07-21-2021
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 21, 2021
INDEX
Area Variance No. 28-2021 333 Cleverdale LLC (Sans Souci) 1.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43
Area Variance No. 32-2021 337 Cleverdale LLC 3.
Tax Map No. 226.12-1-44
Area Variance No. 33-2021 Laphatt Holdings 16.
Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30.3
Area Variance No. 29-2021 Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture 21.
Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48
Area Variance No. 42-2021 David & Pamela Way 30.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-23
Area Variance No. 43-2021 Kent & Cheryl Smith 34.
Tax Map No. 296.19-1-33
Area Variance No. 46-2021 Melissa Freebern 37.
Tax Map No. 296.13-1-14
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 07/21/2021)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 21, 2021
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
CATHERINE HAMLIN
JOHN HENKEL
RONALD KUHL
BRENT MC DEVITT
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
nd
Appeals, Wednesday, July 22, 2021. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is fairly simple. There
should be a schedule on the back table. We’ll call each case up, read the case into the record, allow the
applicant to present his case. We’ll ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised,
then we’ll open the public hearing and seek input from the public. After that we’ll close the public hearing
and poll the Board and see how the Board members stand on the application, and then we’ll proceed from
there, but first we have to take care of a couple of administrate items. So first I’m going to ask for a motion
th
to approve the minutes of June 16, 2021.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 16, 2021
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
th
MINUTES OF JUNE 16, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
June 23, 2021
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
rd
MINUTES OF JUNE 23, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Brent McDevitt:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 28-2021.
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 333 CLEVERDALE LLC (SAN SOUCI)
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) 333 CLEVERDALE LLC ZONING
WR LOCATION 333 CLEVERDALE ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL
OF OUTDOOR SEATING AREA ON ADJACENT PARCEL FOR DINING PURPOSES
ASSOCIATED WITH THE RESTAURANT; THE AREA WAS PREVIOUSLY USED AS A WAITING
AREA. THE PLANS SHOW THE OUTDOOR EATING AREA WITH 24 SEATS, AN INDOOR
AREA OF 55 SEATS (NOT TO EXCEED 71 SEATS), AN INDOOR WAITING AREA FOR 10
PERSONS; NOT TO EXCEED 105 SEATS AND NO ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIRED.
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW FOR MODIFICATION OF SITE PLAN-SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF AV 26-2012; AV 38-2009; SUP 9-2012;
SUP 45-09 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD
LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-9-120; 179-10
JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. MC CABE-We already read a portion of this into the record. So I’m going to just ask Roy to read in
any changes that we have.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2021, 333 Cleverdale LLC, Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 “Project
Location: 333 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant requests
approval of outdoor seating area on adjacent parcel for dining purposes associated with the restaurant; the
area was previously used as a waiting area. The plans show the outdoor eating area with 24 seats, an indoor
area of 55 seats (not to exceed 71 seats), an indoor waiting area for 10 persons; not to exceed 105 seats and
no additional parking required. Planning Board review for modification of site plan-special use permit.
Relief requested for permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for permeability in the Waterfront Residential zone - WR.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional
The existing restaurant parcel site conditions currently have a permeability of 22.7% where 75% is
required. Note the relief for parking is no longer required –there is no change to the amount of parking on the site.
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 considered to reduce
the number of seats.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for permeability is 52.3 % less than required
permeability.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to maintain outdoor seating in a patio area on the adjacent parcel. The existing
site had been updated in 2009 and then in 2012 with a wastewater system. When reviewing the current
2021 materials it was determined all hard surfacing was not accounted for on the site. The approval in 2009
was for 30.4% and the current is 22.7% permeable.”
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with engineer Tom Center and three
of the ownership group are here to speak as well. So I guess I’d like to start off with Laura because since
we were here last time we amended the two applications. After we got your input and listened to the
neighbors, we reduced the request for outdoor seating from 48 seats to 24 seats and that, and we reduced
the number of seats on premises so that it wouldn’t change from what’s there now. It’s just that in summer
24 of those seats would be outdoors. So that will eliminate the need for a parking variance because we’re
not adding any more than what’s there now. We’re just taking the seats out from indoor to outdoor
because the public likes that and it’s a nicer experience to be outdoors, but we understand that the site is
constrained. We have all the parking that we can have on site. So in going through this with Laura and
Craig Brown, we don’t need relief on the restaurant site. We added a little bit of permeability that it
morphed over the years with the prior owners back to what was approved and we eliminated the request
for the parking variance.
MR. MC CABE-So let’s just be clear, then. What relief for permeability are you actually seeking?
MR. LAPPER-So we’re not.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MRS. MOORE-So there’s no, for the application for 333 Cleverdale, for the restaurant itself, there’s no
variances being requested. We thought it best to present this at the meeting to explain that they reduced
the number, they don’t need any parking variances, and they don’t need a permeability variance.
MR. MC CABE-So for the first one, why are we even discussing it?
MRS. MOORE-So there’s no action, but I’m bringing it to your attention so it’s on the record.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-Okay, so the permeability’s back up to 30.9?
MRS. MOORE-30.4.
MR. HENKEL-30.4.
MRS. MOORE-That was a typo. Nine and four look the same to me sometimes. So it’s 30.4.
MR. MC CABE-So we move, then, straight to 337?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’m going to now listen to application for AV 32-2021.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 337 CLEVERDALE LLC AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) 337 CLEVERDALE LLC ZONING WR
LOCATION 337 CLEVERDALE ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL TO
USE A PORTION OF THE 0.15 ACRE PARCEL FOR 24 OUTDOOR SEATS ASSOCIATED WITH
THE RESTAURANT. THE LOCATION IS AN EXISTING HARD SURFACE OF ABOUT 407.2 SQ.
FT. PAVER AREA PREVIOUSLY USED FOR WAITING CUSTOMERS. THE PLANS SHOW 24
OUTDOOR SEATS, 55 INDOOR SEATS (NOT TO EXCEED 71 SEATS), 10 MAXIMUM PERSONS
FOR WAITING AREA INDOORS; NOT TO EXCEED 105 SEATS TOTAL. VARIANCES ARE
REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED USE AND SOME PREVIOUS PROJECT ACTIVITIES THAT
HAD NOT RECEIVED APPROVALS. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND
DECK THAT REQUIRE REVIEW. SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT ARE REQUIRED TO
ADD A RESTAURANT USE TO THE EXISTING PARCEL WITH A HOME ON IT. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AND DENSITY. CROSS REF SP 33-2021; SUP
2-2021 WARREN CO. PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE
.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-44 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179-10
JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MC CABE-Again, because we’ve already heard it before, I’m just going to ask Roy to read any changes
to the application.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2021, 337 Cleverdale Road LLC, Meeting Date: July 21, 2021
“Project Location: 337 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant
requests approval to use a portion of the 0.15 acre parcel for 24 outdoor seats associated with the
restaurant. The location is an existing hard surface of about 407.2 sq. ft. paver area previously used for
waiting customers. The plans show 24 outdoor seats, 55 indoor seats (not to exceed 71 seats), 10 maximum
persons for waiting area indoors; not to exceed 105 seats total. Variances are required for the proposed use
and some previous project activities that had not received approvals. The site has an existing detached
garage and deck that require review. Site plan and Special Use permit are required to add a restaurant use
to the existing parcel with a home on it. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability, and density.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, and restaurant use. The parcel is located in the
Waterfront Residential zone –WR.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-4-080 decks
Variance for property at 337 Cleverdale: Floor area –existing 1,397 and maximum allowed is 1,607 sq. ft.;
permeability- 51.3 % is existing where 75% is required; Deck front setback is 18.4 ft., rear setback is 28.4 ft.
where 30 ft. is required; Garage rear setback is 3.1 ft., rear setback is 17.1 ft. where 30 ft. is required;
restaurant use per special use permit 5 ac required and 0.15 acres is existing.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
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 considered limited
due to the location of the existing house and proximity to the restaurant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for floor area is 210 sq. ft. in excess; permeability is
23.7 %, Deck front setback is 11.6 ft., rear setback 1.6 ft.; Garage rear setback west 26.9 ft., south 12.9
ft.; Restaurant use 6.85 ac.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes on the residential site to allow for 24 seats and to request approval of existing
conditions of a deck and garage. The outdoor seating is associated with the existing restaurant on the
adjoining parcel. The outdoor seating was offered during COVID and the applicant would like the use to
be allowed permanently. The application is revised so seating is occurring on the 337 Cleverdale Parcel.
The revision includes privacy fencing 5 ft. facing Cleverdale Road and 4 ft. facing Mason Street.”
MR. LAPPER-Okay. So let me explain that.
MR. MC CABE-Again, introduce yourself for the record. We’ve actually moved to a new application.
MR. LAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper with Tom Center, and again, a number of the ownership family
group are here to answer questions as well. So we call this 337 the A frame parcel because that’s the
residence parcel next to the restaurant and the property line is very close because they’re all small lots and
the area between the two structures, the residence and the restaurant, is the Area Variance that Roy just
referred to. The area that was previously paved, so right in the center of the map that’s on the screen, that
paving area, and that’s the area that was used last summer during COVID for outdoor seating, and that is
the best place to put outdoor seating because it is farthest from the residence, farthest from the rod, and it
drops down. It’s lower. It’s about four feet down beneath Mason Road and four feet above Cleverdale
Road. So it’s the most protected, and in order to have outdoor dining including alcohol service, we have
to have a barrier so we have to put a fence in and we’re proposing a four foot fence on the topside and
plantings on the lower side. So the reason that we need the variance is because in the zone we have a
Special Use Permit for the restaurant parcel. In order to get a Special Use Permit to just not to use this as
a restaurant but just to use this as a paved area for outdoor seating, which is all we’re asking for, we need
a variance because a restaurant use is a permitted use in the Waterfront Residential zone, on a five acre
parcel and obviously I don’t think there are any five acre parcels in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Certainly there aren’t any in Cleverdale. So we’re asking for what sounds like a big variance because we
need relief from the five acre requirement, but that’s all conditioned upon, all we’re asking for is that we
want to have these 24 seats in the plan to use the paved area four seats one table would be on the restaurant
parcel and 20 seats, five 4 person tables would be on the A frame parcel which we think is best for the
neighborhood and best for the customers because it’s protected, it’s private. It’s in that lower area. What
I’ll say is the Planning Board, they recommended the variances, supported the idea of outdoor dining on a
small scale, and we could put the other 20 seats on the restaurant parcel which means we wouldn’t need
this variance from you, but that’s not the best answer because it’s better to put these where it’s protected
and fenced and lower. So we’re asking for this variance to put it in a place that’s actually better for the
neighbors than having it up next to the parking lot where it’s closer to the residents, and that’s what this
is about.
MR. MC CABE-So can we spell out just exactly what the setbacks, permeability and density?
MR. LAPPER-Yes. Tom can go through that.
MR. CENTER-Those are all existing setbacks for the residence and the permeability. There’s nothing
being added by this project. When we first put it on with Laura, she wanted to go ahead. We went back
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
and forth several times because we were doing it via e-mails back and forth because we didn’t have a chance
to actually sit down together and go through everything, but what you have is the setbacks on the sides
are all existing setbacks. There’s nothing new proposed at all. That’s the way the house has been since
these gentlemen purchased the property. The garage permeability and the patio, again, were done by a
previous owner. They inherited it when they purchased the property. So there’s nothing, this variance is
not asking to add anything other than tables on that existing patio that’s there.
MR. MC CABE-So you’re just asking to retain the setbacks, permeability and density as it exists today.
MR. CENTER-As it exists today, yes. That is correct.
MR. LAPPER-And then the right to have the five tables and four.
MR. MC CABE-Well that’s not us, though.
MR. LAPPER-No, but that is because you need to give us the variance from the five acre requirements of
the Special Use Permit.
MR. CENTER-The one thing that’s triggering the five acre is the four tables in use on the parcel. There’s
nothing else. There’s no other additional. It’s included in this because when we came to the Board Laura
wanted it all, Laura and Craig discussed it and wanted it all, all of the existing non-conforming to be spelled
out and addressed and approved via this process, but there’s nothing that these owners did or that this
project is requesting relief from. They’re asking to maintain what is there.
MR. HENKEL-Now is it four tables or six tables? I thought it was six tables of four seats.
MR. CENTER-It’s six tables total, but five of them are on the residential parcel and one is on the tavern
parcel.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Laura, can you put the other map up that shows the tables?
MR. MC DEVITT-That’s six, right?
MR. CENTER-That’s correct, but the property line goes right through here.
MR. HENKEL-Now has there been any discussion about how this use will be just seasonal?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-So then you’ll move the amount of people back inside.
MR. LAPPER-For the winter.
MR. HENKEL-Then what about, has there been any discussion about hours?
MR. LAPPER-We figured that you would want that and we’re here to discuss that. We propose 10 o’clock
as the latest.
MR. HENKEL-But then is there any kind of conditions like say if you got 10founded reports that there was
a disturbance outside or something and that this would eliminate your?
MR. LAPPER-That’s an enforcement issue.
MR. HENKEL-Right. I realize that, but is that something that could be put in a condition or is that
something that would happen automatically?
MRS. MOORE-So under a Special Use Permit they have, there’s criteria for temporary, permanent, and
something else.
MR. HENKEL-So you could give them a temporary, depending on how well?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. That answers my question. Thank you.
MR. MC DEVITT-I want to understand that a little bit better. Is this okay that we’re procedurally
chatting?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. We’re asking questions of the applicant.
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. So the question , Laura, you were just referencing that we use probationary, not
probationary but a temporary. Give me those categories again and what those mean?
MR. LAPPER-That would be the Planning Board.
MRS. MOORE-It would be the Planning Board.
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m sorry. Gotcha. Okay.
MR. HENKEL-But we can make a recommendation to the.
MR. MC DEVITT-To the Planning Board.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MRS. MOORE-You could probably make a recommendation, yes.
MR. MC DEVITT-We can or we probably can.
MRS. MOORE-Yes, you can.
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. Thanks.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-We have not discussed, in our notes here, some variances for, variance required for
previous project activities, and what are those.
MR. CENTER-That’s what I was just discussing with Mr. McCabe. That was his question.
MRS. HAMLIN-I understand.
MR. CENTER-All of those variances are existing prior to this ownership. We’re not increasing anything
by this project that’s before you.
MR. LAPPER-What that is, that’s the paved area, the paver is where the tables would go. It did receive
approval and a deck was expanded at some point and replaced larger than what was there.
MRS. HAMLIN-So these are approval by Planning Board in other words?
MR. LAPPER-No. These were that the prior owners did some things that they didn’t seek approval for.
Our guys bought the site the way it is.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Those are existing. Those that weren’t approved.
MR. LAPPER-That weren’t approved. We’re asking for approvals now because that’s what Laura and
Tom went through with the application.
MRS. HAMLIN-Not just setbacks. Are there things like?
MR. LAPPER-Permeability. Because a deck was expanded and the pavers were put down in the area
where we’d like to put the tables.
MRS. HAMLIN-Was something built like this garage without approval?
MR. CENTER-That’s correct.
MR. LAPPER-Was it built or is it a shed?
MR. CENTER-Well, it’s a shed that has a door that’s larger than three feet. So it’s called a garage in
Queensbury but realistically it’s a shed.
MRS. HAMLIN-You’re asking us to grant variances for all of that.
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. MC DEVITT-But to be clear, existing but not approved.
