Meeting Minutes 12.15.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2021 SEQRA TYPE II FRANK SINATRA AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) FRANK SINATRA ZONING WR
LOCATION 105 ROCKHURST RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING
1,562 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME AND TO CONSTRUCT A 1,553 SQ. FT., FOOTPRINT HOME
WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,338 SQ. FT. THE NEW HOME HAS 3 LEVELS FOUNDATION AREA,
FIRST FLOOR, AND SECOND FLOOR. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW
HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW
BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR
AREA. CROSS REF SP 75-2021; SEPTIC 618-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER
2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-4
SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080; 179-6-060
CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-2021, Frank Sinatra, Meeting Date: December 15, 2021 “Project
Location: 105 Rockhurst Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an
existing 1,562 sq. ft. footprint home and to construct a 1,553 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 2,338
sq. ft. The new home has 3 levels foundation area, first floor, and second floor. Site plan for new floor area
in a CEA, new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and construction of new building within 50 ft. of
15% slopes.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for the constru ction of a new home. The parcel is
9,336 sq. ft. and located in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The proposed home is to be 48 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area
proposed is 25%, 2,338 sq. ft. where 22% or 2,054 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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 considered to reduce
the size of the home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of 2 ft. Floor area relief of 3%
in excess of 22%.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes construction of a new home to be 2,338 sq. ft. with a lower level, main floor and
second floor. The plans show the location of the existing home and the new home. The project includes
installation of permeable driveway area and a new septic system.”
MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, Queensbury Planning Board, based on its limited review identified
the following area of concern: the floor area variance of three percent.” And that was motion was passed
December 14th by a unanimous vote.
MR. KEIL-Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership. The Sinatras were looking to make this
house more of a multi-generational base for them, you know, their family is their grandkids, etc. They’re
looking to make a big improvement on the property. The existing house is a lawful non-conforming house
and as it stands would require a front yard, side yard, and permeability variances. They would like to
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
2
demolish the house and shift the location so it fits more within the setback. It does, however, trigger a
shoreline setback variance, and we’d like some relaxation there, and that’s just for the deck, not for the
actual house. Furthermore, you know, there’s currently two seepage pits that would be non-conforming.
They’re less than 100 feet from the lake. That’s getting improved with an enhanced wastewater treatment
system. There’s currently no stormwater on the site to speak of and they’re going well above and beyond
with improvements there for stormwater. So in summary I think it’s quite an extensive project. So they’re
hoping to get the most out of it and make it a property that really fits the area.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from the Board? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody
from the public wishing to speak on the project? Any correspondence, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No correspondence.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’ll close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add at this point?
MR. KEIL-No, just if you have any questions.
MR. KUHL-Could I ask a question? What’s the dimension of the deck off the house?
MR. CASS-Yes, it’s very tight. It’s seven feet in that pinch point there.
MR. KUHL-Seven feet?
MR. CASS-Yes. The tighter kind of pitch off the northern side right there, that’s about seven feet, and you
can see we tried to follow in respect to that setback line, but just having like a little place for a table or
something there. It’s pretty tight.
MR. KUHL-I guess my question is if approval was based on reducing it one foot, would you?
MR. CASS-I mean, I don’t know.
MR. UNDERWOOD-If you go to six feet, you’re basically going to have a hard time walking around the
chair at that point. If you want to have a table out there and have a usable deck area.
MR. KUHL-I just wanted to ask the question.
MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess I’ll start with you, John.
MR. HENKEL-It’s definitely a hard piece of property to build on, for one reason because of the slope. It
doesn’t give you a lot to work with there. It would be nice, but there’s not a lot you can. I think you’ve
done all you can really do. It’s a little bit over the FAR variance. I’d like to see it a little less on that, but
the benefit of the new septic and the permeable driveway compared to what’s there now with the asphalt.
So I’d be on board with it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-To me it seems like a lot of relief. So I would be against it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Well, you know, I mean, here we go because so many of these properties are torn down and
built new. I think the benefit, I hate to say it, but I think the benefit for the new outweighs what they’re
asking for. I think the request is minimal. I wouldn’t want to start a trend. That way everybody would
start blowing them up a little bit bigger and build them closer and closer to the lake ,but I’d be in favor of
this the way it’s presented.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson?
MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I’d be completely in favor of this as it goes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brady?
MR. STARK-I’m in favor of the project as well.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
3
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I have my concerns the same as Roy does on this one here. Four bedrooms on a
.21 acre lot. I think even if you have an advanced system that’s going to deal with your wastewater that
you’re going to produce on there, I still think your proximity to the lake is a concern. I think all the re-
do’s we’ve done on this part of Rockhurst Road I think have been a concern in the past. So at this point I
don’t think I’d be in favor of the project. So I guess it looks like you have enough to approve this. So does
somebody want to make the motion?
MR. STARK-I’ll do it.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank Sinatra.
Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,562 sq. ft. footprint home and to construct a 1,553 sq., ft.,
footprint home with a floor area of 2,338 sq. ft. The new home has 3 levels foundation area, first floor, and
second floor. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and
construction of new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for the construction of a new home. The parcel is
9,336 sq. ft. and located in the Waterfront Residential zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The proposed home is to be 48 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area
proposed is 25%, 2,338 sq. ft. where 22% or 2,054 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.
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 because it seems to be somewhat minimal.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not necessary at this point.
3. The requested variance could be considered substantial.
4. There is not necessarily an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the
neighborhood or district. It would be very minor if there was any.
5. The alleged difficulty can be considered self-created.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) 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.
79-2021 FRANK SINATRA, Introduced by Brady Stark, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald
Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 15th Day of December 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark
NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
4
MR. CASS-Thank you.