Meeting Minutes 12.15.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
1
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MARC AWAD AGENT(S) JASON
PETERSON OWNER(S) MARY ANN AWAD ZONING MDR LOCATION 936 STATE ROUTE
149 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 6.72 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT
WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS TO BE 2.04 AC. AND THE SECOND LOT OF 4.68 AC. IS
TO BE SOLD. NO SITE WORK PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. SUBDIVISION FOR TWO LOTS IN
THE MDR ZONE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT WIDTH. CROSS REF SUB 11-2021; SUB 12-
2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD
LOT SIZE 6.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-52 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-19-020; 183
MARC AWAD, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-2021, Marc Awad, Meeting Date: December 15, 2021 “Project
Location: 936 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot
subdivision of a 6.72 acre parcel. One lot with the existing residence is to be 2.04 ac. and the second lot of
4.68 ac. is to be sold. No site work proposed at this time. Subdivision for two lots in the MDR zone. Relief
for lot width, road frontage and access.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for lot width, road frontage and access to the adjoining lot. The parcel is
located in the MDR zone as a 6.72 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-050 Frontage
The proposed two lot subdivision has less than 200 ft. average lot width for the one lot and less than 100
ft. of road frontage for the proposed lot. Relief for physical access is requested as the applicant intends to
use the existing driveway to access the new lot as described in the narrative.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
lot shape. The applicant could consider a shared driveway over both property lines.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The road frontage relief is 100 ft. and the lot width is less than 200 ft. Relief requested for
physical access to the new lot.
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.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision where lot 1 is to be 2.04 ac and will maintain an existing
home. Then lot 2 is to be 4.68 acres and is to be developed for a single family house when the lot sells.”
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
on December 14th by a seven zero margin.
MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add. There’s one variance that has gone away, and that’s access.
The applicant is going to have his own driveway. So they’re not going to do that driveway through the
other lot. They’re going to do it on its own lot.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
2
MR. UNDERWOOD-So the lot will have its own access.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the variance to have it not accessing its own lot, it was going through another
parcel. This way it has its own lot access.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Anything you wish to inform us about?
MR. AWAD-It seems pretty simple compared to the previous project. I’m intimidated to be here. I’m not
asking for much.
MR. KUHL-Has Lot Number Two sold?
MR. AWAD-I don’t know whether I’ll sell it or whether I’ll build on it. I am not staying in the house on
149. I’ve only been there a short time, but it’s.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Drives you crazy.
MR. AWAD-I just left a job in Brooklyn and its reminiscent.
MR. KUHL-Your one of those guys.
MR. AWAD-No, I’m not. I’m a northern guy, but I go where the government tells me.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you’re going to have one driveway, one entrance for both lots, and it’s going to
enter from where?
MR. AWAD-That was a change that was supposed to, it was originally proposed by the surveyor, and we
talked about it and I said no, but he didn’t make the change in the application. So there’s the residential
driveway for the driving range. There’s the Wests that are right next to me, as you’re goi ng east there’s
my driveway. There’ll be this driveway at the edge of the property, and then there’s, I don’t know my
neighbor’s last name, Tristan. He lives in the yellow house across from Stewart’s, and then there’s the
Farm To Market.
MRS. MOORE-So there’ll be two driveways. One driveway for the current house and a new driveway for
the new house. So our Code requires that if you’re not going to access the lot on the actual road frontage,
you would need a variance from that.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. AWAD-Which I believe was discussed and agreed to last night.
MRS. MOORE-It was a recommendation and it was identified that there would be one less variance.
MR. KUHL-Give me that one again. Lot Number Two is going to be accessed not directly from 149?
MRS. MOORE-It will be directly accessed. It will have its own specific driveway to 149.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-Wouldn’t it be smarter to have one driveway for both lots.
MRS. MOORE-You can, which means you’d have to share a driveway.
MR. HENKEL-It’s less curb cuts onto 149.
MRS. MOORE-So that could be a recommendation of this Board.
MR. AWAD-I didn’t want to make it complicated for easements and potential minimization of disputes
between neighbors, you know, I just plowed it last week, now it’s your turn. I didn’t want to get involved
in that. I just thought it would be better to have, and as you’re approaching the corner of Bay Road, I’m
adding one more driveway. So there’s four right now and this will be five, in an area which you’re
approaching an intersection where potentially, you know, the speeds are lower.
MR. URRICO-So what will be the distance between the two proposed driveways?
MR. AWAD-So this is going to be 50 feet, and this is my neighbor’s property line. So it’ll come in, I think
my surveyor called it a flag lot.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s on the right hand side.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
3
MR. AWAD-So this’ll be the existing lot right here, the two acre lot with the house, and then we’ll enter
here and we’ll go to the other property line and go back, and I believe from the road it’s 1,024 feet.
MRS. MOORE-To the back, but the distance between each driveway is a little over 33 feet, because the
setback line is at 33.7 or 33.3. So I’m assuming the driveway is going a littl e bit further distance from the
existing driveway.
MR. HENKEL-Is Warren County against having curb cuts?
MRS. MOORE-That’s fine.
MR. AWAD-Can I ask what a curb cut is? I heard that yesterday.
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s just if you put a driveway in, it’s considered a curb cut.
MR. AWAD-All right, because I didn’t see any curb cut.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Does everybody understand the situation now? I think at this point I’ll
open the public hearing, unless Board members have questions.
MR. AWAD-We’ve also done percolation tests in the back of the property.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the
matter? Any correspondence, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think everybody should be pretty straightforward on this one. Anybody
want to start? John?
MR. HENKEL-It’s not a bad project. I just thought it would be better to have one curb cut on Lot Two
to access Lot One and Two, to do away with that curb cut on Lot One where the house is now. I would
see that being a better project. So I would like to see that done, but I’m not going to hold it back.
MR. STARK-I think it’s a good project. I’d be in favor of it at this point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson?
MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I’m in favor.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project as presented.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think that the argument of curb cuts is minimal. I’m in favor of it the way it’s presented.
Curb cut, what for?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the addition of another single driveway on that road is not going to make
that much difference. I think it’s fine. Does somebody want to make a motion.
MRS. DWYRE-Did you want to close the public hearing?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, can I make that motion?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Marc Awad.
Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 6.72 acre parcel. One lot with the existing residence is to be
2.04 ac. and the second lot of 4.68 ac. is to be sold. No site work proposed at this time. Subdivision for two
lots in the MDR zone. Relief requested for lot width, road frontage, and access.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
4
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for lot width, road frontage and access to the adjoining lot. The parcel is
located in the MDR zone as a 6.72 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-050 Frontage
The proposed two lot subdivision has less than 200 ft. average lot width for the one lot and less than 100
ft. of road frontage for the proposed lot. Relief for physical access is requested as the applicant intends to
use the existing driveway to access the new lot as described in the narrative.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 15, 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 as this is just subdividing a six acre lot into two lots.
2. Feasible alternatives really are non-existent. The issue here really is the second lot, Lot Number
Two, doesn’t have the road frontage. It’s only got 50 feet. However, they have been considered by
the Board, and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial as again it’s just a 50 foot road frontage.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty could be suggested that it is self-created, again, because of the 50 feet because
that is less than required.
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.
76-2021 MARC AWAD, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy
Urrico:
Duly adopted this 15th Day of December 2021 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you calling the vote, so in the resolution it still says access to the adjoining lot. So
I’d ask you to strike that verbiage. So amended?
MR. KUHL-So noted.
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. HENKEL-But we didn’t get that recommendation.
MRS. MOORE-I’m just saying, so in that resolution itself, the draft resolution, it’s up to you the Board.
I’m saying you should strike that from your resolution, because that’s not what’s being requested.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
5
MR. AWAD-Thank you very much. I appreciate it.