Meeting Minutes 10/27/21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
1
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN
HOUSE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) BRETT &
PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY (REVISED 10/4/2021)
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH
A 5,004 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT (BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF 4,628 SQ. FT. AND PORTE -COCHERE
OF 376 SQ. FT.) AND A PATIO AREA OF 825 SQ. FT. (1,649 SQ. FT. x 50% FOR PERMEABLE
PAVING). THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,764 SQ. FT. INCLUDING A DETACHED 500
SQ. FT. BARN, THE PORTE-COCHERE AND A COVERED WALKWAY. THE PROJECT
INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE,
SEPTIC, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, DRIVEWAY AREA, A COVERED WALKWAY
BETWEEN THE MAIN HOME AND A PROPOSED ON HOME ON THE ADJOINING PARCEL.
SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF
THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, ADDITIONAL GARAGE, SIZE OF
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TOTAL, AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 51-2021; SEP 342-2021;
PZ 210-2016 ; PZ 95-2016; PZ 89-2016; SP 37-2009; AV 47-2007; SP 39-2007 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.91 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040
JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2021, Brett & Pamela West (Main House), Meeting Date: October
27, 2021 “Project Location: 106 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: (Revised 10/4/2021)
Applicant proposes to demo existing home and construct a new home with a 5,004 sq. ft. footprint
(building footprint of 4,628 sq. ft. and porte -cochere of 376 sq. ft.) and a patio area of 825 sq. ft. (1,649 sq.
ft. x 50% for permeable paving). The new floor area will be 8,764 sq. ft. including a detached 500 sq. ft.
barn, the porte-cochere, and a covered walkway. The project includes site work for new landscaping
shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, driveway area, a covered walkway
between the main home and a proposed home on the adjoining parcel. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA
and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, additional garage, siz e of
accessory structure total, and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home, barn and associated site work needing relief
for setbacks, permeability, height, second garage, sheds size total square footage and floor area for a new
home and associated accessory buildings. Project is in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Parcel is
0.91 acres.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 sheds, garages
The new home is to be located 35.5 ft. to the east shoreli ne, 31 ft. to the west shoreline where 50 ft. is
required. The covered walkway is to be 0 ft. from the west side setback where a 20 ft. setback is required.
The project proposes two garages where only one is allowed – the porte-cochere is considered a garage due
to width of open sides allowing vehicles. The project proposes two accessory buildings one is an existing
75 sq. ft. pump storage shed and the other is a new 500 sq. ft. barn, where relief is for exceeding 500 sq. ft.
maximum size for sheds. Relief is also requested for floor area where 8764 sq. ft. 22.2% is proposed and
8,687 sq. ft. 22% is allowed. Permeability 77.9% is proposed where 75% is required - noting no permeability relief is
requested.
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. The feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce
the overall size of the home and shed.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested to east shoreline 14.5 ft., west shoreline
19 ft. The covered walkway 20 ft. Relief for an additional garage. Relief for accessory buildings 75 sq.
ft. in excess. Relief for floor area is 0.2 % in excess. No permeability relief is requested.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
2
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The applicant
has included new stormwater measures that did not exist prior and proposes a new septic system.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing building to construct a new home. The first floor plan
shows living room area, kitchen, dining room, the porte-cochere, media room, small office, game room, and
a two car garage. Note the area labeled wet bar will have no kitchen elements. The second floor plan shows
bathrooms, closets, bedrooms, and a loft area above the garage. The covered walkway extends to the
adjoining property also owned by the applicant. The plans show the location of the new home, driveway
area, shed location, plantings, patio areas and holding tanks. The plans also include elevations and floor
plans. The plans also show a lot line adjustment with the adjoining parcel where no changes to lot size
occur for either parcel.”
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Chris Keil from Environmental
Design Partnership. We were here last month and you guys all gave us a bunch of instructions, and even
more than usual we tried to be very responsive and to modify the project to address the issues that you
raised. So in the interim, in general, Chris will go through the specifics, but in general they moved, I’m
going to talk about both to start with, and then we’ll talk about them separately. We moved the main
house farther away from the lake and we moved the guest house closer to the main house. That served to
reduce the floor area ratio, shortened the length of the covered walkway. We also made the covered
walkway narrower, which reduced the floor area ratio. We eliminated a bunch of pavers along the lake,
made those patios smaller so they’re farther from the lake, eliminated the structure over the pump house.
As a result we were able to get the floor area ratio on the main house down to 22.2 which is a few square
feet over what’s permitted, extremely minor, compared to what your used to seeing, and the guesthouse,
it’s 23.5. We were over 25 last time. So we were a ble to get it down to almost a 22. So these are, you
know, what I would consider and I hope you would consider very minor variances. The permeability is
no longer an issue. We’re over what’s required on the permeability, and if you look, just to star t with, the
red line shows the lake setback. I mean the constraint of these lots, of course, is it’s a peninsula and you
have water all around. So obviously an oddly triangular shaped lot could go much closer to the lake on the
west side than it is, but because we don’t build houses that way there’s a little bit of the structure that’s
outside of the setback, but in every case the house is farther away from the lake than the existing house
that’s there and that’s grandfathered and that’s with conformin g stormwater infiltration on everything and
as we talked about last time, both homes will have separate holding tanks which are great for the lake but
make an expense and inconvenience for the property owner, but that’s the right way to re -build on this
site. So, you know, done with modern engineering, stormwater and septic and as a result we moved the
guesthouse away from the southern property line a little bit farther from the neighbors and that’s already
planted very densely with a hedge and by using one driveway allows nice vegetation along the road in front
of the guesthouse. So this is private and the neighbors aren’t looking at this. So in terms of the benefit to
the applicant, I’m trying to come back a second time after we were here a few years ago with a different
plan. So again they purchased the second lot so they could make this all work with more land to have a
guesthouse and the main house for a family compound. The covered walkway is an important
architectural and practical feature in inclement weather, but based upon your comments we’ve made
everything smaller almost completely conforming for floor area ratio and, you know, we were already
conforming for stormwater. Yes, there’s some stuff the Planning Board will deal with. We’ve g ot the
landscape plan. I’m sure that they’ll look carefully at that, but in general it’s as small as we could get it
and still make it work for the applicant and very close to conforming. So with that I’ll ask Chris to go
through it in a little bit more detail.
MR. KEIL-Laura, could you bring up that presentation. I’m Chris Keil with Environmental Design
Partnership. Perfect. Thank you. So this is just to piggyback on what Jon said. This is just a quick
summary table showing sort of how we changed the design since we were here in September. So on the
table on the right there, the image, it’s hard to see the red, but basically that bowl column is where the
main house is now and where we were in September and then similarly for the guesthou se, those two
columns there. So you can see permeability, we’ve gotten to the point where we no longer require a
variance. FAR, you know we’re requesting 22.2, as Jon said, for the main house 23.5. The square footages
are below there you can see, and then the shoreline setback, we were able to get another foot for the main
house and then the side yard setback what we were able to do is get another four feet from the guesthouse
moving it from that southern lot, and then the image on the left there you can sort of see those kind of
changes in the plan where increase that distance from the lake to the north there, removed that shed in the
northeast corner, increased the distance from the lake there west of the main house, reduced the square
footage in both structures and in the paving area as well, and then if you go to the next slide, please.
Thanks, Laura, this will show you, this overlay, like that magenta color is where the house was in
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
3
September. So you can see just generally speaking it’s, I mean, the changes in size are hard to pick up, but
you can see that it’s kind of gotten tighter together and moved away from the shoreline. Next slide, please.
And then, similarly, this is showing paving. So that blue is where paving was when we were here last time
in September and where it is now. So you can, again, see, especially the north there, it’s moving back quite
a bit from the shoreline and it’s been reduced as well. And the last image is just sort of a composite. So,
again, showing that shift in the paving and the structure, again, just a quick diagram that we were really
serious since we were taking the comments to heart and try to modify the design based on this..
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I assume , we left the public hearing
open from the last meeting. So at this particular time I’m going to ask if there’s anybody in the public who
would like to make comment on this particular project. So you were first, ma’am. So if you’ll identify
yourself for the record.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
LORRAINE RUFFING
MRS. RUFFING-My name is Lorraine Ruffing, and I live at 66 Bay Parkway in Lake George, and I think
you consider this a Major Project since it is in a Critical Environmental area, and I think it deser ves your
close scrutiny. Two houses, a covered walkway, a very large circular drive, two garages and a barn is really
too much for this property, and if you consider the two lots together it’s 1.25 acres. The main house and
the attached garage and the second house will tower above the surrounding cottages of the O’Keefe’s on
the east and the Golds on the west. According to my calculation, there will be a 59% disturbance of the
main parcel during the new construction, and I think we appear to be witnessing the miracle of pavers. In
the most recent site development plan, impermeability has been reduced from the September figure of
about 30% to the October figure of about 24%, which is within the allowable 25% for impermeability.
However, I explain in my letter how they probably achieved this. So I’m going to spare you the math. I
believe that according to the DEC stormwater design manual, pavers in heavy rain area, and just above the
water table, should not be given a 50% credit. So please do che ck the calculation for impermeability. I
think it is higher than 24%. And another aspect which concerns impermeability, I’m concerned about the
removal of mature trees which do not figure in the landscaping plan, and the replacement by shrubs. They
will do little to mitigate a water table which is two feet below the surface, and lastly the request for the
setback variance is significant, 38% from the required 50 feet in the Town Code, and so given all this, I ask
the Zoning Board to reject the current application, verify the reduction in the size of the impermeable area,
require a more detailed plan for landscaping. I realize the Planning Board will also pass on that, and limit
the removal of mature trees, require the applicant to re -consider where he is placing the house on the
property in order to meet the required setbacks. Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Okay. Chris?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper has
concerns that remain about this project. The Town established Codes to limit the impacts of land use to
the community and the environment and based these limitations on the size and constraints of a property.
When relief is granted to these Codes, it must be demonstrated there is a balanced approach without
negative impacts to the community and the environment. In my opinion this application fails to provide
that balance for the following reasons. The property has extensive shoreline whose protective setba ck
will be encroached upon by a structure and the hard scape patio The disturbance is proposed to extend
well into the shoreline buffer restoration area. The application contains no detailed information on the
mitigation measures on how this protective buffer will be established and falls well short of the
requirements for shoreline buffers. There are alternatives such as reducing the size of the structure to fit
this unique property that provides character to the southeastern part of the lake. There is concern
regarding the extensive use of permeable pavers to circumvent the permeability calculation. Permeability
is defined as ability of fluids to move freely through media and in land uses, this focuses on vegetative
surface cover. It should be noted the project proposes significant reduction in the site vegetative cover
and the soils to mitigate the increased stormwater runoff from the increase of impervious surface, really a
10% decrease in the surface vegetation cover on the property. The site design fails to meet the requirements
of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual for permeable pavement and pavers which
requires a three foot separation to groundwater, and I did attach the section of that in my letter. Therefore
we don’t think this project should get credited for the permeable pavers because they don’t meet the
requirements on how permeable pavers will actually function. The application fails to detail the impacts
from the extensive disturbance and building size by excluding the tree removal as well as the
encroachment into and reduction of the intermittent stream corridor by grading and removing important
protective buffer material, and we’re looking at the eastern side of that project where there is that stream
that goes through there, that drainage area and they’re really encroaching into that, removing the important
vegetation. These impacts will be further exacerbated by the site constraints, depth to groundwater, that
will reduce the effectiveness of the proposed stormwater mitigation measures, the rain gardens and the
permeable pavers, leading to more runoff. The site’s limiting constraints are further demonstrated by the
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
4
applicant’s previous application to the Zoning Board in March 2016 when their agent s tated if they built a
much larger structure than what was previously proposed, it is actually more detrimental to the water
quality than if they kept it to the existing encroachments, and that was the previous application. They’re
admitting that this will cause water quality problems. In summary, the proposed variances will have an
undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, be a detriment to nearby properties, have an
adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions and there alt ernatives exist. A couple of the
quotes from last month that the Board had, the eco system is changing, far too much hardening, protective
CEA is more important than building and lots of building on a prominent point So we recommend that
you deny the application as proposed. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-You’re not required to answer, but a Board member would like to address you on this.
MR. HENKEL-You talk about this groundwater that’s going through his property. Where is that
groundwater coming from? Is it from him or is it from the property in the middle of that island?
MR. NAVITSKY-The intermittent stream and the surface runoff?
MR. HENKEL-Right.
MR. NAVITSKY-I think it’s a drainage channel, stream from that area. So some of his property and some
of it along the roadway and upland.
MR. HENKEL-So he can’t get blame for all.
MR. NAVITSKY-No, I’m not saying, that’s not his fault that the stream’s there.
MR. HENKEL-Right.
MR. NAVITSKY-But by him reducing it, you know, he’s constricting that flow path and it’s going to cause
bigger problems. That’s what my point is. So by having a much larger building and expanding that, he’s
reducing that existing natural drainage way which will cause more problems. I’m not saying he’s the cause
of that drainage way.
