02-16-2022
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
TH
FEBRUARY 16, 2022
INDEX
Area Variance No. 57-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Main House) 2.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17
Area Variance No. 58-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Guest House) 10.
Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16
Area Variance No. 74-2021 Francis & Erin Steinbach, Jr. 15.
Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18
Sign Variance No. 2-2022 Adirondack Trust Company 20.
Tax Map No. 309.10-1-47
Area Variance No. 7-2022 Fritz & Mary Stefanzick 24.
Tax Map No. 240.6-1-11
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
TH
FEBRUARY 16, 2022
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
CATHERINE HAMLIN
BRADY STARK, ALTERNATE
MEMBERS ABSENT
BRENT MC DEVITT
RONALD KUHL
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
th
Appeals February 16, 2022. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is fairly simple. There should
be an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each application up, read the application into our records, allow
the applicant to present the application, question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised
then we’ll open the public hearing, receive comment from the public, and at that time we’ll poll the Board,
see how they stand on the particular project and then proceed accordingly. We do have a couple of
members who we think are on their way. So we’re hoping that they make it tonight. If not, then you can,
if you want, table your application until we have the full Board, but first we have a couple of administrative
items here. John, can I get a motion for meeting minutes?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
January 19, 2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
TH
MINUTES OF JANUARY 19, 2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Roy Urrico:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt
January 26, 2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
TH
JANUARY 26, 2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael
McCabe:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-So the first application is AV 57-2021, Pam and Brett West, 106 Bay Parkway.
OLD BUSINESS:
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
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 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 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.
3
(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
th
passed February 15, 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 through 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
4
(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 the 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 goals 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 architecture, 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 stormwater 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
5
(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
6
(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 driveway, 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 Waterkeeper 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.
ththth
Alternatives exist and have been suggested by you on September 29, October 27, and December 15 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?
7
(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
th
the public at the December 15 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 vegetative 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?
8
(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 no
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 wife’s family had
9
(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 septic 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.
10
(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.
th
MR. MC CABE-The 16?
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:
th
Tabled to the March 16, 2022 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
th
Duly adopted this 16 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.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST
HOUSE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) BRETT &
PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 108 BAY PARKWAY (REVISED 10/4/2021 – NO
REVISION FOR DEC.) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITH
3,437 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND 2,250 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE HOME IS TWO STORY
WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A COVERED WALKWAY FROM
THE HOME TO THE PROPOSED ADJOINING HOME AND INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE
PAVER AREAS FOR DRIVEWAY AND PATIO. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT WITH A RAIN GARDEN, NEW SITE PLANTINGS, NEW SEPTIC, AND NEW
LINE FOR DRINKING WATER. 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,
ACCESS FROM ADJOINING LOT, AND STORMWATER DEVICE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM
SHORE. CROSS REF SP 52-2021; SEP 343-2021; AST 433-2020; DEMO 803-2019; PT 802-2019;
AV 52-2009; SP 54-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021, FEBRUARY 2022
(SETBACKS STORMWATER DEVICE) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.34
ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-4-050; 147
JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
MR. MC CABE-I’ll open the public hearing for AV 58-2021.
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
MR. URRICO-Shouldn’t I read that in, too?
MR. MC CABE-And then, well, if there’s anybody that would like to speak separately about that particular
item.
MR. URRICO-Don’t I have to read that in?
MRS. MOORE-I’d rather have Roy read that into the record.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2021, Brett & Pamela West (Guest House), Meeting Date:
February 16, 2022 “Project Location: 108 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: (Revised
1/18/2022) Applicant proposes construction of a new home with 3,210 sq. ft. floor area and 2,160 sq. ft.
footprint. The home is two story with an attached garage. The project includes a covered walkway from
the home to the proposed adjoining home and installation of permeable paver areas for driveway and patio.
Site work includes stormwater management with a rain garden, new site plantings, new septic, and new
line for drinking water. 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, access
from adjoining lot, and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shore.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home and associated site work needing relief for
setbacks and access from adjoining lot for the construction of a new single-family home in the Waterfront
Residential Zone –WR. The parcel is 0.34 acres. The additional variance noted for the shoreline setback
for the infiltration device.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
Revised February 2022. The covered walkway is to be 0 ft. from the east side setback where a 20 ft. setback
is required. The home is to be 10 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Note –
the East property line has been adjusted to accommodate a setback with no changes to the lot size. Relief
is also requested to access the parcel from the adjoining lot and not the lot the project is on. Relief for the
infiltration device to the shoreline – three proposed at 45 ft., 49 ft., and 72 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is
required. Note permeability is proposed at 78.5% and 75% is required –no permeability relief is requested; floor area is
proposed at 3,210 sq. ft. and the maximum allowed is 3,212 sq. ft. – no floor area relief 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, increase permeability.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested covered walkway 20 ft. The east
property line relief is 10 ft. Relief for access. Relief for stormwater device within 100 ft.
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 the new home to be constructed is 2,160 sq. ft. footprint home with an attached
garage. The project includes patio areas, and a covered walkway section to connect to the adjoining
property owners proposed home –the same individuals own the properties. The new home is to be 3,210
sq. ft. floor area. The first floor plan shows dining room area, living room area, kitchen, garage, a bedroom.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
The second floor shows two bedrooms, bathrooms, loft area, sauna. The garage is an open area with no
second floor. The plans show the location of the proposed home on the site with associated driveway area,
patios, holding tanks, plantings.”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board passed a motion that 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
th
February 15, 2022 by a six zero margin.
