12-16-2020
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2020
INDEX
Area Variance No. 31-2020 Bill Pogonowski 1.
REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60
Area Variance No. 39-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 2.
REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84
Area Variance No. 32-2020 David & Pamela Way 2.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-23
Area Variance No. 45-2020 Harrisena Community Church 7.
Tax Map No. 266.3-1-59
Area Variance No. 46-2020 Jennifer Ball 12.
Tax Map No. 266.1-1-9.2
Area Variance No. 47-2020 Penelope D. Townsend 16.
Tax Map No. 227.10-1-22
Area Variance No. 48-2020 Bonnie Rosenberg 21.
Tax Map No. 239.15-1-17
Area Variance No. 49-2020 Rockhurst LLC 31.
Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35
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 12/16/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 16, 2020
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD
CATHERINE HAMLIN
MICHELLE HAYWARD
JOHN HENKEL
MEMBERS ABSENT
RONALD KUHL
ROY URRICO
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals, December 16, 2020. If you’ve not been here before, the procedure is fairly simple. There should
have been an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each applicant up, read the application into the record,
allow the applicant to provide pertinent details, question the applicant. If a public hearing has been
advertised, we’ll open the public hearing, take comment from the outside interests, then I’ll poll the Board
and see where we stand with the particular project and then we’ll proceed accordingly. From a safety
standpoint, there are a couple of exits to the north there where we entered into this room. There’s an exit
to the south in the far corner, and there are two exits behind me to the east, but first we have to take care
of a few administrative items. So, John?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
November 18, 2020
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 18, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Michael McCabe:
th
Duly adopted this 18 day of December, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS:
AREA VARIANCE 31-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI REQUEST TO TABLE TO JANUARY 2021
MEETING
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Bill
Pogonowski. Applicant proposes to construct a detached 672 sq. ft. (footprint) garage with floor area of
1,114 sq. ft. The garage height is to be 23 feet 3 inches where 16 feet is maximum for a garage in WR zone.
The existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (footprint) with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. Relief requested for floor area
& height. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI,
Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Tabled to January 2021.
Duly adopted this 16th Day of December 2020 by the following vote:
MR. HENKEL-Are we going to require any more information prior to?
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
th
MRS. MOORE-Right. Information is due by December 15, and I understand that it is in the process of
being submitted.
MR. MC CABE-It’s a little late then.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
AREA VARIANCE 39-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK REQUEST TO TABLE TO JANUARY 2021
MEETING
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey
Godnick. Applicant proposes to maintain a 188 sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The shed is
located 3.9 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The existing home is 4,259 sq.
ft. footprint with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft. which includes the 188 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested for
setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Site plan new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of
the shoreline.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK:
Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe;
th
Until January 2021 with any information submitted by December 15, 2020.
Duly adopted this 16th Day of December 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MR. MC CABE-So we have a little unusual circumstance tonight. We’re short a few members. We’re
down to five, but you still need four affirmative votes for your project to go forward. You can automatically
table before we even get started, or you can present your case, see how the Board feels, and you’ll get an
idea of how your project is going to go. So the first project tonight is AV 32-2020, David and Pamela
Way. I’m going to ask that only a single person come to the podium. When you’re done at the podium,
wipe the podium down. Wipe the microphone down.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID & PAMELA WAY OWNER(S)
DAVID & PAMELA WAY ZONING WR LOCATION 33 CANTERBURY DR. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 288 SQ. FT. DOCK (8’ X 36’). THE EXISTING HOME IS 448 SQ. FT.
THE NEW DOCK DOES NOT MEET THE REQUIRED 20 FT. SETBACKS. RELIEF REQUESTED
FOR DOCK SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 351-2020; P20140481; P20150186 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING OCTOBER 2020 LOT SIZE 0.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-23 SECTION 179-
5-060
DAVID WAY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2020, David & Pamela Way, Meeting Date: December 16, 2020
“Project Location: 33 Canterbury Dr. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a
288 sq. ft. dock (8’x 36’). The existing home is 448 sq. ft. The new dock does not meet the required 20 ft.
setbacks. Relief requested for dock setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and Section 179-5-050 docks
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
Project is to install a 288 sq. ft. dock to be 16.5 ft. from the north property line and 15.7 ft. 15.9 ft. from the
south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The survey had been updated 11/6/2020 showing
revised setbacks.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited
due to the lot size and amount of shoreline where there is 48.3 ft.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
minimal to moderate relevant to the code. The relief for the north side is 3.5 ft. and the south side is
4.3 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to install a 288 sq. ft. dock to an existing site. The parcel has an existing home that
is to remain. The dock location is shown on the survey with the setbacks.”
MR. MC CABE-So do we have anybody here for the Ways?
MR. WAY-Thank you. Good evening.
MR. MC CABE-Identify yourself for the record, please.
MR. WAY-My name is David Way, 33 Canterbury Drive. As you just read, we have 48.3 feet of lake
frontage. When we looked into the requirements for the dock it stated that you needed 20 feet from each
property line. So therefore we believe that we have enough room for an eight foot dock. We didn’t realize
that the property lines extend into the lake, and because the property lines are not perfectly parallel we
would need a variance. Therefore we think the request is reasonable.
MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward. Do we have any questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-Have you thought about a smaller dock at all? I mean eight feet is pretty wide. Generally
we haven’t really done too many with eight feet, especially on Glen Lake. Have you thought about six
foot? What’s the reason for going out 36 feet? It’s not that shallow there, is it?
MR. WAY-Part of ours is shallow and it’s in the middle where the dock has to be. For about 10 feet it’s
pretty shallow. I guess about eight feet out it’s at my knees.
MR. HENKEL-Because I walked out there and it didn’t seem to be that shallow. I mean how big are your
boats that you put there?
MR. WAY-We don’t have a boat yet. We need to get a dock first. We were looking at a pontoon boat, 22
foot range, and I don’t know how much water it needs to be, but I thought it might.
MR. HENKEL-Well, something, you don’t need too much, six to eight inches a lot of times. That’s about
all you need. They don’t really go down that deep.
MR. WAY-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-You haven’t considered a smaller dock, like a 30 foot by 6 feet?
MR. WAY-We considered we might have to go down to six feet, but we wanted the length to stay away
from the shallow area, to keep the boat away from the shore right there.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MR. HENKEL-If you go 22 feet with a boat, that’s, with the motor out towards the lake, you still would
have quite a bit of dock there left over.
MR. WAY-So if we dropped down to 32 feet?
MR. HENKEL-Well I’m just giving you my opinion. It’s not everybody else’s. I’m just giving you my
opinion on the width and length.
MR. WAY-The width we wanted because we have elderly relatives and children and grandchildren and
we wanted to make sure they could get out to the boat and get into it safely.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MRS. HAYWARD-I do.
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead.
MRS. HAYWARD-How many boats do you plan to keep there?
MR. WAY-We want to have one boat.
MRS. HAYWARD-Just the one boat, and had you taken any measurements, 36 feet out, how deep the
water is?
MR. WAY-No, I haven’t.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. So you’re really not sure.
MR. WAY-At 36, and at probably 20 it’s quite deep, but there’s like a sandy area and a drop off.
MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, a ledge there. Okay. All right. Thank you.
MR. WAY-You’re welcome.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised tonight. So at this
particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and invite people from the outside who might want to
comment on this to give us a call at 518-761-8225, and is there anybody in the audience who would like to
comment on this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-Good evening. My name’s Paul Derby. I live at 31 Canterbury Drive. My wife and I own
property that’s immediately north of Dave and Pam Way. We share a contiguous property line. I’m not
opposed the to the way he’s constructing the dock. They’re good neighbors and they should have a dock
on beautiful Glen Lake. I do, however, oppose the dock that’s being proposed. It clearly doesn’t meet
the sideline setbacks. Even if you put a four foot dock there it doesn’t meet it totally. This particular
eight foot dock is just too wide for that small lot. Not only that, it would take up much of their own
waterfront, but it would unnecessarily create more congestion in an already congested area. Also there
are many young children who play around that area. An overcrowded space would make it dangerous. So
rather I would suggest that they do install a four foot dock. It seems appropriate to the property. The
majority of the docks on Glen Lake are four feet wide because the lots are small, and it seems to fit better.
It would minimize the negative impacts, and we’d be agreeable to a four foot dock that would be set in the
center of the property. Also while I’m here just quickly I would recommend the Ways actually install a
pull out dock that can be removed in the winter rather than a permanent structure. We’re concerned
about the use of ice eater. I know they’re not illegal. I know it’s not the purview of this Board, but the
use of ice eater would certainly open the area along my shoreline. So just a note on that, it does open it
up and makes it dangerous. Also opening the water does really spur invasive aquatic plants. Eurasian
water milfoil will still grow in that even over the winter. So it’s just a suggestion regarding that, and we
are prone to that in that immediate area. One quick final point. I know the Ways have been actively
looking to sell their camp and buy a larger place on Glen Lake. As I say they’re really good neighbors, but
you never know what’s going to come to follow. Therefore I think a reasonable four foot wide dock that
minimizes impact seems in the best interest in the neighborhood, and that’s all I have. I want to thank
you for listening and happy holidays.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to address the Board on this particular
matter? Seeing no one, is there public comment?
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MRS. MOORE-This is addressed to myself and Karen. “My family has owned and enjoyed property for
many years on Canterbury Drive. We have known the Ways since they purchased their property. They
have been excellent neighbors and have done a phenomenal job restoring the property including upgrading
their septic system. They are hardworking, highly responsible people and I hope they are given due
consideration for their variance. Respectfully, Russ Canterbury” And he didn’t put an address in there.
MR. MC CABE-I think that’s the property two doors to the south.
MRS. MOORE-He just says Canterbury Drive. So the next one is addressed to myself and Karen. “We
are writing this letter in support of the dock variance for our neighbors Pam and Dave Way. The proposal
will be going to the Town on December 16. We reside on 43 Canterbury Drive. We did review their plan
for the dock and are very supportive of the project. We are out of town and can’t make the meeting.
Thank you for sharing our support. John and Mary Jo Sabia” And this is addressed to Craig Brown. This
is Michael Searles, “Good evening, Craig – my name is Michael Searles and I own the home at 37 Canterbury
Drive on Glen Lake. The home is adjacent to the home of David and Pamela Way at 33 Canterbury Drive.
As you know the Way’s are seeking to obtain a variance to construct a dock on their property which, given
its configuration, does not meet the current setback requirement. I am writing to you to voice my support
for their request but also express some concerns for the size of the planned dock. The current plan
contemplates an 18 ft. wide dock which in my experience is highly unusual on Glen Lake due to the close
proximity of homes. Given the configuration of the property, I am concerned with congestion in the area
and believe that a 4 ft. wide dock would be more reasonable. The Way’s are very good neighbors with a
high degree of social and environmental consciousness and while I wish that I did not have concerns over
the proposal I do believe that the plan as proposed is a bit excessive and unnecessary. Once again I want
to express my support for a 4 ft. wide dock despite the fact that it still does not meet the setback
requirement as I believe that this would significantly reduce congestion in the area and will allow the
Way’s to fully enjoy the beauty of Glen Lake. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best regards,
Mike Searles” And that’s it.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, is there anybody else in the audience who would like to comment
on this particular project? So at this time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s always interesting on Glen Lake, and I think we have to keep it in perspective,
you know, the situation there with smaller lots versus larger lots. Almost everybody’s on a substandard
size width lot and so I think the effect that you have on your neighbors is something substantial, no matter
what your intentions are as far as this one. I think an eight foot dock probably is a little bit excessive. It’s
the same width as the dock that your neighbor has right next door, and his lot is not that much wider than
your lot. It’s probably twice as wide as your lot .
