Meeting Minutes 10/27/21 & 12/15/21(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
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
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 11/22/2021)
APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH
A 5,004 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF 1,649
SQ. FT. OF PERMEABLE PATIO AREA, A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO
PROPERTIES, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 500 SQ. FT. BARN. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL
BE 8.764 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING
SHORELINE AN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SEPTIC, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ,
DRIVEWAY AREA, A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE MAIN HOME AND A PROPOSED
HOME ON THE ADJOINING PARCEL. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT
NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS,
ADDITIONAL GARAGE, 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, & JOHN WITT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2021, Brett & Pamela West (Main House), Meeting Date:
December 15, 2021 “Project Location: 106 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: (Revised
11/22/2021) Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new home with a 5,004
sq. ft. footprint with a garage. Also included is installation of 1,649 sq. ft. of permeable patio area, a covered
walkway between the two properties, and construction of a 500 sq. ft. barn. The new floor area will be
8,764 sq. ft. 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. Project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Site plan for new
floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline.
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, 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
Revised December 2021. The new home is to be located 37.5 ft. to the east shoreline, 34 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. 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 of 12.5 ft., west shoreline
16 ft. The covered walkway 20 ft. Relief for an additional garage. Relief for floor area is 0.2 % in excess.
No permeability relief is requested.
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
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
2
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, and John Witt, the house designer for the new construction, is right behind us if you
have any questions on the architecture. We just gave Laura some artist renderings of the house on the
Point. She’ll put the up in a few minutes when we get there, but just to get started, a little background.
Brett wanted to just give a little bit of history. You might have seen the obituary. His dad passed away
last week. So some of the family history. His mom was a Seelye and the Wests and the Seelye’s owned,
for generations have been on the lake. Brett grew up in Queensbury, was a Queensbury high school
graduate. Went to Connecticut for business and would up selling his business and had the opportunity
to move back and buy what’s really a dream piece of property on the Point on Assembly Point. Of course
they started out thinking that they’d renovate the log cabin that’s there now, but it’s really dilapidated and
doesn’t work. So they had the opportunity to buy the property next door and that’s why we’re here to try
and use them both to do something really spectacular on the Point, but, you know, spectacular in design,
but this is certainly not a mansion, and Phil Morse next door is a mansion. This is trying to be tasteful and
fit in with the Point. So starting with, if you look at the mapping you see the red lines on the lake setback.
Since we were here the last time the house was twisted and it was pulled back away from the lake another
three feet on the north side. So the two areas that are outside the red line, because they can’t use that
triangle piece because that doesn’t make sense for a home. So first if you look at the dark red line where
the setback is and you see that there’s only those two areas where the house encroaches on the setback.
That’s really just because of the constraints of this being a point. On the south side the guest home
conforms to the setback. In terms of the variances, we’ve now, over the course of the last two meetings,
reduced it even further. So the main house is at 22.2% FAR which is essentially conforming at 22%, and
the guest house is 23.5. So these are now very minor variances compared to the Code. The way it works
together with the driveway reduces permeability and there’s a large existing buffer which they planted on
the south side a hedge to block the neighbor from the south. What’s most interesting about this is the
covered walkway, and that’s, what they’re trying to build is a historic, great camp look and that’s why they
have the barn, which is a historic looking barn, and the covered walkway, but we previously reduced the
width of the covered walkway to reduce the floor area ratio, and I think this is probably a good time to
show the perspective from John Witt. So that’s the lakeside and it’s worth pointing out here that this
isn’t, and I mentioned this before, it’s not a two story with a roof. The second story is mostly built into
the roof. So it reduces the profile a lot from what somebody else might do and still have the same floor
area. So that’s the perspective looking from the road. You see the lake underneath the covered walkway.
And the guest house on the left and the main house on the right with the circular driveway, and as John
said, looking through, underneath the covered walkway this is the lake. It looks both ways from the lak e.
You see it through the trees.
MR. KUHL-Could I ask you a question? Can I ask him a question, Mr. Chairman?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly.
MR. KUHL-I’m looking at the document that you submitted for 10/8 and the document you submitted
stamped November 22nd and it looks to me that the position of the houses and the outbuildings are all the
same. What’s been changed? Because for the 10/8 admittance, you went back to do, what has changed?
Am I missing something? To me everything looks the same.
MR. KEIL-At this scale that we’re showing you it might be a little hard to decipher, but basically what has
happened is the house has been rotated and pulled back, largely based on comments and suggestions by
members of the public.
MR. KUHL-The house has been pulled back?
MR. KEIL-Away from the lake.
MR. LAPPER-On the north side.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
3
MR. KUHL-Not by, I mean, to me these drawings look exactly the same. This one’s stamped November
22nd. This was given with the 10/8 submittal. Unless this is received October 8th. This is received
November 22nd. And I don’t mean to be picky, but I can’t see any difference from the house, the main
house, the guest house and the two outbuildings. I realize in some of the write up that the outbuildings I
think you reduced something on one of the game rooms or something, but, am I wrong or am I right?
MRS. MOORE-So I have the two drawings up here. There are two drawings up on display, and so the
first drawing would be to my left shows that it’s 35.5. The new drawing that they recently submitted
shows a 37.5 foot setback.
MR. KUHL-Really?
MR. LAPPER-Ron, if you look at where the red line is, you can see that it was pulled back away from the
lake.
MR. KUHL-I wish I could see it, but okay.
MR. LAPPER-If you look at the maps on the wall.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-On the right side it’s right at the corner, and on the left side it’s down a number of feet.
MR. KUHL-Okay. I’m sorry. Yes, I do see that. That’s the difference is on the lake side. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-So in order to try and pull it away from the lake, we had to compress it more on the road
side.
MR. KUHL-Listen, I’m up here to only review what you submitted, but for me I would have moved the
whole main dwelling, taken these two buildings and put them between the major house and the guest
house and you could have moved it all away, but this is what you’re submitting and this is what you’re
asking us to approve. I just didn’t understand, but I do see the difference now. I’m sorry. I mean I could
be old and my eyesight is leaving me.
MR. KEIL-Yes, and as I said originally, at that scale, when you’re looking at it, it can be hard to decipher
that change, but again I’m just saying by pulling back it’s no small feat because you still have to
accommodate the circulation for the drive.
MR. KUHL-I understand.
MR. KEIL-The stormwater, etc.
MR. KUHL-I’ve got it. Thank you.
MR. LAPPER-So, continuing, this is also a case where we’ve got septic holding tanks for both homes,
which is the right thing to do on the Point, and conforming stormwater, which of cou rse was never there,
and many of the neighbors don’t have conforming stormwater or septic. So this is an improvement. When
people talk about concerns with harmful algae, etc., this is doing the right thing especially on the Point,
with stormwater and septic. We listened to the comments last time and we tried to make it smaller and
pull it away from the lake and make a better project. Chris, is there anything you’d like to add at this
point?
MR. KEIL-I don’t think so. Just one other statistic is, you know, we did decrease the amount of building
outside the shoreline setback from about 850 square feet to less than 600. So I think, overall, we did kind
of what we can with the constraints of the site.
MR. LAPPER-And again the only house that doesn’t conform to the setback is the north one and that’s
only at 22.2 FAR. So it’s essentially conforming and the constraint is just that shape of the Point.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members at this time?
MR. STARK-I just have one quick question. Did you guys say that you reduced the square footage?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MR. STARK-I’m sorry. I didn’t catch that. How much by?
MR. HENKEL-I’m down to 77 feet above the FAR variance right now. Right, is that what it is, 77 feet
above?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
4
MR. KEIL-Right, I believe it is that covered walkway that is slightly compressed.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no more questions from the Board at this point, I think I’ll open up
the public hearing, and again, I would request that the public, if you’re going to speak, if you have
something new to add, feel free to do that. Please don’t repeat. I think the Board is well aware of your
concerns about what we had discussed in previous renditions of the meeting. Anybody from the public
wishing to speak, raise your hand. Do you want to come up, ma’am.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
PAM LESTER GOLDE
MRS. LESTER GOLDE-The blue piece of paper with the blue heading is more for education for you later
on. You don’t necessarily need to read that. My name is Pam Lester Golde. As Pam Lester I am a registered
landscape architect in New York and I happen to be the property owner at the south side. The large
drawing that I, the aerial photograph that I gave you, one of the comments that has been made in regards
to a zoning variance is, is this in keeping with the existing residence. These are, you can see the original
Ross house, that has been leveled, and you can see the existing log cabin that is the West house, in
relationship to the O’Keefe which is to the right and my house which is to the left of the properties in
question on the Point. This is not a small project. This is not in keeping with Assembly Point. Neither
was Morse’ house. Neither was Cantanucci’s house, but we have taken a summer community and we are
making it an urban dwelling area. The blue piece of paper, at the top basically is for your education in
regards to stormwater management and why there is green infrastructure and the fact that thus particular
green infrastructure in regards to stormwater drainage that the engineer has proposed, yes it deals with
water quantity . It does not deal with water quality. I have also given you a detail that says Unilock
permeable pavement. Unilock is one of the top manufacturers. They were one of the original
manufacturers for permeable pavement, and as you can see, I have labeled on the left hand side of the detail,
we have a 26 inch cross section between the gravel and the sub, set in beds, and the pavers itself. Compared
to the 24 inches that we have before we hit groundwater. In order for you to have water quality, you need
to have two feet of soil below the gravel sub-base material, and this we do not have. There will be no water
quality. Which means all of the fertilizer, the oils from the cars, the salt from the road are all going to go
right into the groundwater which goes into Lake George, and we have already had, Lorraine, how many
HAB’s did we have this past summer, two or three?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-In a one year period we had 14.
MRS. LESTER GOLDE-And as a kid growing up here on Lake George, you couldn’t swim in the lake
comfortably until the end of July. I start in May now by rowing, and I am in the lake by Memorial Day
weekend. I didn’t even do that as a kid growing up here. So those are my comments in regard to storm
drainage. His stormwater drainage does not work. In regards to water quality, the project is too big. In
regards to impervious surface, and he should be required to have a variance for impervious surface coverage.
The neighbor, Mary Helen O’Keefe, to the east of the property, had sent me an e-mail which I will read into
it, the file. The O’Keefe’s and the Wests have had problems for the last, this year and continually. Either
Brett or his landscaper were blowing the leaves into the drainage channel that separates the two parcels.
To the point that water backed up into Otyokwa and then flooded the road and flooded neighbors farther
down, the Sanders and basically Otyokwa itself. They then found out that there was an orange berg pipe
and they had to replace it which took all summer to replace, and now the drainage channel is full again,
and her handyman who was at the house today said there’s leaf collections at both ends of the drainage
channel and her property is now being flooded out. So you don’t even have a garage and the barn there,
and you have just eliminated, by this design, all of the impervious surface and coverage for it. Now th ey
might turn around and argue saying, well, there’s a rain garden. The rain garden is good for a limited area.
During the winter months it is not because you’re going to have rain storm, rain events when the ground
is frozen, and all of that water is going to overflow and the one place it goes into is the O’Keefe’s property.
So this overall project is just way too big and she wrote that Jim my handyman is up at the house right now
and yes there is a new pile of fresh leaves in the ditches at both ends, by the road and down between our
property. Yikes. Do you have a new lawn service because the Town of Queensbury talked to Brett, do
not have the leaves and grass dumpings into the culvert. Thank you for going to the meeting. Mary Helen.
Keep my posted. My lawn is flooded, but there is rain and snow melt, but this is an issue if he puts the
garage next to my property line and takes all those trees down. Thank you for your time, and I hope you
deny this project.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Ma’am?
LORRAINE RUFFING
MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing. I live on Assembly Point, 166 Bay Parkway.
As the Chairman noted, this is the third time that you’ve had this project before you. I don’t see any
substantial changes in this project. Your previous comments I think were definitely relevant to those two
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
5
meetings when you said the barn is excessive, rotate the house, and meet the setbacks. If you look at the
setbacks that you’ve been shown tonight, you’ll see that they’re between two and three feet of a setback
based on what you were presented with before, and as my neighbor has said, the project is oversized. The
driveway’s too large. The covered walkway is unnecessary because this is level land. There is too much
hard surfacing, and I think Mrs. Golde has given you the specifics on the pavers in relation to the water
table and the last thing that you said, you need to really reduce this project by 1/3rd. This project has not
been reduced by 1/3rd. So I see no substantial changes from the previous proposals and the basic facts
remain that this project is in a critical environmental area with a high water table, which is two feet below
the surface. The number of structures remains the same, two houses, three garages, a barn, a paved ar ea
for patios, a circular driveway which is too large, a covered walkway. It is just too much for this particular
property. I think overbuilding and non-compliant setbacks from the lake would have an adverse effect
and impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood since it is in a critical
environmental area. Alternatives exist and have been suggested by you which would allow the applicant
to construct a new dwelling. For those reasons I ask you to reject the current application and ask them to
re-design the project to conform to Town Code and your suggestions, to do a percolation test at the
appropriate time of year, which has not been done. I think the last percolation test was in 2016, produce
a more detailed plan for tree cutting and new landscaping, which conforms to Town Code. Thank you very
much.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Roy, do we have any
new communications?
MR. URRICO-Yes, we do. “I live on Assembly Point next door to the West property to the east. Our
property is divided by large mature trees. These trees are alongside the culvert that drains directly into
the lake. The trees protect the lake by absorbing nutrients. My concern is that removal of these trees are
being replaced by a large two story garage with a very small rain garden along the culvert. There will be
run off from rain water directly into the lake from the garage roof and into the culvert and flooding onto
my property. Sincerely, Mary Helen and Dan O’Keefe 102 Bay Parkway, Lake George, NY 12845” “I am a
neighbor to the Wests at the end of Assembly Point; I live at 128 Lake Parkway, and I have been following
the various Board reviews of this application and project. The basic plan appears to still remain too large
and stressful for that particular fragile spit of land with its complicating high water table. Until the plan
is mitigated to conform to Town Codes, in the best interest of the neighborhood and local eco system and
to avoid probably resultant water pollution, please continue to demand the highest conformance to
protective code and standards. Were I rebuilding on my property I would welcome strong input from my
family, neighbors, contractors/designers, landscapers, and engineer to make sure I were proceeding with
best sizing, setbacks and tree and permaculture installation; I would want to trust that my town review
boards helped hold my construction/revisions to the highest standards so I could honestly tell my children
and family I had done my best for the lake and land; I would want guidance to help me get my project
appropriate. As residents in the neighborhood, standing by watching the many currently overly ambitious
constructions, we have to rely on your (the ZBA) deepening understanding, sensitivity and awareness for
ecosystem and water quality protection. Drive down Assembly Point, and all along the way to the end of
the Point at the West project you will note many projects, overcrowding/overbuilding. When my
ancestors first built out here, the standard for the neighborhood was the golden mean-nothing shabby, but
nothing ostentatious. We are possibly in a world-wide ecosystem collapse and crisis that should demand
radical conservatism in development, at very least a braver and stricter conformance to code; variances
should no longer be the norm; are you willing to hold to a stronger standard as a matter of ethics? The
terrible pollution we are seeing exponentially in our water right along our shores (HAB’s) is most likely
exacerbated from nutrient loading stress due to inappropriate over-sizing and over-building and nowhere
near enough trees and deep-rooted shoreline shrubs. Thank you for considering real protection. No one
of us is any longer entitled to exceptions. Best, Lisa Adamson 128 Lake Parkway, Lake George, NY 12845”
This is from the Waterkeeper. “The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my
capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterk eeper. The Waterkeeper would
like to recognize the Zoning Board's deliberation over this variance application and dedication to the need
for balance that is required for granting variances. It is our opinion the applicant's amendments to the
application fall short of the Board's request to reduce the project's size to "make it better", "reduce the
number of variances" and their concern regarding the amount of permeable pavers and protection of
resources. The Waterkeeper remains concerned regarding the requested variances for Floor Area Ratio and
shoreline setback, as well as concerns of site permeability, that are essential for the protection of Critical
Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. The application continues to propose too much
disturbance and relies too heavily on permeable pavers, which can have questionable long-term benefits
and may actually result in greater impacts to Lake George and its water quality. The Lake George
Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-080
Variance Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The
following are comments based on our review of the most current submission: There has been minimal
improvement regarding the requested shoreline setback variance requests of 34' and 37.5'. It is
recognized one shoreline setback was increased from 31' to 34', but the proposed disturbance will extend
into the required protective shoreline buffer and the application fails to d emonstrate how the protective
buffer will be established to meet the requirements of §179-8-040. In addition, the application continues
to propose extending pavers into the protective shoreline buffer, further reducing the ability for the site to
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
6
provide mitigation. There has been no reduction in the extensive use of permeable pavers to
circumvent the permeability requirement. Permeability is vital in the Critical Environmental Area
surrounding Lake George to provide natural stormwater mitigation through vegetative uptake and natural
soil treatment, which is not provided through gravel storage. The site vegetative coverage will be reduced
by 10% within the CEA, which will impact water quality. As previously stated, the site design fails to meet
the New York State Stormwater Design Manual requirements of 3-foot separation to groundwater for
pavers and therefore, permeability credit should not be allowed. The extent of permeable pavers should be
reduced by eliminating the combined driveways and circular driveway. The application appears to
reduce the side yard setback from 21' to 20' along the eastern border which will increase disturbance
of existing intermittent stream and buffer. This important vegetative buffer and intermittent stream
continues to be sacrificed without any recognition or proposed mitigation measures for the extensive
design. The application still has not detailed the extent of removal of mature vegetation and has not
proposed any mitigation measures. It is important to restate the statements from March 2016 on the
redevelopment of the property hearing when their agent stated if they build a much larger structure, it is
actually more detrimental to the water quality. It is the opinion of the Waterkeeper that the applicant has
failed to meet the balancing test, will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental
conditions of the neighborhood and that alternatives exist for a more compliant proposal. As was stated in
the October 2021 hearing, if the current application at that time was the original submission, the Board
would not approve. The Zoning Board should deny the application as there have been no substantial
changes to mitigate the requested variances within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake
George. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning
Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your
consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” One more. “Two times
you have done the right thing and refused to approve these variance applications with out significant
changes. Each time, including the current time, the applicants have made only minor changes, and have
not addressed the issues raised by the public and by the Board. The latest plans are not significantly
different than the last version. The requested variances are significant, and are unnecessary. I urge you
to reject them. Thank you, John Caffry”
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Would you like to come back up and make some comments.
MR. LAPPER-John Witt’s going to start it off. He designed the house.
MR. WITT-The house is not as large as people say it is. The main house is one bedroom with a garage
that’s attached and it connects to like a kid’s quarters which is two more bedrooms and a loft area. So to
say it’s super large is just not true and the scale of this site is very similar to the existing house that’s there,
and the existing house is actually closer to the lake. The house that was torn down is in the left on that
picture was closer to the lake. The variances are not substantial. They’ve pulled back both houses inside
of the setback, except for the main house which was pulled back but it’s still just outside of the setback.
So I think the scale and the house really fits into the neighborhood. There’s many houses on Assembly
Point, we did a house a couple of years ago that is much closer than 50 feet, and on a much tighter lot, a lot
more environmental issues because it’s a sloped lot right to the lake. This being a flat lot we can control
the stormwater and the one comment from the lady about the pavers, is totally false. We’ve done
permeable pavers. We just did a site in Saratoga Springs with a brick paver, it’s beautiful, and it only had
six inches of tamped gravel underneath. It had a mesh. So the mesh makes up the difference so it didn’t
have 26 inches. So we’re not going into groundwater. So that’s totally false. And again, I really think, if
you look at the scale of the project and you look at all of the elevations as you approach the lake, pulling
the house further back from the lake which is currently there, and it’s not a towering house. It’s very
elegantly designed and it’s all connected like a great camp, and I honestly think it’s going to be one of the
nicest houses on the lake, and I think you’ll all be very proud to see this house and I understand there’s
environmental concerns, and I think the engineers can speak to that, but we’re not allowed to build things
that don’t meet New York State stormwater. So that’s just false.
MR. KEIL-If I could make a few comments just related to stormwater and some other landscape items as
well. Since we met last, we performed test pits on site, five different test pits and groundwater range in
depth from surface, from about two feet up to over four feet and unfortunately we got that information a
little late. So we weren’t able to incorporate it into this last batch of comments, but there’s nothing there
that we don’t believe at this point something we can’t solve through modifying the grades in our
raingardens, etc., you know, to accommodate that separation which, you know, we know we would go
through that process when we go through the Town Engineering review as it relates to the more detailed
design on the stormwater. I think raingardens in particular are a really proven method for dealing with
water quality as well as the issue of rain on frozen ground was brought up, but in my view any surface is
problematic in those sort of situations. As it relates to the landscape plan, we’ve shown a little bit more
detail. In the previous submission in October we had a landscape plan that we reference on Sheet Six
where we show a pretty extensive tree planting to compensate for some of the trees that will need to be
removed as part of the construction, as well as some shoreline planting, pretty robust planting, in two areas
of the shoreline which is currently just turf right to the water’s edge. So we think that’s going to be a huge
improvement. This intermittent stream has been brought up a few times, and we’re staying clear on that,
on that northern edge. So I don’t know why that has been factored in. Also there’s been some comments
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
7
about the maintenance practices and whatnot, but, you know, that’s something I can’t specifically
comment to at this point, but, yes, I feel like overall the improvements to stormwater, you know, will be
substantial. I mean our permeability is a reduction of the current, if you count the permeable paving which
is something that the Town accepts as a practice.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you wish to add?
MR. KEIL-I don’t think so.
MR. HENKEL-Can I ask a question of Laura? Who do we believe on this permeability? One minute we’re
talking, Chris Navitsky’s saying it’s not what we’re being told here with the 77, or we’re looking at, what,
77% permeability and he’s denying that, saying that it’s not true, and so who do we believe?
MRS. MOORE-So that information is provided to the Staff. I reviewed that information. Their
calculations indicate that the permeability is at 77.9.
MR. HENKEL-So that’s who we believe?
MRS. MOORE-Yes, because that’s what the applicant has provided to us.
MR. HENKEL-We’ve got an expert, supposedly, like Chris Navitsky saying.
MRS. MOORE-Well, you also have support staff. You’ve got support staff that has evaluated that.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-And we’ll go through a detailed review with Chazen Engineers when we get to the Planning
Board, especially stormwater issues, buffering issues, that’s all part of the planning process. Chazen will
look at all the numbers again, but Laura’s saying that Staff has passed on it and they’ve agreed with what
Environmental Design did.
MR. HENKEL-And that’s all we can go by.
MR. KEIL-One other thing to add. I think the Town’s stance has always been permeable pavers count as
50% of that surface area. I know there’s a lot of criticism, generally speaking, about the fact that it can get
clogged. So, yes, there are issues sometimes on certain sites where they don’t perform as expected, but I
think we’ve done a really good job on projects, you know, creating redundancy where there’s like a stone
diaphragm at the edge, making sure a maintenance plan is part of the application to ensure you’ll have that
proper maintenance report in.
MR. HENKEL-Do you know if there’s been any consideration, I know you’ve got a 20 foot setback with
the garage and your shed here, your barn. That is a little bit of a problem. There is a little bit of a stream
that goes through there. Was there any consideration of bringing that a little bit tighter towards the
house, so that would give a little bit more space.
MR. LAPPER-What’s funny there is that we’re trying to pull it away from the lake so it pushes on to the
backside of the property. There’s a little bit of.
MR. HENKEL-But if you’re pulling it back toward, you’re still farther away from the lake. I mean if you’re
pulling it closer to the, you know, eliminating that hallway and bringing it, I know you’re already at the 20
feet setback. So you don’t really have to ask for that, but I’m just saying maybe it would make it a little bit
easier, a little bit better for the groundwater to be absorbed if there were more trees in between that area,
more soil.
MR. KEIL-That is a good point, and that is something we planned on buffering that zone, that edge, just
for privacy of that neighbor as well. I mean, you know, as John mentioned there’s going to be gutters.
We’re going to have to ask for that. So I think as we get more involved in the stormwater design and work
with Chazen, you know, we have some flexibility where we can divert that water to make sure, one, we
get the separation and, two, that, you know, we’re creating those areas in a place that supports the project
in terms of staying away from those resources.
MR. KUHL-May I ask a question?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly.
MR. KUHL-I can’t talk for anybody else on this Board, but I’ve heard varying comments about, I mean this
presenter, or the one woman today talked about 24 inches. Have you done any test pits on this property
to tell us where the water table is at different locations of the property?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
8
MR. KEIL-Yes, we’ve performed five of them.
MR. KUHL-Okay. But they’re not on this drawing, right?
MR. KEIL-No. As I stated earlier, unfortunately we got that information, it was in process after we
submitted this last.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Of the five, give me a high to low.
MR. KEIL-Yes. So it’s just over four feet for the high, that’s the greatest separation.
MR. KUHL-Which would be close to Bay Parkway. Correct?
MR. KEIL-Yes, and closer to the guest house, as you’d expect. I mean, down where it sort of parallels the
surface largely. Right?
MR. KUHL-And if we look at the area where the pavers are going, I’m talking about the main area between
the portico and Bay Parkway, what are the depths around there?
MR. KEIL-So we have a test pit that’s right in sort of the center of, it’s actually very close to the Porte
cochre. It’s in the center of that drive turnaround, the existing turnaround. So that test pit, because
obviously we don’t want to be too invasive. We had to place these in places which are soft scape currently,
right? So at that location right there, we have waters at 36 inches.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Well where are the 26 and 24 inch pits, test pits? I mean I assume they’re out towards
the dock somewhere.
