to approve it.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from MH Imperial
Homes. Applicant proposes to install a 1,675 sq. ft. home with associated porches. Project work includes
installation of a driveway area, a new septic system, and well. The project site has an existing garage to
remain (1,056 +/- sq. ft.). Relief requested for dimensional requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for dimensional requirements in the Rural Residential three acre zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The new home is to be located 81 ft. from the front property line and 76 ft. from the rear property line where
a 100 ft. setback is required; then the home is to be located 20 ft. from each side property line where 75 ft.
is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 18, 2020.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because it’s similar in size to other homes that have been created on those other small
lots adjacent.
2. Feasible alternatives were considered. You could build something more compliant, but this is
deemed to be the envelope they wish to build within and it’s not considered to be unreasonable.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because almost all those small lots would require some
side setback allowances because it’s in a Rural Residential Three Acre zone and it trips a lot of
these requests here.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. It’s recognized that smaller modular homes are probably what will be eventually built
on this lot. So we think that this is a good idea.
5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because these lots were created prior to the Rural
Residential Three Acre zoning coming into effect.
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; all those other properties nearby or in very close proximity are built
similarly.
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
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.
44-2020 MH IMPERIAL HOMES, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe:
th
Duly adopted this 18 Day of November 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
MR. MC CABE-So I lost track, what does that?
MRS. DWYRE-So it is approved.
MR. KUHL-You just got approved.
MR. HEWLETT-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So just a couple of notes. Next month, or the next meeting is our last meeting of
the year. So at that particular time we’ve got to vote on our Secretary and our Vice Chairman for next year.
So think about your choices. Both Roy and Jim have said that they would like to continue. I have to apply
to the Town Board to continue as the Chairman and I’ve done that. So, Ron, are you going to be here next
month?
MR. KUHL-There’s no reason why I wouldn’t be here.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
th
MR. KUHL-I’m leaving on the 28.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So you will make the meeting. Are we going to have a single meeting or two
meetings in December?
MRS. MOORE-You will have one meeting.
MR. MC CABE-One meeting in December.
MRS. MOORE-It’ll be very busy.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s
meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
NOVEMBER 18, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent
McDevitt:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of November, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe, Chairman
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/18/2020)
30