MR. WAY-Which house, the one with the eight foot dock?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The big house to your, if you’re looking at your house, the house to your left.
MR. WAY-Okay. That one’s also 50 foot I believe. Roughly 50 foot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think the big issue is, you know, as far as the traffic issue on the lake, the
majority of the boats on Glen Lake, in my experience, spend most of their time tied up to the dock, and not
out there on the lake. Maybe there’s an evening circuit of the lake or something, but those are usually low
speed. Party boats are not meant for high speed in and out, in and out all day long or anting like that. So
I think that the issue here is whether the eight foot is appropriate, and you have a small, narrow lot. It’s
only a little over 40 feet wide, and I think that probably an eight foot dock would be a little more amenable
for your use because you have such a steep foreshore there leading down to the water, also. I guess I’d be
in favor of your project. As a compromise, if the Board is not in favor of this project, I would propose, if no
one wants to go for the eight foot dock, and we would go for a six foot dock, propose a six foot wide dock
instead, as a medium.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I agree with Jim.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement as well. I think we need to consider alternatives here as part of our
balancing test, because we’re charged with granting the minimum variance necessary. So I would say six
feet I would go for, and I wish we knew how deep the water was there so we could determine how long
your dock should be, but as it stands, I would just deal with the width.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MR. MC CABE-So you too are agreeing with a six foot.
MRS. HAYWARD-I would agree with a six foot.
MR. MC CABE-And you are also. John?\\
MR. HENKEL-I would also agree with the six, but I would say the length scares me a little bit, too. I’d like
to see that cut down to 30. I think like most boats on Glen Lake are not that big. So 22 feet that they’re
talking about buying a pontoon boat there, that’s still going to give them, I’d like to see it reduce it. Thirty-
six is too much for me. I’d like to see six by thirty, but.
MR. MC CABE-So you’re a no then?
MR. HENKEL-I’m still giving it thought, but six by thirty I think would be fair. I mean, Jim, you know,
you’re out on the lake all the time. Are there many boats longer than thirty feet out there?
MR. UNDERWOOD-There are a few longer ones, but I think everybody has their own perception as to
what length they need, you know.
MR. HENKEL-Because I did walk the property and I saw it wasn’t that shallow. It would be different if
it was a shallow, I could see if there was a lot of muck there or shallow I could see going out further. I
would understand that, but I’m still a little tough on the 36 feet, but it’s up to.
MR. MC CABE-So from my standpoint I think we had quite a bit of argument on the docks to the south
there around the corner, and I think we settled on 36 feet for actually two docks in that particular area. So
I would support the six by thirty-six, but that’s going to be up to you. Is six foot, will that meet your? So
can we then amend the application for six by thirty six instead of eight by thirty six.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So now it’s going to change the setbacks. Which side are you going to change that
on?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you place it in the middle as anticipated.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So one foot on each side. So now you’re going to have relief of four and a half and
five point one, right, because we had 4.1 and 3.5.
Will the relief go down?
MR. HENKEL-The relief is going to go down. They’d need less relief. So if you cut that, like they said,
right in the middle, and do a six, now on your north side you’re going to need 4.5 relief and the south side
5.1.. Right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re going to need less relief.
MR. HENKEL-Less relief, sorry, yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It should be 2.5 and 3.1.
MR. HENKEL-2.5 and 3.1.
MR. MC CABE-So the other thing to understand is I believe a four foot wide dock is standard. So I believe
you’re going to get into six foot being an odd side. So if you decide to stay standard, then our okay will be
all right. As long as you don’t exceed the six foot, you can shrink that down. So I’m going to, Jim, as for
a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David &
Pamela Way. Applicants propose to install a 216 sq. ft. dock (6'x 36'). The existing home is 448 sq. ft. The
new dock does not meet the required 20 ft. setbacks. Relief requested for dock setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicants request relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and Section 179-5-050 docks
Project is to install a 216 sq. ft. dock to be 17.5 ft. from the north property line and 16.7 ft. from the south
property line where a 20 ft. setback is required .Applicant provided an updated survey on 12/21/2020 for the dock as
stated.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
SEQR Type II -no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 28, 2020 & Wednesday, December 16,
2020.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. A four foot dock would be a standard. A six foot dock is slightly larger, but the impact on
the neighbors on this narrow lot would not be significant.
2. As far as feasible alternatives, they could put a four foot dock in, but they've compromised with us
and instead of going with an eight foot dock they're going with a six foot wide dock. We're also
recognizing that the forefront of the shoreline there is only 48.3 feet.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. We feel that this request is minimal. It's going to be 2.5
feet on the north side and it would be 3.1 feet on the south side.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district. We find there will be no real impact. It's the addition of a single boat. Almost everybody
has a party boat on the lake and they spend the majority of their time tied up on the shoreline not in
and out all day long.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. It may be considered to be self-created just by the narrow nature
of this lot.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community; Everybody's aware of the nearness of their neighbors on the lake and
the applicant agrees to make a reasonable use of their property, not traffic going in and out.
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; A six
foot dock 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.
32-2020 DAVID & PAMELA WAY, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michelle Hayward:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2020, by the following vote:
MR. HENKEL-Do we need to add the square footage difference, the 216 from the 288 or no?
MRS. MOORE-You should.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So 216 square feet is what we need to do. Right?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 45-2020, Harrisena Community Church.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II HARRISENA CHURCH AGENT(S)
VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) HARRISENA CHURCH ZONING MDR LOCATION
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
1616 RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION WHERE THE
EXISTING LOT IS 3.8 ACRES. LOT 1 IS TO BE 1.3 ACRES, LOT 2 IS TO BE 1.3 ACRES, AND LOT 3
IS TO BE 1.2 ACRES. LOT 1 IS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME 1,580 SQ. FT. WITH DECKS
(FOOTPRINT) AND LOTS 2 & 3 ARE FOR FUTURE HOMES AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK.
PLANNING BOARD: REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE.
CROSS REF SUB 16-2020; AV 37-2003; SV 60-2002; BP 2000428; BP 93057-990 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.8
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-59 SECTION 179-3-040
MATTHEW WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2020, Harrisena Church, Meeting Date: December 16, 2020
“Project Location: 1616 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a three-lot
subdivision where the existing lot is 3.8 acres. Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 is to be 1.3 acres, and Lot 3 is to
be 1.2 acres. Lot 1 is to maintain the existing home 1,580 sq. ft. with decks (footprint) and Lots 2 & 3 are
for future homes and associated site work. Planning Board: review for subdivision. Relief requested for
lot size.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for lot size in the Moderate Density zone- MDR.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The project proposes three lot subdivision where Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 is to be 1.3 acres, and Lot 3 is
to be 1.2 acres and the lot size required is 2 acres in the MDR zone. Lot 1 will maintain an existing house
and the remaining two lots are to be sold for future homes.
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 include reducing the
number of lots.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. Relief for Lot 1 is 0.7 ac, for Lot 2 is 0.7 ac, and Lot 3 is 0.8 ac.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.8 ac into three lots. The Harrisena Church will retain Lot 1 that
has the existing home. There are no changes to lot 1. Lot 2 and Lot 3 are to be sold for future homes. Lot
3 will have access on Clements Road, Lot 2 will have access on Ridge Road, and Lot 1 access on Ridge Road
will remain the same. The subdivision plan shows the three lots and proposed house location and septic.”
MR. MC CABE-The Planning Board in its review has identified an area of concern. They believe that the
subdivision should be two lots instead of three. Is there somebody here representing the Church?
MR. WEBSTER-Good evening. My name is Matthew Webster with VanDusen & Steves Land Surveyors
on behalf of the Harrisena Community Church. As was explained, the Church is requesting relief from
the minimum two acre lot size in order to subdivide the current 3.8 acre lot into three lots, which will be
of course one retained by the Church and then two saleable lots. I would just like to point out that all of
these lots are able to accommodate septic and wells, well away from any existing neighbors and either of
the new lots, and that the Church sees this as the best way to stay financially stable and independent in
these difficult times of course and so this would allow the Church to continue being a positive in the
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
community while having a minimal impact in their neighborhood and this is the Church’s neighborhood
so of course they would not want to be a detriment and at the same time I’d also just like to point out that
these lots are still, the two real lots, if you will, would still be larger than many of these surrounding lots
even with the relief requested.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-So Lot One is going to be, you said it would still stay with the Church?
MR. WEBSTER-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So we don’t have to worry about another, otherwise you’d only have one driveway
in and out of the parking lot.
MR. WEBSTER-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? A public hearing has been advertised. At this particular
time I’m going to open the public hearing. I’m going to seek input from anyone on the outside who wants
to comment, give us a call at 518-761-8225. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to comment
on this particular project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BRIAN WILLETTE
MR. WILLETTE-My name’s Brian Willette. I’m adjacent to that property in conversation. It’s on 8
Clements Road, just on the other side of Clements as far as looking at the property in question. You had
mentioned that it’s going to be divided up into three sections.
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. WILLETTE-Now with the Adirondack Park, isn’t there a minimum of two acres in order to build
within the Adirondack Park?
MR. MC CABE-I have no jurisdiction as to Adirondack Park requirements. My jurisdiction is Queensbury
Town requirements. This is zoned as MDR. So each lot is supposed to be two acres and the applicant is
asking for relief from that.
MR. WILLETTE-The relief I would question that one, because if you look at adequate sewage and well,
the sewage and well, it’s going to overtake that area because it’s saturated as it is currently. As far as I see
it across the road being developed, the runoff naturally grades down Clements. So with that prior years
the rain runoff, snow, everything as far as the house standpoint, septic, well, everything else for the
neighbors that reside below that, everything’s going to be flowing that way, because the clearing of the
property, as of that trees, shrubbery, everything else that would absorb that, is now negated.
MR. HENKEL-If anybody wants to build on this, they’re going to have to get approval through the Board
of Health anyway.
MR. MC CABE-So we just have to, he’s making comment. That’s all.
MR. WILLETTE-So my view is far as from French Mountain to Buttermilk Falls Road, the traverse of the
habitat, there’s very little habitat because of development. Just south of us it had already had a
development that created an impact in natural wildlife. So we’re slowly losing that wildlife preserve that
the Adirondack Park wants to preserve and that’s slowly disappearing.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Is that it?
MR. WILLETTE-That’s pretty much it.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else who would like to comment on this particular
project?
JOHN KEYWORTH
MR. KEYWORTH-My name’s John Keyworth. I live on 31 Clements Road, and I just want to reiterate
Brian’s concern on the runoff. There is that buffer now, but especially in the winter the runoff that’s there
already is a problem. It runs off down the road and it runs through our property. Two years ago I had
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
two, three inches of water on my driveway that froze. So clearing that lot out isn’t going to help me at all.
This is one of the waivers they asked for is wastewater considerations. So that’s my main concern.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to comment?
CATHY GRANT
MS. GRANT-Hi, I’m Cathy Grant. I live at 1593 Ridge and I‘m directly across the street from the property
in question, and I think my biggest concern is it appears that it’s very wet over there most of the time.
There’s a lot of wildlife that live there and the concern with them asking for a waiver from any of the
wetland issues is a concern as far as runoff.
MR. MC CABE-There’s no wetlands involved here.
MS. GRANT-If you go over and try to walk through there, you can’t walk through there.
MR. HENKEL-It’s not designated.
MR. MC CABE-Wetlands are wetlands.