MR. LAPPER-So for the record, again, Jon Lapper with Chris Keil and John Witt, and I guess perhaps
when we discuss this there might be four members that would be in favor of this one compared to the main
house only because here we don’t have any setback variance from the lake for the house, no permeability,
we don’t have any floor area. The variances here are just connecting the covered walkway, the fact that
we’re using one driveway for the whole project rather than have two curb cuts, which is a good thing for
the neighborhood because it is a busy road, and then the stormwater devices which obviously on this site
can’t be 100 feet from the lake. So you may see this as a similar project.
MR. MC CABE-So, let’s see. So now do we have questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been
advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody has any input
on AV 58-2021.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
PAM LESTER GOLDE
MRS. GOLDE-My name is Pam Lester Golde. I am the next door neighbor to this parcel and if you can
see that there is a perforated underdrain basically that will be picking up half of this house and it sends it
down to the southwest corner of the property. That southwest corner, if they showed topography that
went beyond the property line, you would end up seeing that that water would drain onto my property
and flood out where we have our boat, and I don’t mean a boat in a slip. I’m talking we have our sunfish
there. So now I’m going to end up having to deal with their stormwater on my property. The one thing
that I think you should understand, at last night’s Planning Board meeting, there was a request to be able
to see the engineer’s report. Well we can’t see the engineer’s report. It’s not part of the Staff comments,
and we would have to FOIL it, but by the time we get it, there’s not enough time for us to be able to review
it and get comments back to you. I also don’t think you’re even looking at the engineering report on the
storm drainage that might have an impact. So I think that I would strongly request that the Zoning Board
take a look at the storm drainage that would affect a variance that they are asking for. Seven of them on
the other parcel. But again on this parcel as well. And again, they have taken out the second floor of the
garage, have not reduced the roof line and so the stairs are in it. So all they have to do is, after they get
their C of O, they can put in this office space. So again I think that this is just smoke and mirrors by the
client to turn around and get around the FAR, and I request that you strongly deny this one as well as the
previous one.
MR. MC CABE-Would you like to speak also?
LORRAINE RUFFING
MRS. RUFFING-Lorraine Ruffing, Assembly Point. I only have two very brief comments. During the,
let’s say the rebuttal period for our remarks, there was reference made that the stormwater plan will be
reviewed by the Town Engineers and I think that’s very important before this project gets passed that the
Town Engineer verify what is happening to the stormwater, and also a comment was made that maybe
some of the properties next door, particularly the O’Keefe property, was not engaging in good stormwater
management. That property was, let’s say, recently worked on by the Town Highway Department. They
tried to improve what’s coming off of Otyokwa underneath the road onto the O’Keefe property, but there
is a berm on the West property which is keeping all the water that would normally flow onto the West
property and exit via the West property. It’s keeping that water on the O’Keefe property and now you’re
going to have a large garage abutting the O’Keefe property. You’re going to have a grass depression. Will
that grass depression really be deep enough to catch all the water coming off the roof, plus, you know,
whatever flow might come from Otyokwa and as Mrs. Golde has said, all the vegetation that is now on that
particular border with the O’Keefe property is going to be removed. So the situation is just going to get
worse, but I go back to my first point that I think the stormwater plans should really be reviewed by the
Town Engineer before a decision is made on this project. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this particular project? Is there any
written?
MR. URRICO-Yes, the same letters as the last.
MR. LAPPER-So on Ms. Lester who is to the south of this, you can see where the setback line is on the
map. So this is actually dramatically away from her property and this was on purpose moved north so she
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
has more of a buffer. My understanding is that her site has a non-conforming septic and no stormwater.
So she could address her stormwater issues by doing some stormwater work, but certainly what’s
happening here is not really going to exacerbate it. It’s going to improve the stormwater by infiltrating it
on this. If the Board had a majority that could see that these variances are pretty minor because we don’t
have lake setback and we don’t have a big house it would at least let John Witt get started on constructing
this house while we’re still working on finalizing the main house.
JOHN WITT
MR. WITT-I’m John Witt, designer of the home. Just, I’d like to speak as a public commenter as a boater
on Lake George. I spend my summers boating around Lake George and it’s phenomenal to go across the
shoreline and look at the great houses and the great camps, if you go up to the Narrows, and I think if you
dumb down this project enough he’s not going to do it, Number One, and I think we’ve got a great
opportunity to have a great camp and something that’s going to be very visually attractive. It’s not super
large. There’s not nine bedroom. There’s six bedrooms for two houses. That’s not huge. It’s a great
camp. It’s not supposed to be small, but it’s not gaudy, it’s not huge. It’ll fit in with the character of, the
vernacular of great camps on Lake George. So I think, you know, I would hope we could get four votes for
the whole project as is. I mean if you look at what the original project was from 19 feet to whatever, 46
feet on that north side, that’s substantial from what’s there, and if you look at the original footprint to
what’s there, it’s not that much different. So as a neighbor on the lake I just would say I’m very supportive
and I can say I’ll be 90% of the neighbors on the lake would say the same thing as I’m saying tonight. So
that’s all. Thank you.
MR. KEIL-Chris Keil. I’d just like to add a little bit. We talk about vegetation being removed. I mean
right now we’re respecting both on the O’Keefe and Golde side, that edge there, you know, we’re not
grading right up to the edge including like the mature tree on the O’Keefe side. So I’m not sure exactly
what the reference is, and I think more importantly the question is, is it enough. I mean I think it is. I
think if you look at the recent letter from LaBella, the Town Designated Engineer, who we respect and are
working with in this regard, you can see that the comments are minimal at this point. So, yes, I think as
per the Code of the Town, we’re meeting the stormwater regulations to the tee and furthermore I think on
both of those properties, you know, for the main house at the edge and for the guest house, I mean we’re
creating depressions that will intercept some of that water that are additive to the current situation where
that water is draining towards the property boundaries as is. So I think any way you look at it we’re
making improvements to both those conditions.
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 Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Unlike the other side of this project, I approve of this side of the project. I think it’s
appropriate in size. I think it’s appropriately set back from the lake and I think your stormwater is going
to be handled because it’s a smaller dwelling that you’re creating on the property. As far as the variances
for the drive, being a single drive accessing both properties, I don’t have a problem with that either. I think
it makes more sense since you own both properties. It cuts down on maintenance, too. My comments on
the other project are still germane to this.. Your permeable pavers that you have proposed are well thought
out and everything else, but all these things are manmade objects. It’s not preserving what natural flow
allows as far as infiltration. I think even in the best scenarios, we’re looking at these are probably going to
work most of the time they’re probably going to be adequate, but you’re probably going to have times when
you’re going to be inundated and you’re going to have sheet flow into the lake, but you’re going to get that
anyway when you get major rain events up in the whole basin. It’s not something germane just to this
property, but I think as far as this property goes on the south side here I don’t have a problem with it at all.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt, we keep on talking about stormwater, but if you look at the other side of
that island or that peninsula on the Harris Bay side you’ve got a road that’s right on the lake where
everybody’s water sheds across that into the lake. No one talks about that. This man here is trying to do
everything to keep his stormwater on his property and he shouldn’t have to worry about stormwater going
across his property from everybody else’s property. So that’s just my comment on that, but he’s not asking
for a whole lot here, very minimal. There’s no FAR variance needed, no permeability which was at one
time and they reduced that to nothing. So I’m on board definitely with this project. I think it’s a great
project.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I’m hung up on this 100 foot thing because that is our Code. Nonetheless, in the infinite
wisdom of the Park Commission, I think 35 is acceptable and from our Code perspective it’s quite
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
substantial, but in general I think I would be voting in favor of this because pretty much what Jim applies
here. I think I would vote in favor of this one, and I’m not very far off on the other one, to be honest with
you. More evidence in terms of what you’re doing in terms of your proposed infiltration would help me,
just knowing that nothing is going off of your property would be helpful to me moving forward?
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I think our job is to allow minimal relief, not no relief. That’s what our job is, and I think
we’ve done that with this project, with this one specifically. I think what you’re asking for is not what
you’re asking for when you first came in, but I think it’s a much better project now and I would be in favor
of this.
MR. MC CABE-Brady?
MR. STARK-I am also in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think what you are asking for here is minimal and I think
overall it’s going to improve the situation in that particular area. So I’m going to make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett & Pamela
West. (Revised 1/18/2022) Applicant proposes construction of a new home with 3,210 sq. ft. floor area and
2,160 sq. ft. footprint. The home is two story with an attached garage. The project includes a covered
walkway from the home to the proposed adjoining home and installation of permeable paver areas for
driveway and patio. Site work includes stormwater management with a rain garden, new site plantings,
new septic, and new line for drinking water. 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, access from adjoining lot, and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shore.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home and associated site work needing relief for
setbacks and access from adjoining lot for the construction of a new single-family home in the Waterfront
Residential Zone –WR. The parcel is 0.34 acres. The additional variance noted for the shoreline setback
for the infiltration device.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
Revised February 2022. The covered walkway is to be 0 ft. from the east side setback where a 20 ft. setback
is required. The home is to be 10 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Note –
the East property line has been adjusted to accommodate a setback with no changes to the lot size. Relief
is also requested to access the parcel from the adjoining lot and not the lot the project is on. Relief for the
infiltration device to the shoreline – three proposed at 45 ft., 49 ft., and 72 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is
required. Note permeability is proposed at 78.5% and 75% is required –no permeability relief is requested; floor area is
proposed at 3,210 sq. ft. and the maximum allowed is 3,212 sq. ft. – no floor area relief requested.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on September 29, 2021, October 27, 2021, December 15, 2021, &
February 16, 2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. We feel that the architecture provided here is going to make a very substantial
beautiful looking property.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are generally not reasonable because
of the shape and size of the property.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s actually an improvement from what previously
existed.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. Because we feel that a water management plan is going to be superior to no plan at all.
5. The alleged difficulty, of course, is self-created.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
58-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved
for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 16th Day of February 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt
MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 74-2021.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH JR.
OWNER(S) FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH, JR. ZONING WR LOCATION 211 ASSEMBLY
POINT ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE AN EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT.
(FOOTPRINT) HOME TO INSTALL A FULL BASEMENT WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,550 SQ. FT.
THE EXISTING REAR DECK OF 444 SQ. FT. TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A 356
SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FRONT DECK OF 220 SQ. FT. TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED
WITH A 260 SQ. FT. DECK. THE SITE HAS APPROVAL FOR 154 SQ. FT. REAR ADDITION. THE
EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 1,949 SQ. FT. IS INCREASED TO 2,786 SQ. FT. (30.5%). THE
PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACING THE DRIVEWAY WITH PERMEABLE PAVERS AND NEW
LANDSCAPE STEPS TO UPDATED ENTRY PORCH. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN
A CEA AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. RELIEF FOR SETBACKS OF
PROPERTY AND SHORELINE, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 70-2021; SP 15-2020; SP 38-1995 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING NOVEMBER 2021 & FEBRUARY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT
SIZE 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO 226.19-2-18 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-13-010
JON LAPPER & ANDY ALLISON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-2021, Francis & Erin Steinbach, Jr., Meeting Date: February 16,
2022 “Project Location: 211 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)
Applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. (footprint) home to install a full basement with a
footprint of 1,550 sq. ft. The existing rear deck of 444 sq. ft.to be removed and replaced with a 356 sq. ft.
deck. The existing front deck of 220 sq. ft. to be removed and replaced with a 260 sq. ft. deck. The site has
approval for 154 sq. ft. rear addition. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. is increased to 2,632 sq. ft.