MR. HENKEL-I understand that. Couldn’t there be something done on the other side of that road to trap
some of that water so it doesn’t go into the lake and go across his property?
MR. NAVITSKY-I would imagine.
MR. HENKEL-So that’s something that the Town would have to do. Right?
MR. NAVITSKY-I don’t know. You’d have to take a look at that. All I’m saying, obviously the road is a
problem, or it causes runoff. I think it’s vegetative across, in the middle. I don’t know that area that well.
MR. HENKEL-I’m just trying to say that he’s not all to blame.
MR. NAVITSKY-No, he’s not to blame, but he’s not going to make that better.
MR. MC CABE-That’s fine. Thank you very much. Okay. Ma’am?
PAM LESTER GOLDE
MRS. GOLDE-My name is Pam Lester Golde. I’m a registered landscape architect, as Pamela Lester, and
I am the neighbor to the south of the parcel. I would like to note that even though he has the ability to do
this design, he is not proposing any alternatives, not showing an alternative that meets the zoning
requirements. If he pulled the house back about 15 feet and rotated it less than 90 degrees, it would all be
within the 50 foot setback. Yes there would be some modifications to the building, but if you pulled, if
you rotated it 90 degrees, if you pulled it back along that diagonal where it is highly pointed, you could get
it out and then modify the connection between the garage and the house. The barn is two and a half cars.
That’s what 500 square feet equals. That garage that he has, has six to eight feet in front of the cars and
over three feet on either side. Which is more storage in any garage than probably most of us have. The
other thing is that the 108 Lake Parkway, not 106 Bay Parkway, because legally it is Lake Parkway, the
garage is listed garage/barn. They are showing four cars for that lot versus only four cars for the main lot
when they actually have six, two on the surface of the permeable paving, two in the garage and two under
the porte-cochere. The other thing is there is at least a four foot crawl space under the guesthouse that
will be accessible by a staircase for storage. So the fact that he needs all of this extra storage by adding
500 square feet to this seems a little ludicrous. In regards to the permeable paving, permeable paving not
only is used in green infrastructure for stormwater management, not only storage, but also for water
quality. As Chris indicated, there’s supposed to be three feet between the cross section of the permeable
pavement of dirt between that and the water table. The water table is 24 inches down based upon their
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
5
2016 test pit that they had done on the previous application, and the other thing that the stormwater
manual indicates is that permeable pavement will be 100 feet away from a public drinking source. Lake
George is a public drinking source. They are going to get their water from it, I get my water from it, and
most of the people on the lake do as well. So this is closer, his permeable pavement is less than the 100
feet required. The pavement is 13 feet wide. He could reduce his permeable pavement down to 10 to 11
feet wide for a single lane driveway. It’s 13 now. You cannot pass two cars on 13 feet, and so this wou ld
allow for also a reduction in pavement in regards to the pervious surface.
CAROL COLLINS
DR. COLLINS-Good evening. My name is Carol Collins resident of Assembly Point. We have an
extraordinary group of talent here tonight. I want to say that the engineering aspect that Chris has
brought to the table, the landscape architecture aspect that Pam has brought, is critically important when
we look at the pollutant that is most destroying Lake George right now, and that is the phosphorus load t
that comes from stormwater runoff. I think we all know that now as demonstrated by all the algae blooms
we have. So what’s happening here is when we put stormwater treatment in the groundwater, you’re not
getting any of the absorption of the phosphorus that you should have in a normal soil base that’s not
saturated. So this is not occurring. Permeable pavers are not acting as treatment. There’s no way this
could be considered in the permeability calculation. It doesn’t exist. I’ve done enough calcul ations on
these kinds of things and how soil reacts to the phosphorus compounds that we’re looking to stop and
mitigate. We’re not mitigating anything here, and it just really, we could solve this problem by not pushing
the envelope as this applicant has. We can pull back. We can size things appropriately for a 1.25 acre
site. I mean this is a compound that’s on the site that’s really, a one acre site is really what is a conforming
site for Lake George, and this is two sites put together. So I just hope you realize you guys are the front
line, you’re the mid-line, you’re the back line of lake protection. This is what we have. It all stops with
you guys. I’m so proud of the work you do, but boy this one is really, it just points the way to the future.