MS. GRANT-I understand that, but there is, I do think that it’s a problem as far as the erosion. By taking
down any trees and by doing any building in there I think it would be a detriment to that area and to
Clements Road as far as the runoff, and again another concern is where the driveway placement will be as
far as Ridge Road and Clements Road.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Do we have anybody else that would like to comment on this?
MRS. MOORE-I do have some public comments.
SARAH PROTOTO
MS. PROTOTO-I’m Sarah Prototo. I live on 101 Clements Road. I’m down further. I actually butt up
against the back of the Church. My thought would be two lots. Three lots I think are going to be a
problem because again I’m going by what they’re talking about. Number One that lot that’s closest to
Clements, there’s going to be a problem getting in and out, either going onto Clements, because as it is
right now the road curves and you almost can’t see getting out of Clements. So you add another driveway
either on Ridge or on Clements, that’s going to be a problem. Not only that, I have to agree with them. I
don’t get affected unfortunately, or fortunately I should say, by the runoff by I know it is on the top of that
road when the weather’s bad. They always have that on that upper part, and it just seems to me that that
would be a bit much because again, I will admit there are some houses that are closer but they’ve been
there for a long, long time, probably close to 100 years in some cases, but at this point, adding to that
congestion of that area also just doesn’t seem reasonable. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Laura, we have written comment?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. One more.
SETH STARK
MR. STARK-Good evening. My name’s Seth Stark. I reside at 1640 Ridge Road. Harrisena is a
cornerstone for that area so I can appreciate the fact that they’re under financial stress right now. I don’t
know if it would be a compromise to do the two lots instead of three. I think there would be less impact,
and I do have to say that lots in question, I agree with everybody that lives around the area, my neighbors,
that it’s super wet there. So maybe having less clearing would have less of an impact. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? Now you can go, Laura.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. “We request that in reference to the variance AV 45-2020 for the Harrisena Church
property that you do not grant a waiver for Stormwater Management and that if the subdivision is granted
that you make the most stringent enforcement of the Stormwater Management regulations possible for the
following reasons: 1. The water runoff from Ridge Road is already a problem for the people that live ion
Clements Road. More so in the winter than in the summer. In the winter of 2018 we had 2 to 3 inches of
water over our driveway that would freeze and thaw depending on weather conditions due to the run off
from Ridge Road and the grade of Clements Road. 2. Every winter poses a problem for the water as it
travels down Clements Road. As the town should know from past winters extra sanding has to be done
during freezing weather for the safety of vehicles traveling down our road as the runoff water will freeze
in significant areas as it travels down the road. 3. The area in question for the variance on the corner of
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
Ridge Road and Clements Road provides some buffering for the snow melt and runoff. Granting a waiver
to the Stormwater Management regulations will only increase the water runoff. In addition the dense
growth on this property has become a wildlife refuge and transition point for animals of all types as they
pass through our area. The growth in that area provides protection for turkeys, deer and their offspring.
It would be a shame to lose that. Thank you, John and Barbara Keyworth” This is a phone conversation
between myself and Katherine Standbridge at 8 Clements Drive. She explained that her lot is across the
street from the lot proposed on Clements Drive. She would prefer if the driveway was not directly opposite
her driveway and would prefer the trees along Clements Road side to be keeping with the rural area. “This
is in response to my telephone call. I am a homeowner of property directly across from Rev. Natalie
Wimberly’s home/parsonage. 1619 Ridge Road. The Public Hearing Notice I received stats that they,
(Harrisena), has proposed a three lot subdivision build on the two adjacent lots, including Rev. Wimberly’s
home, to include decks. As proposed, I don’t have an objection, as long as it’s only two homes on the
adjacent properties. Sincerely, Mrs. Agnes Vigotty P.S. I understand this will be read tonight at the Public
Hearing”
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time, would you like to come up and comment on any of the
comments being made? So can I just add to this before you start? That some of the comments, questions
that were made are most likely part of the Planning Board discussion.
MR. MC CABE-Right. I was going to take care of that when he’s all done.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I apologize.
MR. WEBSTER-I guess as you stated I guess a lot of this would be subject to the Planning Board review.
We’re simply here about the current lot size and as a representative for the Harrisena Church we thank all
the neighbors for their comments and we appreciate their feedback. Again, we are seeking to have
minimum impact on the neighborhood, as minimum as possible, while at the same time making this as
financially feasible for the Harrisena Community Church, which of course we feel as though three lots as
opposed to two lots, obviously you can understand the significant financial impact on that.
MR. MC CABE-So I’ll just make a comment. First of all, just about everything that has been pointed out
here has more to do with the Planning Board and site prep than the Zoning Board here. All we’re being
asked to do is to comment on dividing this up into three lots where the lots are undersized. So we’re being
asked to okay undersized lots. Comments on, there’s no buildings proposed here. So we can’t talk about
how runoff is taken care of. There’s no buildings here, so we can’t talk about curb cuts or anything like
that. All we can talk about simply is, is it reasonable to ask for lots basically a little over one acre where a
two acre lot is required. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John.
MR. HENKEL-I don’t see there’s much problem here. Houses can be built with no variances. I think
you’re only going to have one other curb cut onto Ridge Road which is not going to create any more
problems I don’t think. Yes, there’s going to be a little bit of relief of .7, .8 and .7 for relief, but that kind of
goes with all the other lots, especially the ones across the street from the Church, and they all are going to
have at least around 200 feet of road frontage. So they’re not narrow lots. So I would be on board with
granting that. The other things, like Mike said, are going to be addressed by the other Board as far as
stormwater and things like that. So I think those lots can support the houses. So I’d be on Board with
the three lot subdivision.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m really not enthusiastic about this. I kind of disagree with the applicant. These
small lots really don’t fit in the character of the neighborhood as far as I’m concerned. It’s a mixed
neighborhood. There are some very large lots not too far from there, and my concern is changing the
character of the neighborhood and just chopping it up into smaller lots, smaller lots over time, and I’m also
concerned about the impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. I know those can be
ameliorated with stormwater management and will be addressed by the Planning Board but it is part of
our balance test, but I would be in favor of a two lot subdivision.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. I mean we’re not approving a subdivision here. We’re granting a variance from
a requirement of two acres which is the zoning and I did not hear any compelling arguments, other than
financial hardship which is not a criteria to grant a variance. So again I would be in favor of a two lot
subdivision.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m in agreement with John. I think if you went back to the original Harris land
patents and subdivisions that were done hundreds of years ago, the intention of the area was for the area
to become habited by people that were nice people to live with, and I think that the proximity of the
Church, the Harrisena Church, is making a plea to us basically for its own survival. That’s within our
purview to also put that into the argument for or against what we’re doing here, and I think that one acre
lots in a rural area are more than adequate in size. I think the impact of two extra buildings out on Ridge
Road is not going to impact anybody. I think the Planning Board will dial in the issues as far as runoff off
these properties. You’re going to have one more curb cut on Ridge. You’re going to have one curb cut on
Clements. I don’t think it’s going to be that big of a change so I would support the applicant.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, would support the applicant. Certainly we’ve been asked in MDR zoning for
a lot smaller lots. The fact that these three lots are all over an acre is encouraging to me, and I don’t see
where it substantially makes a change to the character of the neighborhood. As the applicant pointed out,
a number of the other houses in the area are on small lots, but unfortunately you don’t have enough votes
here. So what you can do, if you want to go away, it sounds like if you reduce it to two lots, you’ll get
enough votes here, or you can wait until we have an additional two more members and take the chance at
that particular time. So it’s up to you.
MR. WEBSTER-Can I have just a moment with my client to confer?
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. WEBSTER-We’d like to ask to table it for now.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. WEBSTER-And we’ll come back.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Laura, when’s the next open? Do we have anything in January?
MRS. MOORE-I potentially could have something in January but the information would have to come
quickly. Their updated materials would have to come quickly. If that’s not doable.
MR. MC CABE-Well I think probably they’re not going to update anything. They’re going to take a chance
on our new members, you know, one of them going with their proposal.
MRS. MOORE-Then you can table it to a January meeting.
MR. MC CABE-So, John?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Harrisena
Community Church. Applicant proposes a three-lot subdivision where the existing lot is 3.8 acres. Lot 1
is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 is to be 1.3 acres, and Lot 3 is to be 1.2 acres. Lot 1 is to maintain the existing home
1,580 sq. ft. with decks (footprint) and Lots 2 & 3 are for future homes and associated site work. Planning
Board: review for subdivision. Relief requested for lot size.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2020 HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH,
Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
th
Tabled to the first meeting of January, 2021, with any new information submitted prior to December 24.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MR. MC CABE-So we’ll see you in January. So our next applicant is Area Variance 46-2020, Jennifer
Ball.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JENNIFER BALL AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) JENNIFER BALL ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 253
PICKLE HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 7.99 ACRE
PARCEL WHERE LOT 1A IS TO BE 5.89 ACRES AND HOUSE TO REMAIN (2,890 SQ. FT. WITH
DECKS – FOOTPRINT). LOT 2A IS TO BE 2.09 ACRES TO BE VACANT FOR FUTURE HOME.
APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED A TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL HOME WITH SEPTIC FOR THE
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
VACANT LOT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT 1A INCLUDE LOT WIDTH. PLANNING
BOARD: REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT 2A INCLUDES LOT
SIZE, ROAD FRONTAGE, AND LOT WIDTH. CROSS REF SUB 18-2020 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING DECEMBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 7.99 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-9.2 SECTION 179-3-040
LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2020, Jennifer Ball, Meeting Date: December 16, 2020 “Project
Location: 253 Pickle Hill Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot
subdivision of a 7.99 acre parcel where Lot 1A is to be 5.89 acres and house to remain (2,890 sq. ft. with
decks—footprint). Lot 2A is to be 2.09 acres to be vacant for future home. Applicant has proposed a typical
residential home with septic for the vacant lot. Planning Board: review for subdivision. Relief requested
for Lot 1A include lot width. Relief requested for Lot 2A includes lot size, road frontage, and lot width.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for Lot 1A for lot width and Lot 2A for lot size, road frontage, and lot width
in the Rural Residential 3 acre zone.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The project proposes a two lot subdivision. Lot 1A width is proposed is 383 ft. where 400 ft. is required.
Lot 2A lot size proposed at 2.09 ac where 3 ac is required, lot width proposed is 290.6 ft. where 400 ft. is
required, and road frontage 268.4 ft. where 400 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. 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 include adjustment to
the proposed Lot 2 to increase the lot size to minimize the relief requested.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief for lot 1A lot width is 17 ft., lot 2A lot size 0.91 ac, lot width 109.4
ft., road frontage 131.6 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to subdivide 7.98 acres into two lots with one lot of 5.89 ac and the second lot 2.09
ac. Lot 1A of 5.89 ac has an existing home and there are no changes to the site being proposed. Lot 2A has
a proposed home, septic and well. The project requires a stormwater permit due to the amount of
disturbance. The subdivision plan shows the configuration of the two lots.”
MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Mr. Chairman and good evening Board and public. For the record, Lucas Dobie
with Hutchins Engineering. With us in the back are my clients the applicants Jennifer Ball and Dan
Davies. Presently this is their home on 253 Pickle Hill Road. It’s that eight acre boot shaped lot if you will.
We provided a lot of information so it can be a little confusing. So please ask any questions along the way.
We presented an overall subdivision plan. She has two projects going. She’s a contractor buyer of the 16
acres to the west which contains the old truck garage there. We wanted to present that to the Board to
show the overall plan that she’s proposing a totally compliant two lot subdivision of that 16 acre piece. So
we’re really happy with the projects to really spruce up that neighborhood. We’re here tonight to discuss
the two lot subdivision of her presently owned parcel, the eight acres, to subdivide off 2.1 acres to the east
of her home for a new saleable lot. Again, as you said, Mr. Chairman, we’re here to reduce the lot size of
Lot 2A from the three acre minimum to 2.1 acres. We did look at alternatives to possibly add a tail, if you
will, a reverse flag lot, and bring that up to three acres, but it would be a goofy looking lot and it would be
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
really no benefit to the potential buyer to have a 50 foot swath to the north. If we did that it would
cannibalize Lot 1A, making the variance request more for that lot. To try and balance it out, we believe we
have the best layout for the project. Totally able to meet our setbacks, the density. There’s all kinds of
open space there. It’s a nice re-development. We believe it will have a positive impact on the
neighborhood and I also did include the 2013 subdivision plat, her original project, just for project history,
where she bought 4.9 acres from Pam Harris in 2013. Subsequently she bought two lots to the north of
that which are shown in yellow and she reconfigured those. That’s where the new greenhouse is, the
Walker property, and she merged the main acreage into her lot. So why I mention that is in 2017 she had
two vacant parcels, a flag lot and then the northerly lot. So she had two potential building rights, if you
will. Since then she’s built one home and merged the remaining acreage into her lot. So we’re basically
asking to re-do that, if you will, to pull that building right back out, move it to the Pickle Hill, the two acre
lot. So we feel it’s a higher position than if we were asking for just a fresh subdivision approval. With
that, I’d be happy to entertain any questions from the Board, and thank you for your time.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward. So at this
particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who has
comment on this particular project? And invite anybody on the outside who wants to call in to area code
518-761-8225, and, Laura, do we have written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There are no written comments.
MR. MC CABE-So we’ve got to wait out the two minutes.
MR. HENKEL-They don’t use that Harris garage anymore? Because back a few years ago we gave them
permission to, they were in here for abandonment.
MR. DOBIE-Well the interesting thing on that, Mr. Henkel, is we hope to be back in a month or two with
that project, not for the subdivision relief, but they plan to re-purpose that garage, and re-hab it. So we’ll
need a variance and a site plan to do that. So we’re excited to be back with you hopefully in a month or
two with those plans.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the
Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m sorry, did I miss the part we could ask questions? I just wondered because he said
you’re in negotiations for land for which parcel?
MR. DOBIE-That is 16 acres to the west of her current home.
MRS. HAMLIN-The lands belonging to Pamela.
MR. DOBIE-Yes. Jennifer’s a contract buyer of that right now.
MRS. HAMLIN-All right. Again I’ve got to be consistent. I’m not really in favor of granting variances on
lot sizes. I think the purpose of the zoning is for density reasons, and I think that possibly with that future
purchase you might be able to consider, as you said, cannibalizing lots. So I would be against this as
proposed. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in absolute agreement with Catherine. I wish there was a way we could just split
it down the middle and have two compliant lots, but I just think this Lot 2A is just too small and I wish
there was a better way to configure it. I know there’s a property next door, the Metivier’s home, but I’m
going to say I’m not in favor at this time.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I can see Michelle’s point and Catherine’s point, but unfortunately in that area, if you look
across the street there, most of the acreage is, lots are smaller. They probably could, if she’s going to be
purchasing the property to the west there, you’re right, she probably could do something a little bit more
with her property and give up more of her property, too, but it’s not going to make a whole lot of difference.
I’d be on board with the project as is.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m basically in favor of the project. I think it’s reasonable to infill on Pickle Hill
Road. I understand why there’s some concern by some of the Board members, but 400 feet of frontage on
a road is more than anybody needs and Pickle Hill is not a major thoroughfare. It’s off the beaten path.
It’s a secondary road and I think that we can accommodate this request. I don’t think it’s unreasonable.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the request. I don’t think it’s an unusual request, and I understand
where you can’t just hack it in half and make things come out, but unfortunately I’m only one vote. So
you’re a little shy.
MRS. HAYWARD-Mr. McCabe, I’d like to change my vote. After listening to the testimony of my fellow
Board members, I’ve been persuaded. ,
MR. MC CABE-So you just made out. So, Michelle, as a reward for changing your vote, you get to make
the motion.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jennifer Ball.
Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 7.99 acre parcel where Lot 1A is to be 5.89 acres and house
to remain (2,890 sq. ft. with decks—footprint). Lot 2A is to be 2.09 acres to be vacant for future home.
Applicant has proposed a typical residential home with septic for the vacant lot. Relief requested for Lot
1A include lot width. Planning Board: review for subdivision. Relief requested for Lot 2A includes lot size,
road frontage, and lot width.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for Lot 1A for lot width and Lot 2A for lot size, road frontage, and lot width
in the Rural Residential 3 acre zone.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements
The project proposes a two lot subdivision. Lot 1A width is proposed is 383 ft. where 400 ft. is required.
Lot 2A lot size proposed at 2.09 ac where 3 ac is required, lot width proposed is 290.6 ft. where 400 ft. is
required, and road frontage 268.4 ft. where 400 ft. is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 16, 2020.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. Pickle Hill Road, as Mr. Underwood said, it’s a side road. It’s different than the
previous application we just discussed. So it would fit in with the character of the neighborhood,
especially with 400 feet of road frontage.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and documented in tonight’s minutes and
we find that they’re reasonable and will minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial as demonstrated in tonight’s testimony. No one would
need a variance to build on this lot. So even though it’s undersized, it would be adequate to house
a home and would fit in the character of the neighborhood as in the first part of the balance test.
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:
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
a) Granting 17 feet to Lot 1A.
b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
46-2020 JENNIFER BALL, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Michael McCabe:
th
Duly adopted this 16 Day of December 2020 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you taking your vote, I just want to confirm that you want to include the
dimensional requirements for Lot 2A, which were lot size proposed at 2.09 acres where 3 acres are required,
the lot width proposed is 290.6 where 400 feet is required and the road frontage at 268.4 feet where 400
feet is required. It sounded like only the first sentence was read.
MRS. HAYWARD-You’re correct. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-That’s what she meant.
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mrs. Hamlin
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much for your time.
MR. HENKEL-Do we also need to grant 17 feet to Lot 1A or no, or did you already say that?
MRS. MOORE-She said that.
MR. DOBIE-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 47-2020, Penelope D. Townsend.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PENELOPE D. TOWNSEND AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) PENELOPE D. TOWNSEND ZONING WR
LOCATION 32 BEAN RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 513 SQ. FT.
GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW DETACHED GARAGE 676 SQ. FT. WITH STORAGE ABOVE;
TOTAL GARAGE FLOOR AREA 1,352 SQ. FT. WITH HEIGHT GREATER THAN 16 FT. THE
EXISTING HOME IS 4,332 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH PORCHES. NEW FLOOR AREA IS 7,220
SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A COVERED WALKWAY FROM THE HOUSE TO THE
GARAGE. DETACHED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE LIMITED TO 16 FT. PLANNING
BOARD; REVIE FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT.
CROSS REF SP 59-2020; SP 68-2019; RC 739-2018; SEP 50-2019; P20050758; SP 34-94; BP 93542-
3194; BP 94541-2948 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.14 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.10-1-22 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-
020
STEPHANIE BITTER & TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2020, Penelope D. Townsend, Meeting Date: December 16, 2020
“Project Location: 32 Bean Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an
existing 513 sq. ft. garage to construct a new detached garage 676 sq. ft. with storage above; total garage
floor area 1,352 sq. ft. with height greater than 16 ft. The existing home is 4,332 sq. ft. footprint with
porches. New floor area is 7,220 sq. ft. The project includes a covered walkway from the house to the
garage. Detached accessory structures are limited to 16 ft. Planning Board: review for new floor area in a
CEA. Relief requested for height.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for height in the Waterfront Residential –WR.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement, Section 179-5-020 garage
The new garage is proposed to be 22 ft. in height and the maximum allowed is 16 ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are considered limited due to
the location of the garage to be removed.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. Relief for the garage height 6 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing garage to construct a new garage. The applicant has
explained the new garage will allow for storage as there is limited storage in the existing home. The plans
show the new garage to be constructed and the covered walkway to the home. The storage area is above
the garage and will be accessed with internal stairs. The applicant has indicated the structure is to be
consistent with the existing house architecture.”
MS. BITTER-Good evening. My name is Stefanie Bitter. I’m here on behalf of the applicant, Penelope
Townsend and also here with me as well is Tom Hutchins, the project engineer. First let me start off by
saying that my client’s parcel is over an acre in size. She purchased this property, the structures on it that
were over 100 years old and she made it her priority to maintain the integrity of the historical designs of
the existing structures. So in doing so she renovated them. Unfortunately the main structure that she
renovated had beautiful vaulted ceilings, but no attic, no basement, small closet space. So virtually no
storage. In renovating the structures on site, she’s left with a detached garage. There’s an existing
detached garage that’s currently leaning and structurally unstable and needs to be demolished and re-
constructed. In doing so she wishes to incorporate the storage that she needs for the site as well as to
maintain the historical architect of all these structures. So specifically to include the design of the
architectural roof that’s depicted there, as well as the existing structures that are depicted on this board
that’s in front of me. The existing garage is 20 feet by 16 feet and like I mentioned, needs to be renovated
and demolished. With such you had also specifically stated that we’re incorporated walkway which will
run from the rear of the garage to the existing main structure. The proposed garage is a two car garage.
It’ll be 26 feet in width and it’ll be 22 feet in height, which is proposed. The only variance that we’re
seeking tonight is for the height of the structure. The upstairs of the garage will be for storage. No water,
no plumbing, just electric will be incorporated in that structure. The height is needed to provide easy
access for the storage of the stairs, as well as to maintain the roofline that is depicted in that picture. When
you review the criteria it’s our position that the benefit to the applicant in the granting of the variance
outweighs any detriment that can be deemed to exist affecting the community.. Specifically it should be
deemed no undesirable change. We’re increasing the aesthetics of the site and incorporating the historical
design that’s always been there for over 100 years. The existing structure is not stable. This is a similar
garage to other garages in the adjacent areas, specifically to the adjacent neighbors. There’s two letters of
support that you’ve been provided from those adjacent neighbors in your file. Although feasible
alternatives may be deemed to exist, in our evaluation this is the least disturbing to the parcel itself. So it
would be the best environmentally for the site. When reviewing whether or not this area variance should
be deemed substantial, the applicant is simply replacing a structure and accommodating for storage needs.
She has restored the property at site, it’s a 100 year old structure, so she should not be faulted for not
incorporating storage needs of structures that she was just trying to preserve. Allowing the applicant to
match the design of the renovated buildings would just obviously increase the aesthetics of the site, and
this is not a situation where the individual is overburdening an undersized lot. So there should be no
adverse impacts that exist and it should not be deemed self-created. A positive recommendation by the
Planning Board, and I’m just going to open it up to Tom to identify how we got here with the design.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins again here on behalf of Penny Townsend. I
hope you had a chance to look at this property. The house is magnificent. It’s an old style house. It’s
been restored in unbelievable condition and one of the characteristics of the house are these gambrel roofs
with the shed dormers and the shakes up above, and we’re maintaining that with this that’s really some of
the driving force behind this garage. We don’t want it to stand out and not look like it belongs. She
wants it to look like it’s been there 100 years like the rest of the properties in magnificent shape. She does
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
need storage space and you hear a lot of talk about low impact development. Well one of the principals
of low impact development is making space over your space and don’t grow out, go up a little bit, and in
this case it really make sense. She doesn’t want to see a big, huge garage in that position. She could.
There would be no setback issues. She’s got enough FAR. She’s got enough permeability due to the size
of the lot, but we really don’t want to have a big long garage that admittedly would be compliant with
height but it would not fit in with the property. So Doug has put a lot of effort into putting together this
design. He did all the work on the house, and it’ll match. It’ll look like it belongs, and with that we’d turn
it over for questions.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I notice in the guest house there’s definitely, you say it’s a one story, but there’s definitely a
second level in there. There’s windows at the top there, second story.
PENELOPE TOWNSEND
MRS. TOWNSEND-Yes, but it’s a 15 foot structure. There is no second level.
MR. HENKEL-So you’re saying it’s a cathedral ceiling type? Because I walked around it. It looked like
there was a second story. There were windows at the top.
MRS. TOWNSEND-It isn’t.
MR. MC CABE-So first of all, we’ve got to have you identify yourself for the record.
MS. TOWNSEND-Penny Townsend for the record.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MRS. TOWNSEND-It is not. It was originally called the Doll House because when Judge Rogers built it
it was Perillo Vision and his daughter, anyway, she liked to play dolls.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So what’s on the second story?
MRS. TOWNSEND-It does not have a second story.
MR. HENKEL-Okay, but there’s windows up there. Right?
MRS. TOWNSEND-It has windows to let light in because it’s very dark.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So then you’re saying it’s a cathedral ceiling?
MRS. TOWNSEND-Well, it’s open except where there’s mechanicals. So half of it’s closed off for
mechanicals, but the other half, because it’s so small, I tried to maximize the ceiling height because it makes
the space not feel so small. I’ve lived in it for two years.
MR. HENKEL-So you’re saying there’s no storage in that house.
MRS. TOWNSEND-There’s no storage. There’s a little tiny closet for my husband and a little tiny closet
for myself and a little tiny closet in the bathroom for linens, but.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So the guest house is used as a guest house and so you don’t use that, you can’t use
that as storage.
MRS. TOWNSEND-I’m not looking for extra space. I come here to be outside. Originally when I bought
the property there were eight bedrooms. Now there are five.
MR. HENKEL-I’m just trying to address the question of storage. You’re saying that you need storage.
MRS. TOWNSEND-I do because there is, like I said, there’s a, because I knew I’d probably have to live in
it for a while, there’s a little, a space that I can prepare food in. There’s a sitting area. There’s a bedroom
and a bathroom, and that’s it. Two little small closets, I think they’re about this wide, one for my husband,
one for me, and a little linen closet in the bathroom. That’s it. Everything else has gone into the garage
that’s about to fall down, and quite frankly we never brought very much stuff because there wasn’t any
place to put it , but all the stuff that’s been in storage for three years has now all arrived and there’s no place
to put books and.
MR. HENKEL-You’re saying you have square footage of over 7,000 square feet roughly.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MRS. TOWNSEND-Well I don’t know where that comes from because the house itself is about 3500
square feet. There’s a bedroom upstairs that’s got a closet, and that’s an okay sized closet. My closet, my
husband said he’ll charge me rent if I want to put anything in his closet . Fortunately I don’t need a lot of
close.
MR. HENKEL-So you said this is a five bedroom house now?
MRS. TOWNSEND-It is.
MR. HENKEL-So you have five people living in it?
MRS. TOWNSEND-No.
MR. HENKEL-And then you have also a guest house which is another bedroom?
MRS. TOWNSEND-No it’s included. The main house was six and now it’s four. The little guest house
was two. Now it’s one.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. It sounds like a lot of space for two people. You said there’s just two of you there?
MRS. TOWNSEND-Well two of us are there most of the time, but we’ve got five children who haven’t
been able to come, but we have five children. And I’ve chosen to keep it like an old Adirondack camp
because I’ve been coming to the Adirondacks since I was two and when the house is done I’ll be close to
75. So I’ve got a lot of stuff. I’ve got a lot of kids. I’ve got a lot of kids who say, mom, you can keep those
baseball cards one more year. Pokemon cards maybe.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. If you could wipe the podium and the microphone down.
MRS. TOWNSEND-And those of you that have been there know that the trees are just spectacular.
MR. HENKEL-It’s a beautiful lot. It is no doubt.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-You mentioned earlier you didn’t want to go wider for some reason, which might adjust
the pitch and get rid of a little of the height. Can you expand on that, why you don’t want to do that?
Because you do have the room apparently.
MR. HUTCHINS-You’re right. They have the room. They have the room that they could do that variance
free, and instead of that, it would look more like that, which is a 16 foot high roof, doesn’t match the
architecture of the property. It would disturb, almost double the area. It would take out an area that’s
presently a landscaped garden area, and we would put a low flat garage there. It would block more of the
view of the house from the road.
MRS. HAMLIN-But would you have to add an entire bay to get the pitch, to be able to bring the height
down? Even just a little bit of a compromise, because normally this Board doesn’t like to give a lot of height
variance, and that’s quite a bit. If there was a way to compromise, I mean I’m not necessarily against this
personally.
MRS. TOWNSEND-My feeling was that the character of the neighborhood, because we talked about it
and nobody likes to come for a variance, and personally I feel that that would be more disruptive
environmentally, visually and less consistent with the neighborhood because if you drive through Bean
Road almost all the garages are two story garages.
MRS. HAMLIN-Well my question isn’t to go full bore with the three bay, that maybe you just add a little
extra storage to the sides and would that in any way bring down the height? A little bit?
MR. HUTCHINS-It would have to have a flat roof. Whatever you do would have to have a much flatter
roof.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay, and we’re trying to match the gambrel roof.
MRS. HAMLIN-No, I agree 100% with that.
MS. BITTER-And we understood this Board is reluctant to give variances for, that’s why we were very
articulate with explaining how the factors have led to that. We appreciate you have to evaluate it and
that this circumstance i9s different than others.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m good.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So at this particular time I’m going to open the public
hearing. Anybody that’s watching from the outside can give us a call on this particular project at 518-761-
8225, and, Laura, do we have written comment on this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-We do. This says, “We have spoken with our neighbors, the Townsends, regarding their
application for a variance to rebuild their garage at 32 Bean Road to accommodate two cars and to raise
the height to provide storage space above. We are in support of what is being proposed. Sincerely, Rita
Whiteman Robert Whiteman” And then this one is, “We have spoken with our neighbors regarding
their application for a variance to rebuild their garage at 32 Bean Road to accommodate two cars and to
raise the height to provide storage space above. We have no objection to what is being proposed. James
David Michaels”
MR. MC CABE-So we have nobody in the audience who would like to speak on this particular application?
Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor of your application. Usually I’m not in favor of height variances, but I
think to keep in character of the neighborhood, and certainly the architecture of this house, which is maybe
not quite historic but it’s a beautiful home. I think it meets the balance test except for the substantial-
ness of it, but I can live with that.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I’m also in agreement with Michelle . I’m definitely not usually interested in giving that
much height relief either, but in this case they do maintain the property well. I don’t think it’s going to
cause any sight problem for anybody seeing the lake. I’d be on Board with it.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think you have to recognize what they’re trying to achieve here and I think it’s
reasonable. It fits in. It looks like it belongs, and I think that normally when people come in for over
height variances we’re reluctant to give them, but in this case here I think that it adequately fits with what
we expect things to look like. It’s not going to be a major detriment to the neighborhood. It’s not going
to be a major negative change, and I think that the fact that everybody supports it, the near neighbors, is a
plus.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. I think it’s viewed as substantial, but we’re really not even increasing the footprint
of the existing garage all that much, and they certainly are entitled to a garage. That with the historic
nature, the architectural integrity is important, too. So I would be a yes.
MR. MC CABE-And I’m normally pretty stringent on height variances, but you’ve made a compelling
argument. Congratulations, and I do think that it maintains the character and beauty of the property. So
I’ll support the project also. So given that, Cathy, can you make us a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Penelope D.
Townsend. Applicant proposes to remove an existing 513 sq. ft. garage to construct a new detached garage
676 sq. ft. with storage above; total garage floor area 1,352 sq. ft. with height greater than 16 ft. The existing
home is 4,332 sq. ft. footprint with porches. New floor area is 7,220 sq. ft. The project includes a covered
walkway from the house to the garage. Detached accessory structures are limited to 16 ft. Planning Board:
review for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for height.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for height in the Waterfront Residential –WR
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement, Section 179-5-020 garage
The new garage is proposed to be 22 ft. in height and the maximum allowed is 16 ft.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 16, 2020.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties.
2. Feasible alternatives have been explored such as widening the garage, but the Board has considered
this is reasonable relief. The alternatives are not the best for the property.
3. The requested variance is substantial, but that is only one factor.
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 to a good extent.
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.
47-2020 PENELOPE D. TOWNSEND, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michelle Hayward:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MS. BITTER-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 48-2020, Bonnie Rosenberg.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BONNIE ROSENBERG AGENT(S)
DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) BONNIE ROSENBERG ZONING WR LOCATION 73
KNOX RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS;
NORTH SIDE ADDITION OF 64 SQ. FT. IS AN UPPER LEVEL; SOUTHSIDE ADDITION OF 2
STORY IS 370 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 740 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. THE SITE HAS ONE MAIN
HOME AND 2 COTTAGES (1,855 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT FOR ALL 3). PROJECT INVOLVES NEW
WASTEWATER SYSTEM AND REDUCTION OF DECKS AND FLOOR AREA. EXISTING
FLOOR AREA IS 4,634 SQ. FT., NEW FLOOR ADDITION OF 506 SQ. FT. WILL TOTAL 5,140 SQ.
FT. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED
FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF AV 1399-21199; SP 79-89-21198 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.85
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040A
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STUART ROSENBERG, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2020, Bonnie Rosenberg, Meeting Date: December 16, 2020
“Project Location: 73 Knox Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct two
residential additions: north side addition of 64 sq. ft. is an upper level; south side addition of 2 story is 370
sq. ft. footprint and 740 sq. ft. floor area. The site has one main home and 2 cottages (1,855 sq. ft. footprint
for all 3). Project involves new wastewater system and reduction of decks and floor area. Existing floor
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
area is 4,634 sq. ft., new floor addition of 506 sq. ft. will total 5,140 sq. ft. Planning Board: site plan for new
floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The project involves two residential additions – the south side addition is to be 18 ft. from the property
line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback is proposed to be 41 ft. where a 83 ft. setback
is required as the average of the two adjoining homes is greater than the 50 ft. setback requirement. The
floor area is proposed to be 24.8% (5,191 sq. ft.) where 22% (4,600 sq. ft.) is the maximum allowed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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 lot configuration and house location. A variance may be required for any addition to the home
due to the setback requirements of the WR zone.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The relief on the south setback is 4 ft. and on the shoreline is 9 ft. Relief for floor area is
591 sq. ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have
minimal impact to the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct two residential additions to the main house. The Northside addition
of 64 sq. ft. is on the upper level. The Southside addition is two story, 370 sq. ft. footprint with 740 sq. ft.
floor area. The project includes new wastewater, stormwater management and reduction of decks and
floor area. The two camps on the parcel are to remain as is. The project includes the removal of a portion
of the covered deck on the main house by 2 ft. (503 sq. ft.). This moves the home further back from the
shoreline.”
MR. MC CABE-Whether the requested area variance is substantial. Relief maybe considered moderate
relative to the Code. Relief on the south setback is actually two feet, and the shoreline is 42 feet. The
relief for the floor area is 591 square feet. Did I do that right Laura?
MRS. MOORE-The shoreline relief, or the setback is to be 83. You said 41?
MR. MC CABE-It said that the proposed is 41. So I said that the difference between 83 and 41 is 42. Right?
MRS. MOORE-Correct. I’m sorry. Yes. You got it.
MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing Bonnie
and Stuart Rosenberg on this Area Variance application. Bonnie and Stuart are in the audience and Doug
McCall who is the design builder for the proposed addition is with us also. As described, the Rosenbergs
are proposing additions to the existing structure. They have owned this property for 35 years, lived their
primarily extended summer use. They have reached retirement time and they are hopeful of living here as
a primary residence. So that they hope to make some additions, renovations to the existing structure, just
make it more compatible to a year round use. Doug McCall has worked with them to design the
improvements that they desire, trying to keep a balance between what they were hoping to achieve and
bumping into some of the variances that sometimes happens on the lakefront lots. So again as described
there are three variances, and I’ll start with the Floor Area Ratio, which is a combination of some new floor
space, removal of some floor space, removal of some decking which qualifies in the FAR computations. So
we get a total now that results in a floor area ratio proposed of 24.8. So a 2.8% bump. There’s a side yard
setback proposed on the southerly side of the property. You can see on the site plan we’ve tried to
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
highlight it’s that little sliver of red that starts from zero and extends to two feet because the wall line isn’t
parallel to the property line so it verges a bit and requires, results in this 18 foot setback at that closest
point, and then the shoreline setback is a little bit unusual. First of all, this is a pre-existing, non-
conforming structure, as we often encounter. The existing shoreline setback is 39 feet. The proposed
shoreline setback by the removal of some deck would be 41 feet, but this is one of those situations where
the Ordinance speaks to setbacks of the two adjacent properties. We’ve got one to the north that is 99
feet back for their own reasons, and one to the south that’s 67 feet back. Therefore the average is 83. So
we’re going from 41 to an 83 foot standard. So it’s a 42 foot relief, as the Chairman had done the math. So
those are the three variances that are being requested, and we are hopeful of your approval. I think Stuart
wanted to make some comments about the efforts that he had made in contacting his neighbors and what
not, and I’ll let him have a few minutes to speak.
MR. MC CABE-So just wipe down your podium and your microphone.
MR. ROSENBERG-Thank you. Mr. Chairman, members of the Board, Staff, I’m Stuart Rosenberg. I live
at 73 Knox Road. This has been our home for 35 years, and it’s one of the happiest days of my life when we
found it in 1985, other than marrying my wife Bonnie and grandchildren. This house is a camp and all
we’re trying to do is make it into a retirement home that we can be comfortable in, and as you get older
you like the bathroom close by. You like the laundry close by and Doug McCall was able to design us a
house that we would be comfortable in for the next 35 years, and that’s basically what we’re looking for.
Chris has given you the dimensions of the variances. I won’t go into that because that’s not my field, but
I did check with the neighbors just to make sure that they were okay. My granddaughter drew a map, and
the stars are my neighbors and they’re all very affirmative in what we’re doing and it’s rather nice to see the
response. It’s pretty much the majority of the neighbors. So anyway I’m here for any questions, and I
thank you all for coming out tonight.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. So if you could just wipe down the podium and microphone.
MR. HENKEL-The two cabins there. Are those rentals?
MR. ROSENBERG-No. When we first moved in in 1985 we did rent. In retrospect, that was your interest
at the time. We had a mortgage at the time and that helped us pay the mortgage.
MR. HENKEL-I understand.
MR. ROSENBERG-But for the last 30 years the cabins have been the home for my sister-in-laws and their
families. My wife is one of three sisters and they’re close, from Los Angeles, Toronto, and Montreal and
Albany. They get together every summer and they stay with us.
MR. HENKEL-Great.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have any other questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-Not for the applicant, but could I ask Staff a question?
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MRS. HAMLIN-I’d just like some clarification. The 83, I get the averaging. Okay. So it’s 54 83? Is that
it?
MR. MC CABE-Fifty was a typographical error.
MRS. HAMLIN-It was a typographical error? Good. No wonder I was confused. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing no questions, I’m going to open the public hearing, invite
anybody on the outside who wants to call in to give us a call at 518-761-8225 on this particular project.
(Phone ringing) This is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Okay. Go ahead.
JOHN COLLINS
MR. COLLINS-My name is John Collins. I’ve lived at 35 Knox Road Assembly Point.
MR. MC CABE-Are you one of the stars on the picture there?
MR. COLLINS-Yes, I can. So I live at 35 Knox. I’m a neighbor, and I did have a discussion with Stuart
Rosenberg and the comments I’m going to make now are pretty much the comments I gave him.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MR. COLLINS-So the current configuration of the property is a main house with two cabins with six
bedrooms and four bathrooms. The proposed configuration would generate seven bedrooms and six
bathrooms. The current house is about 2,040 square feet and with the addition it’s going to go to 2864
square feet plus or minus. That’s a 40% increase in the size of a non-conforming main house. The floor
area increase is due to adding one new bedroom, two new bathrooms and increasing the size of two
existing bedrooms, the family room, the kitchen and the dining room for a total of I believe 824 square feet.
The floor area decrease is due to a reduction in outside decking and a concrete pad at the lakeside portion
of the house for about 390 square feet. It’s important to recognize that the negative impact of substantial
floor area increase in the actual living area on this non-conforming house significantly exceeds the
negligible relief provided by reducing the outside decking. Per the application, the FAR is proposed at
24.8% versus an allowable 22%. FAR provides equal weighting to outside decking and sheltered living
space. We should not lose sight of the variation in impact of these different floor areas, especially since
we’re dealing with a current non-conforming property. We also can’/t lose sight of the fact that the house
is still proposed to be at 41 feet from the lake rather than the 83 feet to be in compliance with the current
setback regulation. Another issue is permeable surface area, and this, although you’re not looking for a
variance on this, this does have an influence on how much, if any, additional square footage you allow in
the house, because it goes to the overall impact of the property in the area. My rough calculation of the
grade of the property is 17 and a half percent with an impermeable surface accounting for 42% of the total
square area. The proposal would only reduce permeable surface area to 41.3%. Upon closer examination,
I think it is important to look at grade in three increments. The first being from the lake on the front lawn
to the house. This represents about 4100 square feet at a grade of 14.6%, and is minimally impermeable.
In other words it’s pretty much all permeable. The land immediately surrounding the house represents
about 5300 square feet at a grade of 17% and impermeable surface of 34% and then from the house up to
the road represents 11,500 square feet at a grade of approximately 18.9%, and an impermeable surface area
of 40.5%, and included in that area is the absorption and the small cabin septic system. The proposal has
not made a serious attempt to significantly improve the impermeability of the site. To achieve a
permeability ratio of 75% you’d need to reduce about 3400 square feet of impermeable surface. I feel
strongly that this application should be denied. Now how could the applicants achieve their primary goals
to create the proposed home environment in the main house which will more fully meet their needs and
desires in retirement? First, the small cabin should be removed from the property and the proposed
dedicated septic system eliminated. This will reduce FAR to a number closer to the allowed maximum.
It’ll reduce the impermeable surface to 38.9%, although it still greatly exceeds the maximum 25%, provide
an area for expansion of the absorption bed serving the main house and large cabin area, and still maintain
the current bedroom count and an increase to the bathrooms of five. Second, they should integrate greater
stormwater mitigation measures throughout the paved areas due to the significant grade on the property.
Third, consider eliminating one out of the two driveway entrances which would also decrease impermeable
surface in the area of the steepest grade. Four, remove the deck and concrete patio facing the lake. This
will have the effect of moving the setback from the lake from 39 feet to 54 feet, although it’s still far short
of the 83. It would improve the FAR due to removing the concrete patio, would eliminate some
impermeable surface. Although removing the small cabin and the concrete patio and deck would reduce
FAR below the allowed maximum, I believe this is reasonable, taken in conjunction with the issue of
permeability of the site as these recommendations would only reduce the permeable surface from the
proposed 41.3% to 37.3% which again is significantly in excess of the 25%. Also they should be replacing
all trees removed on the property with trees of similar size or as close as practical, and finally create a buffer
to the lake, a design which fully complies with the current regulations. I appreciate the Rosenberg’s goal
to improve the main house for their retirement and improve their septic system. However, this property
is currently non-conforming in a very significant way and they are seeking to make very material changes
to the house, a 40% increase in square footage, without addressing the non-conforming aspects of the
property in any meaningful way.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, they’ve exceeded their allowed time limit.
MR. COLLINS-The variances they are seeking are far more consequential to the impact of the lake than
just reducing two feet of decking to improve the setback from the lake and creating two feet of
encroachment on side setback while only increasing the floor area by about 389 feet. It is clear the
Rosenberg’s are motivated to improve their septic system and main house to enhance their life at the lake.
MR. MC CABE-You’ve far exceeded your three minutes here so I’ve got to cut you off. Is there anything
else?
MR. COLLINS-I just wanted to acknowledge that I know they’re trying to do something nice and create a
nice house, however, the challenges of the site require them to take these other acts to achieve the design
of the house that they’re looking for.
MR. MC CABE-Did you state your name for the record?
MR. COLLINS-I did, but if I didn’t, it’s John Collins, 35 Knox Road, Lake George, Assembly Point.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MR. COLLINS-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have any written, hold on a second (phone ringing). This is the Queensbury Zoning
Board of Appeals. Okay, Chris, hold on just a second.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. First state your name.
MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. Are you hearing me, Mr. Chairman?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. NAVITSKY-Great. Thank you very much. Again, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. Before
I start, I would like to acknowledge that I met Mr. Rosenberg out on his site and we had a nice meeting
discussing his application and potential recommendations to improve, and this is a bit difficult because I
try not to look at the names on applications, but treat application on what the application is for, but we
find that this proposed application fails the balance test in light of the existing floor area , increase in the
number of bedrooms and site conditions, especially within the Critical Environmental area surrounding
Lake George. Measures that could improve the balance of the application could be reduction of existing
floor area, increased stormwater management and more diverse vegetative plantings. We recognize the
enhanced wastewater treatment system proposed, but ask that there be a determination whether that
meets all requirements of the Town on setbacks and foundation and construction on steep slopes. This
would have an undesirable change in the character of in the neighborhood. The proposed FAR variance
would increase the number of bedrooms and subsequently the wastewater treatment system on the
undersized lot. The installation of the new system is recognized, but it must be remembered that FAR is
based on the site area to adequately mitigate environmental impacts from development. Very few
lakefront residential properties have three dwelling and a total of seven bedrooms and recommend to find
more of a balance in the application. The variance will have an adverse effect on the environment. As
stated FAR is a planning tool and a metric to determine the size of the development that can be adequately
mitigated on a property. The proposed mitigation measures fall short of Town Code requirements for
shoreline buffers and for stormwater management, especially on the property that exceeds allowable
impermeable surfaces by 60% with steep slopes. These are important protective measures for compliant
applications and should go beyond the standards if proposals are permitted to exceed the allowable
restrictions. It is imperative that review boards around the lake understand the cumulative impacts to
Lake George from increased development, evident from the recent harmful algae bloom in the Town of
Queensbury, and apply the Town Code regulations that have been adopted to protect and preserve the
water quality of Lake George. We recommend that the applicant consider alternatives to eliminate the
variances requested and improve the balance of the application. Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. (phone ringing). This is the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Okay.
This is the Rosenberg application. Go ahead, just state your name again, please.
CAROL COLLINS
DR. COLLINS-Carol Collins, 35 Knox Road. Dear Zoning Board, this is the type of application that should
not be allowed for the future of Lake George and we urge you to deny it. The applicant and her husband,
Bonnie and Stuart, are looking for substantial relief what should be a major project on a non-conforming
lot due to slopes and limited soils. Installation of the new septic system does not override the considerable
impacts of this development on the water quality and the safety of the drinking water. There are multiple
problems with this application. I urge you not to separate the issues as each component can and will
impact the entire lake. The extensive expansion of floor area as reviewed by Chris Navitsky and John
Collins is clear. Any relief for FAR should only be granted if the application is compliant with the Town
Code for stormwater mitigation, septic systems, shoreline buffers and development on the slopes. The
comments indicated that these are typical of commercial projects. I’d like to remind you that this is
residential in a Critical Environmental Area. The Town’s stormwater management officer, Craig Brown,
requested the application be reviewed by the Town Engineer, Chazen. Chazen responded with a letter
that determined that the application was incomplete and requested additional information from the
applicant’s agent.
MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. These are issues that are not for the Zoning Board, but this is for the Town
Board.
DR. COLLINS-Yes, I understand that, but I also feel that these greatly impact on each other, and just to
remind you these stormwater mitigation issues can impact what’s being requested, the FAR, the impact
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
on the neighborhood. So I would like to say there were eight requests made with the stormwater
mitigation plans.
MR. MC CABE-But I’m going to remind you that stormwater is not our purview here.
DR. COLLINS-I would like to state that the Town Code does state that no application for approval of land
development activities shall be reviewed until the appropriate board has received a stormwater pollution
prevention plan, and that it is in accordance with the specifications of Chapter on stormwater, and I’m just
saying that that has not been received and the application is incomplete in this regard. Do you see what
I’m saying?
MR. MC CABE-No.
MRS. MOORE-No.
DR. COLLINS-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So do you have anything else? So what we’re looking at here are setbacks and the floor
area ratio. So do you have anything else to add on these two items?
DR. COLLINS-Well I have a lot on the whole thing.
MR. MC CABE-Well you get three and a half minutes. So you’ve used more than that. So if you could
narrow that down a little bit I could give you a little bit more time, but you have to stay on the subject here.
DR. COLLINS-Well, I would like to just reiterate what the others have said regarding this.
MR. MC CABE-That’s right. We’ve heard quite a bit from Mr. Collins. So we understand that. Do you
have anything in addition to add?
DR. COLLINS-I do on shoreline buffering. I don’t know if you want to hear about that.
MR. MC CABE-That’s the Planning Board.
DR. COLLINS-All right. Well I will say this. I would suggest the removal of the small cabin to improve
permeability which is now 42% and Code requires 25. This would allow for the expansion of an
undersized absorption field and the development of a robust buffer should be designed to capture runoff
from the steep slopes and one of the driveways should be removed in order to increase permeability and a
compliant stormwater plan should be developed as required before any activity is considered on the
application. I guess that’s it.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Well thank you very much for your input.
DR. COLLINS-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So do we have any written comment here?
MRS. MOORE-So I’ll start. This is addressed to Mr. Brown. “My name is Stephen Ballas and I own the
property at 67 Knox Road in Queensbury. I am an immediate abutter to the South of 73 Knox Road. I am
writing this email in support of the variances being proposed in the Rosenberg’s application. I feel the
proposal is in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the
neighborhood or nearby properties. Further, they are upgrading to a state of the art wastewater and
stormwater runoff mitigation system that will improve and enhance our beautiful lake. Thank you for
your attention to this matter and please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.” This is Stephen
Ballas at 67 Knox.
MR. MC CABE-So just to clarify things here, we’re not talking about any permeability problem.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. This is addressed to Mr. Brown. “I am writing this letter in support of the
Rosenbergs’ application for variances at 73 Knox Road. These improvements are: 1. In keeping with the
character of our neighborhood. 2. Not detrimental to our neighborhood or nearby properties. 3. Include
the addition of a modern, state of the art wastewater system that would improve and enhance our beautiful
lake. Thank you for your attention in this matter. Sincerely, Roberta Kahan 61 Knox Road” The next
one is addressed to Craig. “We are writing this letter in support of the Rosenbergs’ application for
variances at 73 Knox Road. We are summer residents of 79 Knox Road., immediately next door and to the
north of the Rosenbergs. The Rosenbergs have always been good neighbors and good stewards of the
lake. The setback variance from the shoreline that they are requesting is necessitated because of the long-
standing location of the main house. As you are aware, this is not uncommon and there is no real way to
resolve the setback. It is very positive that they are not proposing to encroach upon the existing setback
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
from the lake at all. In fact, they’re increasing the setback from Lake George by 3 feet with the modification
to their deck that they are proposing. We believe that the modest expansion of their house that they are
proposing is in keeping with the character of our neighborhood and will not be detrimental to nearby
properties. We could not be more pleased with their determination to replace their wastewater system
with a modern, state-of-the-art system and to improve stormwater control. As a Trustee of the Fund for
Lake George, I have been personally involved in the efforts of the Fund for Lake George to stimulate the
replacement of aging septic systems and the improvement of stormwater controls to protect the water
quality of Lake George. As you are aware, the Fund has made significant investments in the Town of
Queensbury to support septic upgrades. We commend the Rosenbergs for their stewardship regarding
wastewater and stormwater control and encourage approval of these variances to support these upgrades.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Tom and Renee West” This is addressed to Mr.
Brown. “This letter is in support of the setback variances requested by the Rosenberg family at 73 Knox
Rd. I have no objection to any of the requested variances. As a somewhat distant neighbor, the property
line setbacks do not impact us directly, but seem reasonable given the totality of the project and existing
structures. Were they immediate neighbors with a similar request, I would support the plan. Regarding
the waste- and storm-water systems, I am whole-heartedly in support of this plan. Upgrading of onsite
systems for existing structures should be encouraged and supported by the neighbors and the Town, even
if reasonable variances are required. The benefit from upgrades more than offsets any encroachment in
setback zones in the proposal. In summary, I recommend approval of this variance. Thanks.” This is
David Wilcox. This is, “My name is Bob Glandon. I live at 63 Knox Rd. I am writing this letter in
support of the project application by Bonnie Rosenberg at 73 Knox Rd. The requested variances will allow
a currently small house to be more usable by adding interior space to the current rather small bedrooms
and kitchen. Additionally, with these proposed changes, a new modern septic system will be installed
which will be beneficial for the lake. Additions called out for stormwater mitigation are also beneficial.
Thank you for your consideration. Regards, Bob Glandon” This is addressed to Mr. Brown. “Please
include this letter for the record of the public hearings for both the Area Variance and Site Plan Review
applications for the Rosenberg property at 73 Knox Road. I am representing my family’s property at 103
Knox Road and as nearby neighbors I would like to offer our support for the improvements proposed by
their applications. I am aware of the variances required and the house modifications suggested. During
their 35 years of ownership of their lakefront property in our common bay area we have known the
Rosenbergs to be considerate and conscientious neighbors and lake users. Their property, and its use, is
certainly in keeping with the character of the neighborhood and would continue to be. The improvements
proposed will not be a detriment to our neighborhood and the infrastructure upgrades to wastewater and
stormwater systems will only have a beneficial effect on the lake. Thank you for your consideration of my
comments and know that we are in favor of the approval of the proposed improvements. Sincerely, Chris
Winslow 103 Knox Road” And the last one that I had was from Chris Navitsky the Waterkeeper which
he read into the record.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Do you have any comment?
MR. MAC ELROY-Well the immediate neighbors, the neighborhood in general, is supportive of the
Rosenberg’s application. Not everyone agrees.
MR. MC CABE-So in terms of, it is pretty steep property, and in terms of runoff management, is there
going to be any significant changes there? They’re kind of referring to some trees being removed and that
sort of thing.
MR. MAC ELROY-The trees removed are related to the area of the wastewater system and those will be,
if possible, based on their maturity, they would be re-located on the site. Again, that’s a site issue.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, but I want to get it on the record here that there is going to be some work done.
MR. MAC ELROY-Certainly, and the stormwater management that’s shown on the plan is as per the
requirement. Will there be more? I can tell you that there will be, but it’s not necessarily part of the site
plan.
MR. MC CABE-Right. Exactly.
MR. MAC ELROY-Because it’s not necessarily required. So I advised the applicant that you don’t
necessarily show that on the plan. It would be something.
MR. MC CABE-The Planning Board is going to be a lot more stringent in that area than we are.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct. So I think there’s been an effort by the applicant to try to achieve certain
things in terms of making the house more comfortable, more usable in their retirement. There is support
from the immediate neighbors. There’s letters from three on one side and three on the other.
MR. MC CABE-Right.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MR. MAC ELROY-There is an understanding by the applicant of making improvements to the site. I
didn’t really dwell on the wastewater system because it’s not a variance issue.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. MAC ELROY-But the issue is there will be a new wastewater system.
MR. MAC ELROY-Correct.
MR. MC CABE-And so you have to say, if you just left things alone, that in and of itself is going to be a big
improvement.
MR. MAC ELROY-Those improvements are tied into the project as a whole, but not necessarily subject to
the variance request.
MR. MC CABE-Right.
MR. HENKEL-It’s probably something that has to be done anyway. You’re talking, he’s owned this
property since 1985 and obviously it probably has never had a new septic system.
MR. MAC ELROY-Not to my knowledge.
MR. HENKEL-Right. So you’re talking it’s probably something that has to be done anyway. I’m sure it’s
broken down. So it’s not something that you’re throwing at us saying if we do this project we’re going to
do this.
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s state of the art. The other variance, the shoreline setback variance, that is.
MR. MC CABE-It’s better than what you have now.
MR. MAC ELROY-It’s a bit of a quirk in the regulations in that in this case you take the average of, both
of those neighbors have talked.
MR. MC CABE-They’re way back because of the topography.
MR. MAC ELROY-Right, but they’ve also issued letters of support for the project. So there isn’t anything
that they feel is detrimental in terms of the setback variance. The side yard setback the same thing. Mr.
Ballas on the south has indicated his support. It’s a relatively minor variance request but nonetheless it is
part of the request.
MR. HENKEL-What scares me is these two red cabins. I know that they’re not planning on using them
as rentals, but down the road there’s no doubt this could be a major problem with them having, one cabin
has, what, three bedrooms? The other one has two, and then you’ve got this house.
MR. MAC ELROY-One has two bedrooms and one has one.
MR. MC CABE-But again, that’s into really.
MR. HENKEL-I realize it isn’t, but I’m saying down the road, I mean still you’ve got the permeability that’s
terrible which is not our concern, but still.
MR. MC CABE-Well, wait a minute, it’s not out of compliance.
MR. HENKEL-Well it is.
MRS. MOORE-It’s out of compliance, but it’s improving.
MR. MC CABE-Right.
MR. HENKEL-It’s improving, but it’s still way out.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, but it’s nothing that we’re passing judgment on.
MR. HENKEL-No, I realize that it’s getting better, but it’s still, like I said that’s the only thing that scares
me. I know these people are going to use it as their primary residence.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time we’re going to close the public hearing and we’re going to poll
the Board.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And we’re going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s important on these ones that we dial in what’s being asked for versus the
idealization of what would be perfect for this lot. We can’t go back in a time machine. This lot is a typical
with a two bedroom and a one bedroom cabin in the back. That’s not something we normally see up on
the lake, and if those things weren’t there and they came in before us and asked for this application, what
they’re asking for this evening, I think we wouldn’t bat an eye. We would approve it in a minute. I don’t
think it would be a big issue. So the issue really is the total number of bedrooms on the property, if you
add them all up, but some of those are only seasonally used. They’re not fully utilized full time during the
year, and I think we have to do the balancing test when we look at the picture and we see what’s before us
here. So I think the Rosenbergs, in wanting to retire on the property, most anybody that had lived in the
conditions that most people have summer homes up there would want to improve them to make them
more usable year round. Some suggestions have been made about improving the permeability on the
property, maybe removing a driveway or something. That’s something to consider in the long term plan
for the property. I don’t think we can compel anybody to remove buildings on their property, that we
have any right to do that. We can suggest it. It can be suggested by people outside of the public as it was
on the record this evening, but I think what’s being proposed here, if we look at it for just what’s being
done to the home, yes it’s adding one more bedroom, you know, in totality, but it’s not likely that those
bedrooms are all going to be occupied 24/7, 365 days a year. I think it’s a retirement home, and I think we
have to keep that in mind. We can think about what’s going to happen in the future to the property when
it sells someday and that’s something that will have to be dealt with at that time, but there’s going to be
improvements with a brand new wastewater system. There’s going to be improvements to the runoff on
the property and at the same time the requirement for the setback from the lake, that’s based upon the
averaging of the two adjacent properties. I think we all have come up against that one before. So I would
be in favor of the project as proposed.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I do have a problem with the floor area. It’s already over the existing requirements. It’s
going up quite a bit. I think we can ask these questions. I mean, yes, the permeability is improving ever
so slightly, but there is a lot on that property, and macadam is in excess of that alone. I don’t know, we
could put a condition on that. I’m not sure. I think we actually can. I think as proposed I’m not in favor,
but with some adjustments, maybe reducing some pavement or something to that effect, and there are quite
a few bedrooms. I don’t know how many we’re adding.
MR. MAC ELROY-Three on the main house, two in one of the cabins and one sleeping area in the other
cabin. That makes six. They’d like to add one bedroom.
MRS. HAMLIN-Six in the house.
MR. MAC ELROY-No, three in the house existing.
MRS. HAMLIN-There’s a master there.
MR. MAC ELROY-That’s the proposed house. There’ll be four.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you’re going to go from a three to a four bedroom home.
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m sorry. I misread something. Okay. Okay.
MR. MAC ELROY-So three to four in the main house, and the cabins stay as they are.
MRS. HAMLIN-I would be happy if there was a way to do something.
MR. MAC ELROY-Just to clarify with wastewater. There was a comment about the number of
bathrooms. That makes no difference.
MRS. HAMLIN-It’s not based on that. I think it’s a little excessive and I’d probably be against it as
proposed.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m reluctantly in favor. I guess I am in favor. It is a relatively modest request. I think
it would be in keeping with the neighborhood . I think you addressed the balance test well, especially
looking at alternatives and looking at the impact on the environment. So that’s why I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-John?
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MR. HENKEL-I agree with Michelle and Jim definitely. Like I said the only problem I have is the future
of that property because of those cabins, but like I said, I would agree with them having a much larger
house if it wasn’t for those cabins. I’d be on board. Jim gave a good explanation. So I would be on board
with it.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I don’t see where it’s a major change and it allows the
property owner to more totally utilize the property. So I’ll support the project myself. So with that being
said, I’m going to make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Bonnie
Rosenberg. Applicant proposes to construct two residential additions: north side addition of 64 sq. ft. is
an upper level; south side addition of 2 story is 370 sq. ft. footprint and 740 sq. ft. floor area. The site has
one main home and 2 cottages (1,855 sq. ft. footprint for all 3). Project involves new wastewater system
and reduction of decks and floor area. Existing floor area is 4,634 sq. ft., new floor addition of 506 sq. ft.
will total 5,140 sq. ft. Planning Board: site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks
and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The project involves two residential additions – the south side addition is to be 18 ft. from the property
line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback is proposed to be 41 ft. where an 83 ft. setback
is required as the average of the two adjoining homes is greater than the 50 ft. setback is requirement. The
floor area is proposed to be 24.8% (5,191 sq. ft.) where 22% (4,600 sq. ft.) is the maximum allowed.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 16, 2020.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. In actuality only a small change is being made to the existing property to make it more
livable year round.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but will not meet the needs of the applicant.
3. The requested variance is not substantial given that the property has existed in this type of
configuration for quite some time.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. We feel that the addition of a new wastewater system will be a dramatic improvement
to the environmental conditions.
5. The alleged difficulty is not really self-created. It was created years ago when the hodgepodge of
the property was put together.
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.
48-2020 BONNIE ROSENBERG, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by James Underwood:
th
Duly adopted this 16 Day of December 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
NOES: Mrs. Hamlin
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 49-2020, Rockhurst LLC.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROCKHURST LLC AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) ROCKHURST
LLC ZONING WR LOCATION ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME 2,400 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT
WITH 4,300 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND EXTERIOR PATIO AREAS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE
WORK FILL, GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE LANDSCAPING, NEW
SEPTIC & WATER SUPPLY FROM LAKE. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR
AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT AND SHORELINE SETBACKS. CROSS
REF AV 49-2020; SP 57-2020; AV 22-2020; SP 81-2011; P20110614; PT 582-2020; PT 583-2020
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT
SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-35 SECTION 179-3-040
DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2020, Rockhurst LLC, Meeting Date: December 16, 2020 “Project
Location: Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish
existing buildings to construct a new home 2,400 sq. ft. footprint with 4,300 sq. ft. floor area and exterior
patio areas. Project includes site work (fill, grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new
septic & water supply from lake. Planning Board: site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested
for height and shoreline setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for height and shoreline setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The new home to be constructed is to be 29 ft. 10 inches where 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. The
new home is to be 50 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The parcel involved was part
of a subdivision in 1993 where the Town Code required a 75 ft. setback, today’s code would be 50 ft. setback
from the shoreline.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes a new single family home
and removing two existing camps.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
configuration of the parcel along the shoreline.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for height is 1 ft. 10 inches and the shoreline setback
relief requested is 25 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new single family home with 2,400
sq. ft. footprint and 4,300 sq. ft. floor area. The project includes site work, fill and grading, stormwater
management, shoreline landscaping, new septic and water supply from Lake George. The plans show the
height area that is above 28 ft. The shoreline setback is due to subdivision of 1993 and the code
requirements for setbacks at that time. The plans show the work to be completed on the site and the new
home to be constructed.”
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. Sorry to have you go through that. For the record, Dennis MacElroy from
Environmental Design. This is a project that’s represented by my office. It’s not my project, but based
on a suggestion from the attorney John Allen, who I think is connected somehow Zoom or somehow here
tonight, they requested the project be tabled or the application be tabled for the full Board.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John, will you make that motion?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. And it’s to be tabled until when?
MRS. MOORE-To the first meeting in January.
MR. HENKEL-To the first meeting in January.
MR. MC CABE-So just hold on for a second. So just for clarity, a public hearing was advertised tonight.
Do we still hold the public hearing?
MRS. MOORE-So you open the public hearing. You keep the public hearing open, only because if the
project does change then those that wish to speak on the project can do so on the changes.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing for AV 49-2020, but
I‘m going to ask that any comment be held until the final proposal is presented to the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Rockhurst
LLC. Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new home 2,400 sq. ft. footprint
with 4,300 sq. ft. floor area and exterior patio areas. Project includes site work (fill, grading, stormwater
management, shoreline landscaping, new septic & water supply from lake. Planning Board: site plan for
new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for height and shoreline setbacks.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin:
th
Tabled to January 2021 with any new information submitted prior to December 24.
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I just had an administrative question. When an applicant is going to table a
request that’s open for public hearing, shouldn’t that be identified at the beginning of the meeting instead
of waiting until two and a half, three hours.
MR. MC CABE-Well I made that attempt early on and it was not brought to our attention at that
particular time that somebody wanted to do that. So I was trying to avoid that situation.
AUDIENCE MEMBER-I think it’s very inconsiderate of the people representing the applicant to do that.
Just notify people.
MR. MC CABE-I’ll try to do that next time. So we’ve got a couple of other things that we’ve got to take
care of here. Okay. So the first issue at hand is we have to nominate our officers for next year. So I’m
going to make a motion.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MOTION TO APPOINT ROY URRICO FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for
its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December 2020, by the following vote:
MR. MC CABE-Just so you know, I’ve already talked to Roy about it and he said he would be more than
happy to continue in his position.
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to make a motion.
MOTION TO APPOINT JIM UNDERWOOD FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2021, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December 2020, by the following vote:
MR. MC CABE-I’ve talked to Jim and he’s more than happy to take care of the job for us.
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico
MR. HENKEL-How come it’s only a year position? The secretary’s the same thing? I thought it was
longer than that.
MRS. MOORE-No. They’re a yearly position.
MR. MC CABE-So I realize that it was difficult to get your training in this year and so I’ve requested of
Laura that she have our staff put a two hour presentation on for us on one of the months, or one of the
months where we have only a single meeting that month, and so the second meeting will be our two hour
training. Does everybody think it’s a good idea?
MRS. HAMLIN-That’s a fabulous idea.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So the four hours that I did.
MRS. MOORE-So some of the members have completed their four hours for this year and this would be
simply for 2021.
MR. MC CABE-Right.
MRS. MOORE-So the people that I still need information from, Cathy needs to provide it. Michelle needs
to provide it, John Weber and that’s it for a while. The rest of you have completed it for this year. So for
next year, just so that you’re aware, I will pursue asking counsel or some other entity to assist with that.
There’s a handful of them out there. There’s a handful of folks that are happy to do a Zoom meeting and
then you’d be able to attend it. I may not do a two hour stint in one meeting, but we’ll see.
MR. MC CABE-So you know what, so if you could take care of half of our training, and then we could do
the other half some other way. So that’s what I’m proposing.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. Sounds good.
MR. MC CABE-So I’ve completed one year of service. I’m happy with what we’ve done. I went back and
mentally reviewed all of our cases and I feel pretty good about what we did. I would like to change two,
but that’s just me, but I think by in large we did a good job. We have one pending Article 78 out there.
That’s never good, but I don’t think we could have avoided that. We were probably going to get one from
one side or the other no matter what we did.
MR. HENKEL-That’s twice from Holly Road.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/16/2020)
MR. MC CABE-Yes, I know. So they have a lot of money up there and they aren’t afraid to spend it. So I
think it’s a goal for 2021. We should try to make our motions a little stronger, and so for a typical area
variance you have, well for an area variance you have five criteria, and really you only need one to pass it,
but in reality I think you ought to make a strong course for three and so each of our motions that we do, I
think we should pick three of the five criteria and make a strong statement about that particular criteria,
and I think if we do that our motions will be hard to challenge.
MR. HENKEL-Okay you’re saying only when we’re making the last motion, not when we’re doing our
individual?
MR. MC CABE-No, when we give our opinions, you’ve got to make sure you have some reason for it, but
in particular the motion, if it’s called to task, they want to see what your criteria is for judging the, or what
your personal criteria is for judging the five criteria and I think that you should have some sort of strong
statement about at least three. One is good enough, two is okay, but if you have three, then you’ve made
a really strong motion.
MR. HENKEL-A standing when it comes to like an Article 78.
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think everybody on the Board, too, has done a good job because, you know,
we’re here to grant variances not to just deny every person that comes in with a request. So keep in mind,
do the balancing test in your own mind, and you have to look at each situation uniquely. It has nothing to
do with what happened or what you said, like on a height variance or things like that, you know, you have
to look in your mind and say how much of this building is sticking up in the air. How much, you know, is
it the whole thing or is it just one portion of the chimney or something like that. So keep in mind what’s
reasonable, what’s unreasonable, and you have to be able to say no because some things come in that are
ridiculous, but I think those are obvious, those ones.
MR. MC CABE-So with that I’m going to make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
DECEMBER 16, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Underwood:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of December, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mts. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe, Chairman
35