(28.8%). The project includes replacing the driveway with permeable pavers and new landscape steps to
updated entry porch. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline.
Relief for setbacks of property and shoreline, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure for
construction of a basement area and deck areas. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone
on a 9,138 sq. ft. parcel. The additional variance noted for the shoreline setback for the front deck.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes expansion of a non-conforming structure. The rear deck is to be 2.4 ft. from the
north property line. The front deck is to be located 4.3 ft. from the south property line and 15.8 ft. from the
front (east) property line (no change) and 49 ft. from the shoreline. The house foundation to be 22.2 ft.
from the Front, 3.2 ft. from the South, and 2.4 ft. from the North at the closest points between the house
and property line. Front setback required is 30 ft., side setback 20 ft., rear setback 30 ft. and shoreline
setback is 76 ft. average of the two adjoining homes. The floor area was reduced to 28.8% from 30.5%
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
(2,632 sq. ft.) where 22% is maximum allowed (2010.36 sq. ft.). Noting permeability relief is not required as there
is an increase in permeability: The proposed permeability is to be 71.7% where 75% is required and 71% is existing; the driveway
area is to be converted to a permeable paver block area.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce
the relief requested.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief for the front deck 60.2 feet, south side is 16.8 ft.,
and the rear deck north side is 17.6 ft. Floor area is 6.8% more than allowed.
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 may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home where the home is to be lifted to reconfigure the
existing one bay garage to add an additional bay and then the remaining spaces to be used for storage.
Relief is requested for three sides of the home as there are new foundation walls. The front deck has been
revised to be reduced in size with no change from the original shoreline setback and the rear deck remains
the same. The plans show the location of the decks and the new basement area. The project includes new
entry steps planter bed areas.”
MRS. MOORE-I’m just going to add one item, that it’s also relief to the shoreline. I did put that relief
calculation into one of the questions, but I didn’t actually identify the physical number, and it’s 49 feet.
MR. URRICO-Okay.
MR. LAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper with Andy Allison the project architect.
MR. URRICO-I just want to add that the Planning Board, based on a limited review, did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was
th
passed February 15, 2022 by a six zero margin.
MR. LAPPER-So now we’re on the other side of Assembly Point where we have the road in between the
parcel and the lake. The Steinbachs are here if there are any questions as well. So they previously came
in, got an approval to do a small addition in the rear and t hen realized what they were doing with the
house, foundation was totally inadequate and that if they were going to do the project, they might as well
raise it up and put in a basement. So the floor area ratio variance is just to, underneath what’s there now
is not living space. It’s storage space. It’s not accessed through the house. It’s accessed from the yard
and it’s only going to raise the house about 18 inches from what’s there now. So it’s really minimal and it’s
just that they have a tiny house and this would give them some really nice storage. In the front, because
they had started to do the project, they took down the front deck which was a mistake because you never
take something down that’s grandfathered, but what ultimately is being requested here is less than what
they were considering requesting. They’d be adding 40 square feet to what that original deck was to
square it out and the reason, which Andy will explain, is so they can put in curbed stairs to address the
grade issue from the garage to the front door. This way it all goes to a stormwater area. Right now it’s
draining right to the road and right across the road into the lake, and now it’s going to be captured so that
it’s going to be infiltrated. So I’ll let Andy go through the details, but this is a pretty small project with a
big impact to them.
MR. ALLISON-Just for the record, Andy Allison from AJA Architecture. So I’ll just address a couple of
the issues. The basement area of the house, it’s all down here, we’re not increasing the actual footprint of
the basement, and what was in use previously in the house was this edge here was all for parking. So they
had the garage, and then this half of the basement was this kind of a crawl space about five feet tall, but it
was on ledge, and they were using it for storage. There was an access door back in here, but there was a
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
lot of water and all kinds of stuff happening. So when they decided to shore up the basement area and
build actual concrete walls around there so that we could deal with the water coming in off the grade, it
just seemed that they would use it as real basement storage instead of sitting on a dirt floor. As mentioned
before, this was the addition off the back that was previously approved, and then what we’ve done out in
front of the property to kind of address the concern that the applicant had of stormwater coming off here
is to really re-do the front steps which right now exist as a series of concrete stairs that drain right off of
the roof or off the porch straight down and go across. We’ve now installed these sort of open stone stairs
that sit on the sand bed and those are all pitched to grade out to the lawn area. So we’re diverting any
water that comes off these stairs this way and they also have the ability to take water in then get
underneath the stone because they’re set in the sand bed. The deck out in front, which has been removed,
you know, this was the original shape, that was removed so we could raise the house once the original
approval was given. Now we’re back, you know, just asking to kind of take that shortest line and
straighten out where it was and basically re-build the deck right where it was without increasing its
proximity to the lake. This portion right here is being added so that we can construct a set of wood stairs
that will come down to this landing, sling this set of stairs out. In doing all that, we create a landscape
area here which will help with some of the standing water an stormwater as well there and just actually
make it look pretty because it’s not very pretty right now. The other thing is the driveway and they are
installing permeable pavement there to help deal with some of the water that lands on that . This all does
actually slope toward the house in that area. So not a ton of sheet flow comes off of that, and that’ll kind
of stay the same way. That’s really the total project. There isn’t a whole lot else to it.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Have you got to upgrade your septic?
MR. HENKEL-That was done.
MR. ALLISON-That was already done.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? So a public hearing was advertised. So at this
particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would
like to comment on this particular project. Roy, do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
MR. URRICO-Yes. “I’m representing the Carte family neighbors of the Steinbach’s at 213 Assembly Point
Road As very close neighbors to the Steinbach's property, we remain quite concerned about the revised
proposal to increase the size of the deck on the front of the house. Given that the required front setback of
30' is already not being met, to decrease that even further seems very inappropriate.
In addition, it is my understanding that Town of Queensbury requires that the following setbacks from
the shoreline be adhered to:
a) 50' minimum or
b) average of the existing setbacks of the two adjacent houses, if greater than 50'.
The neighbor to the south (2 Sunset Lane) is approximately 61' from the shoreline. Our property just to
the north (213 Assembly Point Road) is approximately 91' from the shoreline. This averages out to 76'. As
you can see from the attached satellite view, the Steinbach's house already sits considerably closer to the
shoreline than either of the neighboring houses. To further decrease the distance to the shoreline by
enlarging the original non-conforming structure (deck) on the front of the house again seems very
inappropriate. Doing this would also greatly accentuate the fact that the two neighboring properties are
well back within the town's mandated shoreline setbacks. If my figures are correct, the original front deck
on the structure when it was acquired by the Steinbachs was 220 sq. ft. The first proposal was to increase
the deck to 458 sq. ft., an increase of 108%. This second proposal is for 357 sq. ft. which is an increase of
62%. That still seems like a very significant overage, especially given that the square footage variance being
sought for the actual house is approximately 38% over what the regulations allow.”
MRS. MOORE-I’ll just interrupt with that. So if you notice the date that that was received was prior to
the most current application in front of you. So just to be aware of that.
MR. URRICO-Okay. Do I still read this in?
MRS. MOORE-Well, I mean if the Board wishes to hear. I don’t know what other additional information.
You can skip through it. Does the Board wish to hear the rest of the information?
MR. MC CABE-How lengthy is it?
MR. URRICO-It’s about another two paragraphs.
MR. MC CABE-We’ll listen to it.
18
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
MRS. MOORE-Okay.
MR. URRICO-“In addition, this revised proposal still brings the structure closer to both the front property
line and the shoreline and increases non compliance with the required setbacks. I believe some of the
criteria for considering variances include matters such as negative effect on the character of the
neighborhood, adverse impact on neighboring properties and whether or not the relief sought is
substantial. As much as we wish to remain good neighbors, we feel that this revised proposal to enlarge
the front deck will have a negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, as well as an adverse impact
on the neighboring properties. This proposal also represents substantial non-adherence to the town
requirements. We respectfully request that the board deny this portion of the plans.” This is Sincerely,
Kathleen (Carte) Bechard.” And I have one more letter. “The above referenced variance application was
personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper.
I would like to recognize the Zoning Board of Appeals for the attention to potential impacts from the
variances for this application and to find a balance that would result in improvements to Assembly Point
community. It is recognized this is a difficult site with building currently non-compliant and pushed to
the front. I would like to thank the applicant for the addition of the permeable paver blocks to increase
permeability on the site but would like to make recommendations for the project. 1. The applicant
references the use of gutters to convey stormwater to the perimeter drains or drain into green areas. I
would recommend not tying the gutters into perimeter drains if these are footing drains as this would
result in direct discharge. I would also recommend using the planter as a stormwater planter to mitigate
runoff by directing a roof downspout into the planter. I would also recommend the placement of a rain
garden to help further reduce stormwater runoff. Although the Waterkeeper does not support variances
for FAR or permeability within the Critical Environmental Area, this should be considered a
redevelopment project and is an opportunity to implement important mitigation measures to the greatest
extent possible. 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” That’s it.
MR. MC CABE-So would you like to comment?
MR. LAPPER-My only comment is that it wasn’t possible to move the house back because that’s where
their septic system is and that’s the only place it could be because of an off-site wetland setback. So we
were constrained by that. That’s where the septic was. They couldn’t push the house back.
MR. MC CABE-And the increased deck is so that you can put the stairway there.
MR. ALLISON-Yes. I think the first letter that was written, they were looking at a submission that was
done back in December which we withdrew. That deck actually came out about six feet further than what
is there right now. So we actually brought that to the owners’ attention and we said this probably isn’t
the best idea, and they withdrew that and we went back to this before they even saw the letter. So I think
the northern neighbor should be quite happy with what it is right now. And then to Chris’ letter as well,
we did look at raingardens but we’re within that 100 foot setback for stormwater structures. So we felt
the best way was to capture things in gutters, which I think was kind of a recommendation of this Board
a while ago. I’ve actually been talking to Chris about ways to maybe find a Catch-22 in the middle there
where we don’t have to get into a full engineering review of rainwater runoff because we don’t have a
significant amount anything we do is going to be better than what’s there now. One idea would be to
maybe just let this fall into this big wide gravel berm around the perimeter of the house and not worry
about gutters, and when I talked to Chris about that he thought that, all the water in one area and letting
it move across the site naturally might be the way to go. So the stormwater isn’t a variance that we’re
looking for here today. So it’s kind of a discussion point for the Planning Board.
MR. MC CABE-Well it’s something that should always be considered as Chris indicates there, but it
sounds like you’ve got it.
MR. ALLISON-We’re willing to work with Chris to come up with the best solution.
MR. MC CABE-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 Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I was very much in agreement with the recommendations that Chris made in his letter
but I liked the other alternative that you were talking about as well.. I think if you’re open to that and
further planning beyond us, from a zoning perspective, I think you’ve done the best you can and I’m willing
to vote for this, for these variances.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the application with the changes that have been made.
MR. MC CABE-Brady?
MR. STARK-Yes, I’m in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m in favor of the project, too. I think it’s a good idea. You’ve reduced the size of
the deck to appease the neighbor next door. I would say go with eaves trenches with gravel, spread it out
around the whole perimeter.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-The damage was done on this house years ago when it was built so close to the road and
the shoreline. So it’s not their fault. They’re trying to keep the house and there’s no doubt they had
problems with the cellar there and the water. So a new foundation makes sense. It creates the FAR
variance and I have no problem with the deck in the front. It makes sense. It’s a good project.
MRS. HAMLIN-Appreciative of the fact that you are keeping the house. I mean there’s an environmental
plus to that. So that mitigates, in my mind, some of the things.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. Certainly we’re repairing a bad situation, the foundation,
and we’re improving beyond that. So I think it’s a good project. So with that in mind, I’m going to ask
Cathy if you’ll make a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Francis & Erin
Steinbach, Jr. (Revised) Applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. (footprint) home to install a
full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq. ft. The existing rear deck of 444 sq. ft.to be removed and replaced
with a 356 sq. ft. deck. The existing front deck of 220 sq. ft. to be removed and replaced with a 260 sq. ft.
deck. The site has approval for 154 sq. ft. rear addition. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. is increased
to 2,632 sq. ft. (28.8%). The project includes replacing the driveway with permeable pavers and new
landscape steps to updated entry porch. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within
50 ft. of shoreline. Relief for setbacks of property and shoreline, floor area, and expansion of a
nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure for
construction of a basement area and deck areas. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone
on a 9,138 sq. ft. parcel. The additional variance noted for the shoreline setback for the front deck.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements
The applicant proposes expansion of a non-conforming structure. The rear deck is to be 2.4 ft. from the
north property line. The front deck is to be located 4.3 ft. from the south property line and 15.8 ft. from the
front (east) property line (no change), 49 feet to the shoreline. The house foundation to be 22.2 ft. from
the Front, 3.2 ft. from the South, and 2.4 ft. from the North at the closest points between the house and
property line. Front setback required is 30 ft., side setback 20 ft., rear setback 30 ft. and shoreline setback
is 76 ft. average of the two adjoining homes. The floor area was reduced to 28.8% from 30.5% (2,632 sq. ft.)
where 22% is maximum allowed (2010.36 sq. ft.). Noting permeability relief is not required as there is an increase in
permeability: The proposed permeability is to be 71.7% where 75% is required and 71% is existing; the driveway area is to be
converted to a permeable paver block area.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on November 17, 2021, January 19, 2022, & February 16, 2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. Essentially they’re keeping the same house on virtually the same footprint. Just a small
alteration. Other factors supporting this are the fact that raising the basement will help rectify a
water issue there. Changing the front steps, well the deck itself is pretty much the same size, but
expanded it will have a different step location which also creates more opportunity for stormwater
provision, and also the fact that you are maintaining the house. I think that, in terms of the
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
character of the neighborhood, to keep a house that is consistent and already there, how much
less change to the neighborhood can you do than to replace it with something far larger.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and were not reasonable.
3. The requested variance is not substantial in light of the fact that the setbacks that are there are
grandfathered in.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. The stormwater provisions should mitigate that.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but pretty minimally self-created.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
74-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 16th Day of February 2022 by the following vote:
MRS. MOORE-Prior to you calling the vote, I’m just going to have you go back to the Number One, an
undesirable change in the neighborhood. I think that I would encourage you to include additional
supporting information in there, only because this project does go in front of the APA and I found that
there were only a few comments.
MRS. HAMLIN-What did I say?
MRS. MOORE-Just in reference, I would think that you should highlight some of the information in, where
it says dimensional requirements. Because you have floor area which is at 30. We require 22. I think
maybe one of your comments, as I understood it, is there’s an issue in the basement from water and this
would improve that, you know, raising it up, and you’re raising that floor area significantly for the purpose
of maintaining the house in its current position. Something to the effect. I think it’s important to relay
that information. You can amend your resolution. One other thing is in reference to the setback for the
deck, is that that front deck is really a deck in kind and to improve the way they enter the home as well as
improve the green space and opportunities to maintain stormwater on the site.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So amending that resolution to specify on Number One, undesirable change in the
character of the neighborhood, Other factors supporting this are the fact that raising the basement will
help rectify a water issue there. Changing the front steps, well the deck itself is pretty much the same size,
but expanded it will have a different step location which also creates more opportunity for stormwater
provision, and also the fact that you are maintaining the house. I think that, in terms of the character of
the neighborhood, to keep a house that is consistent and already there, how much less change to the
neighborhood can you do than to replace it with something far larger.
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stark, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. So our next application is SV 2-2022, 79 Main Street,
Adirondack Trust Company.
NEW BUSINESS:
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2022 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY
AGENT(S) JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY ZONING MS
LOCATION 79 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 45 SQ. FT.
FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGN FOR THE ADIRONDACK TRUST BANK. THE SIGN
MATERIALS ARE ACRYLIC AND COLORS ARE GREEN, WHITE, AND BLACK STONE BASE.
THE LOCATION OF THE SIGN HAS BEEN CHANGED FROM PREVIOUS APPROVAL IN 2021.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
THE EXISTING BUILDING 3,860 SQ. FT. WITH NO CHANGES. SITE PLAN FOR SIGN ON MAIN
STREET ZONE. RELIEF FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SV 2-2021; SP 4-2022; SP 19-2021; SP 26-
2019; PZ (SUP) 68-2016 PZ(SV) 72-2016; PZ(SP) 73-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
FEBRUARY 2022 LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.10-1-47 SECTION 140
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 2-2022, Adirondack Trust Company, Meeting Date: February 16, 2022
“Project Location: 79 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 45
sq. ft. freestanding monument sign for the Adirondack Trust Bank. The sign materials are acrylic and colors
are green, white, and black stone base. The location of the sign has been changed from previous approval
in 2021. The existing building 3,860 sq. ft. with no changes. Site plan for sign on Main Street zone. Relief
for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for sign setbacks in the Main Street zone –MS.
Section 140 –signs
The sign is to be located 0.9 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 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 sign variance. Minimal to
no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to be limited
due to the requirements for the building location.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 14.1 ft.
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 have
minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may not be self-created due to the
Main Street requirements for setbacks.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to locate a free standing sign 0.9 ft. from the front property line. The existing bank
building was completed recently. The plans show the location of the sign and the design of the sign.”
MRS. MOORE-Just a clarification. That last one it’s not considered self-created due to the issues on Main
Street. The Main Street zone requires the building to have a 12 foot, in reference to the centerline, setback.
So it already offsets the 15 foot setback requirement of the Sign Variance, or the Sign Code. So it’s in
conflict of itself, but it forces the applicant to come back to this Board for a variance.
MR. HENKEL-We need to change the Code for the Main Street zone for signs.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. We have, it’s in the process of, our Comp Plan and Zoning Code are in the process of
being reviewed. We have some RFP’s in, and I’m assuming that over the next either months or years that
we will be updating our Comp Plan.
MR. LAPPER-So, very simply, you already approved this on the corner. The reason why it’s a monument
sign is because, while this is an important building in the new Main Street corridor built out to the front,
obviously dramatic architecture and hopefully there’ll be more of that. So the only sign on the façade faces
the road. If you’re coming from Exit 18 or if you’re coming from Glens Falls, it’s pretty quick traffic there.
So the monument sign lets you see it without getting right on top of the building to see the building. So
you approved it at the corner, and that was great, and then they went to build it and it turns out that there’s
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
a traffic control box that would block it. So that doesn’t work. So they’ve got some buildings up. There’s
a temporary sign, and this is a location where it won’t be a problem..
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised
and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody who has
comment on this particular project. Seeing no one, I’m going to ask Roy if there’s anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No, but I should have read in, the Planning Board based on its limited review did not
identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and
th
that was approved six zero on February 15, 2022.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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 Brady.
MR. STARK-Yes, I’m in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-This wasn’t self-created. It’s not their fault, so they deserve to have a freestanding sign.
So, yes, I’m on board.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. So, John, I wonder if we can have a motion for SEQR
here.
MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2022. APPLICANT NAME: ADIRONDACK
TRUST COMPANY, BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS
THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved
for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin:
Duly adopted this 16th Day of February 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-So, Brady, I wonder if we could get a motion on the Sign Variance.
MR. STARK-Sure.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Adirondack
Trust Company. Applicant proposes to install a 45 sq. ft. freestanding monument sign for the Adirondack
Trust Bank. The sign materials are acrylic and colors are green, white, and black stone base. The location
of the sign has been changed from previous approval in 2021. The existing building 3,860 sq. ft. with no
changes. Site plan for sign on Main Street zone. Relief for setbacks.
Relief Required:
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
The applicant requests relief for sign setbacks in the Main Street zone -- MS.
Section 140 –signs
The sign is to be located 0.9 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\]
Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 2-2022. Applicant Name: Adirondack Trust Company, based
upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the
applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact.
So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Catherine Hamlin:
Duly adopted this 16th Day of February 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 16, 2022;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to
the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No, it’s not going to
impact the neighborhood at all.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than a sign variance? No. Feasible alternatives are limited with that building’s location.
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No, the requested Sign Variance is not substantial.
4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district? No, it will not have an adverse impact on the physical or
environmental conditions.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is not self-created because of the existing Main Street
requirements.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
(ZBA Board Member does not need to read the following A through E):
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an
extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires;
B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review
by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until
the APA’s review is completed;
C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or
Building & codes personnel’
D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these
final plans;
E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park
Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 2-2022,
ADIRONDACK TRUST COMPANY, Introduced by Brady Stark , who moved for its adoption, seconded
by John Henkel:
th
Duly adopted this 16 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. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 7-2022 Fritz and Mary Stefanzick, 43 Hanneford Road.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK
OWNER(S) FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK ZONING WR LOCATION 43 HANNEFORD
ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 233 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING
1,434 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SITE; ALL WORK
ALTERATIONS ARE INTERIOR. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 3,337 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW
FLOOR AREA IS 3,570 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION
OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND
EXPANSION. CROSS REF SP 7-2022; PZ(AV) 13-2015; PZ(SP) 16-2015; AV 69-2014; SP 61-2014;
AV 27-1994 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY
ALD LOT SIZE 0.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010; 179-6-
065
FRITZ STEFANZICK, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2022, Fritz & Mary Stefanzick, Meeting Date: February 16, 2022
“Project Location: 43 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 233 sq.
ft. second story addition to an existing 1,434 sq. ft. (footprint) home. There are no changes to the site; all
work alterations are interior. The existing floor area is 3,337 sq. ft. and the new floor area is 3,570 sq. ft. Site
plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks
and expansion.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure for construction of
a second story addition. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 9,138 sq. ft. parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-13-010 expansion
The addition is to be located 16 ft. from the south property line where a 30 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as
the existing home is currently nonconforming.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the new construction setback is 14 ft.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
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 may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 233 sq. ft. addition for an office area over the existing sun room. There are no site
changes proposed. The plans show the exterior elevations with the changes and the interior changes to
the home.”
MR. URRICO-The Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse
impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed six zero on
th
February 15 2022.
MR. STEFANZICK-My name’s Fritz Stefanzick and I’m the owner of 43 Hanneford Road. I appreciate
your time. I wanted to show my current house, which it’s in the packet.
MRS. MOORE-I think it’s on this one.
MR. STEFANZICK-So this is a view of the existing house. We’re now up on top of it. On the bottom is
what I’m proposing. It’s basically a dormer room being added to the lower level, what we used to call the
sunroom. This is the view facing the north. So the addition is 233 square feet. That’s a little bit less than
seven percent of floor area. It’s still 455 square feet below the allowable for this site. All the work is being
done interior to the footprint, also below the existing height of the house. All of this was approved about
five years ago when I had the house re-built. It got approved and the CO was issued back in March of
2017. So basically building this addition within the existing footprint within the existing height. So
beyond the floor area, this house also is a non-conforming structure in that the south side of the house is
five feet away from the property line. It’s been like that probably since the beginning. So the requirement
is 30 feet. The addition, which, once again, is being done on the north side, the closest the addition is to
that south boundary is going to be 16 feet. So the request is for a variance to the south side of 16 feet versus
the 30. The setbacks on the north, east, west and the shoreline are all within the allowable. Also as I
mentioned since everything is being done internal to the footprint, there’s not going to be any change or
disturbance to the property or the surrounding area. So no changes in the grading, topography, and also
there’s a significant amount of green infrastructure that I put in place over the last four to five years,
professionally done, around the entire property, to manage any type of stormwater or erosion, anything
that comes off of Hanneford Road to the back property, but none of that is going to be disturbed. This
project isn’t going to change anything.
MR. MC CABE-Actually it’s going to improve it because of the dormer, you’ll spread it out a little bit more.
MR. STEFANZICK-Exactly. The area where the rain is going to come down isn’t going to change, but it
is going to be diverted. As part of the infrastructure that I put around the perimeter of the house is gravel
that’s contained by Elgin blocks. So when the water does come off it usually falls right into that area, then
it seeps out and it trickles off to the evergreen gardens and the shrub gardens that I have around there.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MRS. HAMLIN-By home office, is it for a professional?
MR. STEFANZICK-No. It’s going to be probably for my wife. She’s going to be working 100% remotely.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay.
MR. STEFANZICK-So it’s going to be personal use.
MRS. HAMLIN-I know it said in here you’re not having clients coming or anything like that.
MR. STEFANZICK-No. It’s only for one person.
MRS. HAMLIN-All right.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m
going to open the public hearing and seek input from our vast audience. Do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
MR. URRICO-Yes. “Regarding the subject upgrade being proposed by Mr. Stefanzick, I am the neighbor
directly across from their property. I fully support Mr. Stefanzick’s proposed plans and believe that it will
continue to provide a positive impact to the neighborhood as he has displayed in all of the upgrades he has
made in the past 10 years. Sincerely, Harold Smith 44 Hanneford Road” “As the owner of the property
directly across, and northeast, of the Stefanzick home, I offer my full support for their proposed upgrade
plans. In the past 10+ years that the Stefanzicks have lived here, they have significantly enhanced their
property and have made a positive impact on the overall appearance and character of our community. All
of their past improvements have been made with consideration to both the surrounding environment and
neighbors. I believe that their future upgrade plans will further enhance and add to the overall desirability
of our community. Sincerely, James Valastro 48 Hanneford Road”
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. HENKEL-He’s not changing the footprint. He’s just going up and he’s within the FAR variance and
he’s got support of the neighbors. So it’s a great project.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, it’s quite minimal. I’ll vote in favor of the variance.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor as proposed.
MR. MC CABE-Brady?
MR. STARK-I’d be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It only requires setback. So I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. What’s being asked for is minimal, and I think you’ve
done a real nice job with the property and this’ll, I think, further enhance it. So with this in mind, I’m
going to ask Jim to make a motion here.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Fritz & Mary
Stefanzick. Applicant proposes a 233 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 1,434 sq. ft. (footprint)
home. There are no changes to the site; all work alterations are interior. The existing floor area is 3,337 sq.
ft. and the new floor area is 3,570 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a
nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure for construction of
a second story addition. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 18,295 sq. ft. parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-13-010 expansion
The addition is to be located 16 ft. from the south property line where a 30 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 16, 2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because all the construction will take place internally on the footprint.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. There really are no feasible alternatives.
It’s a straightforward project as far as we’re concerned.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022)
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the setbacks requested for relief already exist on
the property.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. We see none.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created just by the fact of where the house is located on the waterfront.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
7-2022 FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 16th Day of February 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project.
MR. STEFANZICK-I appreciate your support.
MR. MC CABE-So I’m not going to be here next week. Jim will take over. Good luck. So no further
business.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
TH
FEBRUARY 16, 2022, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Catherine Hamlin:
th
Duly adopted this 16 day of February, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Stark, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-See you next month.
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe
28