Meeting Minutes 1.26.22 to Reaffirm(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA
AGENT(S) STUDIO A & JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA
ZONING WR LOCATION 104 KNOX ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO
AN EXISTING HOME AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,477 SQ.
FT. AND A FLOOR AREA OF 4,091 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF A
PERMEABLE PAVER FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREA, NEW STEPS TO FUTURE SUN-
DECK AND DOCK, NEW SEPTIC, WELL, SITE PLANTINGS AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS.
SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF
SHORELINE, SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN FOR VEGETATION REMOVAL, STORMWATER
MEASURES STEEP SLOPES WITHIN 50 FT. OF NEW HOME, AND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF
WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, PERMEABILITY, AND
INFILTRATION. CROSS REF SP 55-2021; FWW 1-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
SEPTEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.37 ACRES TAX MAP
NO. 239.7-1-20 SECTION 179-3-040; 147-11
MR. URRICO-“Patty I are thrilled that the property belonging to Antonio and Maria Civitella is going to
finally be developed after having lived next door to an abandoned building, and property for 18 years. We
do have some concerns in reviewing their plans. We ask that the Civitellas include the immediately
adjacent properties in their plot plan. We believe this is relevant information that will prove valuable in
the Board’s decision on set-backs and foot print relief. This will provide the Board and residents a greater
understanding of the potential effects of the requested foot print relief. In order to build a house of this
size and magnitude, a significant number of mature trees will need to be removed. We feel it would be
prudent to ensure this will not have a negative impact on the ground water absorption and excess nutrients
reaching the lake. The site plan indicates 69.5% of permeable area but the standard is 75%. As a result
we ask that the Board consider a more thorough environmental engineering study to ensure the
aforementioned concerns are addressed. We are also concerned about the demolition and removal of the
existing structure. Our understanding is that there is a tremendous mold issue, as well as potential
asbestos and lead presence based on its age. Before it is demolished, we request a thorough review of the
demolition plans to ensure all modern health procedures and guidelines associated with these types of
contaminants will be followed. This is of the utmost importance to ensure the health and well-being of
the residents and habitat of the area. With regards to the Floor Area Ratio requirements, being that this
is a redesign, why should it be necessary to go above the required Floor Area Ratio of 22%? The 22%
requirement would be easy to meet, and may allow the orientation of the home to marry better with the
neighboring properties. The original home has an orientation facing further south which would ease the
setback situation to the north. The Town standard of 22% is intended to limit site development to that
which can better protect the lake as well as nearby properties. We would like to close by thanking the
Board for their consideration of our comments with hopes their ultimate are consistent with other recent
reviews of the FAR and permeability variance requests in this very sensitive community. Sincerely,
Patricia and George Pensel” “Luise and I welcome the Civitellas to our little paradise at the end of Knox
Road. Let’s not drive ourselves out of this paradise by destroying it. It is extremely sensitive ; the lake is
on the west, and the wetlands south and east of the proposed new house and of those in the immediate
vicinity. Our lot sizes are tiny. New lake-front houses, including the proposed house, tend to be huge:
with large foot-prints, high with deep basements and large roofs. Because of the small lots, setbacks from
property lines are challenged. Storm-water runoff tends to be minimized. Soil permeability is reduced.
Almost all centuries old pines (some of the last on Assembly Point) are proposed to be removed specifically
including the lakefront area. Trees are viewed as enemies by builders and home-owners. In truth they
are friends: Trees promote soil quality and stability. Trees retain ground water levels and quality.
Drinking water for houses in the immediate vicinity at 106 and 105 Knox Road is supplied by lake-water.
The proposed residence will be supplied with well-water. One possible reason for the difference: Lake
George water quality is and has deteriorated for decades. Development and removal of trees are a cause for
that deterioration. Trees protect from harsh wind and cold and sunlight. Lake views are not diminished
but rather enhanced by trees. The value of old-growth pines cannot be compensated by young "native
trees". Deciduous trees such as maples and beeches are invasive species. These are some of the main reasons
for contesting the view of the proposal that it "reflects the character of the neighborhood." Now to some
specific variance applications. We provide here concrete support to the general concerns: Minimum side-
yard setback proposals of 14' and 15'9" are significantly less than the required 20'. Maximum floor area of
24.3% is significantly more than the WR required 22%. Site permeability of the proposed 69.5% is
significantly less than the required 75%, but especially so in comparison to the existing 93%. It is no secret
that general building practice seriously disturbs lot- and soil-conditions especially of a small lot such as
104 Knox Road: All of the original, high-quality topsoil built up over centuries (often more than 2 ft. deep!)
disappears. It is displaced by low-quality soil dug up to prepare for footings and foundation walls. That
poor quality soil is typically piled up on the site only to be spread out over the entire lot when foundation
walls are finished. That excess soil is typically not removed to cut costs. But thereby the original grade level
increases, which increases the height of the house. The new grade is higher than original grade. Town
regulations now prohibit that practice. We request that original grade is retained. We request excess soil
is removed. We request that the high-quality original topsoil is retained and spread out over the whole lot
when house is finished. These steps enhance the quality of the proposal, the lake and the sensitive
environment. These specific concerns undergird the first-mentioned general concerns. We believe more
closely meeting required metrics would enhance and not degrade the proposal. We hope and trust the
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022)
2
Board and the Civitellas agree. We thank the Board for considering these concerns in their deliberations.
Luis and Rolf Ahlers 105 Knox Road Lake George, NY 12845” And they also included answers to the
criteria in their envelopes. That’s it.
MR. MC CABE-So listening to those letters I heard no new information as far as I’m concerned. So I’m
going to make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Antonio &
Maria Civitella. (Revised) Applicant proposes to demo an existing home and to construct a new home
with a footprint of 2,477 sq. ft. and a floor area of 4,091 sq. ft. The project includes inst allation of a
permeable paver for patio and driveway areas, new steps to future sun-deck and dock, new septic, well,
site plantings and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of
the shoreline, shoreline planting plan for vegetation removal, stormwater measures steep slopes within 50
ft. of new home, and work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, permeability,
and infiltration.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, permeability, and infiltration practice. The project is
the construction of a new home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR on a 0.41
acre parcel.
Section 179-3-040, Chapter 147
The new home requires variance for setbacks where 20 ft. is required and 15 ft. 9 inches to the south
property line and 14 ft. to the North property line is proposed; floor area where 22% is the maximum
allowed and 32.5% 24.3% is proposed; permeability where 75% is required and 69.5% 71.5% proposed; and
infiltration practice is required to be 100 ft. for the shoreline where 35 ft. is proposed.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 22, 2021 & Wednesday, January 19,
2022.
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’ve established that this new construction will make this property very
similar to adjacent properties.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but not deemed reasonable, mainly due to
the shape and size of the property.
3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, is not really substantial when you consider
what already exists on the property.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. In fact we think that the new construction will improve the environmental and
physical conditions.
5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) The patio will be reduced by four feet.
b) Fifty square feet of the K turn will be eliminated.
c) The driveway will be reduced in width by two feet.
d) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO REAFFIRM APPROVE AREA
VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who
moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022)
3
To read Public Comments not read into the record at the Public Hearing held on January 19, 2022.
Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022 by the following vote:
MR. MC CABE-So if you vote yes, that means that you’ll keep, your vote from last week will stand.
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl