Meeting Minutes 1.20.21 (Tabled)(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 49 -2020 SEQRA 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 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
GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2020, Rockhurst LLC, Meeting Date: January 20, 2021 “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 r equired. The parcel involved was part
of a subdivision in 1993 where the Town Code required a 75 ft. setback, todays 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.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
2
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
minim al impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self -created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to 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.
The applicant requested to be tabled at the December 2020 meeting as there was not a full board ”
MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, just for your information, this application has already been read into the record.
So is the applicant here?
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Gavin Vuillaume with Environment al Design.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So have there been any changes since our last meeting?
MR. VUILLAUME-Well, we actually tabled the application at the last meeting. So we did not have an
opportunity to present it.
MR. MC CABE-So would you like to present it now?
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. I’d like to also try to make sure that the rest of my design team is on the Zoom
and as a panelist, please.
MR. BROWN-Who am I missing here?
MR. VUILLAUME-Well, we’ve got John Allen and we should have Michael Tuck, the architect, and Chris
Abele.
CHRIS ABELE
MR. ABELE-And Phyllis Abele.
MR. VUILLAUME-And Phyllis Abele.
MR. ABELE-My better half.
MR. VUILLAUME-So it sounds like we have everyone. John, are you there? He’s muted.
JOHN ALLEN
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
3
MR. ALLEN-Can you hear me now?
MR. BROWN-Yes, we’ve got you John.
MR. VUILLAUME-Great. Okay. It looks like we have everyone. Laura, do you hav e a copy of the existing
conditions?
MRS. MOORE-Is it in this set? Let’s see.
MR. VUILLAUME-It should be in there. There we go. Okay. I don’t know what all the yellow things
are, but don’t get nervous. That’s nothing. That’s all right. I think I can start with this particular map.
So again my name’s Gavin Vuillaume. I’m the project landscape architect for the project. For tonight’s
meeting I’ll give just a brief description of the project, and then I’d like to have John Allen have an
opportunity to talk about some of the area variance criteria and how this project meets those criteria. So
starting with the existing conditions survey, this is the two parcels that Chris and Phyllis Abele have
recently purchased . There’s two parcels and there’s three buildings on these two parcels. The parcel that
is under consideration for this evening is the parcel that is located adjacent to Assembly Point and the
parcel that is not under consideration is the parcel that has the point, we call it the point lot, that has the
main structure on it as it sits today. It also has a very small amount of frontage along Holly Lane. So we
won’t be discussing it. You’ll see some drawings that show some conceptual ideas of how that parcel
might be developed in the future, but we aren’t considering that parcel, but again focusing mainly on the
smaller, we call it the cottage lot. You can see that the parcel has approximately, a little over 100 feet of
frontage on Assembly Point Road. We’ve got about 27 2 feet along the shoreline. There’s two docks and
two existing cottages on the property. These cottages are in quite disrepair. So obviously we would be
removing these two buildings along with the outdated septic systems and wells that are associated with
it. The two docks would stay that you can see a dashed line that kind of traverses across the property.
That’s an existing gravel drive and we would be re-locating that. So I think now would be a good time,
Laura, if you could go back to the fir st sheet that you had. Okay. So then with the site plan as I guess
most of you are aware this project is going to require a couple of variances, and John will get into more
detail on those. The two variances that are required would be for the buildi ng’s height and for the
building’s location in relation to the shoreline. So if you remember from the drawing that we most recently
looked at, you should be able to kind of see the existing cottages underneath the proposed building. The
new building is going to be located further back than the existing cottages. The existing cottages are about
39 feet I believe it is from the shoreline. We would be proposing this new building at 50 feet from the
shoreline. Unfortunately, because of the way the prop erty is looked at through the Town and through the
original subdivision that these lots were created, at that time the existing zoning required a 75 foot setback
and that’s what we are to adhere to with this project. I’m not sure if many of you are aware of it but the
current shoreline setback for this particular zone sits at 50 feet. So we do meet that current zoning 50
foot setback but we don’t meet the 75. John can get into a little more detail on that. You can see the house
where we’ve proposed it. It adequately fits on the property. To really push it back any further from the
shoreline would be very difficult in order to get access to the building not only for the proposed driveway
but also for the shared driveway that comes off of Assembly Point and leads out towards the main parcel.
As far as improvements to the site, we are also proposing a couple of patio areas with generous landscaping.
I can show you some of the landscaping if you’d like to see it. I believe that’ll be mostly something that
the Planning Board would be reviewing, but I would also like to point out that these septic system, and it’s
very important that these septic systems be re-located 100 feet from the shoreline, and the current septic
system does not meet that set back and we will be going to great lengths to put the septic system at 100
feet from the shoreline. The septic system kind of straddles the existing property line the way we have it
proposed. If you look towards Holly Lane you can kind of see where the two septic systems for the two
buildings would be and a portion of this septic system would straddle that property line. So as part of
this project we will be re-configuring that property line so that it sits on the parcel, the cottage parcel and
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
4
meets all the setbacks required for the septic system. Another improvement that we’re making for the
project is stormwater management. Currently there’s a lot of standing water on the property, drainage
not only from this parcel but also from the parcels to the south of us. So we’ve again made a lot of
improvements to the stormwater management. We’ve created several stormwater management areas that
the Planning Board has been reviewing. We’ve even added additional culvert piping along Assembly Point
Road in order to adequately accept drainage, not only from this parcel but also any drainage that comes off
of the parcels to the south of us. So that’s a brief description of the project. Again, I don’t know if I got
into detail with the building itself . It’s a two story building. The footprint is approximately 2400 square
feet. We don’t exceed any of the impervious areas for the project so we meet all the setbacks as far as the
building except for the shoreline setback and the height of the building, and Mike Tuck, the architect, can
talk to you a little bit about how that is going to be very close to meeting the criteria. We have another
drawing, Laura. I don’t know if it makes sense to quickly put that up now or?
MRS. MOORE-The roof drawing?
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, we had those roof plans. I don’t know if we need that now, but it wouldn’t hurt
to just show it real quick. There you go. Great. Thank you. I appreciate it.
MRS. MOORE-No problem.
MR. VUILLAUME-So you can see the very small amount of roof area that would exceed the height limit.
The height limit is at 28 feet and we’re proposing it 29 feet 10 inches. So it’s a very small amount of the
roof that would exceed that height. Also if you go to the next page there may be a sec tion that shows up.
There you go. You can see it’s very minimal. So majority of that structure really sits below that 28 foot
criteria. Okay. If you want to maybe just go back to the site plan I guess now’s a good time to let John
talk a little bit about the Area Variance criteria.
MR. ALLEN-Gavin, thanks very much. I just want to make sure people can hear me. I’m unmuted, but I
just want to make sure that you can hear me.
MR. MC CABE-I can hear you.
MR. ALLEN-Okay. Thank you. As the Board is well aware, having watched t he December meeting and
listening to the applications before this, there’s a balancing test that the ZBA applies to compare the benefit
to the applicant if there’s grant of the requested variances, and the detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variances are granted, and the State of New York goes
through five factors for consideration. We have a situation here where there are two rundown cottages
on this particular lot that would be replaced with a new single family residence. The overall lot size is one
acre. It is substantially larger than lots in the immediate vicinity which have frontage on Lake George on
the east side of Holly Lane. Most of those are between a half acre and a third of an acre, and th e setback,
the shoreline setback, as Gavin said, will comply with what is required under the current Code, and if any
Board members have had a chance to visit this area and look at the neighborhood along Holly Lane, I think
you will recognize that our setback is equal to if not better than most of the setbacks that exist along Holly
Lane. The building height variances, as Gavin has mentioned, is pretty minimal, 1.10 inches, and it’s caused
in part because the test under the Queensbury Code is existing grade rather than final grade. There is a
high water table in this area, which is part of the reason why there’s going to be a major effort on
stormwater management to improve conditions in the neighborhood, but there needs to be some fill in the
area wher e the house would be built and quite frankly even though the lot is an acre, you can see it’s shape
is very irregular and without the shoreline setback variance if you combine the 30 foot front yard setback
with the 75 foot shoreline setback and the 20 foot side yard setback along the southerly boundary of the
property, the building envelope in which a house could be built is really very small and very unwieldy
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
5
because the lawn part of it is no more than five feet wide by the time you comply with the 75 and the 20
foot setbacks shoreline and side yard. So we’ve tried to design a house, and Mike Tuck can address this
certainly when he speaks, that at 2400 square feet ground floor area which includes plus or minus 500
square feet of garage area, it’s really only a 1900 square foot ground floor area residence. So we’re not trying
to build a mansion here. We’re not trying to overly pack the site. We believe it’s a reasonable house, but
to build even a reasonable house we very much need a shoreline setback variance because of the anomaly
that, although the current standard is 50, when these properties were subdivided back in 1993 the setback
for the zone in which this property was then placed was 75 feet. So that’s really why we need that variance.
