02-24-2021
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
INDEX
Area Variance No. 5-2021 ADK Developers & Builders 1.
Tax Map No. 227.17-1-52
Area Variance No. 8-2021 Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture 4.
Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48
Area Variance No. 7-2021 Victoria Tuccillo 9.
Tax Map No. 316.14-1-15
Area Variance No. 10-2021 Laura Mc Neice 14.
Tax Map No. 226.19-1-20
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 02/24/2021)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 24, 2021
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
MICHELLE HAYWARD
CATHERINE HAMLIN
BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
RONALD KUHL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. This is Mike McCabe, and I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the
th
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, February 24, 2021. Our procedure is relatively simple. We’ll call
each application up. I will read the application into the record. We’ll allow the applicant to present his
case. We’ll question the applicant and if a public hearing has been advertised we’ll open a public hearing
and seek input from the public, either live or written. Then we’ll close the public hearing and get a feeling
for how the Board is weighing in on the particular application, and then we’ll proceed accordingly. So at
this particular time I’d like to have AV 5-2021, which we’ve already heard, but they’ve made some changes
to their application.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ADK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS
OWNER(S) LLC ADK REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS ZONING WR LOCATION 123 SEELYE
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 4,709 SQ. FT. PORTION OF THE EXISTING
GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,440 SQ. FT. WITH 514 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK
AREA FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA 5,108 SQ. FT. HOME (INCLUDES AN ATTACHED
GARAGE) AND TO MAINTAIN A 720 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. SITE WORK IS
PROPOSED FOR MUCH OF THE SITE TO INCLUDE DRIVEWAY AREA, SEPTIC SYSTEM, NEW
HOME WITH A DECK, WITH SITE PLANTINGS AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN
FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FOR A
SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 7-2021; AV 17-1996; AV 25-1991; SP 10-96; SP 03-93 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.59
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-52 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020
DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2021, ADK Developers & Builders, Meeting Date: February 24, 2021
“Project Location: 123 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Revised: 2/24/2021 information
submitted 2/22/2021: Applicant proposes to remove a 4,709 sq. ft. home and a 978 sq. ft. detached garage
to construct a 2,776 sq. ft. home with a 514 sq. ft. deck/porch area. The new home includes a 3 bay garage.
Site work is proposed for much of the site to include driveway area, septic system, new home with a deck,
with site plantings and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for
setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,
The new home is to be located 13.8 ft. where 20 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location and design of the new home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant
to the code. Relief requested for setback of 6.2 ft. may be considered moderate to minimal relevant to
the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The project includes
the installation of a new septic system, stormwater controls and shoreline planting. The plans show the
new location of the home. The elevations and floor plans detail the arrangement of the home and the
views.”
MR. MC CABE- So perhaps ADK Developers and Builders could explain what they’ve done.
MR. DICKINSON-Hello, everyone. Can you see and hear me?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. DICKINSON-Okay. Excellent. My name is Devin Dickinson from Dickinson Associates. I’m here
on behalf of Peter O’Neil who’s the developer and owner. So, yes, we were here last week. Do you want
me to recap some of the background of the project?
MR. MC CABE-No, I think we’ve got a pretty good idea of the project.
MR. DICKINSON-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-You’ve eliminated the second garage and you’ve made the attached garage larger. Is that
true?
MR. DICKINSON-That’s correct. Yes. So we went back to the drawing board so to speak. We
eliminated the detached garage. We added another bay to the attached garage. We changed the driveway
a little bit. In doing that, we’ve actually reduced our impervious area even further. We’re roughly 80%
permeable right now. All other things stand, new septic. New stormwater, vegetative buffer. The only
thing we’re still requesting is we’re really still requesting that relief from that southerly property line.
Currently we’re at 7.6 feet. We’re looking to move it back to 13.8. Other than that we meet all the other
regulations and requirements.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So does the Board have questions of the applicant? Hearing none, is there any
written information, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. MOORE-No. So the public hearing would be considered still open and I don’t have any new
information from public comment.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So that was what I was going to say. I believe I left the public hearing open on
this particular application. So at this particular time I‘m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
MR. URRICO-I think the changes were good changes. So I think to me that satisfies the problems I was
having with the application. I think the setback is about 14 feet. So I think we’re okay. I’m fine with it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-The setback is to the north side, not the south side. Right?
MRS. MOORE-No, it’s to the south side.
MR. HENKEL-Is it really?
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-So south is on this side here.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. I mean it doesn’t matter anyway. It’s a great looing project. You really came back
with a good looking project with increasing the permeability at 80% and you’re only looking at 6.2 feet of
relief. So I think it’s very acceptable just with that one small variance. So I’d be in favor of it as is. Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. They’ve minimized the variance tremendously. So it’s a great project.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m so glad they made these changes because I was sort of begrudgingly for it before, but
then I started having second thoughts. I’m much happier with this and it’s a great improvement to what’s
there. So, yes, I’m in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The applicant should be complimented for listening to the request of the Board and
I think that the relief on the side lines is something that we can all live with.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good changes. I’m in agreement with the rest of my peers.
The variance is minimal. It’s a very nice looking project. As Jim indicated, they should be commended.
So I’m in support of it.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I want to thank the applicant for working with us and I
think we end up with a better project here. So I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from ADK
Developers & Builders. Revised: 2/24/2021 information submitted 2/22/2021: Applicant proposes to
remove a 4,709 sq. ft. home and a 978 sq. ft. detached garage to construct a 2,776 sq. ft. home with a 514 sq.
ft. deck/porch area. The new home includes a 3 bay garage. Site work is proposed for much of the site to
include driveway area, septic system, new home with a deck, with site plantings and shoreline plantings.
Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,
The new home is to be located 13.8 ft. where 20 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 & remained open to
Wednesday, February 24, 2021 when it was closed.
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:
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because they actually have reduced some of the non-compliance at this point and are
asking for lesser relief this time in particular.
2. Feasible alternatives, it’s a very small lot. They’ve been considered, but what we have here is
reasonable.
3. The requested variance is not really substantial. It’s just a small little bit of a setback in the one
variance.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. In fact they’ve improved permeability.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they are building a new home on a substandard lot.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
5-2021 ADK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
th
Duly adopted this 24 Day of February 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-So I made a little error there. I neglected to ask Roy to read anything into the record. I
was thinking we did that the last time, but we did have the changes. So is there anything that we should,
or how should we correct this, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-It’s acceptable because all that information has been posted online already. So those
changes are already noted as documents that folks can read. So I don’t think you need to read anything
else additional into the record. You asked the applicant to identify what those changes were and they
were done as part of this record.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So ADK Developers and Builders, you have a project. Thank you very much.
MR. DICKINSON-And thank you guys. I just want to mention, too, that the changes and input that you
guys suggested actually really did make it a better project and we appreciate it. So thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 8-2021, Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK
ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DANIEL GRASMEDER ZONING WR LOCATION 3222
STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 84 SQ. FT. LIVING
ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, A 436 SQ.
FT. SINGLE STORY BREEZEWAY/MUDROOM ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE
HOME CONNECTING THE EXISTING 1,315 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOME. THE
PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THE MASTER
BEDROOM THEN ALTERATIONS TO THE THIRD FLOOR TO INCLUDE A 48 SQ. FT. STUDY
NOOK AND A NEW ROOF OVER THE EXISTING BATHROOM AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO
INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WITH UPPER LEVEL OF 1,344 SQ.
FT. AND THE LOWER LEVEL OF 786 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS INCLUDE
THE HOME OF 2,172 SQ. FT. AND DETACHED GARAGE 1,315 SQ. FT.; NEW FLOOR AREA 6,582
SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF
15% SLOPES, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACK OF MAIN HOME,
HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATIONS TO THE MAIN HOME AND TO THE NEW GARAGE,
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
NUMBER OF GARAGES, SIZE OF GARAGE, AND NUMBER OF STALLS FOR A GARAGE.
CROSS REF SP 9-2021; AV 43-02; 76-2002; AV 27-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.18-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179=13-010
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TREVOR FLYNN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2021, Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture, Meeting Date:
February 24, 2021 “Project Location: 3222 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Revised
2/24/2021 information received 2/22/2021. Applicant proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen
addition to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition
to the south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project
includes interior alterations on the second floor for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor
to include a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes
construction of a detached garage with the upper level garage area of 576 sq. ft. and the lower level garage
area of 672 sq. ft., then a workshop area of 572 sq. ft. (total detached garage building floor area of 1,920 sq.
ft.). Height of detached garage 21 ft. 4 inches (reduced from 26 ft. 3 inches). Existing building footprints
include the home of 4830 sq. ft. (includes existing detached to attached garage). and detached garage 1,248
sq. ft. (reduced from 1,344 sq. ft.); new floor area 6,390 sq. ft.(reduced from 6,582 sq. ft.). Site plan for new
floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and
stormwater management. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations
to the main home and to the new garage, number of garages, size of garage..
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home
and the new garage, number of garages, and size of garage.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure,
The single-story addition to the main home is to be located 56.6 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback
is required. The two roof dormer additions of the home are to be 33 ft. 6 inches where 28 ft. is the maximum
height allowed. The new garage is to be 21 ft. 4 inches in height where an accessory structure is limited to
16 ft. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and size of the garage 1,248 sq. ft. where
maximum size allowed on lot would be 1,100 sq. ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to
orientation of the existing building on the parcel and parcel shape for height and setback. The second
garage may be eliminated to reduce the number of garages; although the second garage is storage and
workshop for classic vehicles.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the single-story addition to the main home
is 18.4 ft. setback. The relief for the two roof dormer additions is 5 feet 6 inches in excess for height.
The new garage relief is 5 feet 4 inches in excess for height. Relief is also requested to have more than
one garage and to have a garage greater than 1,100 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 may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes residential additions to the main home, alterations to portions of the three floors,
then construct a detached garage. The project includes new stormwater controls, site work to reduce
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
runoff, landscaping for the site. The plans show the additions and the portion of the dormer roof additions
that are above the 28 ft. but match the existing structure height. There are elevation views and floor plans
for the proposed work on the home and the new garage. The second garage has been revised to reduce the
height, square footage and number of bays.”
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So is the applicant here? Is Trevor Flynn here?
MR. LAPPER-I’m going to start, Mike. This is Jon Lapper.
MR. MC CABE-Jon, okay.
MR. LAPPER-And then I’ll pass it over to Trevor. So as Roy just read, basically you left us last week with
instructions to work on the detached garage. I believe that everyone was comfortable with the relief
requested on the main house. So over the course of a week and the weekend the applicants and the
architects were able to work together to push the detached garage farther into the hill substantially, reduce
the roof height so that the relief, the last time we were at a 27 foot high garage and now what we’re
requesting is 21’ 4”, and we also removed 97 feet of garage area as well as one of the car bays. So now it’s
three cars, and as Roy read, 1248 square foot garage. So I hope that the Board sees this as a significant
change. That still gives Dan the workspace that he needs separate from the house to work on his classic
car collection, but it’s certainly a lot less relief than what we had previously requested. At this point I’ll
ask Trevor to just show you the details.
MR. MC CABE-I’ve just got one little question there. It says that they’re looking for 245 square feet of
relief for the second garage, but that doesn’t add up to the 1100 which is allowed and the 1245 which is
where you’re at.
MR. FLYNN-So that should be 148 square feet.
MRS. MOORE-Thank you. I’ll let, Trevor, if you want to get on, you can. I’ll kick my information off.
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, Trevor.
MR. FLYNN-So as Jon mentioned, without reiterating all the points, you know, we spent time over the
weekend to really look at bringing down the height of the structure, everything from looking at heights
and how it’s raised on the site. It took some great time and struggle, too, to bring it down without losing
the architectural character to match the existing house and historic nature, and with that we brought the
footprint down. We’re requesting less relief, the 148 square feet relief from the 1100 square feet and also
eliminating the garage door in the process as well at the lower level. Again, we wanted to reiterate that
this garage is not seen from the view corridor or also the lake. You see the updates to the floor plans with
the single garage door at the lower level, and re-locating the door that was on the one side to the front
which also necessitated that reduction in the square footage in one single garage door to three bays total.
MR. MC CABE-Is that it?
MR. FLYNN-Yes, and then these are just the diagrams that go along with it, with the overall.. So still
indicating we’re at the 21 feet 4 inches. However, on what’s perceived mostly is 19 feet 10 inches on the
entire garage. It’s just this one point which is the highest point of the structure, and then we do have, the
client is prepared to dive more into his hobbies, but these are some of the classic cars that he’s working on.
You can see this is one image of one of the vehicles. It’s completely torn apart, and this was a two bay
garage at the time, and you can see the space taken up and allocated just for one car, and as he mentions,
he has multiple cars that he’s consistently working on. So with that I can hand it over to the owner, or I
don’t know if you guys have any additional questions for us.
MR. MC CABE-So does the Board have questions of the applicant? Hearing none, I can’t remember
whether I closed the public hearing on this or not, Laura?
MRS. MOORE-So this public hearing was closed.
MR. MC CABE-I’m going to re-open the public hearing at this particular time and ask if there’s anyone
who has input on this particular project or ask if there’s any written input on this project.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MRS. MOORE-There’s no new written information on this project.
MR. MC CABE-Yes, we had the letters from the neighbors saying that they approved of the project before.
That’s in the record already. Right?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So if there’s folks in the audience that wish to speak, then there’s an opportunity to
raise your hand function on your Zoom, that if you wish to speak you can simply hit that raise hand
function, or you can send a chat and I can move you to be able to speak. I don’t see anybody that is raising
their hand.
MR. MC CABE-There’s one chat out there.
MRS. MOORE-Is there a chat?
MR. MC CABE-I show a chat.
MRS. MOORE-There’s nothing on it, though.
MR. MC CABE-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 this time with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that the house, as far as the request for variance goes, none of us have any real
concerns on that. Even though it’s over height, the dormers I think are lower than the present roof line on
the house and I think that would be the only issues that we would be concerned with as far as that goes.
As far as the garage goes, I think it’s an improvement, but I still have my concerns. Even though this is a
hobby, as advertised by the applicant, I think at the same time we should be concerned because, you know,
if you’re restoring vehicles and cars you have to be very careful, you’re using industrial solvents and paints
and things like that that are very toxic and we are in close proximity to a Critical Environmental Area, i.e.
Lake George. So at this point in time I’m still not in favor of it. I think there would have to be safeguards
written in or obtain a Use Variance because I don’t think that this is a normal garage that we would
approve. If it was just a garage for storage of vehicles I would have no problem with it.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I tend to agree with Jim on this. I believe there’s a project to be had, but I, too, share
that concern that the lake being as precious as it is, and some of the potential things that are needed to
really restore vehicles, some of them being relatively concerning to me in terms of just their overall
structure and their toxicity. So again I do believe that a project can be had here, and I’m just at this point
not in favor of the project myself.
MRS. MOORE-Could I just interject a quick second, just in reference to, this project still has to go back
to the Planning Board, so some of your concerns can be addressed by the Planning Board or if it’s a concern
of the Zoning Board. So I just wanted to interject that. Sorry, Mike.
MR. MC CABE-That’s all right. So, Roy?
MR. URRICO-I share the same concerns, but I think the applicant demonstrated, if he’s reliable in terms
of how he treats his hobby, you know, in terms of how he goes about his business there. So I’m not as
concerned about the potential catastrophe, because that could happen with anybody that has a boat up
there. It can happen with anybody that works on anything on their property. I realize this is going to be
done a little bit more frequently, but as Laura said, this is going to be reviewed by the Planning Board as
well. So I’m happy with the changes he’s made. My only concern is that he has one called Christine, but
otherwise I’d be in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I agree with Jim and Brent and I also agree with Roy, and I think with this size property
and with that garage being so far from the lake, and it seems like this man is very passionate about his
hobby and I don’t see him having a concern. I’ve been on that lake for 50 years and I’ve seen gas go in that
lake from every time someone fills a boat, you know, people checking their oil. So there’s more damage to
that lake done with the boaters than this man could ever do with that garage. I think they’re very
passionate people about their property and would definitely be good people, stewards of the lake. So I
would definitely be on board with this project as is. I think they reduced that roof down as good as they
can do, and it’s a garage that you can’t see it from anywhere. So I would definitely be on board with it.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I support the changes they’ve made. It’s a wonderful project, and I believe that the
Planning Board will address any environmental issues associated with it.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m still a little leery, like what Jim said. When you have, this technically isn’t a
commercial activity, but it has elements of a commercial activity, somewhat scale, but in terms of what
goes on in the garage, and, yes, the Planning Board may address some of those, but I would personally be
more in favor if we made some sort of condition that suggests that it’s up to, I think it might be a uniform
Code question more than it is, I mean it wouldn’t apply because it’s not a commercial activity, but if they
could comply with commercial activity Code requirements for drainage and things, that would make me
happy. As far as the height and the shape and the number of bays, I’m good. I just want to make sure that
nothing’s getting into ground water or what have you.
MR. MC CABE-So you’re a yes with conditions that. How are we going to condition this?
MRS. HAMLIN-I don’t know, well worded. Some kind of wording as to just sort of what Michelle just
said, the Planning Board, and that Code Enforcement would make sure that the clients installed whatever
is necessary. I don’t know what it is. I’m not a Code Enforcement Officer, but what a commercial garage
might have to protect groundwater runoff and things like that of transmission fluids and all those things
that might come in the activities that will go on there. Again, like Jim said, it’s not storage. I mean he’s
working on cars, and great it’s a hobby, but it could still, you know, there could still be a lot of, regardless
of what goes on with the boats we’re approving this. So I think we should have some sort of protection
for the lake if we could.
MR. MC CABE-Okay, and so I support this project, and the reason I do is because this is a very private
property. It’s much larger than the normal Lake George camp that we deal with, and I think the applicant
has done a very nice job re-creating or keeping the character of the old house and adding the new garage in
a very inconspicuous manner. So I’m going to support the project also. So at this particular time I’m going
to, did I close the public hearing?
MRS. DWYRE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Yes. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Michelle to try and craft this motion here,
and I suggest that we condition it with the fact that a garage meet appropriate safeguards for any of the
hazardous chemicals that may be involved in re-conditioning the old cars. Does that make sense?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m writing this down. Okay. I think I’ve got it. Thank you.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn,
Balzer & Tuck Architecture. Revised 2/24/2021 information received 2/22/2021. Applicant proposes a
single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq.
ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315
sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project includes interior alterations on the second floor for the master
bedroom then alterations to the third floor to include a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing
bathroom area. The project also includes construction of a detached garage with the upper level garage
area of 576 sq. ft. and the lower level garage area of 672 sq. ft., then a workshop area of 572 sq. ft. (total
detached garage building floor area of 1,920 sq. ft.). Height of detached garage 21 ft. 4 inches (reduced from
26 ft. 3 inches). Existing building footprints include the home of 4830 sq. ft. (includes existing detached to
attached garage). and detached garage 1,248 sq. ft. (reduced from 1,344 sq. ft.); new floor area 6,390 sq.
ft.(reduced from 6,582 sq. ft.). Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15%
slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and stormwater management. Relief is requested for
shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home and to the new garage, number
of garages, size of garage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home
and the new garage, number of garages, and size of garage.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure,
The single-story addition to the main home is to be located 56.6 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback
is required. The two roof dormer additions of the home are to be 33 ft. 6 inches where 28 ft. is the maximum
height allowed. The new garage is to be 21 ft. 4 inches in height where an accessory structure is limited to
16 ft. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and size of the garage 1,248 sq. ft. where
maximum size allowed on lot would be 1,100 sq. ft.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 & Wednesday, February 24,
2021.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
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. This is a historic house and the changes have been made with particular reference to
the history of the home and will certainly fit the character of the neighborhood.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and have been included to minimize the request. They
have been deemed reasonable.
3. The requested variance is substantial because there is a second garage, but because of the size of
the property in total it’s been deemed minimal.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. The Planning Board will be considering these as well.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) The garage will meet appropriate safeguards for any hazardous chemicals involved in
reconditioning old cars.
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.
8-2021 TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE, Introduced by Michelle Hayward,
who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
th
Duly adopted this 24 Day of February 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-So congratulations you have a project.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone.
MR. FLYNN-Thank you all. I appreciate your time.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is Area Variance AV 7-2021, Victoria Tuccillo.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II VICTORIA TUCCILLO AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) VICTORIA TUCCILLO ZONING WR LOCATION
51 WOOD DUCK FLYWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,996 SQ. FT.
(FLOOR AREA) SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH 480 SQ. FT. OF PORCH/DECK AREA
(FOOTPRINT). THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND CONNECTION TO
MUNICIPAL WATER. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SHARED DRIVEWAY THAT WAS PART
OF AN AREA VARIANCE IN 2018 WITH THE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2019.
THE NEW HOME HAS A PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 39 FT. WHERE 28 FT. IS THE MAXIMUM
HEIGHT ALLOWED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT. CROSS REF SUB 4-2019; AV 54-
2018; FWW 6-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 LOT SIZE 10 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 316.14-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF TUCCILLO, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2021, Victoria Tuccillo, Meeting Date: February 24, 2021 “Project
Location: 51 Wood Duck Flyway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a
new 1,996 sq. ft. (floor area) single family home with 480 sq. ft. of porch/deck area (footprint). The project
includes a septic system and connection to municipal water. The project includes a shared driveway that
was part of an area variance in 2018 with the subdivision that was approved in 2019. The new home has a
proposed height of 39 ft. where 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. Relief requested for height.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for height.
Section 179-3-040 –Dimensional
The new home is proposed to be 39 ft. where a 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
constraints on the property; the lot had previously received a variance for a shared driveway as there
are wetlands on the parcel.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The relief requested for the height is 11 feet above the allowed.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The
applicant had indicated to lower the height would increase the footprint of the structure.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self -
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes construction of a new single-family home with a height of 39 feet. The home is to
be 1,996 sq. ft. footprint with a 480 sq. ft. deck/porch area. The floor area is to be 3,836 sq. ft. The site work
includes a driveway, house development area septic and connection to the municipal water supply”.
MR. MC CABE-Is Hutchins Engineering here?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, I’m here. Good evening, Board. This is Tom Hutchins, and I believe the applicant’s
husband, Jeff Tuccillo, was planning to be on, too. I don’t know. Laura, can you see if Jeff is on?
MRS. MOORE-Jeff is here. His mic is muted. I’ll ask him to unmute.
MR. TUCCILLO-I never really Zoomed. So here I am.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. He’s on.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins on behalf of Vicky and Jeff Tuccillo. They are the
owners of what was Lot Number Nine of the Hudson River Landing subdivision. It is a 10 acre Waterfront
Residential parcel on the Hudson River, and it was before this Board a couple of years ago as in the
subdivision process they chose to do a shared driveway to serve Lots Number Nine and Ten which was
approved, and that drive has been constructed . They propose to construct relatively modest house in the
compliant location from the original subdivision. The house is an A Frame style. It’s a 2,000 square foot
footprint and again it’s in the location that was planned for the subdivision. Due to the style of the house,
really from floor to ridge is 32 feet or 31 foot 10 as you can see there. I’d call that 32 in the numbers. This
is really the style of house they really want to have. It allows them to keep the footprint down and to have
the style of house that they envisioned for this parcel. It is an extremely remote parcel . The house will
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
be 1450 feet plus away from the road. It won’t be visible from really anywhere. It’s set back from the river
over 100 feet, and due to somewhat shallow groundwater table in this area, we’re limited in how deep we
can go with the basement substructure and they’re trying to get a basement underneath this property. So
that is what is really the trigger for the 39 feet in height because we are bringing up existing grade about
four feet around the property. So the actual first floor will be some six feet above exiting grade which
makes the 32 feet, 38 feet or 39 is where we’re at. So we think it’s a relatively modest request and it really
won’t have any impact on anyone else, and with that I think I’d turn it over to the Board with any
comments, unless, Jeff, you had anything you want to add.
MR. TUCCILLO-No, no. I’m here, just listening. Exactly what you said is what I say.
MR. MC CABE-So does the Board have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have question. Mr. Hutchins is saying that there could be a chance
this could even be higher if there’s a problem putting the cellar in? Because you said they want to have a
cellar, right?
MR. TUCCILLO-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-No, we’re not going to go higher. We’re safe with.
MR. HENKEL-So you don’t predict there’ll be any problem you’ll have to come back to us saying that you’ll
have to be higher?
MR. HUTCHINS-That’s correct.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. That answers my question. Thank you.
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Hearing none, a public hearing has been advertised for this application.
So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody out there has input on
this project, either live or written. Do we have anything written, Laura?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-There’s no written information.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody out there who would like to speak on this particular project?
MRS. MOORE-I was going to say. I have two people. I have a Jonathan B. and another individual. If
they would raise their hands if they wish to speak on this application. There’s a function on Zoom where
it says raise your hand. It’s a little orange hand signal, but if you can click on that, then I can promote you
to a panelist. I don’t see them raising their hand at this time.
MR. MC CABE-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-Like I said at the last meeting, I think we really should start re-visiting the zoning of the
lakefront, riverfront properties and probably start allowing more height on these homes. It seems like it’s
getting to be a greater and greater problem. Especially when it’s a bigger lot, I think it should be allowed.
I mean the 39 feet does bother me, but the way that Mr. Hutchins explained it with being about 32 feet so
you’re looking at only roughly four feet of variance, the 11 feet sounds like a lot, but this is the only variance
that they’re really asking for. So I guess with the location of it I’d be on board. So I’d approve it as is.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I am, too, concerned about the height. I think my primary concern, and maybe, Mr.
Hutchins, you can ameliorate my concern, is the view from the river. Of course I can’t go on the river to
see the property, but being 100 feet from the shoreline, is there going to be any screening between the home
and the river?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, there is. There is existing vegetation that is to remain, large mature trees. They
have cleared the building area, but you’ll note the building area doesn’t go to the river. There is existing
large vegetation that remains. Anything they took out near the river was all dead, and I would add that
the existing grade almost rises a little bit, only a foot or two, but before you get to the top of the riverbank
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
that drops off quite a bit. So anyone from the river would be looking up at an angle and really only see the
top of the house. They’re not going to see the entire residence because of the way the riverbank is.
MRS. HAYWARD-Okay.
MR. HUTCHINS-I hope I answered your question.
MRS. HAYWARD-That does. Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-You haven’t answered my question. Are you in favor or not?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m sorry. It’s been a long day. I am in favor. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Well based on that explanation of the visibility from the river, I think it’s a very big ask
in terms of the height, and it’s mostly due really, not just to the grade. I think it’s the style of the home, but
that’s the style they have their heart set on and I don’t want to break any hearts here. So I guess I will vote
in favor of issuing the variance.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’m one of the few people that has paddled the river hundreds of times over the
course of my lifetime and I’ve often wondered when those houses were going to appear on the bank on that
side of the river since we approved this. I think we still should be concerned with the height. Even though
it’s going to be 100 feet set back from the river, because people will tell you they’re not going to cut trees
and it’s a no cut zone there by the subdivision along there at the same time, but circumstances change once
people have their home up they can get out there with a chainsaw and do a lot of damage in a minimal
amount of time. So I still think that they could go back and re-think the project. I think it’s an
unconventional design, not something we normally see, and I think if it were conventional home I think
we would make it be more compliant.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I shared Michelle’s initial observation relative to vegetation and it was explained what
remains and it sounds like they’re taking that into consideration. While I do share and understand where
Jim is coming from, I do believe that the lot size and the overall scope of the area that this isn’t, while I do
think it is a bit high, it’s not overly concerning to me to where I would not be in favor of it. So it does have
my support.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I was shocked with the amount of height variance they wanted, and I’m still shocked. I
think that it’s a lovely home that they’ve picked out, but I see this having some immense problems down
the road if other people start picking out A Frame’s and start saying they have to have this height in order
to satisfy themselves. I think our job is to grant the minimum relief necessary, and I don’t think we’re
doing that in this case. So I’d be against the project.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, although I sympathize with the applicant wanting a chalet or an A Frame type
house, we argued over six inches to a foot of height and here we’re giving away 11 feet, but there’s already
enough yeses. So my no isn’t going to change the project.
MRS. HAMLIN-This is Cathy. I hate to do this, but I think I’m going to change my mind on this. I mean,
I’m sorry, but I mean there’s so much room for them to expand the footprint if they want to a little bit, and
just somehow I’m sure they could reconfigure this, still get a chalet style and bring some of this down. I’m
sorry. I was very much set against this until they told me how much it wouldn’t be visible from the river,
but we’re setting a precedent, and I have to agree.
MR. HENKEL-I agree also. The way Mr. Hutchins makes it sound like it’s only going to be 34 feet, but if
it’s going to be 39 feet. That’s 11 feet. I’m not willing to give 11 feet, but he just made it sound like it’s only
going to be 32 feet 10 inches. So I would be against it, too, as is.
MR. MC CABE-So we just had some reversal here. So now I need some guidance from the applicant. It
doesn’t sound like you have enough votes for a project here. So do you want to table this and re-consider?
MR. HUTCHINS-I just want to clarify. We were four but now we’re two in favor. Right?
MR. MC CABE-Yes, you’ve got two yeses and five noes.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
MR. HUTCHINS-If we can work with the building design to stay with the same design but drop two or
three feet out of that, would that help us in any way with any of you folks? I mean I say the building is 32
feet and that’s from floor to ridge, but we have to build the area up a little bit where it’s going and the way
we measure height in Queensbury is existing grade, of course. The finished look of the house is going to
be 34 feet, but because of that grade difference we’re at 39. Is there something we could do? If we find a
way to drop that down a few feet, would that help at all?
MR. MC CABE-I think it’s going to have to be more than two. I don’t know what the others think here.
John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree. You’d have to bring it somewhere at.
MR. MC CABE-I think you’re looking at at least to cut the 11 feet in half, Tom.
MR. HENKEL-I mean it sounded pretty good when you said the 34 feet.
MRS. HAMLIN-I too would not find a couple of feet sufficient. That’s Cathy.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I guess could I have like 30 seconds to speak with my client?
MR. MC CABE-Absolutely.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay. I’m going to mute myself and maybe you can mute Jeff and I’ll call him on the
phone.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-I’m sorry. I misquoted. He said 31 feet 10 inches. So I was closer giving the approval
when I was at 31 feet 10 inches.
MR. HUTCHINS-All right. I’m back. Are we there, folks?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. HUTCHINS-I’m sorry to ask for that, but sometimes communication as you know we’re struggling a
little bit. Yes, I guess if the Board would table this application and we’ll re-think it and come back with
an improvement.
MR. MC CABE-How long do you need?
MRS. MOORE-I’ll interject a little bit. We would move it to an April meeting at this point.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So, John, if we could have a motion here to table this application until April, the first
meeting in April, with documentation to be submitted by mid-March.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Victoria
Tuccillo. Applicant proposes to construct a new 1,996 sq. ft. (floor area) single family home with 480 sq.
ft. of porch/deck area (footprint). The project includes a septic system and connection to municipal water.
The project includes a shared driveway that was part of an area variance in 2018 with the subdivision that
was approved in 2019. The new home has a proposed height of 39 ft. where 28 ft. is the maximum height
allowed. Relief requested for height.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2021 VICTORIA TUCCILLO, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt:
stth
Tabled to the April 21 meeting with any new information submitted by March 15.
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of February, 2021, by the following vote:
st
MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote, I just want to confirm that it will be tabled to April 21.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MRS. MOORE-Before you move on, you’re going to re-open that public hearing and leave it open.
MR. MC CABE-So I’ll re-open the public hearing for AV 7-2021.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED
MRS. MOORE-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 10-2021, Laura McNeice.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 10-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LAURA MC NEICE AGENT(S) TREVOR
MC NEICE OWNER(S) LAURA MC NEICE ZONING WR LOCATION 12 CHESTNUT LANE
APPLICANT HAD A NEW HOME CONSTRUCTED OF 912 SQ. FT. WITH 208 SQ. FT. OF
PORCH/DECK AREA WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,560 SQ. FT. THE AS-BUILT SURVEY SHOWS
A CORNER OF THE HOME HAS A NONCOMPLIANT SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC 549-2018
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT
SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040
LAURA MC NEICE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 10-2021, Laura McNeice, Meeting Date: February 24, 2021 “Project
Location: 12 Chestnut Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has had a new home
constructed of 912 sq. ft. with 208 sq. ft. of porch/deck area with a floor area of 1,560 sq. ft. The as-built
survey shows a corner of the home has a noncompliant setback. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional
The new home has already been constructed where the as-built survey shows one corner of the home is too
close to the property line at 18 feet where a 20 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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 as the home
was a recent construction and the mistake of the building was not noticed until the as-built survey.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor
relevant to the code. The relief requested is for 2 feet.
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 to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered to be self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant requests approval of an already constructed home. The homeowner explained they had hired
a contractor for the house construction that did not follow the plans for placement of the home. The home
owner was not aware of the alteration to the home placement until the as-built was provided. The plans
show the home and site.”
MR. MC CABE-So is Laura McNeice here?
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
MRS. NEICE-Yes, I am.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Do you have anything to add?
MRS. NEICE-Just to re-state what was already said. There were some unforeseen issues with our
contractor and he had made mistakes, this being one of them, but many being inside, and due to those
mistakes we had fired him, and we are building another structure, another home two lots down, and we’ve
hired somebody else and right now the measurements is everything with the new contractor and the new
house is spot on with what we had planned.
MR. MC CABE-So does the Board have any questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-So in other words you went into this other house two sites down after that’s constructed?
MRS. NEICE-No. We’re building two lots. We’re building two houses on two separate lots.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So one’s for spec.
MR. MC CABE-So no questions of the applicant? I mean it’s pretty straightforward. So a public hearing
has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody has
input on this particular project.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-Again I’ll point out there’s a function of raise your hand if you wish to speak or a chat
function to let me know. There’s only one other individual that appears on our screen now and that
individual hasn’t requested to speak yet. So maybe he’s just a listener.
MR. MC CABE-So is there any written communication on this project?
MRS. MOORE-There are no written communications on this project.
MR. MC CABE-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 Brent.
MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you. I’d be in favor of the project as is. I don’t have any concerns here.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. It sounds like the mistake that was made was not their
fault. It’s minimal relief anyway. So I’d be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes. Those are all small lots. Almost any house you built on any of those lots you’re going
to probably create a problem with some kind of setback. You’re only giving a relief of two feet. So I’d be
on board with it as is.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I agree. The request is minimal. I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I want to clarify. So it’s relief for two feet on the side yard, but according to our
documentation there’s also five feet in the front. That’s where it meets a corner. Is that what’s going on?
MRS. MOORE-No, it’s just the side.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. Then that’s nothing and what are you going to do. I would vote in favor
of granting the relief.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We’ve dealt with similar instances before with contractor error and I think there’s
no problem as far as the applicant coming in and asking for this extra relief.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, view this as minimal. If it came to us before construction we undoubtedly
would have approved this project. So I would approve it at this particular time. So, Brent, I’m going to
ask for a motion here. Can you do that?
MR. MC DEVITT-Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Laura McNeice.
Applicant has had a new home constructed of 912 sq. ft. with 208 sq. ft. of porch/deck area with a floor
area of 1,560 sq. ft. The as-built survey shows a corner of the home has a noncompliant setback. Relief
requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional
The new home has already been constructed where the as-built survey shows one corner of the home is too
close to the property line at 18 feet where a 20 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 24, 2021.
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. There’s minor to no impacts to the neighborhood.
2. Feasible alternatives are limited. It’s just two feet, and this is an as built survey.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. While the alleged difficulty could be considered self-created as I indicated it is minimal and it’s a
situation where they’re trying to rectify things.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
10-2021 LAURA MC NEICE, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Catherine Hamlin:
th
Duly adopted this 24 Day of February 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
MR. MC CABE-So congratulations. You have a project. So at this particular time, Laura, do you have
anything to add?
MRS. MOORE-Only that you’ll have two meetings in March, and, yes, they’re full agendas.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Anything controversial?
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021)
MRS. MOORE-I don’t know at this point.
MR. HENKEL-Did Craig Brown say when that one from Assembly Point is coming back? The Assembly
Point one?
MRS. MOORE-The Shore Acres? So you tabled that until April.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have a question on that one, Laura, because in looking into it I was wondering, are
they going to have to come in and get a variance? Because they don’t show any fence around that swimming
pool and I know normally we.
MRS. MOORE-So that’s not a, that is something for Building and Codes. That is not something that is
referenced for the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the meeting, or I propose to close the meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
FEBRUARY 24, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle
Hayward:
th
Duly adopted this 24 day of February, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe, Chairman
18