MR. KEIL-The 24 inch actually interestingly enough was closer to that northern or eastern boundary line,
where that intermittent stream has been referenced.
MR. KUHL-So that’s the O’Keefe’s?
MR. KEIL-And probably some sort of groundwater connection to that stream I would presume somewhat,
but that raingarden area is the place where we will be guttering that water. So we have the ability to
manipulate grade there.
MR. KUHL-What do we lose as the water table comes up? Permeable pavers are, what, 55% effective at
any good day? And as the water table goes up it loses its absorption value. Correct?
MR. KEIL-Not as much, more of the treatment I think is the point there.
MR. KUHL-Well, same thing, treatment, the water going down them, right, the volume going through the
solid, or the permeable paver.
MR. LAPPER-But the alternative is that it runs into the lake untreated.
MR. KUHL-I’m not looking at alternatives. At this point I’m trying to understand, because there have
been several depths that were quoted to, that I heard as a Board member. I can’t speak for anybody else
on this Board, and I get a little leery of what’s the right number. Because what you presented doesn’t show
me any test pits. Okay, and then we go to, okay, is 36 the good number, after that everything’s fine? Don’t
talk to me as a lawyer. You’re not an engineer.
MR. LAPPER-Those are more issues that are reviewed not by the Zoning Board for the variance but by the
Planning Board for stormwater and the engineer.
MR. KUHL-Okay, but honestly, Jon, if you weren’t looking for variances, here, there would be no
opposition, according to the people that came up to that table. Okay.
MR. LAPPER-I heard a lot of discussion about global warming and the general condition of the lake, and
this project is going to help stormwater from what’s there now, and have septic holdi ng tanks, so I think
those are more general statements than specific to this project.
MR. KUHL-Okay. I think this is an outstanding piece of property, and when I’m on the lake I look at it in
awe, and I also say why are they tearing it down. So the fact that they’re removing what’s there, now you’ve
got the West’s looking for approval because it doesn’t fit.
MR. LAPPER-Well it needs variances because of specific issues with the shape of this parcel, but as John
Witt said, he’s trying to design something spectacular that will fit in, that won’t be too tall, that people
will go by in their boat and say that’s really appropriate for this property for a spectacular piece of property.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
9
MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else from the Board? All right. At this t ime I’m going to close the public
hearing.
MR. WITT-Can I just make one comment on the planters. The site we did in Saratoga Springs recently,
we did radiant heat permeable pavers, and this site is proposed for all radiant heat. So basically what’s
going to happen here, you’re going to have less runoff.
MR. URRICO-Can you identify yourself?
MR. WITT-I’m John Witt with Witt Construction.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. WITT-The designer and the builder of the project. So when you have a course paver that wat er can
go through, okay, what happens in the spring and fall, you have frost, and then water will run across the
lawn, and that’s a big lawn, and this site has got a lot of green area. So there’s a lot of area to create
raingardens. What I’m getting at with the heated pavers, in the spring and fall when you have the frost,
the water still goes through. In the tests that we’ve done with this site, pouring rain the other day, the
ground was frost. We had about two or three inches of frozen ground in Saratoga, and I went by the site
when we had one of those pouring rains, and because of the frost, if it was just pavers they might just run
across. Because they’re heated, the water goes straight in them and it’s actually a lot more, it works better
than grass or anything else that you might put down is actually the pavers because they’re heated, and also
even in the summer there are hose tests done after. We couldn’t put enough water into them. The water
just goes straight into them. So in our practical experience it really works, and I think you’re going to have
less, a lot less runoff on the lake after this project’s built than what’s happening now. The scale of this
house, the main house is very similar to what’s there, and it’s just a rotten, it’s a rotting out log cabin and
it’s not insulated, and that’s the reason they need to do something different. Thank you.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. At this point I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that before I poll the Board I just want to summarize a little bit of what I
think here, as to what I think we should do here this evening. We’ve listened to a lot of commentary,
concerns from the public at all three meetings that we’ve had. I think that new letters and new information
have been submitted tonight from the public also and I think that that should have some pertinence in our
decision making process here this evening. Even though there’s been some give and take here on this
project, I think you need to think back to the previous two meetings about what we have asked, what our
concerns were at that point, and balance and outline whether you think they’ve done enough to justify
approval for this project or disapproval for the project. So at this point I’m going to start with you, Ron.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that this project could be done without the variances
you’re requesting. I’m not in favor of it the way it’s presented.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, as I stated in the October meeting that had this come before us just as it is right now I
would not approve it. So we haven’t improved the original application by very much. Though we’ve
incrementally improved it, I still see at least three fairly large variances that you’re requesting to be granted.
I still think that’s too much, and we’re not even talking about the permeability, which seems to be the
question, but right now I’m not even thinking about that because that’s not on the table. So I would agree
with Ron. I think there are still too many variances on the table and I would not be in favor of it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-John?
MR. HENKEL-Personally there’s a lot of variances maybe, but they’re not asking for a lot in those variances.
I mean they’re only asking 77 square feet over the FAR variance. I kind of would like to see that garage
and that shed, the barn slid over away from that property line, even though you’re not asking for that.
You’ve got the 20 feet there anyway, but I think you could take care of some of that problem of that water
going through there. So I’m not really against it, although I’d like to see that garage, that barn moved over
and the garage moved over. So as is I’d probably have to say I’m still against it a little bit, but the other
variances don’t really bother me.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Brady?
MR. STARK-Well, I’d agree with what my fellow Board members said. I think there’s, I think you guys
have done a good job in revising it at this point, but I think there is still a little bit of room for improvement.
So at this point I would be against it.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
10
MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson?
MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I think that that would really be the only variance at this point that I would really
have a problem with are those setbacks, I think especially the walkway setback. I think the FAR and
everything else is completely fine. You’re not even asking for a variance for permeability I don’t think, and
the garage is fine, too. So really it’s just those setbacks that I would like to see it get to a p oint where
they’re less, if you can, or at least closer, 40, 45 feet maybe, closer to the 50 foot mark is what I’d like to see
before I could give it a yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. For my own commentary, I think we have to keep in mind here what you’ve
done, and I asked you specifically to give up something, and I don’t think that you’ve really given up
anything at all since the institution of this project at the first meeting here. I think, you know, when you
look at the size of what you’re proposing to do here, even though we have esoteric numbers like 22% floor
area ratio. We have permeability, like they’re magic numbers, if you meet them we’ll automatically get to
wave the magic wand and make things happen for you. I think that, you know, if you compare this to the
Morse project, which is a true abomination on the lake. It’s probably the worst case scenario, I think
you’re working in the right direction here, but I think you still have a significant ways to go here. Your
setbacks from the lake I think are reasonable at 37 and 34 feet. I don’t really see that that’s a big deal, but
I think, you know, the fact that you’re on a piece of property with a high perch water table, you can’t
dispose of your septic waste on site as most people do on the lake, you know, you’re going to have to remove
that. I think you’re going to have to jump through hoops. The Adirondack Park Agency I’m sure is going
to review this to the T. You’ve already been turned down previously for your Porte cochre project , even
though this Board approved that project on previous occasions. So I think that you’re still going to have
to go back and shrink this project down. I’m not a firm believer in the 22% floor area ratio, that it applies
evenly to every single project. We have lots of small lots on the lake and there’s no need for anybody to
maximally build all the time and expect that they’re going to get that maximum number. I think that you
should go back to the table and I think that you should go back and combine your media room, your great
room, your recreation room on the garage, remove something, make it smaller, make it fit, because it’s out
of character with the neighborhood and I think that the comments that have been made by the
Waterkeeper are especially pertinent to the project. So at this point I think you’re going to have to table
and come back with something significantly different. I think if you’re going to come back again to us at
that point in time you’re going to have to come back with something removed significant.
MR. LAPPER-Okay. We will table it. I heard a mixed message that some people want significant and
some people want minor changes, but we’ll come back with something better.
MR. HENKEL-What do you have for a good time.
MRS. MOORE-I would table to, depending on their schedule, to a February meeting.
MR. HENKEL-So February 16th or the 23rd.
MRS. MOORE-So it would be the first Zoning Board meeting in February. I apologize, I don’t have my
calendar with me.
MR. HENKEL-Okay. So it’s the 16th.
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re tabling them both?
MR. LAPPER-Yes.
MRS. MOORE-We’ll do them separately. The information would be due by January 18th, simply because
it runs into a weekend and a holiday. So the public hearing on both applications will need to remain open.
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.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021)
11
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 February 16th, 2022 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, with any new information
by January 18th, 2022.
Duly adopted this 15th day of December, 2021, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt