Minutes AV 57-2021 (West) 2.16.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
OLD BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN
HOUSE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER OWNER(S) BRETT & PAMELA
WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY (REVISED 01//18/2022) APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME PLUS SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH
A 5,436 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF
PERMEABLE PATIO AREA AND A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES.
THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8.670 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR
NEW LANDSCAPING SHORELINE AN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT AND PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AREA. 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, STORMWATER DEVICE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORE, AND SECOND
GARAGE PORT COCHERE. 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, FEBRUARY 2022 (SETBACKS & STORMWATER DEVICE) ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-
065; 147
JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
MR. MC CABE-Roy, you can just read any new items, or new issues in.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2021, Brett & Pamela West (Main House), Meeting Date: February
16, 2022 “Project Location: 106 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: (Revised 1/18/2022)
Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new home with a 5,436 sq. ft.
footprint with a garage. Also included is installation of permeable patio area and a covered walkway
between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new
landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, and permeable driveway
area. 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, stormwater device less than
100 ft. from shore, and second garage port cochere.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home needing relief for setbacks, second garage and
stormwater device setback to the shoreline. Project is in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Parcel is
0.91 acres. The additional variance noted for the shoreline setback for the infiltration device.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garages, Chapter 147
Revised February 2022. The new home is to be located 46 ft. to the east shoreline, 35 ft. to the west
shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The covered walkway is to be 0 ft. from the west si de 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 setbacks
for infiltration device – there are 7 proposed -35 ft., 64 ft., 39 ft., 41 ft., 92 ft., 58 ft., 66 ft. where 100 ft. is
required. Note: Permeability 77.9% is proposed where 75% is required- no permeability relief is requested. The floor area
proposed is 8,670 sq. ft. where 8,687 sq. ft. is the maximum size allowed – no floor area 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 locate
the home and stormwater devices in a more compliant location.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
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 4 ft., west shoreline
15 ft. The covered walkway 20 ft. Relief for an additional garage. Relief requested for location of
stormwater devices less than 100 ft. to the shoreline.
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 three bay garage. Note the area labeled wet bar will have no kitchen elements. The second floor plan
shows bathrooms, closets, bedrooms. The garage has been updated to three bays with no second floor area.
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. URRICO-The Planning Board passed a motion and based on its limited review did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was
passed February 15th, 2022 by a unanimous 6-0 vote.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Chris Keil from Environmental
Design, project engineer and John Witt behind me, the project architect. So when we were here last you
sent us home and asked us to make some more significant changes and the applicant took that to heart
with the engineer and the architect. So for the first time we’re not seeking a floor area ratio variance at all.
The house is going to fit legally on the lot in Queensbury, which made the rooms smaller and made it fit.
Chris will go through the slides when I’m done and show you exactly what we’ve done compared to where
we were and what we’re proposing now, but we reduced the shoreline variance request on the lake. We’re
talking about the Main House to start with. There are two spots that now require shoreline variances,
but it’s a very small portion of the house and it’s dramatically less than what you saw. The porte cochre
variance I don’t have to talk about. I know everyone understands it’s not really a garage, and what’s
changed is that Craig determined, Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, determined that we need to ask for
a variance for each of the stormwater facilities because they’re not 100 feet from the lake, but the whole
reason that we’re here is because of this odd , unique shaped lot that has water all around it. So all of the
stormwater devices, which is one of the attributes of this project because there’s no stormwater control,
stormwater management now at all on this prominent site. We’re completely complying in terms of
infiltration, but they can’t be located 100 feet from the lake on this lot, but I want to point out the
discussion we had last night with the Planning Board. The Lake George Park Commission just changed
their regulations to 35 feet on a major project, rather than 100, which is an indication that 35 feet is
sufficient and the Planning Board discussed that and unanimously recommended the variances last night,
and at the minimum we’re 35 feet and some are far greater than that, but that’s all a good thing because
we’re infiltrating the stormwater the way we should be. So with that I’ll ask Chris to go throu gh the
drawings.
MR. KEIL-Thanks, Jon. I just wanted to add a little more detail onto what Jon said.
MR. MC CABE-Just state your name.
MR. KEIL-I’m sorry. Chris Keil, Environmental Design Partnership.
MR. MC CABE-It’s just a formality.
MR. KEIL-No problem. So, yes, I just wanted to add a little more detail to what Jon said. Obviously
we’ve been in front of this Board multiple times and I just wanted to briefly recap where we’ve been and
where we’ve gone. We’ve taken a lot of feedback from the Boards, from the community, from the
Waterkeeper, from others, and I think we have a really good, solid project that still respects the owners’
initial vision for this elegant fitting great camp style structure on the Point. So in going through, when we
first came in September and we went through several iterations, and I’ll kind of walk you through where
we’ve come and where we’ve gone. I think in general, you know, I think this project proposes a number
of improvements to the site, beyond the existing condition that it will improve the overall aesthetics and
environmental quality of the site. We’ll walk through those as well. So here’s an aerial image of the site
from 2015. As you note that southern building, you know, now where we’re proposing the guest house is
no longer there, but I think it’s still worth showing and seeing, just to understand sort of the scale and
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
character of this area while that building still existed. As you’ll notice that 50 foot setback line, a little bit
hard to see, but it’s that red line. It’ll be in all of these images. It creates that sort of hard condition where
we have that little sliver of that main house and you know that previous building was over that line. I’ll
walk through kind of, this is starting at the existing conditions, the survey, and then we’ll walk through
our design iterations. One thing, you know, shoreline setback’s been discussed quite a bit. The existing
structure, you see that dimension from the deck structure to the shoreline is currently 19 feet, and then we
have that 29 foot dimension from that sort of southwest, or I guest western corner of the existing main
house. I think one thing to note is it’s easy to get caught up in those specific dimensions, but I think almost
what’s more important is the area of structure within that setback. So currently as it stands we have about
17,060 square feet that’s within the setback area, and obviously the project proposes to remove those six
buildings in that northern lot and replace it with what we’re building. In September when we first came
in we thought we had a pretty solid plan at that point. We were keeping all of that proposed house in
board of that existing house, in area of structure and the setback zone was reduced right off th e bat to
about 1,040 square feet. We lengthened that distance to the north and also from the west there. We were
asking for FAR relief for both the main house and the guest house at that time, as well as permeability.
Then in doing another sort of round of revisions we pulled the house back further based on comments we
received from that initial meeting and shrunk down the FAR. While shrinking down the FAR, the owner
sort of identified that he’d like a little bit more storage space, knowing that it’s hard to have a basement in
this location and things for boats, you know, lake sort of toys and other stuff like that. It was useful to
have shop work space. So we added that other structure, sort of to the east or south of the garage there
at the main house area. We were able to increase our permeability by moving to permeable paving mostly
and reducing some of the paving. So as you’ll see that we no longer needed variances for those two items.
Then in December, you know, based on some comment, we pushed the house even further back, extending
that distance to the north to 37 and a half feet and 34 feet on the west. We were down to 600 feet in area
within the setback. So considerably less than the existing building, and then we still had some comment
from the Board at that time in December. So we decided to kind of sharpen our pencils once again and I’ll
show you where we stand right now. So here’s the current proposal. It’s pushed back to, we have that
dimension to the north of 46 feet and then 35 in the west. We’re down to 316 square feet of building within
the setback zone. That’s 72% less of the existing. We were able to shrink both the main house and the
guest house. So we no longer, as Jon said, need variance relief on those two items. Because we’re pushing
it towards Bay Parkway as much as possible, based on comments we’ve received, we ended up taking that
additional storage building and combining it with the garage. One of the concerns there was that it would
feel like too big of a building, but I think as you’ll see John Witt and his team did a really nice job of kind
of breaking that up visually to make it feel more fitting. Also you can see the guest house is slid back a
little ways as well. So we gained a little bit more sort of space from the shoreline in that area. So here’s
just a visualization from the shoreline showing the building and the guest house as it stands. This was a
recent shot from a few days ago, and what you can see is, you know, one of the g oals of this project is to
really keep some of that shoreline vegetation, those trees, mature trees there. So one of the items we talked
about quite a bit was that covered walkway that connects the two, and it’s actually, in this image, you can
see maybe a few posts if you look carefully, but especially with that evergreen vegetation right there in the
center. I think, you know, most of these views will be obscured. And then, you know, along the lines of
that, this image is more of an artist’s rendition, but we were trying to focus on the architecture. So here
you obviously don’t see those mature trees in this image, but what is useful is that is a design element as
well as the porte cochre, things that we’ve pulled from historic, great camp architectu re, and I think the
mass, the materiality, the character of it, is very fitting for this Point.
MR. LAPPER-Just let me interrupt. There was also a comment, discussion last night at the Planning
Board, that thought that the covered porch, covered walkway and the great camp look was appropriate for
the Point. So that was also part of the Planning Board discussion.
MR. KEIL-And then here’s just a little more detail. Here you see that sort of combined garage now with
that additional bay being added on there and how it’s sort of broken up in the façade. Here’s just a view of
the guest house, you know, things we’ve talked about before, having those low slung roofs and eaves like
that to make the building feel more grounded and lower to the ground. Not to mention that it’s replacing
some structures that currently we think will be a big aesthetic improvement for the site. So just two other
quick items to touch on. Stormwater management. What we were able to do here is create a stormwater
plan that handles all of the runoff from those buildings. All of the paving, including driveway and patio
areas, will be permeable paving which would just, they aren’t stormwater devices. They just receiving the
water that falls directly on that, but in terms of roof runoff, those sort of hard surfaces, that’s being directed
to grass depressions, raingardens and some drip edge along the side of the walkway. One nice thing about
the raingarden is we’re able to elevate that above the ground a little bit to create that separation, and there
you see that 35 foot setback is the blue line that Jon mentioned. So all of our stormwa ter control devices
are outside of that setback area. One more thing that I forgot to touch on earlier is that, you know, some
might say why didn’t we just push the house back even further to get it completely inside that 50 foot
setback. As you can see just from a circulation standpoint, you know, we were so tight with being able
to get a car in there and turn around that we really kind of hit the limit of what was possible, and then one
final thing to touch on is just the shoreline buffering area. There’s going to be proposed planting in and
around the house to make the house feel a little more tucked in, as well as a few areas that currently are
sort of eroded and graded a little bit, all on the lake shoreline which we’ll be enhancing and improving as
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
well. So that’s just kind of a recap of sort of where we’ve been with this project and where we stand now,
and we think we have a really strong project at this point. We’d happy to answer any questions.
MR. MC CABE-Just a question. I saw something in the notes from December about some heating provided
for the permeable pavers. Would you elaborate on that a little bit.
MR. KEIL-I think the idea would be to have some snow melt in some of those areas to eliminate the need
for plowing some of those areas. One advantage of that, too, is it would help with infiltration, especially
at times when the ground would be otherwise frozen in that sense as well.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-Phil Morse does that down the road, too, doesn’t he? Doesn’t Phil Morse have some of that
underground? Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. Well, I assume that the public
hearing is still open from the last time?
MRS. MOORE-It is.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time we’ll accept input from the public. Is there anybody that would
like to speak on this? You had your hand up first.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
PAM LESTER GOLDE
MRS. LESTER GOLDE-My name is Pam Lester Golde, and I live on Assembly Point. I’m one of the
adjacent homeowners as well as being a landscape architect. Before we go to these slides, would you go
back to the slide that shows the lake frozen.
MRS. MOORE-On this one? On theirs?
MRS. LESTER GOLDE-Well that one will work just fine. If you notice, when they showed the rendition
from the lake, where it was frozen, they turned around and said that the vegetation that was screening the
walkway would be there and you would only see a few parts. In their grading plan, not on what I call the
Ross property, but on the West property, all of the trees are being removed on this property. All of the
vegetation in here is being removed because of grading and in some reasons I even question why they’re
even doing some of the grading. The other thing is, in the old Staff Notes they turn around and indicate
that there should be so many trees of a certain size on this property. They only have three between the
two parcels, but I wanted to point out the fact that the screening that they’re talking about is not going to
be there. In regards to the drainage, and if you could go to the slides, this past year there was flooding
across Bay Parkway that went between these, the O’Keefe’s which is on the other side of them and out.
Now this photograph that you see here is where the culvert is, and this is the 2015 shot indicating that
there was a problem with stormwater on the Otyokwa side that flowed underneath the road and then
between the two parcels. If you go to the next one. This is the same culvert re-built and photographed
in 2021. You can see the pipe. If you go to the next slide, this was the backup in 2015. The next slide is
2021. There is a piece that goes off to the left that was also flooded as well as this. So there has been a
drainage problem here. If you go to the next one, you can see where the stream goes from the O’Keefe side
to the West side, and it is a fair amount of water. If you go to the next one, this shows the flooding already
before any construction happens, within the O’Keefe’s property. The next slide. This shows the pump
house and all of the flooding that is occurring there. If you were to look at that photograph, that pump
house does not go to the ground. It is raised above the ground, and the stream flows underneath that
building. The contours that the engineer is showing, he’s showing a two foot proposed lip that would be
after they remove the pump house. They show a two foot lip. It is basically a gravel, a rock channel that
filters the water before it goes out. If that two foot lip is installed there, the drainage problem that you
see here will be exacerbated. The next one. This is 2015, and the same yard, the O’Keefe’s. So I’m not
saying that this problem is a new problem. It has been there for an extended period of time. The next one.
This shows the pump house. You can see the foundation and a wood beam that is supporting the pump
house above the grade and the water flows underneath the pump house and then the next picture is 2021.
You can see how it’s raised about a foot off of the grade. So one of the things is that they have shown in
their drainage analysis that all of the water for both properties goes through this channel existing. For
simplicity purposes I can understand it because it’s all going into the lake. However, it’s only about half
of the property which is the West property, not the Ross property, that actually flows through this Point
and only about a third of the West property actually makes it to this channel. When they go to turn
around and it’s actually a quarter under existing, it will be over a third of it when you get to the point of
them developing the gravel, the grass swale behind the garage. They have taken, will have taken out all of
the vegetation to the stream line. They are not putting anything back. Anything that they put back they’re
putting back against the house itself which is viburnum, and they then show an underdrain that is being
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
carried to this area where the pump house is, where they’ve got the two foot lip, that it’s going to be a
concentrated flow. They’ve got an underdrain, a perforated four inch pipe, that will take that water and
put it through there. Now the paving, the pervious paving, according to New York State DEC Stormwater
Management Manual that your own Ordinance references, that the property owners are supposed to be
following, you’ve got a problem in the fact that DEC says that there will be three feet between
groundwat4er and infiltration structure and your Ordinance says it will be two feet. You have made it less
restrictive, not more restrictive, and in general you normally follow something that is more restrictive, not
less, but the paving, they recommend pervious pavers not be put on Soil Type D. This soil, the Sutton soil,
is a Type D soil and you’re also giving a 50% reduction in paving on a paver type that is not allowed on this
type of soil. That is counterproductive. You’re not getting the percolation. You are going to get flow,
and in the wintertime, yes, there will be some percolation that will go down through the pervious pavers.
However, when you get into a 25 year storm which is four inches or you get 12 inches of snow and then
you get a rain storm on top of it, that 12 inches, when it melts, will go down to six to eight inches of water.
That’s above the 25 year storm, and now you’re putting it into an exacerbated situation. None of this is
making sense in regard to protecting the neighborhood and the drivewa y, the driveway they’re saying is
roughly around 12 feet. The Civitella’s last night reduced theirs under it, when they went in front of you,
they reduced it from 12 to 10. If they turned around and reduced it down to 10 and because they have a
circular driveway, there should be no problem with a vehicle making it around and not being stuck because
they’ve got two ways to get in and out, but you could reduce the pavement down if they reduced it down
by 10 feet. The other thing is their FAR. If you go to the architectural plans, the elevations that they show
for the garage, they did not present this to you. They did not put it in, but they did put it in to the Planning
Board. They have left the roof line as it is and just taken out, in both the guest house and in the main house,
they have taken out the floor, the second floor in the garage. So it’s a two story opening. They did not
change the roof line. It is, the trusses are going to be there. The beams are going to be there after the fact.
They can increase the floor area ratio back to get their third bedroom in that garage and his office in the
guest house. So I would suggest that if they’re serious about an FAR reduction, that they reduce the roof
line down so that it makes it an FAR that is only a one story structure, not a two story structure. Thank
you.
MR. MC CABE-Ma’am.
LORRAINE RUFFING
MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live on Assembly Point. The last time
you considered the West application for variances you had asked for a significant change and supposedly
tonight we’ve heard that the changes are significant, but the proposal still asks for 17 variances, 11 for the
main house and 6 for the guest house. The design changes are minor. It still includes two houses, three
garages, with a total of a possible nine bedrooms, a covered walkway, paved patios, and a large circular
driveway. Of course the barn has been suppressed, but the main garage has been enlarged as well as the
paving in front of it. The project needs a number of variances, especially for the infiltration devices which
are within 100 feet of the lake, three of which are within 50 feet of the lake. Now the Town Code requires
100 feet, and I don’t think the Town Code is going to change anytime soon that we know of, irrespective
of what the Lake George Park Commission requires. One or two of these devices, V4A and V4B, also abut
a stream which drains Otyokwa and exits on the West property and I think Mrs. Golde has explained
about that. This is not shown on the site plan and thus I believe the site plan is incomplete and if there is
additional stormwater runoff, it could possibly flow into the stream and increase the flooding on the
property of the O’Keefe’s, and you’ve seen the photos from 2015 and 2021. I think as far as the stormwater
management plan, that there is a letter from the Wat erkeeper on that area, but I do have some questions
for you and for the developer concerning permeability. Supposedly we have a very good figure for
permeability for both the guest house and the main house, between 78% and 78.5 and I’m assuming this
depends on the 50% credit that was given for the pervious pavers, and again I won’t repeat what Mrs.
Golde said about the validity of that particular calculation. I guess my main observation is that with the
houses, the patios, the garages, the covered walkway, the large circular driveway, there will be plenty of
runoff to contain and most of these stormwater devices are too close to the lake and will sit on top of a
water table which in some places is two feet below. So the question is how effective will they be either as
storage devices, infiltration devices or simple percolation devices? Again, I’m not an engineer, but I think
the hydrology of this area needs to be carefully checked and for those reasons I ask the Zoning Board to
deny the request for the 17 variances because they are substantial. Second, the relief will have an adverse
impact on the environment. The non-compliant setbacks from the lake will have an adverse impact on the
water quality. The request for the variances for the infiltration devices are based on an inaccurate site plan
which omits important hydrological features and the relief requested is from a self -created hardship.
Alternatives exist and have been suggested by you on September 29th, October 27th, and December 15th and
they would allow the applicant to advance this project instead of returning time and again with virtually
the same project.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? So, Roy, do we
have written comments?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
MR. URRICO-Yes. “I’m writing as a property owner and seasonal resident on Bay Parkway on Assembly
Point. Yet again, this project has been modified a little bit since it was last before you, but the variances
are still substantial, they will still harm the lake, and they are still self-created. It appears that the
applicants have still not addressed many of the concerns and suggestions raised by the ZBA members and
the public at the December 15th meeting. Alternatives still exist – the project could easily be re-designed
to not need any variances, if the buildings and other improvements were reduced in size and number. The
applicants have already had many bites at this apple and have yet to file an approvable application. These
applications should be denied, for the reasons stated in my prior letters. Thank you for your consideration
of these comments. Sincerely, John W. Caffry” “The above referenced variance application was personally
reviewed in my capacity as licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The
Waterkeeper would like to recognize the Zoning Board's time to deliberate this variance application and
dedication to the need for balance that is required for granting variances, especially on this prominent
parcel. We recognize the one increased shoreline setback of the main structure and the removal of some
structure and floor area. But our opinion remains that the application falls short of the Board's request to
reduce the project's size to "make it better", it remains "oversized for the property" and the concern
regarding the amount of permeable pavers and protection of resources. The Waterkeeper remains
concerned regarding the requested variances for shoreline setback and now the numerous setbacks for
stormwater devices, as well as concerns of the removal of permeable vegetated surfaces, 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, a hardscape material that has
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 mitigation for the requested shoreline setback variance
request. It is recognized the shoreline setbacks was increased from 34' to 35 and 37.5' to
46'. But the hardscaped patio area extends much closer to the lake reducing important
permeable vegetative area important for treatment. There are two minimal shoreline
buffer plantings, both less than 50' of shoreline and much less than the required 35'
width. It is questioned why the permeability was not decreased from 77.9% while
building surface area was removed.
• The current application actually increases 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 hardscape and gravel storage. The site vegetat ive coverage will be reduced by
10% from existing conditions and replaced with extensive hardscape that will impact
water quality within the CEA. As previously stated, the site design fails to meet the New
York 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 continues to encroach into the stream corridor along the eastern
border and proposes a large stormwater basin 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. In fact, the current version is proposing
an underdrain that will continuously discharge stormwater that is meant to be
infiltrated. This will result in further water quality impacts and fails to meet the Town's
requirements for stormwater reduction. The application still has not detailed the
extent of removal of mature vegetation. It is important to restate the statements from
March 2016 on the redevelopment of the property hearing when the applicant's 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. The Zoning Board should deny the application as it fails
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”
MR. MC CABE-That’s it?
MR. URRICO-That’s it.
MR. MC CABE-So you guys have been accused of some atrocities here. Would you like to comment?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
MR. LAPPER-Before I turn it over to Chris to talk about the detailed engineering, I just want to make some
general comments. If the few opponents are really concerned about lake quality, right now we have a site
that has a non-conforming septic system, and this is going to septic holding tanks which is a great expense
for the applicant, but they’re a good thing for the lake, and no stormwater facilities at all on either of these
lots and we’re complying and not asking for a permeability variance and of course not asking for a floor
area ratio variance. So this is a dramatic improvement on this site and then they’re showing pictures of
the neighbors’ lots which don’t have any stormwater facilities and obviously have stormwater issues like
many people on Assembly Point that have older houses and haven’t done anything. So the Wests are
seeking to improve it on their site and it’ll improve it for the lake, improve it for the neighborhood, and
they’re showing pictures of neighbors that haven’t done anything and have got standing water. So that’s
just a little surprising to me. There was a criticism about two houses and of course this is on two lots. So
that’s totally appropriate to have two houses. The final planting plan will all be subject to detailed
Planning Board and site plan review as always, but on balance this is taking a prominent, important site
and putting kind of a subtle house compared to what somebody would do. It’s not two stories plus a roof
built into the roof, with John Witt design, Adirondack style great camp. They’re trying to do something
special because it is prominent and it’s constrained by the shape of the lot and we’re putting the
stormwater devices in the best place they can be compared to not having any right now where everything’s
flowing into the lake and permeable pavers is always done in Queensbury on the lake and town engineers
accept that and it’s a good device. So those are my general comments. Let me turn it over to Chris.
MR. KEIL-I’ll just try to go through with you systematically. I mean I think in general, again, just following
up on what Jon said, I think we have a stormwater plan that will obviously go through the process of
review by the Town Designated Engineer. We’ve already had one round of review and response and while
there’s always some detail to be worked out, I think we have a sound approach, you know, and it’s kind of
figuring out the nuances to that. That is something that we definitely can do moving forward. So just to
follow up on that. Currently right now that slope pitches all the way towards that northern, that
northeastern property boundary where that stream is off site. This stormwater facility, this shallow grass
depression built in that area would serve to intercept that water and I think that’s an improved condition
in terms of flow runoff, not to mention any sort of roof runoff that would come out would have a longer
flow path coming to the gutter and coming all the way around. So I think that is improved. Furthermore,
as it relates to permeable paving, I mean we’re not asking the permeable paving to serve as any stormwater
treatment facility. It’s just to get that reduction, the 50% reduction and again the rain water falls directly
upon that surface. It’s not asked to treat anything beyond that. In terms of the tree removal, you can see
it sort of on this plan. It’s between that sort of southern dock and center dock. I mean we have those
three trees right north of the dock and then there’s maybe that fourth, potentially fifth. Obviously the
builder needs some space to build the house, but I think that we’re fairly confident we can keep those three,
four right on the shoreline which were the ones you saw in the rendering that are really providing the bulk
of the screening in this case. In terms of the FAR reduction, I mean there was in the main house, you know,
there were two walls that were sort of tightened up in that area that projects out into the setback. That
little like point of the setback was sort of narrowed up to reduce that area. We look forward to going
through more, I mean I think we have, in the stormwater report you’ll see we have a pretty solid hydrologic
analysis but again it’s something that I think in detailed design we’ll be able to sort of hash it out.
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 Roy.
MR. URRICO-I agree that there’s been a lot of improvement from the first time that this was brought to
us. I do agree that the pavers, we shouldn’t be held responsible for what the pavers should or shouldn’t
be. We can only deal with the pavers as they’re currently viewed in the Town Ordinances. So they have
to get credit for that as far as their use. I don’t think we can just say that it’s a wrong Ordinance and ignore
it entirely. It needs to be reviewed. If it needs to be reviewed then it should be by the Town, but it has
not been at this point. I still think there is room for reduction here. I think there’s still too many variances
to go through. I appreciate what you’ve done so far, but I don’t think we’re there yet. So I would be a n o
at this point.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Everything he said. Total agreement.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I think they’ve come a long way. There’s no doubt they’ve worked hard and it’s definitely
increased the permeability, but we have to go by what the engineers say, and they’re saying it’s at 77.9
permeable. We’ve got to go with that. You can look at that whole Assembly Point area and they’re doing
something that no one else is really doing, except for some of the newer homes. My wi fe’s family had
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
property on Assembly Point and I can tell you, looking at all the properties that I saw, the majority of them
had cement slabs almost right up to the shoreline. These are permeable pavers. They’re way away from
the shoreline. To keep blaming them for the water that’s going through their property, they’re going to
actually make to better. They’re not going to have a leach field. They’re going to have a holding tank.
They’re doing everything possible and I think they’ve done a great job at reducing, they have no FAR
variance needed. I just think it’s a great project at this point and I’d be supportive of it.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m still skeptical about what’s been done here in size and scope. It’s many times
greater in footprint size than anything else that’s been created on the Point other than the Morse property,
and I think you still have a chance to reduce in size, as I requested previously, the media room, the game
room, it would reduce you down in size, and I think the 22% Floor Area Ratio is an important number that
we use when we evaluate the properties as they’re proposed on the lake, but we have to keep in mind that
you have a very high water table here. You’re not able to accommodate normal septic flow without having
an impact on the lake. The holding tanks are going to resolve it to some degree, too. As far as the size of
the house, the request for the connection between the two parcels, I don’t have a problem with that at all.
I think you’re still going to have a difficult time, even if we approve this, with the APA, and I think the last
time, even when you had the porte cochre they were against that and I think that now that you’ve increased
the size of the garage by cobbing the barn on to the other end of the two, I think you’re still going to have
a difficult time up north.
MR. LAPPER-If I could just respond to that, Jim. The only issue with the APA is what’s between the lake
and the house, and that’s where we’re actually pulling it back from what’s there now. It’s just in those
two little spots.
MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think you should be complimented for pulling it back, too, but I still think you
need to think about what would happen on the Point. If this is allowed every other parcel is going to ask
for the maximum of what they want to re-do, too, and I think that has a significant negative impact on the
lake. Even if you’re careful with your stormwater runoff.
MR. LAPPER-We’re not asking for FAR. So this house now conforms with that.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I know, but I’m saying it’s still way bigger in footprint than, you know, because you
don’t have a cellar. If you had a cellar underneath there you would significantly lower the size of the
project down. I understand why you’re doing what you’re doing, but I’m still not in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Brady?
MR. STARK-I agree with what John said earlier. You guys have had an improvement of what you guys
started out with. Like you said, it would be an improvement over the existing sep tic system. The
proposed house and guest house both look excellent and at this point I’d be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, would support this project. I remember when you first came to us back in
2016 and we had all these concerns, and so for six years now we’ve accepted the runoff the way it’s been
for years. We have an opportunity here to improve that significantly, and just based on that fact I would
support the project, but unfortunately that’s not enough for you.
MR. LAPPER-So we have six members tonight rather than seven. I guess we have no choice but to table
it.
MR. MC CABE-You have grounds to table it.
MR. LAPPER-Unless somebody wants to change their mind on the no side.
MR. MC CABE-Probably not. So, John, can I get a motion here?
MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to ask the Board, there’s potential that next week’s meeting, we only have one
item on next week’s meeting.
MR. HENKEL-The only problem is he’s not going to be here.
MR. MC CABE-I’m not going to be here.
MRS. MOORE-Then that’s up to the Board. If you would prefer to table it to an April meeting.
MR. LAPPER-I won’t be here next week, either. So I’d like to table it.
MR. MC CABE-To April.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
MR. LAPPER-To March.
MRS. MOORE-The March agenda’s deadline was yesterday. So that’s why.
MR. LAPPER-But the public hearing is closed. So it would just be voting with a seventh member.
MR. MC CABE-Well I’m not going to be here for the second meeting in March.
MRS. MOORE-Table it to the first meeting in March.
MR. MC CABE-The 16th?
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Is that good, Jon?
MR. LAPPER-Yes, thank you.
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 Brady Stark:
Tabled to the March 16th, 2022 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Duly adopted this 16th day of February, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-So now we’ll table the second item also?
MR. LAPPER-I guess it would probably be best to open up the public hearing and be able to close the
public hearing on the second one. We could go through it very briefly.