Given what’s going to be done with replacing the existing septic system, given what’s going to be done to
manage stormwater runoff, we believe that we are going to produce a benefit rather than an adverse impact
on the environmental conditions in the neighborh ood, and while we certainly have to acknowledge that
this is a self-created difficulty, as the Board well knows that is not a bar to the grant of an Area Variance
and again given the configuration of the lot, given that by virtue of the 1993 subdivision, we are, without
the variance, held to a shoreline setback that is 50% larger than what would otherwise be required. We
believe that when the Board applies the balancing test that it should come out in favor of the applicant and
the requested variances should be granted. Thank you.
MR. VUILLAUME-Thanks, John. So I guess now would be probably another good time to turn it over to
the Board. Again we have both Chris and Phyllis Abele available to answer any questions, as well as
Michael Tuck the arch itect.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, John, you have a question?
MR. HENKEL-I’m kind of lost here. It seems like the project that was initially was presented has changed
now. It seems like in the beginning they were going to give us easem ent. They were going to give us a
turnaround. They were going to give us a dry well, a dry fire hydrant. What happened to all that? And
they said they were going to do away with the easement road after they built the house on Lot 2. What
happened to that project?
MR. ALLEN-Well, if I may try to answer that, Mr. Henkel, you’re talking about a variance for the use of
Holly Lane as ingress and egress to what you refer to as Lot 2, or what’s labeled on there as the main
residence lot. As you may or may not be aware, the grant of that variance, which was sought by the prior
owner of the property, not by Rockhurst, produced an Article 78 proceeding.
MR. HENKEL-Right. I understand that.
MR. ALLEN-And having read the record from the ZBA meeting in August when that variance, the road
frontage variance for the point lot was granted, there were many residents of Holly Lane who complained,
were concerned about any kind of traffic coming to this lot via Holly Lane and quite frankly my clients
want to try to be good neighbors, not bad neighbors and given the reception that we read about after the
fact if you will, we decided to see if we could not work out access for the point lot coming in from Assembly
Point Road. That is not really before the Board tonight. That would be the subject of a future variance
application that we would make for the point lot, but it would be our intention, just so this is clear, that if
this Board were to approve a road frontage variance when applied for for the point lot so that access would
come from Holly Lane. We are willing to withdraw, rescind, waive, terminate, however you want to
describe it the rights which the property has under the August 2020 variance to use Holly Lane for an
ingress and egress.
MR. HENKEL-Didn’t we grant a lot, and I don’t remember this perfectly, but didn’t we grant a lot
subdivision based on what Mr. O’Connor had said about the turnaround and the drywell?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
6
MR. ALLEN-No. These have been separate lots since 1993.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. Then maybe it was the, okay.
MR. ALLEN-The only thing we would do now as Gavin mentioned would be a lot line adjustment so that
the septic system for the westerly lot, the cottage lot as it’s labeled on here, would be fully on the cottage
lot and not straddle the property line.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. Gotcha. Thank you.
MR. ALLEN-You’re welcome.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-This is Cathy. I just want to clarify. I have it in writing in two places, and the gentleman
mentioned, is it 10 inches, is the relief for 1.10 or 1.9? I just want to know. It’s not a big difference I know,
but.
MR. VUILLAUME-One foot ten inches.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right.
MR. ALLEN-And I think we rounded it up to 1.9 feet, rather than say 1.83.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So now you just said 1.9. Which is it?
MR. ALLEN-It’s 1 foot 10 inches which is 1.833. It’s just a decimal versus, that’s all.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. It’s one foot ten inches or one point nine. That’s the differ ence. All right. No
problem. Thank you.
MR. ALLEN-You’re welcome.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, at this particular time a public hearing
has been advertised, and so I’m going to open the public hearing, and while we’re arranging for people to
talk I’m going to ask Laura, do we have any written correspondence on this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-I do have written input. It looks like some of those that made public comments are also
on the call. So I’m going to try to get through some of these people that are on the call so that I know that
they can potentially read their own letter. So give me a second. I think most of the folks that have public
comment are on the call now.
MR. BRO WN -So, Mr. Chairman, we have Lorraine Ruffing who’s in, and I would like to put this out to
anybody who’s waiting. If you can just raise your hand so I’ll know that you’d like to speak and we’ll get
you in in turn.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Laura, do you want to continue with the public comments?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. Lorraine Ruffing, if she’s on, she’s written a letter.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
7
MR. MC CABE-I saw her name as wanting to speak.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I think Craig has her on next.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, she’s on. She needs to unmute.
LORRAINE RUFFING
MS. RUFFING-Okay. Thank you very much. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lorraine
Ruffing. I live on Assembly Point and I’m making these comments on behalf of the Assembly Point Water
Quality Coalition. With regard to waiving the 75 foot setback, as the presenters have said, you can see the
lot is very small and a very weird shape and it really will not accommodate a large house, given the fact that
it is a wetland.
MR. MC CABE-Wait a minute. I didn’t see anything where this is wetland.
MS. RUFFING-Well, if you had come up to Assembly Point in the last week you would see that this lot is
surrounded on four sides by water. There is a ditch which is on the south side . There is a ditch on the
Assembly Point side and there is a ditch on the north side of the property, and then of course you have the
shoreline of Lake George. That ditch is filled with water right now and is usually filled with water because
it drains a wetland and I think one of the other persons who sent a letter, Florence Connor, explained that
there is an underground pipe which fills this ditch and I think the developers even alluded to the fact that
you will need quite a bit of landscaping or reconfiguring of this particular plot because the water table is
so high, and I think it was mentioned in the Town Board meeting that the test for the hydrology of this
area was done at a time when it’s the driest, in October, and it should have been done beca use right now I
think everyone can see how high the water table is. Our main concern, that is the residents of Assembly
Point, is the fact that the harmful algae bloom occurred right in front of this particular lot. Where you see
the two docks, the harmful algae bloom was to the left. So we know that this area is impacted. Possibly
the algae bloom could have been the result of tampering with the old septic systems. We’re glad they’re
going to be removed, but since this area is, if you don’t like t he term wetland, I’ll just say this area is
inundated most of the time, where they are placing their septic systems, we really doubt that there is any
absorptive capacity for a system such as the pur -a-flow system which they intend to use. They might be
better off using holding tanks. The second objection to this particular development is the fact that it
should be considered in total. You should really be considering the impact of the two large residences, the
two septic systems that will be on this particular land area, and I think the Waterkeeper has also made
that point.
MR. MC CABE-Just a second. So you understand that the septic system isn’t part of our consideration.
MS. RUFFING-I know, but the fact is, you know, they are asking for the setback variance. Instead of 75
feet they want 50 feet. I think this particular lot is very problematic from many points of view, and I don’t
think you can just compartmentalize and look at one particular point of view. The last point that I would
like to make is that quite a bit of development has already taken place on this particular property and that
during the fall work was undertaken on the road, on the drainage system and the extensive removal of
trees, some of which, I guess about 16 trees l ast time I counted, and some of those were within 35 feet of
the lake, and this has reduced the absorptive capacity of this particular area. So my main point is this
area is going to be really hard to develop, and you can’t say that it doesn’t impact t he rest of the
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
8
neighborhood, because if Assembly Point loses its drinking water, we are all in trouble. So I think there
are neighborhood objections as well as environmental objections, and thank you for your time.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Okay. Laura, do we have our next speaker?
MR. BROWN-We do. Amanda, she should be able to unmute and speak next.
AMANDA KUKLE
MS. KUKLE-Hello. Can you hear me?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MS. KUKLE-Great. My name is Amanda Kukle. I’m an attorney with Caffry & Flower. We represent
John and Honey-Jo Kelly who are property owners on Assembly Point who oppose granting the variances
for this project. A letter was also submitted on their behalf by John Caffry on December 15 th. This project
has not meet the requ ired mins for either the shoreline setback variance or the height variance. Before
going into why the variances don’t meet the criteria required by the Town Code, I would like to address
how the application is currently incomplete. This project was improperly categorized as a Type II action
under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has not been reviewed under SEQR as it should.
Although a single Area Variance for a single family residence is a Type II action, this exemption is not
applicable here because this project involves two single family residences on two lots and will then require
multiple variances, and I’m talking about the two lots that you can see on the site plan All aspects of the
project should be reviewed in a comprehensive manner without being segmented into separate
applications. So an environmental assessment form must be filed and a Lead Agency must make a
determination of significance. Now back to why the variances should be denied. First the most
substantial variance is that 33% shoreline, the setback variance. As pointed out under the Town Code
there is the 75 foot setback that was in place when the lot was created. It still applies today, and the
required variance is 25 feet, which is one-third of the required distance. That’s a substantial variance, and
not only is the requested variance substantial, but there are feasible alternatives available that would allow
the applicant to meet the shoreline setback and the height requirements such as moving the hou se bac, a
building a smaller house or changing the pitch of the roof. There are also options that involve combining
the driveways for the two houses, this house and the main house, and that would clear up more space
towards the road, allowing for making a setback variance unnecessary and that would have the added
benefit of reducing the amount of impermeable surface which has been a concern by neighbors. This and
other alternatives are detailed in our December 15 th letter and because the benefit sought b y the applicant
can be achieved by another feasible method, the variance should be denied. As detailed by other
commenters, this project would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and also severe negative
impacts on the environment specifically rel ated to stormwater issues and water quality. As pointed out,
this is an entirely self -created problem and the solution is to re-design a house that would conform to the
Town Code, and the Town Code requires the ZBA approve only the minimum variance they deem
necessary, and here there is no proof that the requested variances are the minimum necessary or that any
effort has really been made to minimize or eliminate the need for these variances, and for those reasons
these variances should be denied. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Laura, do we have another one?
MR. BROWN-Chris Navitsky.
CHRIS NAVITSKY
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
9
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. I hope you can hear me, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE-We can.
MR. NAVITSKY-Great. Thank you very much. Chris Navit sky, Lake George Waterkeeper, and before I
make these comments I’d also like to state that I had the opportunity to meet the applicant out on site and
talk about some of our concerns prior to this letter. So the Waterkeeper finds the extent of disturbanc e
and development is not in balance for a project proposed within the Critical Environmental Area
surrounding Lake George, especially with the site and dimensional constraints present such as limited
property depth and wetlands, which are indicated on the National Wetland Inventory Map on the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. The placement of fill is not necessary and creates the need for the height
variance and would result in environmental impacts. So first an undesirable change would be produced
in the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties by the variance. The installation of fill to
accommodate the building height will have an undesirable change by increasing surface runoff, altering
existing water courses and affecting the wetlands. In light of the recent Harmful Algae Bloom, it is
imperative to prevent alterations to natural conditions that will increase runoff and decrease the natural
flowpaths that are vital for water quality protection. Also they claim a hardship because they take the
building height from existing grade which is the way the law is. So that’s not a hardship. The benefit
sought by the applicant can be achieved by other methods other than an area variance. As was referenced
by the previous presenter, the applicant could eliminate the need for the height variance by removing the
fill, by re-designing the site, by using a common driveway, by changing the building shape. So really there
are alternatives due to a shoreline setback variance, and it was stated by on e of the applicant’s agents that
they are compliant with the shoreline, but that’s the existing shoreline setback, not what they have to
comply to. Thirdly, the proposed variance will have an adverse impact and effect to the physical and
environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The placement of fill creating the height variance will
alter the natural overflow from the existing stream and wetlands that is naturally filtered through the
existing overland flow. When you start raising a site and alt ering grade, that natural pattern goes right to
the lake. If they raise and mound that they will push water around. They’re talking about putting in a
pipe. Piping will cause greater problems and actually increase runoff by creating the mound that they’re
doing where that home is, and that’s actually pushing more stormwater to the lake. So really they’re
creating a bigger problem. As we’ve said the placement of fill or increased runoff, the placement of fill will
also alter and encroach into the existing wetlands, which again are on the National Inventory map.
Additionally the shoreline setback impervious cover that will be unmanaged closer to the lake shoreline.
Again they have a couple of patio areas that are claiming to be porous but they’re closer to the lake, putting
them in that setback. The last point, they talk about, and the Chairman referenced that the septic system
isn’t part of this, but that was part of their justification, and really that should be excluded because they
have to put in a new septic system regardless because under the Town of Queensbury law, the Transfer
Law, they have to put in a new septic system. So really that’s irrelevant. I recognize the benefit, but they
have to do that anyway. So with that, we oppose these variances and request that you deny the
application. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, let me just ask you. I saw no reference to wetlands on any of the data that I
have. Is my data wrong?
MRS. MOORE-You’re correct. What I have is information from Mary O’Dell from the APA. She says I
reviewed the aerial photos for this lot as part of a jurisdictional inquiry J2019-0809 and determined there
are no wetlands on this lot. Adjoining lot 239.12 -2-37 was visited by Mark Rooks in 2001 and he
determined that there were no wetlands on that lot either. So, the proposed septic is not within 100 feet
of any wetlands subject to Agency jurisdiction.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Now how about the question of these two projects have to be coupled?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
10
MRS. MOORE-I’d have to look into that, but we’ve seen projects that develop a development one at a time
where you don’t know what’s going to happen with that other lot adjacent to it. That may never occur.
So you’re focusing on the project that’s presented to you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So who’s the next speaker?
MR. BROWN-Ellen Wetherbee-McDevitt.
ELLEN WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT
MRS. WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT-Can you hear me okay?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MRS. WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT-I’ll just reiterate much of what’s been said before.
MR. MC CABE-If you don’t have anything new, we’ve had quite a bit of talk here.
MRS. WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT-Well I do want to add a few points.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So don’t repeat what we’ve heard.
MRS. WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT-I will not. I would just like to talk about the harmful algae bloom that
occurred earlier in the fall. We get our drinking water from the lake at least six months out of the year.
Harmful Algae Blooms, or HAB’s as they’re called, stipulate that there should be no fishi ng, swimming or
boating when there’s the HAB. That impacts the residents for drinking water and to recreate on that
water. Also although Mr. Abele states he’s putting in a state of the art water drainage system on the
property, it’s not known that that will actually take out nitrogen and phosphorus which fuels HAB’s. So
I think that’s extremely important to consider. And one of the natural strategies to mitigate HAB’s is to
preserve wetland and create natural buffers using trees and plants. There have been a huge number of
mature trees that were taken down on that property. It’s not known what will be done to rehabilitate
that in terms of natural buffers. When I looked at the map, the topography map on the Town of
Queensbury’s website, there ar e two small APA noted wetland areas which are on the shoreline of the
property. I noticed them. They’re very narrow and they’re right on the shoreline. So I’m a bit confused
when people say that there’s no wetlands recognized there. I would just say that the variances for the
proposed waterfront homes have been implications for all of us around the lake as well as people who enjoy
a clean, safe lake in which to recreate and the decisions that the Zoning Board makes regarding variances
such as the cu rrent proposal have implications for homeowners, people who want to enjoy the benefits of
a safe, clean lake and the tax revenue that’s generated from property on clean waters. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Laura, the next person?
MR. BROWN-Michael O’Connor.
MR. MC CABE-Mike, are you there?
MR. BROWN-We can see you and hear you now.
MICHAEL O’CONNOR
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
11
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have not looked at this plan before, Craig, but I do note that there was this
main house that was on there and then there were cabins that were used on a regular, seasonal basis and
with septic systems that were probably not at all adequate. I think that’s a great improvement what
they’re doing with the septic systems and what they’re trying to do with the stormwater. That would be
my comment. They also tried to accommodate the neighbors and have stipulated that they would give up
the variance that was granted, which has been challenged, as far as using the existing roads for entrance to
the point lot, which I think is sign ificant. That was a big concern after the variance was granted or at the
time the variance was granted , and they, from the earlier conversation, have stipulated that they will not
use that road or they will abandon that variance. That’s my comments.
MR. BROWN-Lorraine Carbognin
MRS. CARBOGNIN-Good evening. I am a resident on this bay and I have concerns about this project for
myself, my family and my neighbors who drink this water. Our concerns, some have been mentioned
before. I will just briefly mention them. That is the timing of the soil testing. That was done after the
extended dry season, as well as the quality of soil composition on this lot which lacks favorable absorbent
properties, were all part of the site plan submitted. The addendum states that a SPDES perm it will be
obtained. This information is part of that application process and must accurately reflect the absorptive
capability of this site. Will the soil testing be repeated at an appropriate time of the year? There was a
request for the Town to vi ew the development of the entire parcel at one time. I know that was already
mentioned, but handling development of this property one variance at a time will lead to a complicated
web of environmental concerns that will never be right. The septic was relocated to position it further
from the lake. What is its location in relation to the existing streams and wetlands on this site, as the
streams did not appear on the site plan? With this lot hosting 2 small cabins, the yard, adjacent to the
street side stream, it always appears wet, even before the removal of numerous large trees. An attached
document states that there are no wetlands on this property, as viewed in 2001. Clearly conditions have
changed over the past 20 years, and this needs to be updated. A variance is also requested for that setback
from 75 to 50 feet. The applicant states that the new septic and leach field will have a positive rather than
an adverse effect on the environment. We have the proposed construction of two 4,000 s quare foot homes
on these wetlands. We have the loss of 16 trees, with more marked for removal, even on the very edge of a
stream. I sent photos in to Laura. I don’t know if she’s able to share any of them on the screen.
MRS. MOORE-Sent photos? I’ll have to look.
MRS. CARBOGNIN-Okay. They were attached to my e-mail. There were three photos showing the trees
and also the trees marked for removal alongside the stream.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. I don’t have access to that at the moment.
MRS. CARBOGNIN-Okay. Anyway, there was a photo showing very large mature trees. Can the
developer possibly mitigate the total resulting negative environmental effects that he is proposing against
even the most efficient septic systems? And all septic systems depend upon absorption fields to complete
their task. Tis this land up to that task? Yes, the value of new construction will add tax revenue, but that
benefit weighed against the negative economic impact of decreased water quality in Harris Bay is
negligible. This extensive new construction, at the very spot where Lake George’s first HAB appeared
waves a red flag. It is difficult to see the positive effects of bulldozers and backhoes pulling up to this
Critical Environmental Area where the lake water in this shallow bay is already challenged. I understand
the Board faces a veritable parade of variance requests. Some seem easy, this one does not. The applicant
mentions hardship. The true hardship here is to the many waterfront homeowners whos e drinking water
is being threatened by extensive development such as this. Please consider our drinking water. Every site
is not amenable to development and this plan does not merit approval. I thank you.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
12
MR. MC CABE-Laura, do you have another one?
MR. BROWN-Lisa Adamson.
MRS. ADAMSON- Can you hear me?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MRS. ADAMSON-Thank you. This is a very delicate piece of property at probably the lowest point on
Assembly Point and if you go to the west of that property, right across the str eet, they had to do
remediation on the property across the street because the yard was always under water and then just north
of Charlie Crew’s house my understanding is that it was formerly an APA jurisdictional wetland. So the
whole area is very, very wet and very delicate, and it just seems that we’re in a period of time where we
have to change our paradigm about how to develop properties and not move towards such large
constructions and provide better alternatives that are going to preserve the proper ties that can’t handle
these large constructions anymore, and I’ve swum in that bay. I’ve seen a large amount of algae there. It’s
just a very delicate area. So lastly I wish they would just put the trees back. I mean that’s what we need
on that property is a lot of infiltration from restoring the trees that have been taken down. So smaller
development and a lot more infiltration. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Craig?
MR. BROWN-Brian Hogan.
MR. MC CABE-Brian? We didn’t get him, Craig.
MR. BROWN-Yes, I put him in the meeting. It might take a second for him to get up. What he asked in
a comment was that he would appreciate it if we could have his letter read. I don’t know, Laura, if you
have the letter that was submitted by Jeff Meyer on his behalf.
MRS. MOORE-I do. I have Brian’s letter and I have Jeff’s letter.
MR. BROWN-Well, at some point. I think I have one more that’s looking to speak if Brian is not going to
speak. There he is.
BRIAN HOGAN
MR. HOGAN-I can try to speak but I’d appreciate it if you guys would read the letter from me and then
read one from Jeff, and then if you need me to comment I’d be glad to do that. It’s just I’m traveling right
now and my internet connection is horrible.
MRS. MOORE-I’m going to start with Brian’s letter first.
MR. BROWN-Do we want to finish the speakers or have correspondence? Mr. Chairman?
MR. MC CABE-Let’s go with the speaker.
MR. BROWN-All right. And we have one more speaker.
MR. URRICO-Craig, can I say something?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
13
MR. BRO WN -Sure.
MR. URRICO-I notice there are questions coming in from the Q & A. There are questions coming in from
Chat, but everything has to be followed through the same places so we get the whole conversation going.
MR. BROWN-So what are you missing?
MR. URRICO-No, I’m not missing anything. I just noticed some of the conversation going on in the Q &
A that hasn’t been addressed within the meeting itself and I just think it needs to.
MR. BROWN-Right. So I read the Brian Hogan comment. I don’t know if you see that, and the other
two comments I was going to ask if the Chairman wanted to have people have a second round of questions.
JOHN KELLY
MR. KELLY-This is John Kelly joining. I was on mute for some time.
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, John.
MR. KELLY-Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I thank Amanda for representing
me and I thank Chris for his comments as the Waterkeeper. So my name’s John Kelly. I’m a resident on
Assembly Point, probably one of the largest property owners and taxpayers on the Point with over a dozen
properties. I want to begin by thanking the developer and the owners for proposing to make the
investment to improve this property. Like the developer, I, myself have removed many old, dangerous
shacks and cottages. In my case I left it natural land. I want to put a personal note on this as a homeowner
and taxpayer. I’ve been going to Assembly Poin t for over 60 years. Whether this land is classified as a
wetland formal by the APA or not is interesting, but for anyone who’s been on the Point for any period of
time, everyone knows that this land is barely, barely above water. The proposal earlier was stated that
this is a high water table. I will tell you that that is an understatement. This land is barely, barely above
lake level . From the previous speakers I just want to emphasize and I’m very knowledgeable in harmful
algae blooms as many of you know. HAB’s are threatening this lake and Harris Bay, frankly speaking, was
ground zero for this HAB. We do not understand what caused this HAB and we’re working very hard to
understand it, and while it’s labeled a harmful algae bloom, it was certainly unattractive, but it did not
produce toxins. Lord help us if the next bloom produces toxins because now we’re into a whole different
place. We do know scientifically that these HAB’s are caused by nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, and
there’s no question that runoff from the land and septics contribute to this. So from my perspective I
think the previous speakers articulated technicalities of the variance, but granting this variance at this
point in time, at this specific location is probably one of the worst things we can do for Assembly Point,
for Harris Bay, for Lake George at this point in time. So I strongly recommend that the Board not approve
the variance at this point in time. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you.
MR. BROWN-Mr . Chairman, you have two more comments from the Q & A section, and I can read them
to you, and if you want we can bring them back in to the public hearing for a second round of questions,
because both have asked questions already. Chris Navitsky’s comment. There are wetlands on the
National Wetland Inventory map, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They are not APA jurisdictional but
they are wetlands. A comment and then a follow-up from Amanda Kukle. What will happen with the
second parcel and why is the driveway for the main house part of the current project and being approved
now? And then she has a clarification. I appear to have encountered a technical issue. The first half of
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
14
my question was cut off, but essentially was in response to t he suggestion that you could not review both
because it’s unclear what will happen to the second parcel, and I apologize for any confusion. So those
are the comments that we have left in the Q & A section.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. That’s fine. So, Laura, you’ve got two other letters to read?
MRS. MOORE-I’ve got other letters to read that I did not hear them speak on the public comment, but I’ll
start with Brian Hogan’s letter. It’s addressed to the Board members. “This letter is submitted on behalf
of me and my wife, Meredith Hogan, as owners of the two parcels comprising 95% of the southern border
of the properties referenced in this Application for Variance and Site Plan Approval. We have reviewed
the site plan as proposed by the Applicant as it rel ates to the treatment of storm water on the property.
The plan calls for 2 feet of fill along our property line. The Applicant has indicated to us that this fill, in
conjunction with his stormwater plan, would most likely raise or at a minimum maintain the water level
of the wetlands on my property. When we moved to the lake 20 years ago, we realized that compromises
needed to the made to support the lake and the source of our collective drinking water. However,
maintaining a settlement/retention pond for the benefit of our upstream and downstream neighbors was
not one of them. The wetland condition, now with year round flow, exists solely as a result of the
action/inaction of the neighboring property owners, prior to the Applicant, in maintaining the flow of
water to lake. For our part, we have taken action over the years so as to mitigate the impact of this
additional water on our property as it was abutting our leach fields. But we cannot control the actions of
those on adjoining upstream and downstream properties. In addition to the situation created on my
property, there are wetlands on the northern border of the applicants property. The existence of which has
been verified by the APA. While they would be considered non -jurisdictional by the APA, that does not
mean that they do not exist. I believe that the Applicant can meet his stated goals for a new home as well
as the proposed driveways necessary to service his properties. Additionally, I believe that with a proper
plan, the water entering the lake could be treated in an effective manner, benefiting everyone. I would
propose the following:
- The Wetland area to the North on the property of the Applicant and that of Charles Crew be
identified, improved and incorporated into the stormwater plan.
- Th e wetland area to the South be included in a manner that encompasses my property, that of the
applicants, as well as those of Michael Chrys.
- The Fund for Lake George and the LGA be engaged as partners in a sustainable, though not
overbearing design.
- The plan Include the desire of the Applicant for a home and driveways.
For my part, l would be willing to allow the continued existence of the wetlands, or possibly the minor
expansion thereof on my property. As well as contribute, hopefully in combination wi th my neighbors,
financially to the project. l do understand that this may be a bridge too far for all parties, in which case,
there is the alternative. I would simply ask that the Applicant, as part of his plan, take what steps are
necessary to eliminate the collection of water on my property. As a final note, whichever option is chosen
above, we do not take issue with the proposed use of the property, provided that all ingress and egress to
the properties be limited to Assembly Point Road as depicted on the proposed site plan submitted for both
properties. Sincerely yours, Brian and Meredith Hogan” And this is a letter from Jeff Meyer. It’s
addressed to Mr. McCabe. “We represent Brian Hogan. Mr. Hogan owns and resides at 33 and 34 Holly
Lane, wh ich adjoins the lands of Rockhurst, LLC to the south. And this is a letter from Jeff Meyer. It’s
addressed to Mr. McCabe. “We represent Brian Hogan. Mr. Hogan owns and resides at 33 and 34 Holly
Lane, which adjoins the lands of Rockhurst, LLC to t he south. As the adjoining property owner, my client
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
15
will be directly impacted by the proposed development as contemplated by Area Variance Application: 49-
2020. I apologize for not being able to attend the public hearing in person to express my clien t's concerns,
but I hope this letter will be fully considered in my absence. The current application cannot and should
not be considered in a vacuum . This proposal is a carryover from Area Variance Application 22 -2020, as
decided in August of 2020. Said approval created the "Cottage Lot" as depicted in the current Application.
The Applicant has elected to segment the approvals into numerous applications, all of which will require
a host of variances and numerous approvals before the planning and zonin g boards. It is important to
note at the outset that Area Variance Application 22 -2020 is the subject of an Article 78 proceeding
pending in the Warren County Supreme Court. The outcome of that litigation will have direct impacts on
this, and all future applications, relative to the property. We are of the belief that the existing litigation
and the current Area Variance Application can both be resolved amicably in a single omnibus action.
Section 179- 14-040 (k) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury stat es – "Rehearing. A motion for the
Zoning Board of Appeals to hold a rehearing to review any order, decision or determination of the Board
not previously reheard may be made by any member of the Board . A unanimous vote of all members of the
Board then pr esent is required for such rehearing to occur. Such rehearing is subject to the same notice
provisions as an original hearing. Upon such rehearing, the Board may reverse, modify or annul its original
order, decision or determination upon the unanimous vote of all members then present, provided the Board
finds that the rights vested in persons acting in good faith in reliance upon the reheard order, decision or
determination will not be prejudiced thereby ." We are respectfully requesting the Zoning Board of
Appeals to Rehear Area Variance Application 22-2020 and re-examine the conditions placed on the
Applicant. The Applicant does not have any vested rights relative to the previous decision and the proposal
being offered by my client would be in keeping with the stated goals of the pending Area Variance
Application. Mr. Hogan is in support of the concept of two access points on Assembly Point Road to the
Rockhurst, LLC properties. My client has made it clear from the outset that all access to the lands of
Rockhurst, LLC shall be exclusively via Assembly Point Road. This includes both the "Cottage Lot" and
the "Point Lot". That was a condition of the Zoning Board of Appeals when they granted the Area Variance
in 1993, as amended in 1996. These prior decisions apparently served as the basis for the 2020 application.
However, this Board unilaterally removed those conditions without reason, justification, or support in the
administrative record. Holly Lane is a highway by use. For those members of the ZBA that a re not familiar
with NYS Highway Law, that means the Town is responsible for keeping and maintaining the public
highway, but said rights are limited to usage, similar to an easement. The Town only has rights to that port
ion of the highway actually used b y the public and maintained by the Town. This is different from a
highway by dedication, in which the town actually owns the real property over which the highway is
located. We have investigated the status of Holly Lane based on conversations with the Su perintendent
of Highways, a diligent search of municipal records, and conversations with certain property owners that
are knowledgeable of the history of the area. Included with this letter is an affidavit of Brian Hogan, sworn
before a notary public, which will be submitted as part of the pending Article 78 proceeding. The affidavit
includes correspondence between Mr. Hogan and David Duell, as Superintendent of Highways, con finning
that Holly Lane is not owned by the Town and that the Town has not maintai ned Holly Lane outside of
the paved portion. Holly Lane does not abut the lands of Rockhurst, LLC. And, Rockhurst, LLC does not
have the right to cross the lands of Hogan to access Holly Lane. Therefore, irrespective of the litigation
concerning Area Variance 22-2020, neither the Zoning Board of Appeals, nor the Applicant, have the right
to lengthen, improve, or otherwise expand Holly Lane, as contemplated by the conditions imposed by this
Board Based on the foregoing, any site plan or area variance appli cation concerning the "Cottage Lot" must
include access to the "Point Lot." The pending Area Variance Application , 49-2020, does just that by
providing for two points of access on Assembly Point Road. The Board must review the proposed access
points as permanent, knowing that all future access to the "Point Lot" will be via the ingress and egress
shown in the current application materials. We respectfully request the Zoning Board of Appeals entertain
a motion to hold a rehearing on Area Variance Application 22-2020 and reinstitute the 1993 conditions,
thereby mandating the sole point of access to the point lot owned by the Applicant, Rockhurst, LLC, be as
shown on the current Application. The Applicant will not be harmed or prejudiced in any way by holding
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
16
the rehearing and it will affirm the current status of Holly Lane. Stormwater and surface water runoff
must be addressed on site. Mr. Hogan detailed his concerns relative to the potential stormwater impacts
in his December 14, 2020 letter to the Board. These concerns were also raised by the Town's Engineer in
their December I 0, 2020 correspondence from Chazen Engineering. Specifically, Point 16 16. The
subcatchment boundary is shown lo terminate at the southern property line; however, the topogra phy
provided does not extend beyond the southern property boundary so subcatchment limits cannot be
verified at this time. The overall watershed boundary should not be limited to the subject property line;
it shall include the entire watershed tributary to each Subcatchment/Design Point. Pursuant to this the
Applicant should revise the boundaries appropriately. USGS topographical information can be used for
offsite areas. This is not the first time that my client has raised concerns about stormwater and surface
water drainage problems in this area. There is a wetland complex that is was created and is presently
expanding as a result of mismanaged stormwater. The Applicant's current proposal would only compound
these problems because it does not take th e present conditions into account. The proper handling of
stormwater on the Rockhurst, LLC lot requires examining and addressing the entire watershed. This area
serves as a sink for numerous properties located to the south of Rockhurst, LLC's property line . As
proposed, resulting stormwater and surface water runoff would be prevented from flowing in its natural
course, flood my client's property , and exacerbate the existing problem. It is imperative that this Board
also takes a hard look at the surface an d storm water concerns noted by Mr. Hogan. The Applicant
specifically notes that the current request for a height variance is due to the shallow depth to ground water.
This is evidenced in the roof height diagrams submitted by the Applicant. Additionally , the Applicant is
proposing the placement of fill and significant grading modifications in order to further develop the
property as intended. Groundwater, surface water, and stormwater runoff on this property are inextricably
connected as part of the water shed tributary feeding the waters of Lake George. Al l modifications must
be inclusive of existing surface water and stormwater flows that are entering the property from the south
and the existing boundary wetlands. Failing that, all properties to the south will be flooded and
negatively impacted. In his December 14, 2020 letter, Mr. Hogan proposed a couple of alternatives for
addressing the stormwater and surface water runoff in the area. Those alternatives remain as practical
solutions to this complex problem. To the extent the stormwater issues cannot be resolved and the access
to the Point Lot is somehow limited, we will be submitting additional substantive comments as the
existing proposal is excessive for a confined, environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your
consideration of the above materials. Very truly yours, Jeffrey R. Meyer, Esq.” Then I have Florence
Connor. Is she entered on the call? I don’t know, Craig? Did you see her?
MR. BROWN-She’s here but she didn’t put her hand up.
MRS. MOORE-Okay. All right. I’m going to read her letter that was received today. “This letter is in
opposition to the request for a height variance. This desire for a variance is self -created. This variance
request refers to the shape and size of this house. This shape and size is a choice, not a necessity.
Obviously this particular plan is too much house for this property. Therefore, Rockhurst, LLC is required
to ask for two variances. I have chosen to speak against one of them . However, the size of this building
does require both variance requests. That is a red flag. At the last Zoning Board meeting, ground water
level was given as the need to request a variance for 1’ 10” over the height limit. If the ground water leve l is
the driving need for this height variance, it is obvious this house plan is not appropriate for this sensitive
lot. Rockhurst LLC, (Mr. Abele) is a builder. I am sure he understands a ground water table. This is not
his first house. He has chosen this house design knowing it would need variances. It is not Queensbury’s
obligation to adjust requirements for his benefit. Two variances would not be needed if the house design
was an appropriate choice for this property. There is a solution – build a smaller house, or one with a
different foundation that does not necessitate a height variance. I say, “It is not Queensbury’s obligation
to allow an investor to make the rules for their own profit.” Please refuse this height variance so Rockhurst
LLC can choose a more appropriate house for this property. Sincerely yours, Florence E. Connor, 6 Holly
Lane, Lake George, NY 12845” I’ll read this last one. This is addressed to Craig. “I met with Chris Abele
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
17
this week to review his property plans on Assembly Point. I fully support Chris’ plan. I have lived on
Assembly Point for 19 years across the street from the Polk property. I believe having an experienced
builder like Chris redevelop the property for his personal use is a huge win for the neighborhood and the
Town of Queensbury. His plan for a new :”state of the art” septic systems is also very important to help
preserve the quality of the Lake. I know the importance of this all too well as I am a Board Member of the
LGA. I trust the Town will embrace the plans put forth and approve Chris’ requests. If I can answer any
further questions, please let me know.” Charlie” This is I believe Charlie Crew. And that’s all the public
letters that I have.
MR. BROWN-So we have new people in the lobby wishing to speak. Bob Carbognin.
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, Bob.
BOB CARBOGNIN
MR. CARBOGNIN-Can you hear me?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. CARBOGNIN-This will be a quick one. My name is Bob Carbognin. I’m an Assembly Point resident,
and my comment is variances need to be tempered depending on the magnitude of their impact on the
safety, aesthetics and environmental impact among other things to the site and the neighborhood. Polk
Road is a high impact parkway that should be made to strictly comply with the regulations. Development
as proposed minimizing the setback to the lake to allow for a 4,000 square foot home and multiple
driveways will impact an environmentally sensitive bay and our lake. Not all properties are suitable for
developm ent and Polk Road is case in point. I respectfully request the Board deny this application to
protect the neighbors who drink, cook and bath with this water. This lake is our reservoir. It must be
given the same protection as any reservoir would receive. Thank you.
MR. BROWN-So, Mr. Chairman, we have two people in the lobby who wish to speak again. Mike
O’Connor and Brian Hogan and Lorraine Ruffing is asking if the photos that she submitted to you, Laura,
can be shown.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. BROWN-So are we going to go through the people in the lobby again?
MR. MC CABE-So they’re the only two that want to re-speak?
MR. BROWN-So far.
MR. MC CABE-Is what they have to say new?
MR. BROWN-I couldn’t tell you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Well let’s hear Brian.
MR. BROWN-Well I’ve got Mike O’Connor queued up first.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Mike?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
18
MR. BROWN-You’ve got to unmute, Mike.
MR. O'CONNOR-My comment is to Jeff Meyers’ comment or letter asking the Board to re-consider the
variance that was granted 22-2020.
MR. MC CABE-We’re not going to do that.
MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well my comment was the applicant by his plan has actually shown that he is
not intending to use it and he has also indicated that he is willing to do whatever is nece ssary to abandon
it.
MR. MC CABE-Good. Okay.
MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Brian?
MR. HOGAN-Can everybody hear me? I’m on a really bad internet connection tonight.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, we can hear you.
MR. HOGAN-Great. I apologize f or the length of the letters that my lawyer wrote as well as mine, but
there’s a lot of detail I suppose that goes into it. The three brief comments I’d like to make are, one, the
comment on wetlands. We did have Mary O’Dell review photographic evidenc e and she did indicate that
there were wetlands in the south of the property, and that they overlap with my property. The second
two have to do with a letter that was written by the Town Engineer to you folks. I’m not sure if you’ve had
a chance to review that, but it goes back to a couple of comments that have been made earlier in the evening.
One is that your Town Engineer needs to bond the review of the site plan, and he has made a determination
that it falls under a category that should be reviewed in total, which means both properties should be
reviewed together, and that’s from your Town Engineer. The second one that he mentioned was the
stormwater plan. The stormwater plan does not include anything to do with my property. I have
wetlands on my property now that did not exist when I purchased the property, but they are there
nonetheless, and your Town Engineer has recommended that those be incorporated into whatever
stormwater plan is developed, and the third point that I will make is the stormwater plan itself. The Town
Engineer has indicated on multiple occasions that there are errors in the stormwater plan which tend to
indicate that it should be looked at and re-done appropriately. So while I don’t disagree with Chris being
able to develop the property, I would like to see it be done right, and that is one of the reasons that I
suggested that this is an opportunity for the Town and the developer to work together with the two bodies
on the lake that know the most about this stuff and that would be obviously the Fund for Lake George and
the LGA, and if you could start to do something like that, I think we could all work together and mitigate
a lot of these issues. Thanks.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So do we have anybody else?
MR. BROWN-That’s all we have with hands up other than the Lorraine Ruffing photo question.
MR. MC CABE-Laura, do you have the photos?
MRS. MOORE-And I just want to say I do have one more comment that I didn’t read into the record, but
I don’t know if you want Lorraine to speak on these photos that she provided to us?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
19
MR. MC CABE-She’s already spoken. We can see the photos.
MRS. MOORE-Those are it. I’ll scroll back up.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So let me read in this last one that I didn’t read in. This is from Linda Boden, the associate
broker. “My name is Linda Boden from Leavitt Real Estate, and I represented Chris Abele in the purchase
of 3 and 10 Polk Drive. I was also the listing broker and the property was on the market for 3 years. Most
buyers wanted to create their own home or two homes, as was grandfathered in this case, because the plot
of 2 acres could b e subdivided into 1 acre parcels with a home on each 1 acre parcel. Although the homes
were charming, they were not winterized or to code. So it took a while to find a buyer who had the
knowledge and capital to develop the land. We had many showings over the years, but only Chris
understood the complications of developing the property to the town of Queensbury’s standards and
zoning laws. Chris also had the capital to take on such a massive project. Chris spent a year looking into
the process of developing this land with the various agencies at his own cost, he then made the offer, and
the sellers accepted the terms and price. Chris’s plan to complete the project include state of the art septic
systems, storm water treatment through rain gardens and deten tion ponds, bigger setbacks to conform to
new rules, and positive redevelopment. The Queensbury town board voted to allow Chris to have access
off of Holly Lane to further divide the two properties with its own ingress and egress. I have received a
letter from concerned neighbors, and also was told that Brian Hogan is fighting the driveway off of Holly
near his property. It should be noted that Brian at one time wanted to purchase the Polk property himself.
I am writing this letter to defend Chris and his efforts to develop the land he now owns according to the
by-laws of the Town of Queensbury. The town has given Chris Abele and his family certain rights and
specifics regarding what he can and can’t do on Polk Drive, and it is disturbing that the neighbors are trying
to control and prevent him from doing so without ownership. I would also like to point out that Chris and
his family are well known on Lake George—they are well respected and have many friendships. This un -
neighborly treatment is uncalled for an d self-serving. Thank you for all consideration given this letter.”
MR. MC CABE-So is that it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. ABELE-No, I want to speak. Mr. Chairman, this is Chris and Phyllis, and we would like to speak.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. So what I’ll suggest, Chris, is you’re a presenter. So at this particular time I’d like to
close the public meeting so that we don’t invite more conversation because we’ll be here all night, and I
actually have a couple of questions of you.
MR. ABELE-Okay. Fine.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And the first question that I have of Chris is where will your drinking water come from?
MR. ABELE-Lake George.
MR. MC CABE-So you’ve got skin in the game here.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
20
MR. ABELE-Yes, Mr. Chairman, and what I would like to say is first I want to thank the Board for hearing
this application and I actually want to reach out to my neighbors and say that we want to be a neighbor
and I want to build a family retreat for my family, and I took note of Mr. Kelly when he spoke. I’m 64 years
old. I remember when I was five and six years old going to Hearthstone. In the early 60’s my dad owned
a property on Rockhurst in the early 60’s. My roots are deep in Lake George. When I owned a home on
Rockhurst I put in a new home and I did a state of the art septic system. When Steve Seaboyer who’s
currently trying to get a low pressure sewer on Rockhurst, I was the first one to sign up to support it, even
though I had spent a huge amount of money to put in a state of the art system in a home that I owned.
When I’m out in my boat in the lake and when I see a can or a piece of paper or a hat, I turn around and
pick it up. I drink the water in the lake. I b oat in it. I hope to have grandkids that swim in it. I’ve been
in the building and developing business for about 35 years. Never have I not honored a commitment and
done the right thing. I would like to address some specific comments. Someone had made the assertion
that I would work on the property. I want to say this. I went to the Town of Queensbury and I got a
highway permit to re-do the culvert. I also met on the property several times with Craig Brown, Bruce
Frank. I met with Chris Navitsky, as he did indicate. I also met with Randy from the LGA, and I want to
say I called him Lisa Adamson and I asked her and Carol to come meet me. They never showed me the
respect to do that. I want to do a beautiful project. I want to replace systems that are antiquated and just
for the record there was a leach field on the big point house where it was 30 foot from the lake. That is no
longer there, and I showed the Town officials that. This was a leach field done God knows when with
cinder blocks, railroad ties on the top stone. Totally, totally bad for the lake. In terms of the stormwater,
and I want to say this, too. I’ve been in this business a long time. This situation is not a business for me.
This is for my family, but I’m smart enough to know, defer to people that are smarter than I am. I’ve hired
excellent consultants to do the right thing. I fully intend to comply with every regulation that the Town
of Queensbury puts in front of me, and in terms of trees that were cut do wn on the property, I want to
make note, someone must have trespassed on my property to county them, and I also want to say that I
had that surveyed and staked out. Any tree I took was behind the 35 foot setback that the Town requires,
and I had Bruce Frank out there several times to confirm all that. The last comment I would say is this.
Everybody that spoke tonight, I don’t want to have ill feelings towards them because I’m sure in their heart
they’re not bad people and they want to do the right th ing by the lake, but so do I, and I want to make one
other note. I think every person that spoke here tonight has an existing property on the lake that at one
time or another probably had a variance or two, and you’ve got to remember this, and I don’t wa nt people
to feel sorry for me. I paid a lot of money for these pieces of property on Lake George. You can imagine
what 2.2 acres cost on Lake George, and that property was for sale to everybody, and I kindly suggest this.
A lot of people are trying to control something that they don’t own or didn’t pony up to do what I did, but
with that said, I want to become a neighbor. We’re very good people. I stand behind everything I’ve said,
and I respectfully request that the Board grant these variances. Thank you for your time.
MR. MC CABE-So is Gavin still here?
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. I’m here.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Gavin, do you have anything significant to add to what Chris has said?
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Chris did a great job. I’ll also put my hand out to John Allen to see if there’s
anything else that he would like to speak about. Most of the information that we’ve provided you, as Chris
has mentioned, does meet all of the Town Code requirements. We are in the process of going in front o f
the Planning Board for a lot of these more site plan specific items such as stormwater management.
MR. MC CABE-Right. So a lot of the issues here are issues that will be resolved at the Planning Board,
not with us.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
21
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. So I don’t want to take a lot of time preparing responses to each and every one
of the comments. John, is there anything else that you have? Is John on mute?
MR. ALLEN-Thanks, Gavin. I just want to make one observation for the Board. There was what sounded
to me like an attempt by some of the speakers to place the blame for the algae bloom on some tree removal
from this property or the dismantling of a septic system from this property. I’ve known Chris a long time.
He’s a very straight shooter who will do what he says he will do. I’m absolutely confident of that, and
Lake George is not the only body of water in Upstate New York that had an algae bloom in the fall. So did
Mirror Lake up in Lake Placid. Presumably nothing Chris did on the property he b ought on Lake George
caused the problems up at Mirror Lake, but I think people were trying to imply that Chris was the source
of the algae bloom. I don’t think there’s anything that is supportive of that. Just because it happened near
his property doesn’t mean he did it, was the cause of it, and I regret the fact that people felt the need to try
to put that on Chris’ back, but I support very much what Chris said. I don’t want to belabor this anymore.
I think the Board understands what we’re trying to do and that it is, as I said when I started a while ago
that I think that the balancing test definitely weighs in favor of the applicant and I thank the Board for its
time.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time the public hearing has been cl osed, and I’m going to poll
the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Thanks for being so patient with everybody. My concerns are slightly maybe different
than what we’ve heard, or some of it overlaps. First of all I think the height variance, when we talk about
the lake, height carries a harder measurement for me. Because height at the lake, even though it’s only one
foot ten inches, it’s still something we’ve dealt with on a regular basis, and height carries a lot of weight in
terms of concern. I’m also concerned about the size of the house compared to what the variance allows as
far as the 50 feet, and my third concern is are we dealing with a segmented project that eventually we’re
going to hear the second part at a later date and then realize that the first part does carry some weight,
more weight in terms of impact on the entire neighborhood. So those are my three concerns. I’m on the
fence right now. I’m not sure if I would approve it tonight.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. John?
MR. HENKEL-I also have some concerns. I think what Roy says makes sense. I don’t really have a problem
too much with the height, but those three driveways there, I think they could incorporate for now having
the one driveway, re-design the house, get it off the lake a little bit more, use the driveway for the egress
going to the other property for the new house. Therefore if something happens where they can’t get that
Holly Road extension there to the other property, that way we wouldn’t have so man y, because right now
we’re going to have three driveways entering onto Assembly Point and that does concern me. I think they
can re-design the house a little bit so they can get it off the lake more and just use one driveway. So the
height variance doesn’t bother me. The variance for the setback from the shoreline does bother me a little
bit, even though most lakefront properties are 50 or less even. The other question, this has nothing to do
with this per se, but all these people that have this problem with the lake, I wonder if they’ve ever had their
septic tanks checked or their stormwater management checked. They could all be contributing and they’re
going to blame it on this one piece of property, and I don’t think that’s fair. That’s my con cerns. I would
say I’m not really ready to vote also to grant this variance right now. So I’d have to re-think it or they’d
have to come back.
MR. MC CABE-Let’s just clarify something here, John. I believe that there’s only one curb cut on Assembly
Point Road. I believe the other is just designed as a turnaround, isn’t it?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
22
MR. HENKEL-Yes, you’re right, but like I said, that concern still, there’s two curb cuts there because what
happens if that other property doesn’t get the approval to extend Ho lly Lane into that other lot, the main
residence, that would, you know, I’d rather have them just have that one driveway as access to their house
plus to the main residence. That’s what my concern is. Now when you bring that house back away from
the lake, too.
MRS. MOORE-Can I interject, Mike? Just to make sure that folks understand that we’re not considering
the main residence lot at this point.
MR. HENKEL-I realize that, but we might have to.
MRS. MOORE-At a later date you will. We review projects on a case by case basis, and they’ve identified
a potential area in the first lot, being the cottage lot, as having some hard surfacing included, and they’re
not requesting a permeability relief. So they can include hard surfacing if they wish to and we look at it
at a later time. That’s up to them, but there’s no variances at the moment that we’re reviewing for the main
residence lot.
MR. HENKEL-I understand that.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. I have some concerns as well. A couple of them, I agree with Roy. Just
the two projects together. I understand they’re separate and they need to be. I get it, but I’m concerned
about the consequences of our action tonight and the impact on that. The other issue I have is it’s a good
sized lot but it’s just so irregular. It just doesn’t leave a lot of room to improve the setback from the lake,
and that’s a big concern for me. My last con cern is the impact on the environment, and I know that the
Planning Board has yet to hear the rest of the plan, and I need to trust the Planning Board, but those are
my concerns. So I’m not in favor at this time. I may change my mind based on the conv ersation tonight.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first say, you know, wow we went through a lot
of information here, and I fully appreciate Mr. Abele and his positions. I certainly appreciate the
neighbors’, the discussions and overall the care and concern for Lake George. I love that lake. I boat on
the lake, and we’ve got to be really, really careful what we’re doing with Lake George. With that said, you
know, the concerns that I share I believe that the variance appears to be substantial. I believe that
potentially with consideration, I do believe there’s a project to be had here. I do believe that giving
consideration to potentially the house moving back a bit, a bit of a smaller home, that that would he lp me
in this process. There may be alternatives which could be considered here. So I will say that, as presented,
I would not be in favor of this project, but I want to stress that, you know, in many cases this Board sees
situations of which individuals go back to the drawing board, they look to change some things, they come
back and we find something that will work. So my suggestion for myself, from myself to the applicant and
its agents is my being against it as presented, but not to otherwise sugge st that there are not mechanisms
or ways to find, to put a successful project together. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have several points I’d like to make here. Who’s going to tell us when it’s too late,
you know, and what are we going to do at that point in time? I don’t believe that this project in itself is
going to be the king point here that’s going to trip the lake turning to full algae blooms or anything like
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
23
that. I think it can be a solution, but at the same time this original subdivision was created in 1992. That’s
almost 30 years ago with a 75 foot setback, and I think it was done with a 75 foot setback for a specific
purpose. That purpose was to make sure that when the re-do was done at some point on this property it
was going to be setback more appropriately based on the wet soils and the wet conditions on that lot that
have been pointed out by many of the neighbors and also by the lake associations along with the same
board. I think that the fact that the septic system straddles both lots means that we’re segmenting this
project, if we look at just the one part of the project that we’re looking at. The road crosses over both
properties. I think it should be reviewed as a full project in its tot ality, including both residence and the
guest cottage, and until such time we should not review it and we should not approve anything on it.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Hi. Yes, I pretty much agree with everything the Board members have said. As f ar as
segmentation under SEQR, two lots, I don’t know, that’s kind of really cutting it close, but then again, a
question for Laura. Is this in a CEA by any chance, a Critical Environmental Area?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is.
MRS. HAMLIN-It is. Okay. So that raises SEQR expectations shall we say. As a single family residence,
absolutely it’s a II, but, you know, it could possibly be a segmentation here. I do think, obviously the
gentleman has every right to build on his property. So a little re-configuration, maybe something to do
with the drives. He might be able to push that back and reduce the amount of setback that he needs.
Height, again, it’s a very minimal amount of height, but at the same time, as was mentioned, this is on the
lake, so that becomes a bit of an issue, but perhaps in the re-configuration something could be done with
the height as well. So where I stand right now as presented I would not want to move forward with this
at this time.
MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, let’s just be clear here. Is this a Type II SEQR?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is.
MRS. HAMLIN-As presented.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. BROWN-Yes, if I could just add a little bit there, Mike. These are individual lot line setbacks and
dimensional relief, height relief, on single family dwellings. Clearly Type II SEQR projects. I think the
applicant’s gone to the next step of showing you, hey, in the future we’d likely come back and develop the,
it’s labeled as main residence lot, an d in doing that, we’re going to plan for a driveway across the cottage
lot. So we’d like to show you that we’re calculating the permeability and we’re still staying under the
threshold that we can. So I think they are trying to show you the whole project. I don’t want to speak for
them, but I’m not sure that they have the main cottage or the main residence lot plan finalized, but I think
you’re seeing something that’s probably pretty close to what it’s going to be, and again, Type II.. You’re
only looking at the cottage lot, and I think they’ve shown you everything that you need to make a decision.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So my input is at this particular time I can’t really support the project either, and
the reason is that taken one at a time the setb ack I could understand, and the height, particularly the fact
that it’s just a small percentage of the overall roof, I could understand, but setback from the lake and height
are two of our most sacred variances, and so we’re asked to provide relief on both of these. I could do one
or the other, but I can’t forgive both. So the applicant here can see that he’s not getting a lot of support
from the Board here at this particular time. However I think everybody has, or most of us have indicated
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
24
that we would consider, you know, it’s not a dead project. We would consider the project with some
changes here. So your choice as an applicant is to have us take a vote and obviously it’s going to get turned
down, or you can ask that the project be tabled and y ou can come back to us at a later time with possibly
some changes that might be a little bit more palatable.
MR. ABELE-Yes, I would like to speak.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. ABELE-Okay. I do hear the Board and I respect their comments and I think we can go back and
possibly mitigate some of the issues and put a good faith effort into a little bit more of a compromise.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. ABELE-So we will look at it again, take the input that we received tonight and go forward.
MR. MC CABE-How much time will you need. We could postpone this. Let’s see. Laura, do we have
any room in the February calendar or are we talking later than that?
MRS. MOORE-We’re talking later than that. We’re talking until, well, I haven’t completed my review
yet for February’s, and we could potentially put it into a February meeting, but we’re past the deadline. So
I’m concerned about getting information in in a timely manner. So I would prefer that it be moved to a
March meeting.
MR. MC CABE-So would our first meeting in March with your information being submitted by the middle
of February, would that be okay?
MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, I’ll speak on behalf of Chris. We would have plenty of time to gather the
information that you’re requesting.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John, I wonder if you could provide us with a motion to table this application
to the first meeting in March with information being submitted by February 15 th.
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, gra ding, 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 Michelle Hayward:
Tabled to the March meeting with submittal by no later than the 15 th of February.
Duly adopted this 20th day of January 2021, by the following vote:
MR. ABELE-Can I make one more comment, please?
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
25
MR. ABELE-To kind of wrap up everything, I want to make one comment. I think that we can adjust the
height possibly to avoid the variance, the height variance. We’ll really work on that. I do think if I don’t
get relief on the shoreline setback, it’s going to make my property basically, not worthless because it’s on
Lake George, but severely impact me. I think the height we can work with. We possibly can combine
the driveway so there’s one curb cut, but the setback variance is critical, and we possibly can reduce the
size of the structure, but keep in mind that footprint outside the garage is I think only about 1400 feet. So
we’ll definitely put our heads together. We’ll try to make a good faith effort. I have one other very small
comment, and I know the Board I tired of h earing me talk, but I want to make this one comment on
stormwater. When I got the highway permit to do the culvert, what I found was a totally blocked culvert
so when water came from the south and I want the Board to really understand this because I know this
property like the back of my hand. I’m dealing with stormwater that has come from properties not mine.
I want to treat that water. With that cu lvert blocked the water could never go through the culvert and it
basically flooded the property and never got treated and went into the lake. When my, if my project is
approved, my stormwater plan will significantly improve the stormwater that enters Lake George, and I
just want the Board to really think about what I’m saying. The way this is configured now, there is no
stormwater treatment. If I get approved, it will significantly improve that. Again, thank you all for your
time.
MR. MC CABE-So let me make a suggestion. Why don’t you point this out to Chris Navitsky, and if you
can get him on board, then you’ve got a big alley there.
MR. ABELE-And you know what, Mr. Chairman, I will do that, and I’ve got to say when I had Dan Davies,
Chris Navitsky, Randy from the LGA, when they left that property, I’m not saying they were jumping for
joy, but I think they understood I have a real desire and effort to do the right thing, and I’ve got to say I was
a little bit disappointed in how Chris charact erized it. I know Randy was very happy, and I just want to
make one more comment. I did reach out to that group on Assembly Point and I was never shown the
respect for them to come and meet me and that should not have happened.. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we have a motion, we have a second. So call the vote, please.
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. ALLEN-Mr. Chairman, if I may, what is the date of that March meeting?
MR. MC CABE-It will be the third Wednesday in March.
MRS. MOORE-It will be March 17th. You said the first meeting.
MR. MC CABE-Yes. Isn’t that the third Wednesday, the 17th is the third Wednesday in March, right?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. MC CABE-St. Patrick’s Day.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021)
26
MR. ALLEN-Thank you.
MR. VUILLAUME-Thank you very much.