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. HAMLIN-As opposed to existing non-compliant.
MR. LAPPER-As opposed to us proposing to do something more non-conforming.
MR. UNDERWOOD-On the plot up there, what are the three “S’s” on there? Is that your holding?
MR. CENTER-That’s the holding tank.
MR. UNDERWOOD-That’s your holding tank on the other lot?
MR. CENTER-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Who permitted that?
MR. CENTER-Those holding tanks, there was a previous septic system there that failed that we installed
holding tanks I think when I first.
MR. UNDERWOOD-So you went from one lot and put them on the other lot?
MR. CENTER-No. Those are not holding tanks for the tavern. Those are holding tanks for the residence.
All of our holding tanks for the tavern parcel are up in the parking lot on Mason.
MR. LAPPER-The other three circles that don’t have S’s on them.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. CENTER-So that’s on the tavern.
MR. MC DEVITT-That’s on the parking in the front.
MR. CENTER-Yes. Right here is where the holding tanks for the tavern are.
MR. KUHL-On the drawing I have in front of me it talks about proposed four to six seat picnic tables.
MR. LAPPER-That’s gone.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. KUHL-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. MC DEVITT-And there’s tables out there currently, high top round tables that are out there.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, because they were allowed.
MR. MC DEVITT-No, I know they were. I’m just making the point that they are just sitting out there
right now.
MR. LAPPER-Correct.
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time I’m going to re-open the public hearing. I
think I closed it the last time, or did I leave it open?
MRS. MOORE-You need to re-open it.
MR. MC CABE-So I’m re-opening the public hearing and I’m going to seek input from the public, and I’m
going to ask that that input reflect the changes that were made here that we not repeat ourselves or various
people come in and say the same thing. So with that.
MRS. MOORE-There’s typically a time limit as well.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. MC CABE-Yes. There’s a three minute time limit. I’ll give you some latitude, you know, but the
three minute can’t turn into ten.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
BILL KIMMONS
MR. KIMMONS-My name is Bill Kimmons. I live at 87 Mason Road with my family. We have been
vacationing here for 10 years and I’m going to retire this year so we’re full time. We spent some time
putting together a letter. I think it would be just easier. I’m going to read it quickly and it does not, the
last time we were here, the big thing was solely parking and adding numbers and what not. I think this
speaks to it, and attached to it we submitted many signatures from the neighbors, people that live in Dark
Bay, people that live in Pilot Knob, people that live in Assembly Point, but the people who both gain
positive things and negative things from the Sans, okay, so both sides.
MR. MC CABE-So is this a letter we have, Roy has?
MR. KIMMONS-Yes, it is.
MR. MC CABE-So anybody else, if you sent a letter and you want to present it yourself, that’s fine, but we
won’t have Roy read the letter afterwards.
MR. KIMMONS-This speaks, many of us here have signed this. This is a letter to the Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals and the Planning Board.
MR. MC CABE-So we’re just the Zoning Board of Appeals. We’re different from the Planning Board
MR. KIMMONS-I understand, but we handed it in as both basically. All right, and this concerns both
properties we’ve already discussed. “The undersigned acknowledge and accept the right of the Sans Souci
restaurant/bar to operate, as it has, as a non-conforming enterprise for the last 100 years. However, we do
not wish to see the enterprise expand to outdoor seating, changing the character of our neighborhood.
This would negatively impact its neighbors. Catering to patrons dining and drinking outside will add
additional noise, traffic, light pollution, smell and litter. This application is not, as stated by the applicant,
in harmony with the Queensbury Comprehensive Plan. The applicant is requesting through a Special Use
permit to ignore the WR (waterfront residential) zoning allowing them to utilize, forever, the residential
property for commercial use. This is where the applicant proposes that 5 of the 6 outdoor tables, each
seating 4 individuals, is being proposed. In order to obtain a Special Use Permit the applicant must
demonstrate an unnecessary hardship. Additionally the hardship cannot be self-created. The applicant
acknowledged that the hardship was self-created. Additionally the Special Use Permit cannot alter the
essential character of the neighborhood. Just as we, the homeowners knew we were living near a
commercial indoor restaurant, the current owners knew they were acquiring two distinct properties.
They knew the limitations of both the commercial restaurant and the private residential home which they
bought at the same time. The primary issue regarding the Sans is still parking. Vehicles for both
dining/drinking and pickup are a continual nuisance to neighbors and pedestrians. Often their customers
illegally park on the side of the road or even in our driveways. The restaurant does not have the required
parking spaces (32), but operates with reduced parking (17) under a previous agreement. It is common to
double park (stack) the cars. Additionally, there is no allocation for Handicapped parking and
accompanying access aisle. We the residents of Cleverdale, are the individuals impacted by the Sans Souci
and it is our voices that should carry the most weight, not a patron with no vested interest in our
neighborhood. We the undersigned are adamantly opposed to the expansion of the Sans Souci to outside
seating and any changes in use to the residential property. We believe granting Special Use Permit would
only be a stepping stone to further commercial expansion. Their most recent attempt to reallocate the
total existing occupancy limit by splitting it, at their convenience, rain, shine, between inside and outside
is unenforceable and hence unacceptable. This was acknowledged by the Board at the Zoning Board on
May 19, 2021, and I can quote various things talking about in that, yes, but if we grant the variance we
you’ll have no way that it could be enforced. We’re going to have to have Code Enforcement out there
every weekend, and there’s other stuff. So essentially it does come down to this fluidity of occupancy. It’s
just a way to get around the essential problem. The essential problem is parking, and so if it looks like a
duck and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck. It’s still the problem of the parking. It’s a nightmare and the idea
that it’s been said it’s great, it’s wonderful. We live, we work around it. Everything’s great. No. It’s not.
It stinks. It stinks my neighbor had somebody pull in waiting for pizza. The canoe on their little tiny
Honda was sticking way out into the car. The evil bugs bunny part of me wanted to see it hit and spun
around like a top just to prove a point. I mean it’s just, it’s really difficult and the people who have signed
our letter, like I said before, these are the people of Cleverdale. It was mentioned in the last meeting, wow,
we’re good guys. We build wreaths. I never heard, nobody ever heard of building wreaths at the Sans
that I ever talked to. I met many neighbors. This galvanized us tremendously, and you look at the
numbers. Their addresses are on here, and we handed another seven or eight names tonight for people
who go far and wide to get them because of illness or business or whatever. We are the neighbors. We
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
are the ones who are having to deal with this, and we are very concerned what the stepping stone of
commercialism to the residents, how that will end up. Right now it’s five little tables. You say not a big
deal, but it’s still making that commercial forever, and that goes, when they sell the property. What’s the
next owner going to do? And there’s still things from 2008 they were supposed to build a corral for the
garbage. Well that was promised in 2008. In 2012 when they asked for more things, they said, well, we’ll
still do the corral. This corral, it’s almost 2022, still no corral. Okay. There are other nitpicky things that
I could bring up, but we’re trying to live nicely together with an indoor restaurant, no problem with that,
and all these signatures on here would constitute a lot of nice business, but currently that’s sort of an issue,
and we have really tried to do the right thing here, but this is an encroachment on our lifestyle, and it’s our
kids and our fire and emergency equipment that has to get by and that’s essentially it. That’s our argument,
and one last thing. I see here where it’s been said previously used as a waiting area. Previously used only
during COVID. That’s the only other time that this was legally used, this seating area. Yes, during COVID
it was used, but we are all good Americans and we all put up with tremendous things, and put out for the
country and our neighbors, but it was never allowed as a seating area. So basically that’s all. That’s what
I’ve got. Thank you very much for listening.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project?
CAITLIN MILLER
MS. MILLER-My name is Caitlin Miller, and I’m a member of the Miller family residing at 93 Mason Road.
So on the map we are directly across the parking lot on the lot that it abuts on the north end is our back
lot as well. Since the last meeting none of the issues mentioned have been addressed. The parking
situation as you’ve heard is frankly worse than ever. I did send along photos of the worst nights in an e-
mail to the Board and requested to show a video but it wasn’t allowed. I do have it with me tonight if you
would like to see it. In addition to the ongoing parking issues, the Sans architectural drawing included in
their application shows a new grassy area and dumpster pad at the north end of their parking lot.
Currently customers park in that area all the way up to our fence which is on the property line. So adding
the grassy area and the platform to get in compliance would actually remove parking spaces that they are
currently using for their 17 spaces that are allowed. Despite the way it’s depicted in the drawing, it’s not
actually accurate to the way that the spaces are placed on the property or used. The restaurant continues
to use the outdoor waiting area for customers on the residential lot which has not yet been approved,
regardless of COVID special allowances, which I do not believe allow you to use restaurant use on a
residential property, even though they are allowed to use seating in parking lots and things like that to
allow for COVID restrictions. This has been massively glazed over by the owners. All of those tables have
been used on a residential lot without permission. The fact that they’re seeking that today is just to kind
of get their ducks in order. Since the last meeting the dumpsters have been found open on many occasions.
Beer cans and garbage have been found in the parking lots and planters. I have to get those photos to the
Board. On one occasion when my family was out walking our dogs we witnessed a drunk customer who
was allowed to leave the property holding his drink and proceeded to wander throughout the
neighborhood with his beer. This is happening while the Sans should be assumed to be on their best
behavior while waiting for new Special Use and variances. What will happen if you grant these requests
and they aren’t on their best behavior anymore? We can only assume it will get worse. In 2009 the
restaurant was issued a fairly large variance with requirements that needed to be met. None of the
requirements were ever addressed and now they’re asking for even more. Finally when we last sat in this
room we listened to comments from each and every member of this Board. Each and every one of you said
that you could not in good conscience approve these requests. Mr. Urrico made the point that we have to
be very careful about making changes to zones and variances for things that don’t exist, didn’t exist prior
to last year because last year was the exception. Mr. Henkel stated, quote, he didn’t think it was fair for
the people that live right there to change what’s been going on for 100 years. Mr. McDevitt said, quote,
my issue here is that this has been an indoor place and we are now trying to change the game. I’m trying
to figure out a way to broker a deal, but I’m not coming up with one. As hard as I try, I have to fall on the
side of what is right for the contiguous property owners. Mr. McCabe or Mr. McDevitt made the very
strong point that there is no way to enforce this suggestion to take out indoor tables to make space for the
outdoor tables. Given our history with the Sans, making promises they do not keep, I have to agree this is
an empty compromise and cannot be considered as an acceptable compromise. I urge you to please
consider the request of the residents of Cleverdale over the requests of the restaurant which already
functions without outdoor seating. The Sans is trying to take advantage of the situation that was allowed
to them by a worldwide pandemic while ignoring the requirements of past variances and the opposition of
their neighbors. It isn’t right and shouldn’t be allowed. Additionally, please do not extend this application
again and force us to come back months and months to fight this. The Sans has proved they won’t even
halt outdoor dining while waiting for permission. So why trust their word about the future. It is my
opinion that by continuing to extend this application they can happily continue their outdoor dining
throughout the summer season under the radar. Do not reward bad behavior with a favor that will be
permanent. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have anybody else that would like to speak on this particular application?
LARRY DAVIS
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. DAVIS-Thank you. My name is Larry Davis. I am one of the owners of the Sans. I live at 3300 Route
9L on Dark Bay. Four years ago the Sans closed for a period of time. The restaurant business is a very
difficult business, especially in this day and age. A number of local businesspeople got together and said
it’s been here for 100 years. We don’t want to see it go away. There’s nothing like this nearby. The
nearest is George’s and the Ridge Terrace. It’s frankly a neighborhood bar and has been for a lot longer
than any of the neighbors have been there. We got together businesspeople. I’m probably the only one of
the group that has restaurant experience. I’ve owned a number of restaurants over the years. I used to
own McGeery’s down in Albany and Old Inn in Malta and a number of other places. What has happened
as of late to the restaurant industry, to the bar industry, is we were decimated by COVID, as was everybody
else and the government definitely helped us by letting us do some things that weren’t available before,
certainly outdoor seating in this case, just because people didn’t want to be together indoors. People now
are used to eating outdoors. Again I’ve got five restaurants and each one has an outdoor seating area. It’s
just the norm in the industry. I mean even close to competitive you almost need it. We are not a loud,
boisterous, musical, late night drunken bar. We’re a neighborhood bar. We’re very fortunate to be a
neighborhood bar in a very rich neighborhood, but there’s a long history here. I, personally, love the place.
The people we’ve got in here really didn’t get into this because of the money. We stay open every year for
the winter, for the whole winter. We know we’re going to lose money. We go into that venture knowing
we’re going to lose money over the winter but we do it because people love the area. I know there’s some
neighbors locally that say they have a problem with parking. I, personally, never have and I drive there all
the time. I’ve never had an issue with getting on the property. again, within the neighborhood, when we
opened back up, I can’t count the dozens and dozens of people who came up and shook my hand and
introduce themselves and said we are so happy that this place is still going to be here. What we’re asking
for here, when we bought the place we didn’t do the research perhaps that we should have. We didn’t
know the sins of the prior owners and I understand that that’s not your problem, but what we want to do
is run a good, fair, competitive operation on a go forward basis. What we’re asking you to do is allow us
to do that, and again, it’s a wonderful, wonderful place. It’s been there for a lot of years and everybody
loves it. So thank you for your time.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else that would like to address the Board on this particular project?
JAMES MILLER
MR. MILLER-Hello, folks. For the record, James Miller. Our family owns the property at 93 Mason Road,
across the street from the Sans Souci. I guess starting off it’s a bit concerning how these two projects are
being grouped together. Because they present two separate and distinct issues. The Sans Souci property
is asking for a modification to an existing Special Use Permit.
MR. MC CABE-So that’s not our issue. You understand that.
MR. MILLER-Please let me continue.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. MILLER-The other corner lot is asking for a change of use to a Special Use Permit to allow a
commercial venue in a Waterfront Residential use. Two separate things. And it raises the question what
would you be giving a variance to? Because the point is it has to be established what’s existing. In one
case it’s a Special Use Permit with certain parameters to it for the restaurant property, and then for the
residential use it’s a change of land use to something new.
MR. MC CABE-It’s important that you understand. Because what we’re going to pass judgment on here
today is whether the setback, permeability and density are out of line with whatever else has been done on
Cleverdale, and that’s all we’re passing judgment on. We’re not saying whether this is a good project or a
bad project. We’re not granting it a special use. That’s not our purview. So we’re here strictly to, as they
put it, verify setbacks, permeability and density that has been in that situation for quite a period of time.
MR. MILLER-Okay. Sir, let me cut to the chase. They’re asking for 24 seats of outdoor seating. Neither
lot has approvals to do outdoor seating currently.
MR. MC CABE-That’s right, and so that will be done by another Board.
MR. MILLER-Let me continue please. The Sans Souci property will require a modification to this existing
Special Use Permit. Now it’s been stated that this has all been generated because of COVID. The fact is
that the COVID seating was on the residential property which it shouldn’t have been done because it’s not
allowed on a residential property. Okay. So there’s no precedent for that. So the bottom line is that the
residential property on the corner has to be turned into a Special Use Permit except the restaurant use,
and five acres is required to do that, and if you look at it beyond that point, it doesn’t meet any of the
requirements for what they want to do. If they’re going to put seating on there, you have to look to your
parking ordinance to see how many seats should be generated on that lot. They don’t propose any. I don’t
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
see any reason how that could be changed to a usage of a commercial space on that WR zone. In regards
to the Sans Souci lot, the real issue that they want to go from indoor seating to outdoor seating. Outdoor
seating, although it’s fairly minimal what they’re asking for, it’s a different game. It’s a different use,
different noise factor. I think everybody that has signed the petition and has spoken tonight will say that
they’re good with the operation of the Sans now. It is what it is. Everybody’s trying to make it work, but
to intensify that use to be something more than that, and to change the land use of another lot just doesn’t
fly, by any metric, by your Zoning Ordinance, by your parameters for issuing a variance, anyway. I mean
it’s not a popularity contest. It’s just basically what is land use, you know, I mean, what is your Zoning
Ordinance and what was the intent of it. So that’s what I have to say. Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Do we have anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project?
JODY TABNER THAYER
MRS. TABNER THAYER-Good evening. I’m Jody Tabner Thayer with my sister Katherine. We own the
property at 89 Mason Road. We came before this Board eight years ago well represented by counsel and
our builder seeking a number of variances because the home that we took over from our parents, the septic
system didn’t work. It was a really poorly built home. I think we sought 10 or 11 variances. We had
letters of support from the Kimmons and from Jonathan Berger, the deceased father of Debbie Miller who
all said that we were doing a great job with the property. We talked to you about the various setbacks
we needed. You reviewed the application carefully. You asked us to modify it slightly. We did and we
built in conformance. We did not wait several years to come in and after the fact seek approval. I have
not heard a reason why the shed and the garage need after the fact approval. I have not heard any reason
why they need a garage on that residential property. This Board does not need to grant approval after the
fact. Second point I’d like to just refer again to the accountability and enforcement issue that we will have
with the Sans. If you look at the parking lot on the Mason Road side, there are these arbitrarily drawn
white lines, none of which designate a parking space nine feet wide and 18 feet deep. Cars park wherever
they want. There’s no pedestrian walkway. It’s a mess. Whatever anyone says, it’s a mess. The third
point I’d like to make is Mr. Lapper said that with respect to the, and I know you’re here to grant the
Special Use Permit, but there’s discussion about it. There’s talk about whether to make a
recommendation, and I want to refer to what Mr. Lapper said which is that it sounds like, and I’m quoting,
a big variance. Five acres, .15 acre doesn’t just sound like a big difference. It’s a huge difference. If you
look at the regulation it says that in a zone such as this, a five acre parcel may seek a variance for commercial
use. This is not a five acre parcel. It’s nowhere near a five acre parcel. Maybe there aren’t any five acre
parcels on Cleverdale. Right. It’s a residential area. So the fact that there isn’t some other five acre parcel
that could seek a Special Use Permit is of no matter. It’s a very small piece of property maxed out. We
are not opposed to, as I said last time, we are not opposed to the Sans operating. We think it’s wonderful
for the community to have it there. Having outdoor seating is very different. They came before you several
months ago, tabled their motion. Their website still says we are featuring outdoor dining. They have
pictures of people dining outside. So this Board needs to think about accountability and enforceability.
We don’t want to be calling you every day. We don’t want to be calling the police every day. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak with regards to this project?
MELANIE O’BRIEN
MS. O’BRIEN-Good evening. For the record, Melanie O’Brien, 97 Mason Road. I’m going to try not to
duplicate anything that’s been said already, but I concur with the most recent speaker. The applicant has
stated that they need a variance of five acres from the five acre parcel requirement on .15 of one acre and in
making a determination for an Area Variance questions are 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. Well yes . Numerous signatures, 27 representing more than 18 separate
residences on Mason Road and Cleverdale Road are not in agreement with this variance, variances. Two,
whether the variance sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method feasible for the applicant
to pursue other than an area variance.
MR. MC CABE-You don’t have to go through that. We read that into the record and we’ll have that again
if we have a motion. So we don’t need to go through each one of those.
MS. O’BRIEN-Okay. Well probably not. The use has historically been inside seating. Is it a substantial
variance? We believe it is. It’s a substantial change in the impact of the establishment on the immediate
neighbors that would be allowed by this outside seating. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created?
Yes. The applicant hopes to make permanent the temporary leniency given during a public health crisis.
It’s significant and intrusive expansion of a use that neighboring property owners object to. The quality
of life objections are well documented in the letter to the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals.. I think
that pretty much everything else has been said. I would only say that the outside seating may not seem
substantial to those of you who don’t live there, but patrons that are imbibing alcohol get more and more
boisterous the later it gets. There’s more noise. The lights have been observed by all of us and it’s
disruptive and some of the patrons are rude and thoughtless. Thank you.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project?
DEB MILLER
MRS. MILLER-Hi. I’m Deb Miller. I live at 93 Mason Road. Last meeting it was asked by I believe Mrs.
Hamlin what time the Sans usually closes every night, and you asked if you were still closing at 10 o’clock.
At the very end of your meeting, and it was agreed by Mr. Lapper that they were, and confirmed by Mr.
Weiner that they close at 10 o’clock every night. What is the legal time that they must close?
MR. MC CABE-I don’t know.
MRS. MILLER-This gentleman behind me is saying 4 a.m. I believe it’s supposed to be 10 p.m.
MR. MC CABE-For a bar?
MRS. MILLER-This is not a bar. Excuse me. It’s the Sans Souci restaurant in record, and they’ve been
calling it recently a tavern. It went from a bar to a restaurant. Now they want it to turn back into a bar.
MR. MC DEVITT-There’s a big bar in there and they serve, they have a liquor license, right?
MRS. MILLER-I realize that, but it is not labeled a bar. It’s labeled a restaurant.
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay.
MRS. MILLER-Okay, and you asked if they were closing at 10 and they said yes. I want you to know that
rd
at 1:30 in the morning my neighbors were still there having cocktails on July 3. That’s not okay. We
need to have some sort of understanding of what is the allowability of this restaurant. The other thing I
would like to bring up is that it has been more than eight years that that patio has been out there. It was
built by Mr. Clute. It was built illegally with no variances, no permits, no setbacks, just done in the middle
of the winter when no one is looking. At the same time, I own the edge of the lot up in the edge of the
north corner, at the same time they bulldozed the fence that my father had around the property and
encroached upon it by 17 feet. They again spent the next four years parking on my father’s property. My
father was elderly. He did not want to deal with it. He allowed it to happen, and finally we put a lien on
the property when it went for sale, with a lawyer, and all of a sudden two years later we discover that it
has been sold. Now we had a lien on the property. We thought that these matters would have to be settled
prior to that. I have spent an enormous amount of money getting my property back. When that was
happening and these gentlemen told me that they were not like Mr. Clute and that they were not going to
be aggressive and that we could settle this peacefully, I put up with that for two years back and forth with
lawyers. I paid a lot of money. Finally a judge told me to go and have it surveyed and put my fence back
up. Four days prior to that this group of people came out to the yard and cut down lilac bushes that were
planted by my father and his mother in the 70’s, okay, and they said oh we didn’t know it was your
property. Please note that the stakes were still in the ground, my property stakes, and that’s what they
did. Okay. I have since put a fence up that has been hit three times in one year. Three times. That is a
lot of money that I’ve spent trying to keep them off my property. I pick up garbage on a daily basis and
that is next to the garbage containers which he shows the green space which does not exist, and this week
they put three potted cedar trees about this big in to say that they were compliant. I called the Zoning
Board this week, compliance, and I spoke to your second in command. I’m sorry I can’t remember his
name. It was not Craig Brown. It was some Frank.
MRS. MOORE-Bruce Frank.
MRS. MILLER-Bruce Frank, thank you, and I spoke to spoke him, and I asked him why the Sans Souci,
when they did not get approval at our last meeting, because it was tabled at the last second by Mr. Lapper,
after you had all said no, okay, I asked why are they still allowed to eat outside when they did not get
permission, and the answer that I got was they’re trying to comply, and I want to know comply to what?
They’re not in compliance in any way. That is not property that belongs to the Sans Souci. What are they
trying to comply to? And I got the answer of go to the meeting. Okay. So basically what you’re saying is
that Mr. Clute can come along and he can do whatever he wants to.
MR. MC CABE-We’re not saying that at all. I’m going to cut you off at this particular time. We’ve given
you plenty of time and all you’re doing is complaining. You’re not really addressing the issues we have in
front of us, which is density, permeability and setback.
MRS. MILLER-All of those things that were put in the ground don’t meet any of that because they were
put up illegally and they’re trying to make it legal when it was done illegally.
MR. MC CABE-All these are issues for the Planning Board. They are not issues for us. Okay. I’ve been
very patient here. We’ve given you plenty of time. I’m sure you’ve exceeded your three minutes.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MRS. MILLER-I think you’re exceeding my three minutes and I think that’s rude. I really, I’m the
homeowner who owns that. I’m the one most affected by the Sans Souci. I would also like to say that
when they put in the septic system which is in the parking lot, no variances were received and it encroaches
on my property. As a matter of fact my fence goes right over one of them, because when they bulldozed
our fence and took over our property, they decided to stick one of those in there because they didn’t have
enough property of their own to do it and that’s what a homeowner has to deal with. So when you think
about the three things that you want me to talk about, none of it was done legally to begin with. So you’re
talking about giving permission to something that was done illegally. I don’t see how it can be done. I
really don’t, and I’m hoping that you all understand that.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Do we have anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project?
BRAD THAYER
MR. THAYER-Hi. Brad Thayer. I’m a resident directly across the street, and I guess the first thing I’d
like to say to all of you is that I think my neighbors have done a really good job of communicating a whole
bunch of reasons why this is just a terrible idea. So I won’t go through all of those again. I thought my
wife, Jody Tabner Thayer, was particularly compelling, and I’d just repeat one thing that she said which
was a repeat of what Mr. Lapper said which is that it sounds like a big variance. Yes. Three percent of
the acreage you need to do food service on a parcel, or rather missing the 97% of the acreage that you need.
That is a big variance. I’m with you, and I said, I didn’t say, but I will be really quick. The only other thing
I’d like to say is there was a little bit of discussion about temporary, gee, maybe there’s a way temporary.
We’ve done temporary. COVID provided them with the opportunity to do temporary. You’ve heard the
results. They didn’t score very well. This is not a hard decision. Three percent of the acreage they need
for the density requirement to do food service on Cleverdale . I’m done. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Roy, do we have
any additional?
MR. URRICO-I’m counting three letters by people that were not presented tonight.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-“We are writing to share our concerns regarding the proposal for the changes regarding the
operation of the Sans Souci. We would like these concerns registered and heard at the hearing. While
we support their business, it is located in a very small residential neighborhood with several neighbors
living very close by. For that reason our main concern is that there by no noise after 10 p.m. If it continues
to operate as a restaurant and not an outside bar, then the outdoor seating seems reasonable as long as it
doesn’t continue late into the evening. Thank you, Helene Horn Karen Azer 336 Cleverdale Road
Cleverdale, NY 12820” “I received your notice regarding the Zoning Hearing on July 21 regarding 333
Cleverdale Road. I am unfortunately unable to attend, but wanted to share my thoughts with you. Sans
Souci has long been in business on Cleverdale and they work hard to be a good neighbor. They are a
successful and valued business. That said their location and the unique restrictions of their parcel do not
make expansion to exterior dining a viable option. There is marginally sufficient parking most nights
currently, no expansion space is available to support additional tables or expanded seating. Noise and
general impact to the neighbors is contained currently to the indoor areas. Allowing service and seating
outdoors will bring that noise directly into our community. While I value this business and plan to
continue patronizing their restaurant, I am strongly to outdoor seating or other expansion. Thank you,
Alison Manugian Maradel Irrevocable Trust” And I don’t have an address here. And then “This letter is
in response to the Public Hearing notice that I received for 333 Cleverdale & 337 Cleverdale. The next
hearing is to be held July 21, 2021 and I would like this letter to be added as a response to this hearing. My
family has owned property on Cleverdale since the late 1800’s. We have witnessed many changes over
the years. I know that the new owners of the Sans Souci want to make changes which they feel will be
beneficial to their business. I ask that you please remember that this restaurant is in the middle of a
neighborhood of homes. It is unlike other restaurants that sit inside a small town or village. You can’t
drive down the road and park in an extra parking lot or park on the street. The road barely allows two
cars to pass by each other. There aren’t other restaurants or bars nearby where the sounds over lay each
other on a summer night. I think the neighbors of the adjoining properties were kindly trying to plead
their case to the board at the last variance meeting that the variance is going to cause a negative effect on
the neighborhood. They didn’t ask the Sans Souci to close their doors. They just asked that the outside
seating not be passed as respect to the neighborhood. I agree 100% in support of my neighbors not to pass
either variance. It is very unfair to disregard the noise level, to ignore the parking, to turn a head to people
trespassing on the neighborhood properties. There is already a big problem with parking without this
variance. My property is by Mason Road and I watch cars circle the block over and over. There is
disregard for walkers and the speed of these vehicles trying to grab parking. There is an issue with golf
carts now on Cleverdale. I watch golf carts with no headlights at night and I watch them run over
neighborhood lawns. To say there is “no additional parking required” is overlooking a major problem. I
wish everyone a fair decision. Again, I am writing in support of the neighbors that stood before you and
asked that these two variances not be passed. These are their homes and they should have the ability to
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
enjoy them and not to have to police their properties. Thank you for taking the time to read this and
consider the issues that would arise if you passed the variances. Sincerely, Julia Dahlgren” And it looks
like 114 Gentry Lane. That’s it. I think everybody’s accounted for.
MR. MC CABE-So the applicant.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you. So the issue of whether they can have outdoor seating is a Special Use Permit
issue for the Planning Board to decide, and our point is that we can go to the Planning Board for a Special
Use Permit and ask for 24 seats on the restaurant parcel. It doesn’t require a variance. One would be
great on the area that’s on the paved area and the other five tables would be in the top where the parking
area is and the Planning Board has the discretion to grant that and we believe they will because they
recommended the variances. So what we’re saying again, and I’m repeating myself, but the best place to
put outdoor seating is on the paved area because it’s away from the residents and it’s on a lower level. Most
of the people that spoke that are on Mason Road are up on top. So I think if they were asked would you
rather have seats up on top or down in the middle of the site, they would say the middle of the site and
that’s all. We’re not asking for the A frame property to be turned into, the whole thing to be a restaurant.
We’re asking for like probably 20 square feet for outdoor seating, not for food preparation, nothing else.
No parking on that. We’re not asking for outdoor music. We understand that it has to stop at a
reasonable hour at night. So it’s just for a very small portion of that property, and that would be a
condition. We’re not trying to turn that property into a restaurant.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-I have a question, Mr. Lapper. That paved area did not exist prior to last year, or was it
there and not used?
MR. CENTER-That area has been there since, I believe on the GIS map it was around 2009, 2010.
MR. URRICO-All right, but that paved area, but it was not permitted.
MR. CENTER-It was not permitted. It was installed by the previous owner around 2010 I believe.
MR. URRICO-If that paved area didn’t exist, you wouldn’t be able to put tables out there.
MR. LAPPER-Then we’d have to ask for the same permeability variance.
MR. URRICO-But then the permeability issue would come up at that point.
MR. LAPPER-Exactly.
MR. URRICO-So you would have to face the permeability issue.
MR. LAPPER-We are. We’re asking for that tonight because the prior owner didn’t, and should have, but
these guys didn’t figure that out. It’s still the best place to put outdoor seating.
MR. MC CABE-All right. So I’ve already closed the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to speak. While I appreciated Mr.
Davis’ commercial about his five restaurants I also believe, Mr. Davis, you wouldn’t have bought it if you
didn’t think that you enjoyed restaurants and it had potential. I mean I find the Sans Souci is a jewel, and
at the last meeting that Mr. Lapper tabled, I became upset when one of the neighbors on the block only
went there once or twice. I live miles away and I go, but you know something, if it’s a turtle, lipstick on a
turtle still makes it a turtle. What you’re asking for you shouldn’t. It drastically changes the character
of the neighborhood. It is a detriment. I don’t live in your area, but I can hear people across a body of
water where I live at night, and I’m sorry. Outside seating for restaurants is in vogue today. People love
to sit out on Lake George and smell the carbon monoxide. People love to sit outside. I mean let’s face it.
That’s really, outside seating I the thing today, but you people have a jewel. That’s what it is. Don’t put
lipstick on it because it’s not going to work. Mr. Chairman, I am against it at this time. I am not in favor.
MR. MC CABE-John? So remember, all we’re talking about is density, permeability and setback.
MR. HENKEL-So we’re not talking about allowing the 24 seats.
MR. MC CABE-Right.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. HENKEL-I’m going to tell you, the last six weekends, for the hell of it, I drove around the
neighborhood. There’s approximately 60 homes in that area. I saw the majority of those homes, this was
on weekends, that had numerous cars in their, some parked on the road, some parked right next in the
driveways and there was more than 24 people out there partying. So I mean I know this is totally different
because those are residences, but to say that they’re against outdoor seating when most all of those homes
there’s people, more than 24 people outside drinking and eating. I also agree with Ron what he’s saying.
They’ve had a good thing going all these years with just indoor seating, but times have changed and I think
what we’re being asked for, you know, the permeability is not changing. They’re not changing any of the
setbacks. I would have to be in support of this as is.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Well I’m going to turn the clock back a little bit and say let’s pretend it’s 2009 and they’re
coming before us, and I’m fortunate to have been on the Zoning Board long enough to have been here in
2009, and if they have come to us for this type of, for a variance, cutting the existing permeability back to
where it is now, I would not be in favor of it, and I don’t think because we ignored it for all these years that
it should be accepted now. So I’m against the application and I would vote against it.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-First I want to clarify something that the lady brought up that I discussed, hours. I asked
that out of curiosity just to know what your hours were. I fully understand it is not this Board’s, we are
not allowed to impose hours. That’s the internal operations of a business. I just wanted to clarify that. I
only brought hours up out of curiosity to wonder what the impact might be on the neighborhood but it is
not within the purview of this Board to impose hours as a condition. It’s the internal operations of the
business and we’re only in charge of the land use. Also, you know, we do have the right to deny a variance
for something that was done, you know, an after the fact variance. We often don’t because we consider
the plight of the current owner and knowing that, we don’t want to punish you for that. I’m looking at
this clearly from our purview of density, and I agree, and I agreed before anybody said anything, that five
acres is five acres and you don’t come anywhere close to that, and that’s what this use requires. Somehow
you got it on the other lot where you currently have the restaurant and you might want to just live with
that because I don’t think I could vote in favor of bringing another lot into, granting that kind of density
on another lot. So I would be voting against it, at a minimum the density aspect of this.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I agree with Roy relative to what he mentioned in 2009. My wife and I had a pizza last
Saturday at the Sans. We enjoy the place. I want the Sans to be successful. I want it to be successful as
an indoor restaurant and to Cathy’s point, the five acres required and the 0.15 that’s existing, it’s off by a
lot to me. So I’m not in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to be careful on this one. If you look at the past history of the Sans,
I think the Sans has been quite successful through the years and I think everybody’s learned to
accommodate what’s been going on with the interior usage of the project, but I think at the same time
when we look at the size of this proposal here, this is a .15 acre lot. It has previously existed with
permeability issues on it from 22.7% where 75% is required, and I think if you were going to expand the
use from a waiting area to seating area, that would be a substantial change and it would be a normalization
of deviance in engineering terms to apply the rules here. I think that at this time I would not approve the
project.
MR. MC CABE-So you don’t quite have enough votes here. I guess the way I look at it is you’ve already,
the Sans Souci has already violated substantially the five acre density. So I don’t know what the Board
would think about if the two properties were combined. Would that make a difference in anybody’s
thinking?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You can’t do it.
MR. MC DEVITT-Explain that a little more, Mike. I’m trying to understand that.
MR. MC CABE-Well, these are two separate properties, and so we’re saying that the density, so if we grant
relief for the A frame property, then conceivably they could put a restaurant on that property. There’s
already a restaurant on the other property. So if you combine the two, you know, we’d have to take into
consideration that there’s already a restaurant.
MR. URRICO-I think you’re just speculating on what could be done. I think we have to deal with the
two applications we have before us.
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. MC CABE-Well, we only have one application. The other one.
MR. URRICO-Okay, well then we should deal with what we’re dealing with then.
MR. MC CABE-Well, we’ve got to kind of give the applicant some kind of idea of what would be
acceptable.
MR. URRICO-I don’t think we have to do that.
MR. LAPPER-Here’s what I would like to do. I would like to table and go to the Planning Board and ask
for the outdoor seating on the restaurant parcel and then come back and discuss if we get that. Perhaps
what we’re suggesting now is that if they’re going to have outdoor seating it might be better to put it where
we’re proposing because it’s away from the neighbors. So I’d like to table. We’ll go to the Planning
Board.
MR. MC CABE-At this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. We’re going to table it until?
MRS. MOORE-A September meeting.
MR. LAPPER-Yes, September sounds good.
MR. HENKEL-September?
nd
MRS. MOORE-September 22
nd
MR. HENKEL-September 22. Okay.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2021 337 CLEVERDALE , LLC, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its approved, seconded by Michael McCabe:
ndth
Tabled to September 22 with any new information by August 16.
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2021, by the following vote:
MR. MC CABE-So I have a motion. Could I have a second, please. I’ll second it. Call the vote.
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico
MR. LAPPER-We’ll withdraw the application at this point, without prejudice to come back and re-submit
it. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 33-2021, Laphatt Holdings.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED – COORDINATED REVIEW
LAPHATT HOLDINGS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) LAPHATT
HOLDINGS ZONING NR LOCATION MANOR DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT TWO FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS. EACH BUILDING IS TO BE 3,200 SQ. FT. WITH
EACH UNIT TO HAVE A GARAGE, TWO BEDROOMS, AND A DRIVEWAY ONTO MANOR
DRIVE. THE SITE IS TO HAVE TWO ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND EACH BUILDING IS TO
BE CONNECTED TO WATER. SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MULTI-FAMILY
BUILDINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
DENSITY. CROSS REF SP 34-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.87
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30.3. SECTION 179-3-040
JON LAPPER, TOM CENTER & MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2021, Laphatt Holdings, Meeting Date: June 16, 2021 “Project
Location: Manor Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct two four-
unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms, and a
driveway onto Manor Drive. The site is to have two onsite septic systems and each building is to be
connected to water. Site plan for construction of new multi-family buildings in the Neighborhood
Residential zone. Relief requested for density.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for density in the Neighborhood Residential zone - NR
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional
The proposed project is to have 8 units where only 1 unit is allowed. The parcel size is 0.9 ac where a
dwelling unit requires 0.5 acres per unit if not connected to sewer and water.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to reduce
the number of dwellings proposed.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
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 will have minimal to no
adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The Planning Board as Lead agency may conduct the environmental review and provide recommendation
to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building
is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The
parcel is vacant and is currently wooded. The project includes two buildings to be located toward the
front of the property with parking areas also in the front. The rear of the properties is to be used for four
septic systems. Note the parcel is a corner lot so there are two fronts and the remaining property lines are
rear. The project includes 16 parking spaces where 1.5 spaces per unit is required as the project is compliant
with parking.”
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Tom Center, project engineer, and Matt Steves who’s the
surveyor and one of the owners, and as Roy said, we’ve been to the Planning Board twice and we had a
SEQR Neg Dec and they made a recommendation to approve this. So without repeating myself too much,
it sounds like this is a big variance, but this whole area, Manor Drive, was developed a while ago and
everything that’s there is the same size that we have here, but not as nicely done as what’s proposed. They
have the rogers in the back which are kind of unsightly and the paved parking area in the back. So the
permeability is nothing like what we’re proposing here. These are two modern buildings with parking
garages in the front of them. So they’re much better environmentally. Less green is being used, but beyond
that, these are adjacent to commercial uses, office uses right across the street. So it’s not appropriate for a
single family house to be in the back of an office building, but it is totally appropriate to have two more
four-plexes that are mirror images of what’s been there historically ad on that basis we got the Neg Dec
and the recommendation.
MR. CENTER-We responded to the engineering comments and the two that we have just relate to doing
some additional testing in the areas of the infiltration system if we get approval for the lot when we do
those, and we expect to find the same soils that we found, but otherwise it’s pretty close to engineering
signoff.
MR. MC CABE-So pretty straightforward.
MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. Why do our plans show a master bedroom and two bedrooms, so
there’s three bedrooms and you’re asking, am I right? Does that say master bedroom, one, two? So there’s
three bedrooms.
MR. STEVES-The plan is being re-drawn to accommodate a bathroom downstairs. The Staff was asking
if we were going to have a bathroom in the downstairs. It’s being re-drawn for that purpose. The building
footprint doesn’t change, but they’re accommodating a bathroom downstairs.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So it is not like we’re seeing here.
MR. STEVES-Interior.
MRS. MOORE-The floor plan is.
MR. HENKEL-The one we’ve got here has got a master bedroom and two bedrooms. This is what we’ve
got. Right?
MRS. MOORE-Is there a concern?
MR. HENKEL-Well if it’s going to be a three bedroom it’s a concern to me, yes. That’s too many. So it’s
definitely going to be a two bedroom each unit?
MR. STEVES-Correct.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. STEVES-The plans we submitted were what we had when the architect finished drawing them up.
The plans were modified and we no longer use the same footprint and the garage.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant?
MR. UNDERWOOD-How do they compare in size to the previous dwellings, the older units?
MR. STEVES-The older units, these are about the same size as far as the existing. It’s just slightly deeper
to accommodate the new Code for ingress/egress and the bathroom and kitchen have changed significantly
over the years, but as far as square footage, they’re almost identical.
MR. CENTER-We have to consider the inclusion of the garage into the main building, as opposed to the
other ones do not have garage attached.
MR. STEVES-Energy code, two by six construction, two by four on the original buildings.
MR. HENKEL-I didn’t notice. Is there any no parking on that street there? Because what’s going to
happen when, because I’ve seen it.
MR. STEVES-Each driveway can accommodate the depth of driveway can accommodate.
MR. HENKEL-Because you know how most people don’t use, our family’s got apartments and I know that
they use their garages for putting stuff in, not their cars. So now you’re going to start have cars out on the.
MR. LAPPER-There’s room for two cars in each driveway.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. STEVES-Two cars in each driveway, and hopefully some will retain their garage for the use of their
cars.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MRS. HAMLIN-So you’re saying, if I might clarify, in addition to the garages, those 16 parking sites are in
addition to the garages?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STEVES-I think it’s 1.5 parking spaces.
MRS. HAMLIN-1.5, and if I could ask one more question. You may not even know any more. Is this like
a second ownership situation? I mean why would there be such a lag in building on this?
MR. STEVES-This was an original Henry Slate subdivision in the 1960’s or 70’s and Henry had, on the far
easterly end of this, had three, four-plex units on his property and he did a subdivision to create four-plex
lots all the way through. He passed away and then another developer picked it up. He left the area and
then his daughter Virginia Slate ended up with this property and she was in a hurry and she passed away
and we inherited it from her estate.
MRS. HAMLIN-And in the meantime the zoning changed.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. LAPPER-And the office building went in across the street.
MRS. HAMLIN-And the reason for that, Laura, do you know the Town Board’s? Was it because of water
and septic issues there or do you know anything about that?
MRS. MOORE-Why it wasn’t developed?
MRS. HAMLIN-No, why the zoning changed so drastically to one unit per.
MRS. MOORE-I don’t think this property has been re-zoned. I think it’s always been this zone.
MRS. HAMLIN-I assumed it changed.
MR. CENTER-The density.
MRS. HAMLIN-The density units.
MRS. MOORE-The units for density. It’s not something I’m aware of why they did that.
MR. STEVES-To answer your question as best I can, as far as the lot size and the requirements, what Henry
was doing and previous developers is there’s just about four tenths of an acre, each one of the four-plexes,
and I think there’s 17 of them in this area that were developed, even across the street on Far Lane, there’s a
couple over there. And then this one happens to be just under an acre, and actually they’re two of the
larger lots in the original Evergreen subdivision by Henry Slate.
MRS. HAMLIN-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. URRICO-Was that set up before the High School moved in there?
MR. STEVES-No.
MR. URRICO-The High School was already there? So there wasn’t an airport there?
MR. STEVES-The airport was actually there behind his property on what is now the Indian Ridge
subdivision and then the big senior housing building in the back. And portions of that are now owned by
the School district.
MR. LAPPER-Lots of people walk to school from the rentals.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions>? So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing. So I’ll
re-open the public hearing and I’ll see if there’s anybody in the audience who’d like to speak on this
particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy, do we have any written comment?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No, but I didn’t read the motion in earlier. So the Planning Board based on its limited
review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project
th
proposal. And that motion was passed unanimously on July 20, 2021.
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, Mr. Chairman. I’m in favor of the project as it is.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if you look at the picture up on the board, putting two more units on the
end of there, it would have been natural so I’m in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, it definitely follows the character of the neighborhood and it’s not anywhere anybody
would like to build a single family house, not with all the commercial activity there. So I’d be on board
with the application as is.
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, I’m in favor.
MR. URRICO-I’m in favor, too.
MR. MC CABE-I’ll get to you. Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I will, just simply because we’re finishing the project. It is substantial, nonetheless.
MR. MC CABE-Roy, you’re in favor?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I am.
MR. MC CABE-Okay, and I, too, support the project. It seems like it goes along with the rest of the
neighborhood and it doesn’t seem like it’s a big request. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Jim if
he’d make a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Laphatt
Holdings. Applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft.
with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms, and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The site is to have two
onsite septic systems and each building is to be connected to water. Site plan for construction of new
multi-family buildings in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Relief requested for density.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for density in the Neighborhood Residential zone - NR
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional
The proposed project is to have 8 units where only 1 unit is allowed. The parcel size is 0.9 ac where a
dwelling unit requires 0.5 acres per unit if not connected to sewer and water.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 16, 2021 and remained open Wednesday,
July 21, 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. It would be natural in-fill as two more structures similar to those that previously
existed in the neighborhood that were created on that same side of the street.
2. As far as feasible alternatives, we could ask for a reduction or put residential housing on here, but
it doesn’t really fit with what’s already previously been constructed.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. Even though the Code has changed in the interim
period, it is in keeping with what’s previously been existing there in that near neighborhood.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. We do not note any.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but it’s only created because they want to continue on with
similar construction to what’s previously been done on that side of the street..
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.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
33-2021 LAPHATT HOLDINGS, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Brent McDevitt:
st
Duly adopted this 21 Day of July 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 29-2021, Trevor Flynn/, Balzer & Tuck Architecture, 3222
Route 9L.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK
ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DANIEL GRASMEDER ZONING WR LOCATION 3222
ROUTE 9L (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 884 SQ. FT. LIVING
ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING, A 436
SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY ADDITION TO THE SOUTH OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING,
CONNECTING THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND REORIENTATION OF THE ROOF
ON THE GARAGE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED
GARAGE OF 1,315 SQ. FT. WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TWO LEVELS AND A HEIGHT OF 18
FEET 11 ½ INCHES. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN
50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND MAJOR
STORMWATER. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACK, HEIGHT OF DETACHED
GARAGE, HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATIONS TO THE MAIN HOME, NUMBER OF GARAGES,
AND SIZE OF GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 9-2021; AV 8-2021; AV 76-2002; AV 43-02; AV 27-2002
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 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.
TREVOR FLYNN & DANIEL GRASMEDER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2021, Trevor Flynn, Balzar & Tuck Architecture, Meeting Date:
June 16, 2021 “Project Location: 3222 Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant
proposes to construct an 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to the west of the existing primary
dwelling, a 436 sq. ft. breezeway addition to the south of the primary dwelling, connecting the existing
detached garage and reorientation of the roof on the garage. The project also includes construction of a
new detached garage of 1,315 sq. ft. which would include two levels and height of 18 ft. 11 ½ inches. Site
plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming
structure, and major stormwater. Relief requested for shoreline setback, height of detached garage, height
of the alterations to the main home, number of garages, and 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. Parcel is located in the Waterfront Residential
zone –WR.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure, 179-
2-010 garage, private parking
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 reduced to 18 ft. 11 ½ inches previously 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 1,220 sq. ft. floor area where maximum size allowed on lot would be 1,100 sq. ft. (Noting
the garage lower level is 644 sq. ft., the upper level is 576 sq. ft.; the workshop is 644 sq. ft. and is not considered in the garage
floor area due to the features associated with the workshop—wood floor workbench but is accounted for /added in the total
floor area of buildings on the site).
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to
orientation of the existing building on the parcel, parcel shape and parcel topography within 75 ft. of
the shoreline 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 minor
for the residential requests and substantial for the second garage request as relevant to the code. The
relief for the single-story addition to the main home is 18.4 ft. The relief for the two roof dormer
additions is 5 feet 6 inches in excess. The new garage relief is 2 feet 11 1/2 inches in excess. Relief is
also requested to have more than one garage and size of the garage.
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,
connecting the existing detached garage with a new roof orientation, then constructing a detached garage.
The project includes new stormwater controls, site work to reduce runoff, and 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 is presented as a workshop for antique vehicles. The
Board had tabled the application for additional information on the second garage that has been revised to
reduce the height.”
MR. MC CABE-So we’ve had quite a bit of discussion on this particular project. So if I could kind of
summarize here. What we have is a structure that’s nonconforming. It’s too close to the water and it’s
too tall, and so you’re going to do some alterations to this. Plus there’s an existing garage and you’d like
to have a second garage. Is that a pretty accurate description of what’s going on here?
MR. FLYNN-Yes, I think that sums it up. In general we’re back in front of the Board based on an APA
variance reversal letter and I think it’s important to note that they didn’t have any opinion on the detached
garage. Their comments were based on the additions to the nonconforming residence, the dwelling
towards the lake. So I think our goal overall tonight is to focus more on the garage as we believe from our
last meeting in May there was more discussion around the garage, the garage use, the height and overall
size of the garage. So with your permission we’d like to mainly focus on the garage tonight.
MR. MC CABE-And that’s fine.
MR. FLYNN-And then re-visit the residence as needed. If we need to discuss it, we’re prepared to discuss
it, but we want to be concise and save your time tonight. As mentioned, we were here, got our variances
th
and then during February of this year on the 24 those were overturned by the APA and then we’re back
here in front of you. Laura, could you go to the next slide, please. I think the point overall is that during
that February we came in front of you guys, there was mention of the height of the garage. We were at 26
feet. The garage was 1345 feet and we had four bays initially. Right away within that next week we came
back to you guys, lowered the height and also decreased the amount of bays, reduced the overall footprint
of the garage and we were granted our variances. Understanding that it’s null and void here. This is a
separate application from back then, but I just wanted to bring you up to speed on the history of where
we’ve been to date. Since then we’ve been reversed by the APA and we came back in May with a garage
height of 21 feet 4 inches and an area of 1248 square feet. We’ve worked with the client a great deal to
really understand the overall structure, the lifts, how the garage is used to reduce the square footage yet
again in an effort to also bring down the height and the slope of the roof, yet still for the car lifts to work.
So we’re here tonight asking for 18 feet 11 and a half inches for our height and the overall garage area at 1220
square feet. Laura, if you could just jump to Page Four. And to reacquaint you with the project overall, it
is an existing 1920’s house, and it also contains a detached garage that was built in 2003 and the project
overall involves taking that existing detached garage and attaching it. We wanted to note, it’s important
to note that those three bays at the attached garage now at the residence is currently for every day parking
for our clients and their daughter. So there’s three bays, three cars that they’re parking there every day,
summer and most importantly winter months to use those spaces. We also wanted to note from a previous
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
meeting we were originally not targeting storage in the attic trusses for that roof, but after several meetings
and studies of the interiors we’ve noticed that there’s very limited storage in the house. We were targeting
under the new addition for that storage but there’s a lot of ledge and bedrock and that’s going to be extra
costs added, extremely added costs to the client. So the most economical location was attic trusses above
that existing garage which is important to note because it does also limit a lift that could go in that attached
garage. The function and putting a lift in that garage does not work for everyday use and our clients
walked us through how he uses the garage and you’ll start to see in some of the images these cars as they’re
taken apart over the course of the years, how much space that takes up and could be a safety issue if it’s
attached to the garage. We also noticed that the new detached garage is also being proposed as the
existing does not provide enough space for the owner and he spends a great deal of time working on these
cars and it’s an ideal hobby that he really enjoys. I think it’s hard to see, but on this diagram these two
areas in red. So this is the existing site plan and the proposed. We wanted to bring this up because this
was a key argument for the APA and the development overall. They wanted to understand how much
impervious area was impacting within the 75 foot setback. So you’ll see the existing driveway and existing
residence and then the proposed addition and the existing portion of the residence. The existing square
footage within that 75 foot setback was 2,617 square feet. The proposed now is 1557 square feet. So there
was a 40% reduction in the overall impervious area within that setback, and along with that we’ve also
introduced stormwater management that was not in place for the existing site plan. It’s even hard to tell
in, I think if we can pull up that image as well, these areas within the exiting driveway are actually all
bedrock and ledge rock that’s exposed, here, here and in some areas down there. Now that doesn’t count
towards impervious area, but I think it’s also important to note that we think the addition to the existing
garage is, the addition to the house is starting to aid in some of the stormwater devices in preventing water
from shedding all the way down the existing driveway and into the lake. So just another point on the
addition to the house. And also we have added substantial amounts of shoreline buffers which I know it’s
more of a Planning Board note, but we also would like to point that out to you. So this is the existing
shoreline buffer and wooded areas and we’re adding a shoreline buffer across the entire lawn area to
prevent any runoff. So on this, you know, there was also discussions on adding the detached garage or the
three, the bays needed for the hobby down by the existing house. We’ve looked at multiple iterations, but
just to walk you quickly through three proposed thoughts. The first is an addition to the south. Here
where we looked at adding three, it’s essentially the two car bays that are needed and a third bay that is
storage and additional workshop area as well. And you’ll see that in the floor plans, that’s the garage, but
as we looked to locate the garage and there bays and workshop area to the existing part of the garage,
bringing this up, because it wouldn’t require a height variance, but there’s not enough room on the site and
we were, again, encroaching into the side yard setback requiring an additional variance. So we would be
here for seven instead of six variances. The second is a detached garage to the south, again, across from the
existing garage, and you also see in the image, if Laura is able to pull that up, and this is all ledge rock, and
they’ve actually blasted in the past for the existing septic field. So that existing septic field would have to
be re-located, and ironically it’s the most up to date. So this is a great view of what exists on site. This
is the paved area and this is the ledge rock which ultimately goes vertical and then the septic field is just
beyond so that septic field would have to be re-located. This is also important to note on the sides of the
garage, both here, on the sides of the driveway here and here, that’s the existing ledge rock that we were
discussing earlier. They look like they’re impervious areas on the site, but they’re really all ledge rock.
This side it’s just the driveway. Could we go back to the site plan, please. Thank you. So again the
second option of placing the garage here doesn’t really work with some of the existing utilities on site and
the ledge rock as well. The third was looking to add to the existing garage, but what that starts to do is it
starts to block all the stormwater measures that we’ve been putting in place to date and starts to encumber
and really close off the entry, this is the entry door within the front of the residence. So it would close off
the addition and wouldn’t allow nature light as well into that space. We wanted to point out that as you
approach the proposed detached garage location, from a view shed perspective it’s not seen from the road
at all from any angle. It’s a very heavily wooded area and I think you’ll also see on our diagrams and
perspectives that it’s set and tucked into the hill. So I just wanted to point it out it’s not visible really from
the road or neighboring sites. So the perspective, this is just a good point of view of how we’re tucking
the garage into the hillside and locating the two driveways, the lower level towards the storage of cars and
car parts at the upper level. It’s just the two bays and the workshop. So as we look at the plans, this is
that lower level storage area and stairs leading up to a workshop and two car bays with car lifts. You’ll
see that in a section as well, just to demonstrate the height required for those. We did want to point out
that we have, in a sense, tried to squeeze down this workshop area and bay areas to reduce the square
footage again since we were last here and previously we have also looked at a one story structure on the
site and what that starts to do is it’s roughly 72 feet by 32 feet deep and as a result there’s a larger footprint
compared to what we’re proposing tonight. So we’d be asking for more of a variance in regards to square
footage of the footprint and just overall general disturbance on the site. The bank barn essentially allows
us to provide those two access points and minimize the footprint. So in reference to height, you’ll note
there’s this red dashed coche that traces the top of the building. This was our previous height that we
were asking for and we’ve lowered it since then. This dashed line that follows the period, that’s the 16
feet. So it’s really just this small portion right at the peak which is our highest asking for that 18 feet 11
and a half foot. Again, we’re really trying to pay homage to the existing architecture of the existing house.
This is the gateway element as you’re traveling down the driveway. It kind of sets the tone for the overall
site, and we want to properly accentuate the architecture and relate that to the existing portions of the
house, and again we’re asking for 2.9 feet in relief.
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. KUHL-2.11. Didn’t you originally say that you needed height because of the lifts?
MR. FLYNN-Yes, so the next page, could we zoom in slightly? So Dan doesn’t like when I bring this point
up, but as Dan tends to age in place it’s tougher for him to work on these cars through the years. So a car
lift is extremely important to him rather than laying down underneath the car on his back. We wanted to
show, you know, previously in other designs we were looking at a more economical structural system,
looking at roof trusses, you know, a scissor truss, sand as we’ve brought down this height more and more
we switched to a more costly stick built structure and I think it’s important to note, just even perceived
from the exterior to interior, you know, this is a 16 inch ridge beam currently just to withstand and hold
that structure and then stick built rafters. The next important to note is the garage door itself. Breaking
on the minimal clearance of a garage door from the ceiling and following that slope that further encumbers
into the space itself. What we’re currently showing right now is Dan’s 1966 Thunderbird and it’s lifted at
a six foot six height. So a comfortable position to come in underneath the car and work on it. We don’t
anticipate it needing to be much taller, but really we couldn’t go too much lower without it not hitting the
door in that area. This is also limiting Dan’s ability to work on larger cars in the future, but I think he’s
sacrificed a lot to work with you guys and work within the zoning code. I think the heights we were
asking for before were as a result of looking to work on larger cars in the future, and like I say that comes
with sacrifice and ergonomic solutions for working on these cars. So I think I’ve hit a lot on the site aspects
overall but we have gotten a signoff letter from the Town Engineer and it has been approved. We are
treating a lot of the surface water runoff currently on the site which was currently untreated prior, and
there’s, you know, we’re also limiting that impervious area within the setback that you guys saw on that
previous slide, reducing it by 40% and including additional stormwater measures of the shoreline buffers,
additional planters and plantings and permeable pavers as well as grass swales. So I think that’s all I have,
you know, staying focused on the garage and limiting the time on that. I was going to hand it over to Dan
to walk you through how he uses the garage.
MR. GRASMEDER-Thanks, Trevor. I appreciate it, and so hopefully this will be a little bit more fun. It’s
good to get see all of you again. Thanks for your time. After last meeting I really felt like I needed to
communicate to the Zoning Board of Appeals the type of work that I enjoy doing in my workshop. It
seems like there’s confusion relative to what I do. I don’t do maintenance on cars. That’s just not true.
Like everyone else, if I can get the $25 coupon for Jiffy Lube that’s where I get my oil changed. I don’t want
to do that type of work on my own. It makes no sense for me to have to deal with oil changes and other
maintenance type activities when I can get it done for $24.99 or better if you bought the app while you’re
there. They can deal with the mess, even on the classic cars. I bring them to Jiffy Lube each year for
maintenance and I get that done when I get them inspected. The same thing for finished body work and
painting. I don’t do that. I don’t do my own paint work because you can tell. There’s a difference from a,
that type of activity is really best left to the professionals. So I’ll quickly go through at least a few of the
projects that I’ve worked on over the years. So if you guys are interested I’ve got other copies of the slides.
So, again, you’re inside my garage. Back in 2007 I appeared in front of this Board asking for a second garage
variance on our previous property, and I believe Mr. Underwood, at the time you were the Chair, and you
had asked me if my ’58 truck had a super hurricane six, and it does, and at that point I went forward with
building the other garage. Our former property size was much smaller than the current one. It’s
approximately a one acre lot, and my workshop is 24 by 24. So the picture that you’re seeing up here is a
24 by 24 interior views if you will. I spent better than 12 years working on my projects in that space until
we moved last year. This blue car down in the bottom center, it’s a little bit small there. That’s a 1965
Convertible that I bought back in 1995. I actually restored it twice. The original restoration took me
seven years. It started before we moved to Queensbury and thanks to a car fire I got to re-do it a second
time. So it actually burned from the radiator all the way to the back seat. With this car I really learned
that I like working on them as much as or more than actually driving them. These photos really illustrate
why I’m looking for some more room, but the 24 by 24 it’s tight and floor space really becomes a premium.
That’s why I use a rolling scaffold as a workbench and the proposed garage for the Lake George workshop,
the working bay is actually smaller. It’s 24 by 23, but I’ll now have that extra adjacent area to work on
items that have been removed from the cars. These photos really illustrate the extent to which I dissemble
in order to re-assemble. I’ll put it that way. You may wonder why do I disassemble a complete car, and
basically every nut and bolt needs reconditioning. The seat cushions, covers have disintegrated, body
gaskets are dry rotted. The floors need to be replaced, which was in that previous one, and my goal is to
get these cars back to the condition they were coming off the assembly line like new. That’s really what
car restoration is and is to me. When they’re parked there’s extended periods of time, I need the space to
be able to store the pieces, literally the pieces. If you want to jump to the next one, the Model A. Four
years ago I was looking for a new project and met a guy from the Adirondack A’s if you’re familiar with
them. They’re cool group of old guys that like Model A’s, and the club runs a youth program. That’s in
that lower corner there, the work in progress thing, but they restore a car from bumper to bumper with a
group of a dozen kids age 14 to 18. The goal is to try to get young people interested in a hobby because
unfortunately as these members of the Adirondack A’s, I’m probably one of the youngest guys on it, pass
away, they’re children aren’t interested in keeping their cars. The youth program is right up my alley.
That’s why I ended up joining it, and so I decided, hey, I want to join it, learn a new car and support the
club. So I found this car. I refer to it as John Boy. Down in Plymouth, Massachusetts. Unfortunately
our maiden voyage John Boy ended up stripping the gear. It’s actually the fiber gear on the cam shaft. So
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
I had to disassemble. That’s what that center picture is, disassembly the entire front end of the car. The
two photos in the bottom right I like, which I think are impactful for this group. They’re telling concern
in why Kathy and I are attracted to the house that we’re showing you and the work that we’re doing on
this house in Lake George and why we’re restoring it. The car and the house were built around the same
time. So it’s a 1931 Model A and for the Model A I added all knew brake lights, turn signals to bring it up
to current safety standards. The plan is to bring the home to modern standards and while maintaining the
character and the beauty of the original really for generations to come. One more, and I just want to give
you a feel for, again, it gets back to some of the questions why do I do this, why do I enjoy it. I want to
show you these slides because part of what I do in my workshop is really the reaction I get from people
when they see the cars, and these photos were taken at the height of COVID, so last May, and again with
that group the Adirondack A’s. During the lockdown in May 2020, the idea actually came from my mother
in the Philadelphia area. Gosh, Danny, wouldn’t it be great if people did a drive-in car show and brought
it to our community because they were locked up at the time. My mother’s in her mid-80’s, and so we got
the idea and we did it here. We did it with six area senior communities. Look in the top right corner, it’s
a little hard to see, but the people, you can’t see they’re smiling because they’ve got masks on, but waving,
and the one woman’s got a Thank You sign on. The one towards the lower left are people spread out
watching us drive through. There were people on balconies. It was really cool, people were waving and
they love the horn noise certainly coming through there. These cars make people happy. They make them
smile. When you constantly have people waving or stopping to tell you a story about someone they knew
that had the same car. It’s what I enjoy. It’s what I like. Back in my workshop again. This is the car that
I bought with my daughter and restored it just before she turned 16. So this is another one. That’s going
on at my garage at our other Queensbury house. The top left photo, proud day when she passed her driver’s
test and she did it on a manual transmission and there were a lot of tears between the start of that process
and that picture being taken on it, but again, proud day there passing the test. I’m showing you the other
pictures, the larger one there to give an idea of why I’m looking to put a lift in the new workshop It was
at Jiffy Lube that the oil pump got stripped. I had to replace, you’ve got to replace the whole oil pan on
these with a mini because it’s an aluminum pan. So you have to take apart the whole front end. So to give
you an idea how much I’m taking these cars apart, and if you take a look at it, it’s up on jack stands. I put
the wheels underneath it in order to, just an additional safety item on it. No question lift, safer, easier on
my neck and easier on my body. I use cardboard to slide in to try to get underneath it. This car brand it’s
a mini, right, because it’s small and even in a 24 by 24 garage it’s still tight in the front and the rear to work
on it and when I take them apart, or even this one coming apart, you’ve got to store the parts somewhere
and that becomes a big issue. So this took me three months because my daughter’s got a different car that
she’s driving. So it took me three months and I had limited time to work on it. So I’m doing it kind of
between times. So during that time, the good part about it is I can lock the garage door and it’s there and
I’m not worried about somebody getting hurt or messing around with anything that’s in there or anybody
coming in to the garage really disturbing the project or getting injured. There’s me in 1985, no, I’m sorry,
yes, 1985 in the top left. When I was in high school I bought my second car and it was my second car. My
first one was a Ford pin up station wagon. The second one I bought in 1982 for $450, 1965 Barracuda. I
restored that one through high school while I drove it. Two years ago I found, that’s the top left corner, is
me in 1985 after it was finished. So two years ago I found a ’65 Barracuda that had been stored in a garage
for 35 years. So the top left is me again in ’85. The bottom left picture is me 34 years later buying my
current project in Dallas, Texas. I got it down in Texas. This is something I’ve enjoyed my whole life. So
the center picture really shows, why am I looking for the higher ceiling in the new workshop. Not only
can I raise the car up to work on it and if you take a look, even when I’m putting the motor back into the
Barracuda, I have it up on jack stands, but you really need room to go, to maneuver above the cars as well.
So the right side is the Barracuda. It’s pretty cool. It’s back from the body shop, finished paint.. We got
that completed. So I’m kind of chomping at the bit to begin reassembly on the Barracuda. So if you want
to go to the last slide, please. So that’s actually a picture, the bottom left, of my old garage with Christine
out front. So, again, I hope this helps with your consideration to understand what I’m actually doing with
these cars. The workshop’s where I spend my free time, where I do my projects. Something I’ve enjoyed
my whole life. It’s not maintenance activity. It’s restoration back to like new. The proposed design is to
safely maneuver restoration equipment as well as space for the car to be apart for potentially years.
Christine took about seven years. It’s a secure workshop, separate from the normal daily activities of a
garage, not just for my safety, but also for the safety of my family, and again it’s a proposed design as a
workshop where I can lock the door when I have to leave and know that when I come back things will be
as they were without disturbing anybody or potentially putting anybody at risk. My old garage, never a
single complaint, negative environmental impact with my former workshop. I assure you there’ll be none
with this one, either. So thanks for your time. I’m happy to answer any questions about what I do.
MR. KUHL-Excuse me. You actually lock the doors?
MR. GRASMEDER-I lock the doors. Yes.
MR. KUHL-Where do you come from, Brooklyn? If, in fact, the approval of this was based on having to
make it 16 feet instead of 18’ 11”, could you do it?
MR. FLYNN-I would say no, just based on the cars.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. KUHL-No is good. Also you talked about the garage door, showing his Thunderbird and the garage
door sliding up. You could do doors on hinges, okay. The one thing I didn’t understand, you talked about
some kind of storage. Is that what you were talking in the existing garage, the store upstairs?
MR. FLYNN-Yes, that’s the existing garage, using attic trusses for Christmas decorations.
MR. KUHL-It’s very interesting. I sit here, and I realize you’re representing Dan, but you also know that
we have rules and regulations, and you don’t have a commercial property. You have a residential property
and you come here asking us for a lot of things, and I think you should, I have an older vehicle, all right.
So I’m not immune to working on older vehicles. I understand your passion and what you do. I even like
the project, okay, but bottom line of it is, you know, you also have to consider putting the shoe in the foot
or the foot in the shoe and I don’t know, you know, you have a passion. I understand. You might be asking
for a lot for that passion or you might have to reduce it. I don’t know. I’m just suggesting. Okay.
MR. FLYNN-Just if I could, one comment to that. I realize Zoning and Planning Boards, you guys are
always acting in the spirit and intent of the Code, as you guys look at it and interpret it. I realize we are
asking for a height variance and it’s in place for a reason, especially around the lake, to block view sheds
or disrupt views from neighbors in general. I think we have a very unique case of the amount of land they
have. It’s within a wooded area. We’re not asking for a lot when it comes to that height. We’ve gone
through great deals to limit that height yet still keep it aesthetically pleasing. We do drive around the
lake and notice a lot of these detached garages and they’re very squatty in nature. I think as a result for
that 16 foot height I think we’re working within that spirit and intent of the Zoning Code and trying to
work within those guidelines and also get Dan what he needs from a functional standpoint over time. You
can see how passionate Dan is about these cars and the amount of time and investment into finally getting
a garage that he’s always wanted I think is very important overall to the application and I’d just ask for
you to look at it in that nature, that it is a unique case compared to maybe other applications. It’s a larger
lot. We hope those are considerations the Board takes into account.
MR. GRASMEDER-Also we’re trying to maintain the look of the roof lines and other things of the main
house because that’s the first thing that comes in. Each time we move it down.
MR. FLYNN-It just becomes squatty. It doesn’t start to look good. It takes the floor space away, the
overall height.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions of the applicant?
MR. URRICO-Yes. Did you say your car’s name is Christine?
MR. GRASMEDER-Yes.
MR. URRICO-Do you know who the previous owner was?
MR. GRASMEDER-Yes. I do.
MR. URRICO-It wasn’t Steven King by any chance.
MR. GRASMEDER-That’s how it got the name.
MRS. HAMLIN-The first time, the very first time, it was a Zoom meeting. Passion, I think you almost had
tears in your eyes. It’s very unique and normally I’m just cut and dried. My main concern, others have
cared about the height so much. I think you’re pretty wooded there. You don’t have the biggest lot that
we’ve granted second garages to, and often those people may just have a one car garage attached to their
house or at the most two. You have three and now you’re asking for this other space. The bottom line, I
guess what’s holding me back is the is the fluids and such. You said none of that’s going to happen, repair,
but then you talked about removing the oil pan and stuff. So what kind of remediation can you put in this
garage along the scale of something commercial if necessary. I know it’s your passion, you love it, so you
can make it happen. I’m just concerned, this is the lake, and anything, you know, if it was a commercial
garage it would have oil traps and that type of thing. I just want to make sure those kind of, before I would
even consider putting this second garage, which really isn’t just putting cars in it, despite what you said, I
want assurance that there’s not going to be anything spilled, anything going to the water.
MR. FLYNN-I don’t want to speak for my clients, but I know part of the reason they’re moving to Lake
George and preservation of, when it comes to vehicles or houses or the lake, that’s their main thought.
They invest a lot into the local within the area.
MRS. HAMLIN-No offense, but prayers and wishes. Physically what can you guys do?
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. FLYNN-So there will be no drains internal within the garage. So there’s no oil, even oil water
separators that we’re trying to, any of the chemicals or the oils coming off the cars will stay within the
garage itself.
MRS. HAMLIN-And he’s not painting, but he’s power coating parts?
MR. FLYNN-There is a small oven. So as Dan’s mentioned, if it’s a small bolt or piece or a brake pad, for
instance, when you take a brake pad off and you’re painting that, that’s a small piece that might be spray
painted and then baked within the space. So the chemical, there’s no chemical storage. Any leakage I
think would, or anything coming out of an oil pan, if he’s changing that at the time, will be cleaned up with
cat litter at the time, if there was. We’re also extremely far away from the bodies of water as well. In
response to working with Chazen and putting all of those control devices.
MRS. HAMLIN-Well groundwater is everywhere. One other question with regards to the addition to the
house within the 75 foot, there was a percentage of which that new building was within the 75 foot. Have
you reduced that?
MR. FLYNN-Yes, we’ve looked at that and overall impervious areas.
MRS. HAMLIN-So it’s more than just impervious area. It’s actually physical built part of the house has
been taken.
MR. FLYNN-The physical part of the house is the same.
MRS. HAMLIN-Is the same.
MR. FLYNN-However the overall impervious area on the site is down 40% within that 75 foot setback.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Since the last time we saw it?
MR. FLYNN-Since the last time you saw it, and we’ve added more shoreline buffers and shoreline
restoration.
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I heard all that. I was just wondering what that 40% was. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I think the public hearing is still open
because I had to open it before. So I’m going to seek input from the public.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
KATHY GRASMEDER
MRS. GRASMEDER-Could I make just one comment? For the record I’m Kathy Grasmeder. I’m one of
the owners, and so just wanted to give a little bit of summary of some of the things of the meetings that
we’ve had before and hit some of the points that I’m thinking. That we do have three drivers and we have
a three car garage. It’s really important, especially during the winter months, to be able to get these cars
in the garage for snow removal. You saw how tight it is in that driveway area. In my opinion, the
workshop needs to be separate. It needs to be separate from the standpoint of, these cars are apart for
months and years and it’s a safety issue as well as, we need a place to be able to park our cars out of the
space where we’re clearing snow. Someone recently said to me there’s very little great architecture that is
left on Lake George and I want to re-iterate in the main house, the main room of the house is a pinch point.
There’s two stone porches on two of the sides. There’s a fireplace and a really grand staircase. It’s all four
sides have these limitations, a 1920’s kitchen for, we don’t remember what they entailed, but it was a sink,
it was a work table and it was a wood stove. So the size of the kitchen or how a kitchen is configured now
is very different than a 1920’s home. There were no refrigerators, no dishwashers, no microwaves at that
time. So this has been a challenging project to figure out how do we get a house that’s modernized and
that’s how our team of architects, the site engineer and everybody helping us worked together to come up
with these ideas of the addition, trying to minimize the impact on the environment, on the lake. I think
without question we want to preserve the lake and we want to preserve this old architecture. So I believe
the workshop is part of that, and because this is the first thing that you see as you’re coming down the
driveway and that I believe that the garage, this workshop has to be congruent with this incredible
architecture that we’re trying to restore. So my request is we really have put a lot of heads together. We
feel like we’ve come up with a great plan to be able to preserve the lake as well as the architecture and ask
that you consider giving us that approval. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to address the Board on this particular project?
Seeing no one, Roy, we had a couple of letters before that you already read in. Is there anything additional?
MR. URRICO-There’s nothing new.
28
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with me. So I support this project for
several reasons. I think that it’s worthy to protect the old architecture. I think that the fact that the house
is not 75 back from the lake isn’t really a big deal because of the topography. The further back the house
is, the higher it is, and therefore any runoff is going to have more energy. So certainly moving the main
structure back is of little value. The changes to the main house aren’t going to move anything closer to the
water. They’re right where the house is now. They aren’t going to change the height of the house. They’re
actually less than the house is now. With respect to the second garage, in Queensbury you’re allowed one
garage of 1100 square feet if you’re on .15 acres or if you’re on five acres. We’ve raised issue with this and
been told that’s why you can grant variances, and indeed we granted just such a variance to a house down
the road on Dark Bay for a similar sized property. So then the question is, does it have to be bigger than
the 1100 square feet and the 16 feet. I think the applicant here has reduced the size of the asking for the
garage several times. He’s tried to meet our requirements, and I am impressed with that, and I also agree
with the applicant that there’s value in having the architectural appeal of the garage similar to the house.
So therefore I support this project. John?
MR. HENKEL-I guess I can’t say anymore. You’ve said it all. I agree with you and I agree with the project.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-What I would say is, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I agree. You summed that up very
well. But just to reiterate a couple of your points that I think are important. A wooded area. We have a
unique case here. We have a larger lot. Maintaining the look of the roof lines I think is very important.
I support the protection of the old architecture. I applaud you for that. I think that we need more of that
on the lake . Additionally the topography works here. It works to the benefit and it makes it easier, I
think, at least for myself and I believe others here. So moving the structure back is really of little value in
this case. This is a unique case. That’s a unique property. It’s a unique case. So you reduced the size of
the second garage and that was an issue for me. You’ve gone to the drawing board. I give you credit.
You’ve done a lot of work on this. You’ve reduced the size several times. At the end of the day I’m
impressed with the depth of this, where this has landed. I’m impressed with this. So long story shore I’m
in favor of the project.
MR. FLYNN-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-My previous concerns I think you’ve alleviated those. I was under the impression
you were going to be taking in there and taking off old paint off the old cars with lead and stuff like that.
I think you have to be real sensitive around the waterfront residential area. So I’m going to relinquish my
previous position and go with the flow and approve what you have proposed for the garage. As far as the
house itself goes I think the dormers themselves aren’t going to be any higher than what previously existed.
So I’d be in favor of that, too.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I appreciate that you kept going back to the drawing board and I’m a little more rest
assured that you’ve explained the oil and other types of fluids as an environmental issue, and also the 40%
reduction in the impervious surfaces as well as those buffers that you’ve added should alleviate whatever
problems we had with that 75 foot setback. So I’m going to in vote in favor this time of granting those
variances.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think if you were looking to expand the existing garage it
wouldn’t do well at all. It would look like a big ugly structure. The work you’re doing to the house is
good. It really is, and actually the second garage I think is going to compliment your whole effort here and
the challenge we have is when we allow people variances people come down the block and say you gave it
to them, why can’t I get it. I believe that the two foot 11 inches you’re looking for is going to blend in with
the way you’re designing and developing the garage. So believe it or not I am in favor of this project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m going to go along with everybody else.
MR. MC CABE-So it sounds like we have a project here.
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. FLYNN-Could I add one thing. I believe it was Brent’s comment when you were discussing the
topography would make it difficult. You were referencing the main residence and not the garage at the
time.
MR. MC DEVITT-Correct. Thank you for clarifying that.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, I’m going to make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn,
Balzer & Tuck Architecture. (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct an 884 sq. ft. living
room/kitchen addition to the west of the existing primary dwelling, a 436 sq. ft. breezeway addition to the
south of the primary dwelling, connecting the existing detached garage and reorientation of the roof on
the garage. The project also includes construction of a new detached garage of 1,315 sq. ft. which would
include two levels and height of 18 ft. 11 ½ inches. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building
within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and major stormwater. Relief
requested for shoreline setback, height of detached garage, height of the alterations to the main home,
number of garages, and 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. Parcel is located in the Waterfront Residential
zone –WR.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure, 179-
2-010 garage, private parking
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 reduced to 18 ft. 11 ½ inches previously 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 1,220 sq. ft. floor area where maximum size allowed on lot would be 1,100 sq. ft. (Noting
the garage lower level is 644 sq. ft., the upper level is 576 sq. ft.; the workshop is 644 sq. ft. and is not considered in the garage
floor area due to the features associated with the workshop—wood floor workbench but is accounted for /added in the total
floor area of buildings on the site).
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 19, 2021, Wednesday, June 16, 2021 (opened
and remained open); Wednesday, June 23, 2021; July 21, 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 because we believe that the work that’s being done is going to improve the overall look
of the property and this is further evidenced by letters of support from nearby neighbors.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not deemed reasonable. At this
particular time we believe that all the alternatives would result in a worse situation than what we
have now.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. The main issue would be the second garage, but again,
the fact that Queensbury has a one size fits all garage criteria in its laws doesn’t allow for larger
properties such as this.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. In fact we believe that the environmental conditions are going to be improved
substantially by collecting and treating the runoff. Right now the runoff is basically unrestrained
and this particular project will bring the runoff under control and we believe that that’s going to
result in a substantial improvement in the environment.
5. The alleged difficulty is not entirely self-created. Part of the problem was created with the original
installation of the property being too close to the water and being higher than what is currently
allowed, and the second garage, again, is because of the one size fits all zoning with respect to
garages.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
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;
Make no mistake, the Board has considered every aspect of this variance request and we find 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.
29-2021 TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE, Introduced by Michael McCabe,
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 21st Day of July 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project.
MR. FLYNN-Thank you.
MR. GRASMEDER-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our next application is AV 42-2021, David & Pamela Way.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID & PAMELA WAY AGENT(S):
RUCINSKI & HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DAVID & PAMELA WAY ZONING WR
LOCATION 33 CANTERBURY DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 259 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 518 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES
SITE WORK FOR REMOVING A PORTION OF PATIO, INSTALLATION OF EAVE TRENCHES,
AND A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 40-2021; AV 32-2020; AST
351-202 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2021 LOT SIZE 0.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
289.17-1-23 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-010
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2021, David & Pamela Way, Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 “Project
Location: 33 Canterbury Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 259 sq. ft. single
story addition and a 57 sq. ft. porch to an existing 518 sq. ft. single story home. The project includes site
work for removing a portion of patio, upgrading the patio, installation of eave trenches, and utilize the
existing septic system. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the
shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability in the Waterfront Residential zone -WR
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The applicant proposes an addition entry area that is to be 9 ft. 9 ¾ inches and 9 ft. 9 inches to the side
property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The addition is to be 34 ft. 1 inch to the shoreline where a
50 ft. setback is required. The site permeable decrease to 72.36% where 75% is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
31
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location of the existing house and the lot configuration.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 10 ft. 3 inches closest portion of the entry to the
side setback and 15 ft. 11 inches to the shoreline. Permeability 2.64%.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct addition to an existing seasonal camp. The applicant intends to use
the camp on a seasonal basis. The plans show the location of the addition, floor plans and the elevation
views. The stove is to be a wood pellet stove – the home as indicated is for a seasonal use.”
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion was passed
th
unanimously on July 20, 2021.
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead.
MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records my name is Ethan Hall, a principal with Rucinski Hall
Architecture here tonight representing David and Pamela Way, 33 Canterbury Drive. As was said, it’s
relatively small camp, 519 square feet. One story. Everything on the existing camp is ahead of the50 foot
required setback. It’s also nine foot nine from the northern property line and 9 foot 1 from the southern
property line. We’re proposing a one story, one bedroom addition on the back side of the camp away from
the lake. Roof line, the peak will match the peak of the existing roofline. We did the design for the septic
system back in 2015 with this addition in mind. So the new septic system permitted through the Town
took this additional bedroom into consideration when we did it at the time knowing that we were going
ahead with this. It is a seasonal camp. They’ve used it as a seasonal. They would like to use it as a year
round. It’s not their main house. It is their camp. They’re using it as such. That’s really about it . Laura
spent a lot of time with our application, mainly the 20 foot versus 15 foot setback based on the average
width of the lot. As I said that little piece that little checkmark comes off kind of made the width a little
wider than what I had expected. So that’s where we’re at.
MR. MC CABE-Just a quick question. I didn’t notice this, but what is the existing permeability?
MR. HALL-The existing permeability is 74.05.
MR. KUHL-According to this document it’s 75.6.
MR. HALL-75.6. You are correct.
MR. MC CABE-And what’s our new permeability going to be?
MR. KUHL-74.3.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It’s pretty straightforward.
MRS. HAMLIN-What did you say the new relief was? Percentage wise?
MR. HALL-That’s what I went back and forth with Laura about. There is an updated. It’s 72.36.
MRS. HAMLIN-No, but I mean what is the actual percentage of relief?
MRS. MOORE-It’s 2.64 is the relief.
MRS. HAMLIN-2.64 is the updated.
MR. HALL-And knowing that it’s a .19 acre lot it’s kind of where we’re at with all that.
32
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So, seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this
particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody here who would like to
speak with respect to this application? Ma’am, come up.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
LINDA CLARK
MS. CLARK-Hello.
MR. MC CABE-So give us your name.
MS> CLARK-Linda Clark. I live at 3 Ben Most Bur Lane on Glen Lake. These comments were created
based on what I read on line in terms of the applications. I had submitted a detailed letter regarding my
concerns with this project. With that said, I would like to summarize that letter for you. It seems that
this project started as a seasonal to a year round conversion. The ambiguities and conflicting information
in the Planning and Zoning applications suggest this is the case, and I have detailed these things in my
letter. In the end, it has been said by members of the Planning and Zoning Departments the Ways are not
converting their home. However, I am still unsure about this due to the conflicting and lack of information
in the application. The suggestion that there is still a plan to convert to a year round residence is evident
in the site plan which indicates that a fireplace will be installed. This is ambiguous because nowhere in
the application is there a mention of a fireplace which appears on the site plan and nowhere in the site plan
does it indicate the heat source for the fireplace. The heat source is critical to the chimney construction
and most importantly to the seasonal or year round classification. If gas or propane or any fossil fuel is
planned for the fuel source, the Town is obligated to insist that the application reflect a conversion from
seasonal to year round classification. This would follow the criteria for the New York State classification
codes and the Town’s Assessor’s classification codes. Consequently, the one third limit on the addition
must be part of the variance request and the reason for such a request must be compelling. Although the
overall project has the positive potential for approval, I am opposed to it going forward without the needed
clarifications I mentioned in my letter, a clear direction of the project, and the proper variance requests..
In the end there should be a clear classification status with a clear plan that does not contradict that status.
Thank you very much.
PAUL DERBY
MR. DERBY-Good evening. Paul Derby, 31 Canterbury Drive. I’m the neighbor immediately to the north
of the Ways and I would be the most affected, potentially, by the project. I did have some questions when
they came in, before the meeting. I had a long talk with the Ways and Mr. Hall and they answered my
questions which I had. My concern was the fireplace because it would be about 15 feet from my window.
So I just wanted to know what kind of fireplace it was going to be. They told me it was going to be a pellet
stove. It would be properly vented. If that’s the case, and I hope that it will be a pellet stove, then I would
be 100% in support of the project. They’re good neighbors. I think it’s a good project and I wish them
luck.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to provide input on this particular
project? Roy, do we have any written?
MR. URRICO-Yes, there were a couple. Ms. Clark already read her comments. “We are sending this
letter in support of the Way’s proposal for their addition. We have reviewed their plans and details of the
project inclusive of the site work and the addition. We are very much in favor of the project. We reside
a few houses down at 43 Canterbury Drive. John and Mary Jo Sabia” “Good evening Lisa Hartung-Doster.
I live on Ash Drive in the vicinity of this project on the agenda this evening. I ask that my letter is read
into the record and that the Zoning Board answer my questions this evening. First, I would like to state
the owners of this property have already done a nice job on the work that has already been completed. I
see a fireplace heat source going in on the plans. My question to the Town of Queensbury and the Zoning
Board: if a fireplace heat source is being installed will this require another variance triggered by Town
Code 179-4-010 Article 4 conversion of a seasonal residence? Thank you, Lisa Hartung-Doster” “I am a
neighbor of Pam and Dave Way on Canterbury Drive. I am writing to offer my support for their proposed
project. They are model neighbors an take meticulous care of their property. They have worked tirelessly
to restore what was a dilapidated property into a beautiful home. I know the addition will help them
complete the process of improving the lakefront we all enjoy and appreciate. Thank you, Russ Canterbury”
That’s it.
MR. MC CABE-So that’s it.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
33
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. HALL-So for clarification, the fireplace is a pellet fit fireplace. A wood pellet is a renewable resource.
It is the Way’s intent to continue to use it, like I said, they want to use it as their vacation home to come
and enjoy the lake year round. This gives them the opportunity to do that with a pellet stove.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-Now I’m assuming that we don’t have to address.
MRS. MOORE-The one third.
MR. URRICO-The seasonal home versus?
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Then I’m in favor of the project as presented.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’ll vote to approve the variance.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-It seems like all the neighbors on Canterbury are for the project. They’re the most
immediately affected by this. So I would say what they’re asking for with just the little bit of relief for
permeability is not really much. They’re not building near the lake really. The shoreline is 50 feet but the
addition is actually 34 feet away. It’s very minimal. So I’d definitely be on board with it the way it is.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m with everybody else. I’m also in favor of it. I think it’s a
minimal request. I think it blends in very well. So I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-And I see this as a minimal request also. It wouldn’t exist if the house was placed where
it should have been in the first place, but back then you didn’t do that. So I’m going to seek a motion, here,
from Ron.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David &
Pamela Way. Applicant proposes a 259 sq. ft. single story addition and a 57 sq. ft. porch to an existing 518
sq. ft. single story home. The project includes site work for removing a portion of patio, upgrading the
patio, installation of eave trenches, and utilize the existing septic system. Site plan for new floor area in a
CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability in the Waterfront Residential zone -WR.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The applicant proposes an addition entry area that is to be 9 ft. 9 ¾ inches and 9 ft. 9 inches to the side
property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The addition is to be 34 ft. 1 inch to the shoreline where a
50 ft. setback is required. The site permeable decrease to 72.36% where 75% is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 21, 2021.
34
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
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 addition is really in the rear of the house and it blends in quite well.
2. Feasible alternatives are really limited due to the size of the property and they’ve been considered
and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial as it is just a small addition to the back of the building.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created only because the house is a pre-existing,
non-conforming house and any additions would need a variance.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
42-2021 DAVID & PAMELA WAY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by John Henkel:
st
Duly adopted this 21 Day of July 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 43-2021, Kent & Cheryl Smith, 379 Bay Road.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KENT & CHERYL SMITH AGENT(s)
RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) KENT & CHERYL SMITH ZONING CI
LOCATION 379 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY ADDITION OF 1,964
SQ. FT. THAT IS TO BE 32 FT. IN HEIGHT. THE ADDITION IS TO AN EXISTING BUILDING OF
1,333 SQ. FT. BUILDING AT A HEIGHT OF 28 FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,561 SQ. FT. THE
NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 4,525 SQ. FT. THE USE OF THE ADDITION IS FOR AN EXISTING
TENANT WHO NEEDS ADDITIONAL AREA FOR A MULTI-USE SPACE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW
COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 41-
2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2021 LOT SIZE 0.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.19-
1-33 SECTION 179-3-040
ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2021, Kent & Cheryl Smith, Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 “Project
Location: 379 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a single story addition
of 1,964 sq. ft. that is to be 32 ft. in height. The addition is to an existing building of 1,333 sq. ft. building at
a height of 28 ft. with a floor area of 2,561 sq. ft. The new floor area is to be 4,525 sq. ft. The use of the
addition is for an existing tenant who needs additional area for a multi-use space. Site plan for new
commercial construction. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
35
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Commercial Intensive zone – CI.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes an addition to existing building where the rear setback is to be 19 ft. 2 inches where
a 25 ft. setback is required. The addition is to be 14 ft. 11 inches from the north property line and 17 ft. from
the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project
may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the character of the neighborhood area.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce
the size of the building.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief request may be considered to be
moderate relevant to the code. The relief 5 ft. 10 inches to the rear setback. The south setback is 5 ft. 1
inch and the north setback is 3 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The requested variance may have
minimal to no adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The requested variance may be considered to be
self- created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes an addition to an existing building for an existing tenant to use for storage and
area for the tenant clients. The plans show the location of the addition to the existing building. The floor
plans and elevations indicate the building is to be one story with access from the outside the building and
interior access.”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was passed
th
unanimously on July 20, 2021.
MR. HALL-Ethan Hall, for your records, principal with Rucinski Hall Architecture here tonight
representing Kent and Cheryl Smith. Also with me tonight is Jesse Howarth. He’s the Director of Upstate
New York Autism Alliance who are the people that occupy the first floor of the building. The second floor
of the building is occupied by a commercial assessor, commercial appraiser. No changes to the existing
per se, other than connecting this new addition on to the back of the building. What folks at the Upstate
New York Autism Alliance found was that during COVID they have a lot of equipment that they use for
their clients, a lot of workout equipment and things like stationary bikes and rowing machines and free
weights and that kind of stuff, things to keep their clients occupied. During COVID, all of their resources
outside of their building kind of got cut off and they didn’t have any place to really go. So in anticipation
of that and perhaps having that same thing again, Kent and Cheryl looked at it and said this would be a
good place for you guys to put your gym equipment in, allow you to use your opportunities or allow you
to use the building itself for your programs. So that’s kind of why we’ve got that put together the way it
is. They have the room. It allows them to set up their equipment they need to set it up and to use it in
many different ways. We do have, we’re connecting, a couple of things on the site. Right now the curb
cut is the width of the lot. It’s paved from property line to property line. The intent is to cut that down
and to change the parking a little bit so that there’s a driveway coming in. Take out some of the parking,
take out some of the paving and stuff near Bay Road and create some green space there. They don’t need
as many parking spaces as Dr. Parsons needed when his office was in there, which works out pretty well
for them, and then we’re going to pave an area from the parking lot back to the building so they’ll be able
to unload equipment, move things in and out as they need to do that. So that’s really the crux of the
project. It is set back the relief that we’re requesting. Our northern property line we’ve set the building
back. We kind of had to offset it so that we could get the garage door in. So our northern setback is less
than what’s there now. The relief requested is less than what’s there now. Obviously the southern
property line we need more relief than what’s there, but again I tried to keep it as close as I could to be
balanced. So that’s really about it.
MR. MC CABE-So it’s pretty straightforward. Do we have questions of the applicant?
36
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MRS. HAMLIN-I don’t want to be hurtful, but since you’re making these improvements, will anything be
done with the R-11 Borden Batten siding at?
MR. HALL-I talked with Ken and Cheryl about that. They want to do something to kind of match the
new building to the, or match the existing building to the new building that they’re constructing. So there
will be some siding changes, things like that, to kind of upgrade, and we talked about taking the stone that
we found on the bottom of the front façade and kind of wrapping that around the building. We probably
won’t go up the north sides of the building, maybe not do the backside, but they will do something with
the siding, yes.
MRS. HAMLIN-That’s starting to show its age.
MR. HALL-It is, yes, and Ken’s aware of that.
MRS. HAMLIN-Well thank you. It’s not our purview, but I wanted to ask.
MR. HALL-Yes, for sure.
MR. MC CABE-Does anybody else have questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this
particular time I’m going to open the public hearing. So is there anything written, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There’s nothing written.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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 Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-There seems to be a well-defined need for this addition to be put on. I don’t think
that there’s any doubt that we would approve it because the setback relief is minimal.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-To Jim’s point, it’s very minimal. I’m in favor of the project. It’s well thought out.
Additionally, not in our purview, but just mentioning to Jesse I believe, just what the Upstate New York
Autism Alliance is doing for the community, thank you for efforts down there, doing some good work. So
I’m fully in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Nothing to do with the variance, but big fan of reducing curb cut. Thank you. And I
actually don’t see that this is terribly significant in terms of the variances you’re asking for, and I know it
goes with the land, but out in back you’re just going up against other parking places.
MR. HALL-Oddly enough it got brought up at the Planning Board last night that a curb cut requires us,
and I checked with Warren County and I haven’t heard back from them yet, but a curb cut is required for
us to make the curb cut smaller, a curb cut permit is required for us to make the curb cut less than what’s
there. Leave it to Mike Valentine to come up with that.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I agree. I’m in favor. I think it’s a minimal request.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I also agree with my Board members. It’s a good project. It’s very minimal relief. I’d go
with it.
MR. MC CABE-So I, too, agree that what’s requested here is not really a big deal and so I support the
project. Therefore, I’m going to ask Brent to make a motion here.
MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
37
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kent & Cheryl
Smith. Applicant proposes a single-story addition of 1,964 sq. ft. that is to be 32 ft. in height. The addition
is to an existing building of 1,333 sq. ft. building at a height of 28 ft. with a floor area of 2,561 sq. ft. The
new floor area is to be 4,525 sq. ft. The use of the addition is for an existing tenant who needs additional
area for a multi-use space. Site plan for new commercial construction. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Commercial Intensive zone – CI.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes an addition to existing building where the rear setback is to be 19 ft. 2 inches where
a 25 ft. setback is required. The addition is to be 14 ft. 11 inches from the north property line and 17 ft. from
the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 21, 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. It’s not substantial in nature.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not possible in this case
3. The requested variance is not substantial. The variance is moderate in nature.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty maybe considered self-created but in this case, again, it is minimal in nature.
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.
43-2021 KENT & CHERYL SMITH, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by James Underwood:
st
Duly adopted this 21 Day of July 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-You’ve got a project.
MR. HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 46-2021, Melissa Freebern, 928 State Route 9.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MELISSA FREEBERN OWNER(S)
MELISSA FREEBERN ZONING CM LOCATION 928 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING 535 SQ. FT. GARAGE SPACE TO BUSINESS
EXPANSION FOR ARTISAN INK. THE EXISTING 2,394 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) BUILDING
INCLUDES AN EXISTING LAUNDRY FACILITY AND THE ARTISAN INK BUSINESS. PARKING
TO BE ADJUSTED ALONG SWEET ROAD; PARKING PROVIDED TO BE 12 SPACES. SITE PLAN
FOR BUSINESS EXPANSION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. CROSS
38
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
REF SP 44-2021; CC 535-2020; AV 70-2018; SP 71-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY
2021 LOT SIZE .34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.13-1-14 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-090
MELISSA FREEBERN, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2021, Melissa Freebern, Meeting Date: July 21, 2021 “Project
Location: 928 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to convert an
existing 535 sq. ft. garage space to business expansion for Artisan Ink. The existing 2,394 sq. ft. (footprint)
building includes an existing laundry facility and the Artisan Ink business. Parking to be adjusted along
Sweet Road; parking provided to be 12 spaces. Site plan for business expansion. Relief requested for
parking requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for parking requirements in the Commercial Moderate zone – CM.
Section 179-3-040, 179- parking
The applicant proposes 12 parking spaces where 16 spaces are 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
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited
due to lot arrangement.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minimal relevant to the code. The relief is for four parking spaces.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to convert an existing garage to an expansion of an existing business. The existing
building with two businesses is on a 0.34 ac parcel on a corner lot and there are no other changes proposed
to the site. The plans show the location of the garage and floor plans how the spaces are utilized. In
addition, the plans show the parking arrangement and photos of the business storefronts.”
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and that motion was passed
th
unanimously on July 20, 2021.
MR. MC CABE-First of all, you’ve got to state your name.
MS. FREEBERN-My name is Melissa Freebern and I’m the owner of Artisan Ink. We are looking to
expand into the garage to get away from the upstairs. It’s very non-professional to have our clients going
upstairs and we’re dealing with a previously residential home. So the upstairs rooms are very low and we
have a space in the garage that we’re not utilizing so we thought it would be great to bring everybody
downstairs. It would be all on one level, which coincidentally is handicap accessible.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-The only problem I see is backing up on Sweet Road, that type of parking. That’s the only
concern I have.
MS. FREEBERN-It is congested.
39
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. HENKEL-I just see a problem backing up.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MRS. HAMLIN-I actually didn’t go look around back. So you have space in the back?
MS. FREEBERN-We have a huge backyard, but from my understanding, we’re not allowed to utilize the
backyard because of green space.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay.
MS. FREEBERN-We do have permission to park occasionally over at Gambles. We try not to do it all the
time because it is another business. We don’t want to intrude on them. We have one artist that bikes
to work every day and we have clients that get dropped off. Another thing to add, our clients are regulars.
We don’t do walk-ins. We are primarily appointments only. So we seem very busy, but we always know
who’s coming and going. It’s not people stop in.
MR. MC CABE-So are these parking spaces just strictly for the Artisan and the laundromat has their own?
MS. FREEBERN-Everything that you see where it says ramp and down, this is all Artisan. For whatever
reason, two parking spaces that are right in front of the ramp were not utilized before for Choo Choo’s ice
cream. That was the business that was there, and then there’s six parking spaces available in the area of
the parking for the laundromat which is to the left. You can see that. I did not block out the parking
spaces, but I did block out the parking spaces that were available. We did actually use a parking space
because we put the ramp in last year or the year before. So everything had to be re-configured, and when
that had to be done, we thought what better time.
MR. MC CABE-You came before us it says somewhere around in 2018. I remember.
MS. FREEBERN-Yes, for the ramp.
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MR. KUHL-So isn’t it a fact that the 12 parking spaces were there then? And that tattoo business was
there already. So kind of really why is she here?
MS. FREEBERN-Because I’m adding square footage to the existing business.
MR. KUHL-I’m just talking about a business is a business is a business, but anyway.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MRS. HAMLIN-So are you really adding square footage, if you’re taking business out of the upstairs and
bringing it downstairs? Is it still the same amount of?
MS. FREEBERN-I’m adding to the business floor plan, the usable space. So what we wanted to do, I said
well we’d like to utilize the garage. I’d like to modernize it. I’d like to put new walls, new electric, re-do
everything, new garage doors, but I’d like to utilize the space in the winter. So I’d like to put in heating
and all that stuff. It was basically said to me if you want to do anything out here other than park cars you
need to go for a variance because you’re using that space as workable space. So here I am.
MRS. HAMLIN-But the variance is only for reducing the amount of required parking spaces. Correct?
MS. FREEBERN-Because I don’t have the parking spaces for the square footage.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. KUHL-Don’t feel bad, the Recovery Grill had to come for a variance for parking spaces.
MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the
public hearing and see if there’s anybody who would like to provide input on this particular project, and
not seeing a lot of people, I’ll ask Roy if we’ve got any written comment.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No, no written.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
40
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John?
MR. HENKEL-They’re looking for relief of four parking spaces and I think that’s a good request. I’m all
for it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I see nothing wrong with the project. I think this would be a good, like it’s a pre-existing
business that already accommodates these parking spaces. So I’d be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I’m in favor of the project as presented. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I will vote in favor of the variance.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project. I think it’s a little bit congested, but I don’t think it’s your
fault. It is what it is. So hopefully it all works out relative to that. I’m confident it will. It sounds like
you’re doing some good things there. So good for you, and I’m in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I previously approved the other projects that were on the property, Choo Choo and
your ramp. I don’t think there’s any question you’re probably not going to have 12 people getting inked
there at the same time. So I don’t see it as a problem.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. It doesn’t seem like a real big deal, and it just hurts your
business if you don’t have enough parking spots. So it’s on you. 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 Melissa
Freebern. Applicant proposes to convert an existing 535 sq. ft. garage space to business expansion for
Artisan Ink. The existing 2,394 sq. ft. (footprint) building includes an existing laundry facility and the
Artisan Ink business. Parking to be adjusted along Sweet Road; parking provided to be 12 spaces. Site
plan for business expansion. Relief requested for parking requirements.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for parking requirements in the Commercial Moderate zone – CM.
Section 179-3-040, 179- parking
The applicant proposes 12 parking spaces where 16 spaces are required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 21, 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.
2. Feasible alternatives were not necessarily considered. It is what it is there. It is a limited space
but a reasonable request.
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.
41
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created as she bought the property knowing the limitations, but that’s
only one criteria to be considered.
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.
46-2021 MELISSA FREEBERN, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Roy Urrico:
st
Duly adopted this 21 Day of July 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. So, Laura, I have to say, I’m not really impressed
with the new sound system. Most of the people I don’t think were turning their mics on and off or at least
that’s not what I observed.
MR. URRICO-We used to have them on all the time.
MR. MC CABE-I know. That’s my question.
MRS. MOORE-You can definitely leave them on, but I mean can you hear me today?
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-That’s good. Because generally you can’t hear me.
MR. MC CABE-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-The idea is the person that’s sitting where that clock, they can hear you now. Whereas
before, it was very.
MR. MC CABE-So do they have to turn theirs on?
MRS. MOORE-That one’s always on.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, yes, I was starting to turn mine on and off.
MRS. MOORE-Because you talk generally the most as the Chair, you might want to leave yours on, but
what you all need to understand is the minute you talk up here, they hear every word that you say. So
whatever you’re kibitzing about.
MR. MC CABE-Well he said that that’s also a mic up there. So dependent on. So I guess the other thing
that I just wanted to tell the Board is that for some odd reason we’ve had a big increase in the request to
waive the survey requirement. So what I’ve been doing for the last couple is I’ll, you know, if it’s not a big
deal, I’ll waive the survey requirement initially and require a survey for as built. Then we’ve got a pretty
solid record of what actually happens. Does anybody have any feelings on this or is anybody uncomfortable
with that?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I would go with, if it’s a minimal request, something that you measure off and it’s
already previously there or you have an old survey, that’s probably adequate. If someone’s going to add a
stoop, porch or something like that, that shouldn’t be necessary to move forward.
MR. MC CABE-Well what I’m concerned with is, you know, like a shed or a garage or something like that,
something that’s fairly substantial, you know, I think that it’s worthwhile to have a professional record of
it. We had one request where a shed was going to be five foot off the property line and the owner found
two posts and so he proposed that he make the measurement off the post and so I kind of have a little
problem with do it yourself surveying, you know, it kind of sets a bad precedent.
42
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MRS. MOORE-And I guess specifically for those items they want to locate them close to the property line,
and that’s where I think the Board ended up creating this requirement that you needed a survey because
these sheds and these additions were showing up on the adjacent parcel when someone came back in and
said their house or their addition or their shed is now on my property because you granted approval
without a survey.
MR. MC CABE-So the other thing I guess I don’t know is are these posts registered someplace or are they
just strictly the surveyor that put them in initially. Does he have to register that post?
MRS. MOORE-It’s a survey marker. It’s a licensed surveyor. The post isn’t necessarily registered, but it’s
a document that’s been recorded.
MR. MC CABE-So I guess my question is, how do you know that some guy didn’t just go bang a post?
MR. URRICO-And I also, we’d be relying on the measurements given to us by the applicant. Right?
MR. MC CABE-Right.
MR. URRICO-Who said that’s what it’s going to be. So we have no way of knowing those are accurate.
MR. MC CABE-That’s why I don’t feel comfortable with that.
MR. URRICO-The center of the road is not always the center of the road.
MR. MC CABE-That could change with paving and stuff like that.
MR. URRICO-The edge of their property may not actually be at that point. It may be further back. So
we could run into a problem later on in granting a variance, that was it accurate to begin with.
MR. MC CABE-Well that’s why I request an as built. So now we have a permanent record.
MR. URRICO-But when we get the as built survey will the record or the variance have to be adjusted back
to where it should be?
MRS. MOORE-So then the applicant would need to come back in if it still wasn’t accurate.
MR. URRICO-And get it re-certified?
MRS. MOORE-Come back to the Zoning Board.
MR. MC CABE-We had that situation here a couple of months ago where the as-built was different than
what we approved, and so they had to come back for, it was like a foot.
MR. KUHL-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-So I guess I would suggest that, sorry to interrupt you, but when you do, the Board should
recognize that you’ve asked for an as built survey, due to those survey waiver requests, and it should be
added as a condition as part of your resolution. I think that would make the record.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-So it would still be required, but in the cases where it’s not, where it’s waived, then we’d
ask for the as built.
MR. MC CABE-Well, for instance, Hansen requested to by-pass the survey because they were interested
in getting a variance so that they could complete the construction fairly quickly. So to not hold up their
request or their construction I okayed the variance with the condition that they provide an as built survey.
So that allows them to complete the construction but they have to provide us with a record when it’s all
done.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the only question would come up, like Kirschner’s property, he had like a 42
acre property. To request that he do a full survey of his property. It should be in the immediate vicinity
of where the variances are necessary.
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-We could put language like that in there. That would simplify it.
43
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/21/2021)
MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to adjourn tonight’s meeting. I’ll make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s
meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY
21, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin:
st
Duly adopted this 21 day of July, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe, Chairman
44