It shows why we’re at 60% load now, where we were 30 years ago, of phosphorus. This is the reason. We
can’t keep letting this happen, and I really implore you to look at these numbers. Don’t just believe that
this is going to work. The soils can’t do this. Thank you. I appreciate it. By the way, you’re not supposed
to change a stream with DEC. You can’t, you don’t modify streams or impinge on them. The only, is a
wetland that’s, you know, part of the being of Lake George. It’s part of the goodness of Lake George. This
groundwater is there because that’s where the lake water table brings is up to. That’s why that ground is
saturated. It’s probably not really a buildable site, but, you know, but of course you’re going to allo w them
to do something, but it’s not the kind of site that can handle this, not especially in the most prominent spot
in Lake George. Let’s do what we can. Thank you so much.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else. Roy, do we have anything written?
MR. URRICO-Yes, that’s one letter from somebody who hasn’t spoken. “I am writing as a property owner
and a seasonal resident on Bay Parkway on Assembly Point. Although the project has been modified a
little bit since it was last before you, the variances are still substantial, will still harm the lake, and are still
self-created. It appears that the applicants have not addressed many of the concerns and suggestions
raised by the ZBA members at the September 29th meeting. An alternative exists: the project could easily
be redesigned to not need any variances, if the buildings and other improvements were somewhat reduced
in size and number. The applications should be denied. The variance applications should still be denied.
The fact that each of the two houses proposed by the West family still requires multiple variances shows
that the houses are too big for the lots. The rules from which variances are sought – shoreline setbacks,
permeability, size of accessory structures, and floor area ratio – are there for a reason, to protect the water
quality and scenic beauty of Lake George. The proposed main house appears to be at least twice the size
of the existing year-round house. The private desire of the property owners to build two oversized homes
should not be allowed to override the important public purposes that are intended to be protected by the
Town Zoning Law. The present plans require variances that would be substantial and would adversely
affect the environment. The hardship is self-created, as a matter of law. There are still alternatives that
would allow the property owners to achieve their apparent goal of expanding their housing. The plans
could be revised to make the houses and other structures smaller, move the paved areas away from the lake,
and rearrange the layout, all of which should allow for a project that does not require any variances. The
“barn” could be eliminated by providing storage in the main house, or the garage. The lack of suitable
conditions for a basement for storage is not unique or a hardship because the entire area is subject to similar
water table conditions. The circular driveway is unnecessary, and could be shortened, thereby reducing
the paved area. The project is still improperly classified as a Type II Action under SEQR For the reasons
stated in my letter to you of September 29 th, these applications are SEQR unlisted actions, not Type II
actions, and a SEQR review is required. Conclusions. The applications should be denied and the
applicants should be invited to submit plans that comply with all requirements of the Town Zoning Law,
without any variances. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, John w. Caffry”
MR. MC CABE-So a number of questions have been put out here. So I guess the first thing that we ought
to talk about is buffering. There were some complaints about buffering and it seemed like you guys could
answer that fairly quickly and easily.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
6
MR. KEIL-I mean I think right now along the shoreline, I wish I had an aerial image. I mean there’s mature
trees that will remain kind of on that point. In our proposed landscape plan there, I mean there’s new
vegetation that’s proposed around the house, and for stormwater, raingardens proposed as well. Genera lly
speaking we’re proposing to re-vegetate. Obviously to build a house some of the more mature trees need
to be removed, but as Jon said earlier, the whole house is within the footprint or further back than the
existing house there.
MR. MC CABE-So the second major issue here are the permeable pavers, and so in other applications the
question is, well what happens if you have runoff from the permeable pavers and we’ve seen where kind of
a trough has been created around the permeable pavers to kind of recycle runoff back down into the
ground. Are you planning to do anything like that?
MR. KEIL-Definitely. That’s something we’ve done on other projects where doing like a stone trench. To
be frank I haven’t gotten into some of those details where the re’s hydrologic connectivity between that
sort of perimeter of stone that commenced taking water and putting it back into that reservoir beneath the
pavers, beneath the predominance, so to speak. A lot of places that we do have the permeable pavers, I
mean there is landscape area beyond that. So it’s not like we’re going directly into a water body. There’s
a pretty good distance outside, we can pull that even further away from the lake, and then we do have the
raingardens. I know there were some comments about groundwater and that’s definitely something that
we’ll have to do, to do updated test pits on the site. Again, to be honest, it’s like we were trying to wait for
approvals for zoning, because as the applicant lives in the house it would be pret ty disruptive, given the
current configuration, to do those test pits there, but once we do verify that, we’re happy to manipulate
the elevation, the bottom of the raingardens to accommodate that separation to groundwater.
MR. LAPPER-That would be Planning Board.
MR. MC CABE-Absolutely, but the issues were raised. So, do you have other comments?
MR. LAPPER-So, to begin with, the neighbors dislike of this I think is disproportionate, I think, to what
we’re asking for now because we’re reduced these to pretty minor variances. Granted the setback to the
lake for the house, you know, isn’t nothing but it’s better than what’s there now. What we’ve got now is
a house with absolutely no stormwater maintenance facilities at all. So everything’s sheet flowing into the
lake, and, you know, as I understand the neighbors’ properties are all grass without any stormwater
facilities. So they’re worried about this but it’s really, it’s the new development like this that conforms to
the stormwater, that infiltrates, that has holding tanks for septic. So this is making the whole situation
dramatically better than what’s there now, dramatically better than many of the neighbors’ properties, and
in terms of, somebody made a comment that this towers above the surro unding houses. So we showed
last time, and I know the Chairman wasn’t here last time, that this is really built into the roof gables It’s
not like two stories plus a roof. It’s a John Witt roof, a very nice house, but it’s a little bit subtle in term s
of, it could have been a bunch higher and still conform to the Town height restriction. So the goal here
wasn’t to make it, it’s cottage style. It’s a large cottage, but it’s not as big as it could be in terms of towering,
and the issue with permeability, we completely conform. The Town Engineer and the Planning Board will
review that, but we’re not here to ask for a permeability variance.
MR. MC CABE-And I understand that.
MR. LAPPER-And pavers are a better way to go than concrete or asphalt. The issue with storage is that
the garage does have to have some storage and there is no possibility of doing a basement here. It’s a year
round house. So they do need some storage. It’s only, you know, when you look at floor area ratio on the
main property, it was 77 square feet extra floor area ratio that we’re asking for, which is really, really
minimum and on the south I think it’s 225 square feet. So these are not something you would notice
driving by or boating by or from the neighbors. I mean these are really minor changes just to make it work
for the site and for these applicants who’ve lived there for a while, and we really tried to take into account
everything you said and to make it a better project than it was a month ago and to move it away from the
lake, but we are constrained by the location and this lot with the lake on a bunch of sides, but we’re proud
of where we’ve gotten and we think this is, on balance, going to be much better for the lake and the
neighborhood than what’s there now.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John.
MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the applicant?
MR. MC CABE-Absolutely.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
7
MR. KUHL-There was reference to 2016 test pits. The deepest one was 24, 27 inches or the shallowest
one?
MR. KEIL-I don’t have that in front of me, but if we do look at the lake elevation and just look at the gradin g
plan and sort of extrapolate that continues, which isn’t always the case when you do test pits. I mean
we’re having anywhere, currently the bottom of our basins right now is between four feet to about three
feet. One is a little bit shy, but again we ’re verify that once we get to, three feet from that lake level
elevation.
MR. KUHL-I’m sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE-No problem. John?
MR. HENKEL-This is a large piece of , and unfortunately the shape of it is what’s creating a lot of this
problem. We’d probably allow this on a normal property that’s not sticking out like a triangle. I think
there’s definitely a project to be had here. I really don’t have too much problem with the floor ratio, but I
do have problems with the connections of the two properties with a walkway, a covered walkway. I do
still have a problem, as some of the neighbors have said, you could probably change the angle of the house
a little bit and get it farther away from the lake, which probably wouldn’t be a bad idea, and I do still have
a, your permeability is not a problem. I still have a problem with the amount of permeable pavers that
you do have there. Like I said, I really don’t have a problem, I think the FAR variance is, you know, you’re
only asking for 77 feet above. I do have a little bit of a problem with the size of the barn, with the size of
the garage you do have there. There’s some large spaces there for storage. I mean I think it’s a beautiful,
beautiful plan, but there are some things that can be done to make it a little bit better, I thought. So I’m
not totally on board as is.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think that this is a good project, but I think that you can make, you can change some things
you have here to get it more in compliance and with that said, I’m against it as presented.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I think sometimes we start out with a project that has so many variances to begin with, and
then we start whittling it down and whittling it down, and we think t hat’s an improvement over what
was originally presented, but I have to stop myself and say, now if this came before us right today and we
started from scratch with this, this wouldn’t be a good project. We wouldn’t think about it, or we would
have some questions at least, and I still do. I’m having trouble even counting the number of variances
you’re asking for. I don’t know if there’s seven or six. There’s still quite a number of variances that are
being asked for and some of them are substantial. Some of them are not, but there’s still quite a number
of them, and when you have alternatives and feasible alternatives to consider, and you’re creating this
project from scratch basically, I don’t want to say it’s time to go back to the drawing board, b ut I certainly
think we need some more work on this. So I would be against it as it is now.
MR. MC CABE-Jackson?
MR. LA SARSO-I definitely don’t have any issue with the floor area ratio. That’s not really a problem.
The barn, as some other folks have said, I do have an issue with it. Also with that kind of being made that
it could be moved, kind of rotated 15 feet, 90 degrees. I definitely see that, so at this point I’m kind of a no
without those minor adjustments being made at this poin t.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I want to say I do appreciate that you did listen and you made alterations, but I do feel as
though they are minor and this project is oversized for the area that you have. Some of the public’s
comments are very useful. I had recommended maybe you don’t need this huge, circular driveway and that
allows you to bring that building back and you rotate it as they mentioned. If it’s two separate driveways,
I’m sure it’s serving the purpose of having the guesthouse and having a unison entertainment area, what
have you, but for future sale of the lot, were it to happen, and we have to care about that. It doesn’t matter
what the current owner wants to do. We have to care about the future of this lot. Two separate driveways
may allow you to do more adjustment. We have no say over the Code and what is allowed, permeable
pavers or anything, but, that being said, I just think there’s a lot on that lot that can be cut back in many
ways. I almost would say the walkway could be re-designed. I don’t see the necessity for a covered
walkway, quite frankly, and maybe consider infiltration systems under the permeable pavers, and under
the raingarden if that hasn’t been considered, but as presented I’m against it at this point, and I will say
once we eliminate the building that’s there, we no longer have a grandfathered project here. So we are
starting from scratch.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
8
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think I still have concerns. Last time I asked you that I thought you co uld reduce
some of your common areas by a third to a half and I still think you could take the garage and re -design
with the garage as part of the main house without a separate structure. I think that you’re trying to fit too
much in here. Even though we have a 22% floor area ratio, most of the time on the lake we’re dealing with
maybe 100 feet of waterfront. You’ve got hundreds of feet of waterfront and you’re at a prominent position
at the end of the point. I think there’ve been some valid concern s raised by the public and I think at this
time the permeability issue, you know, if the State has a ruling that says you have to have three feet of
permeable soil, I think that’s a valid concern also. So I’m not going to be in favor of your project. I think
you should re-design strictly within the 22% floor area ratio and I think you should combine that garage
with the end of that structure and that would eliminate and get you underneath what relief you have.
MR. MC CABE-So the numbers aren’t coming out very well here.
MR. LAPPER-So clearly we have to table both applications and see if we can go back and cut it down some
more.
MR. MC CABE-So, John?
MR. HENKEL-When do you want to table it to?
MR. LAPPER-As soon as possible.
MRS. MOORE-So if you table it to November. Actually, I can’t. I apologize. You’d have to table it to
December’s meeting.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. There’s only one in December. It’s the 15th.
MRS. MOORE-It’s the 15th .
MR. HENKEL-So that’s it?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. With any new information by the 1 st of December?
MRS. MOORE-November 15th.
MR. HENKEL-November 15th.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Another week would be November 22nd Right?
MRS. MOORE-The 22nd is okay. I’ll discuss it with them and see if we can get enough information prior
to that.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett & Pamela
West. (Revised 10/4/2021) Applicant proposes to demo existing home and construct a new home with a
5,004 sq. ft. footprint (building footprint of 4,628 sq. ft. and porte -cochere of 376 sq. ft.) and a patio area of
825 sq. ft. (1,649 sq. ft. x 50% for permeable paving). The new floor area will be 8,764 sq. ft. including a
detached 500 sq. ft. barn, the porte-cochere, and a covered walkway. The project includes site work for
new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, driveway area, a
covered walkway between the main home and a proposed home on the adjoining parcel. Site plan for new
floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks,
additional garage, size of accessory structure total, and floor area.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE),
Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to the December 15th, 2021 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, with any new
information by November 22nd, 2021.
Duly adopted this 27th day of October, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
9
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MRS. MOORE-You should say that you’re going to leave the public hearing open.
MR. MC CABE-I’m going to open the public hearing for AV 57-2021.
PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED