06-22-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS
FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING
JUNE22ND,2022
INDEX
Area Variance No.22-2022 3 Antigua Road LLC 1.
Tax Map No.239.17-1-2,239.17-1-1
Area Variance No.24-2022 Alice&Jack Lynch 9.
Tax Map No.239.15-1-15
Area Variance No.25-2022 Morgan Gazetos 13.
Tax Map No.239.20-1-9
Area Variance No.27-2022 Joe Sheehan 14.
Tax Map No.227.13-2-42
Area Variance No.29-2022 Meghan&Stephen Orban 19.
Tax Map No.226.16-1-7&226.16-1-9
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL
STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 22ND,2022
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO
JOHN HENKEL
RONALD KUHL
CATHERINE HAMLIN
BRENT MC DEVITT
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
Appeals meeting on June 2211a 2022. If you haven't been here before,our procedure is pretty simple. There
should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up,read the case into our record, allow the
applicant to present the case, question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we'll
open the public hearing,seek input from the public,then we'll close the public hearing and poll the Board,
see where we stand on the application and then proceed from there. Before we start tonight,though,we
do have a couple of administrative items. So,John,could I get a motion?
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
May I8`h,2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF MAY 18TK, 2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 22 d day of June,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
May 25`h,2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING
MINUTES OF MAY 25TK, 2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Brent McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 22 d day of June,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-So the first application is AV 22-2022,3 Antigua Road LLC.
TABLED:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 3 ANTIGUA ROAD LLC AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) 3 ANTIGUA ROAD, LLC ZONING
WR LOCATION 3 &z 5 ANTIGUA ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO
CONSTRUCT ANEW 1,225 SQ.FT.HOME WITH A 845 SQ.FT.COVERED PORCH FOOTPRINT
WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,979 SQ.FT. THE NEW HOME IS TO BE GREATER THAN 28 FT.IN
HEIGHT. THE DRIVEWAY AREA INCLUDED PERMEABLE PAVERS OF 1,170 SQ.FT.AND 7,483
SQ. FT. HARD-SURFACING. THE PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF
QUEENSBURY ADJOINS A PARCEL THAT IS IN THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE THAT HAS
FRONTAGE ON THE LAKE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW WALKWAY AND A PORTION
OF THE NEW OUTDOOR KITCHEN THAT IS LOCATED IN BOTH THE TOWN OF LAKE
GEORGE AND TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA.
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT, PERMEABILITY, AND STORMWATER
DEVICE SETBACK. CROSS REF AV 59-2014, SP 25-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE .74 ACRES AND.04 ACRES TAX
MAP NO.239.17-1-2,239.17-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040,147
JON ZAPPER&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.22-2022,3 Antigua Road LLC,Meeting Date: June 22,2022 "Project
Location 3 & 5 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to
construct a new 1,225 sq. ft.home with an S45 sq.ft. covered porch footprint with a floor area of 3,979 sq.
ft. The new home is to be greater than 2S ft. in height. The driveway area included permeable pavers of
1,170 sq.ft. and 7,453 sq.ft.hard-surfacing. The parcel that is located in the Town of Queensbury adjoins a
parcel that is in the Town of Lake George that has frontage on the lake. The project includes a new
walkway and a portion of the new outdoor kitchen that is located in both the Town of Lake George and
Town of Queensbury. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, height, and
stormwater device setback.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks,height,and stormwater device setback.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,147 Stormwater device
The construction of the new home requires relief from height where 29 ft. 5 inches is proposed and 2S ft.
is the maximum height allowed;relief of I ft.5 inches. Relief for rear setback is proposed to be 0 ft.setback
where 30 ft. is required. Relief is requested for the stormwater devices located less than 100 ft. from the
shoreline where 76 ft.is proposed. The covered outdoor kitchen is located 63 ft.from the shoreline where
a 75 ft. setback is required. Permeability is being improved from 55.12%to 65.550/o where 750/o is required
no variance is necessary as it is an improvement.
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 limited due to the
property configuration with a portion being in the Town of Lake George and a portion in the Town of
Queensbury.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief is construction of the outdoor kitchen where relief
from the shoreline is to be 12 ft.,relief from the rear setback is 30 ft., and stormwater device is 24 ft.
Height relief of I ft.5 inches.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The project involves constructing a new guest home in a similar location to guest home that was destroyed
by fire — the new home is larger than the original. The plans show the work to be completed on the site
with the new home and driveway area. In addition, the plans show the work to be done in the Town of
Lake George with the existing main home,shoreline work, and the porch area of the guest house."
MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson next to me from
Environmental Design Partnership the project engineers. Joe Gross behind us the applicant and Ethan
Hall,the project architect. So as Roy just read,it's an interesting project because the site is bifurcated by
the Town line of Queensbury and Lake George. So that means we have to apply to both towns for site
plan and variances which splits the project up which is kind of arbitrary in terms of where the buildings
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
are,but that's just where the town line is. Of the three variances that we're hereto ask for tonight,one of
them is the setback. We're asking for a zero line setback which sounds significant from the rear setback,
and it's not a lake setback because the Town doesn't go to the lake, but it's on the lakeside of the house
and that,of course,is half of the outdoor kitchen area. So even though it sounds,like Laura said,you know,
technically it's a significant variance because we're asking for zero,but it's not significant because that's in
the middle of the room because there's plenty of room on the other side in the Town of Lake George. So
that's just kind of a funny,arbitrary thing because of where the Town line is,but it doesn't really,it's not a
property setback. It's just a parcel setback because of the Town line. So that's one. On the height issue,
it's a one and a half foot request which Brandon will show you on the drawings in a minute,but it's from
2S to 29 and a half feet,but that's only a few square feet of the edge of the roof,and the reason for that is so
that the base of that part of the guest house and outdoor kitchen lines up with the existing grade of where
the existing home next door that didn't burn down in the fire,just so that's flat, and on top it needs to
match up with the driveway. So it's just the foot and a half was as close as we could get it,but again it's
only a few square feet at the corner of the roof and that'll be very apparent when we show you the picture,
and then the infiltration device is on the permeable paver area. So we couldn't get 100 feet from the lake
because the house is barely 100 feet from the lake,but there's no infiltration,there's no stormwater devices
at all on the lakeside now. So this is a positive thing, and what's going into the infiltration,it's above the
retaining wall and it's basically roof water which is clean and that water that's on the permeable pavers
which is clean. It's not coming from the driveway. There's no pollutants. So it's a good thing that it's
getting infiltrated but there's no room to move it back to 100 feet,but we think that what he's doing with
the project is very positive on the Lake George side. They asked us to comeback with a whole bunch of
more plantings and that's what we're in the process of doing on the front side so you won't see the retaining
wall from the lake and Joe's in the process, if you've been up there, of re-facing what was a kind of ugly
mustard colored building with granite, which is just a very nice treatment. So we think this will look
pretty special when it's done,but those three variances couldn't be avoided. So with that,Brandon,if you
could just walk them through it.
MR.FERGUSON-So as Jon was saying,it's a unique parcel that is split by the Town line. So this red mark
in here, it's a little bit hard to see on the screen, that is the existing parcel, and that blue line that cuts
through it is the Town line. This is a little more clear. This is existing. The main house is all on the Lake
George side. The Town of Queensbury parcel is highlighted in red. This is the area that the guest cottage
used to be before it burned down. The total area on the side of Queensbury is.74 acres. This is an aerial
image that we found that showed where that guest cottage previously was. So as you can see it was
actually within the side yard setback and was right up against the Town line. And here's a partial survey
we found showing where that was as well. So we're able to locate it on the plan. So the three variances
that we're going for tonight are rear yard setback, as Jon touched on,which is to the Town property line,
the infiltration device setback from the lake, that's 100. We're proposing it at 76, and then the height of
the building which is required at 2S and we're at 29 and a half. So for the rear yard setback, as Jon said
before,here's the Town line. The guest cottage sits right here, and the outdoor covered patio kitchen area
actually is bisected by the Town line. So about 500/o of it's in Queensbury,500/o's in Lake George. So that
lot line,Joe, obviously his main house is right here. It's just an arbitrary line with the Town that splits
that parcel, or splits that building. For stormwater management, the device in question here that's
requiring the variance is the permeable reservoir that's actually underneath the outdoor kitchen area.
That's all going to be patio area underneath there and stone reservoir is going to extend underneath. It's
going to take water from the roof via roof leaders off that outdoor kitchen as well as it's attached to the
stone reservoir in the Town of Lake George side. So the closest it gets on the Queensbury side is 76 feet.
It's not taking any driveway runoff. That's all going to stormwater devices further uphill that aren't
needing that much of a setback. And for the building height,so this diagram is a cross section through the
house. The red lineup here is actually the 2S feet from existing grade,and the blue line is proposed grade.
So really what's happening is because he's matching the patio area on this side with the finished floor of
the existing house,having us walk that area,it pushes that up to 29 and a half feet for just this little section
right here. That's the only area of the house that's over. Ethan worked really hard to try to get that under
2S,but just with the living space and what they were able to fit into the structure,he wasn't able to do it
without having a little bit of a variance. So it's a very small portion of the structure that's over that 2S feet.
And this is an image of the previous guest cottage. So it's set in generally the same location as where this
guest cottage will sit, and while it didn't have a walkout on the lakeside,really the height of the building
above existing grade is about the same for the height of this building above existing grade,and then quickly
just the plans for the house, the guest cottage and the outdoor area. So this is the basement area. It's
going to be kind of a rec area, a couple of bedrooms. This is the outdoor patio. On the kind of the middle
floor there's going to be a garage that will be accessed from the roadside, and then some stairs in the
bathroom. And then upstairs would be the main guest quarters. So it's going to have a small kitchen, a
couple of bedrooms, and a bath facility, and it's all really built into the dormers on there in order to keep
the height and the massing of that structure minimized. So this is an outdoor elevation view, and really
what you're looking at over that 2S feet it's just a portion of this dormer right here,not even the full height
of it that's over that 2S feet. Existing site conditions. This is what the site looks like now. Here's the
main structure. Here's where the guest cottage used to be before it burned down and after Joe cleaned
that up,and this is a proposed color rendering of what the site will look like. So,here's the guest cottage,
outdoor kitchen area, driveway access to the guest cottage. This one's going to follow the existing
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
driveway down into there right now,and then here's a couple of building renderings from the lake. As you
can see that guest cottage area really kind of sits back further from everything else,and there's the outdoor
kitchen area in the front. Here's a kind of evening view. I know it's kind of a little hard to see on this
screen,but even in the evening it kind of shades more into the shadows behind the existing home. Then
from kind of a different angle, a daytime view and that evening view. I'll turn it back over to you guys if
you have any questions.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR.HENKEL-I do.
MR. MC CABE-Go ahead.
MR. HENKEL-The guest house,the garage doors are facing the south. So why is the driveway needed if
it's not going to go to any openings of the garage?
MR. FERGUSON-That actually is the guest parking area over on that side. We're going to make that a
permeable gravel driveway down to the base, and he wants to maintain that driveway access so when he
has guests staying at the house they have their own kind of area to park that's not in his way.
MR.KUHL-Is this a residential property or is this a new air b-n-b we're going to see?
MR. ZAPPER-No,it's definitely a residential project. Joe's house.
MR.KUHL-I mean with a capital D.
JOE GROSS
MR. GROSS-Promise.
MR.KUHL-Promise. He raised his hand.
MR. GROSS-Yes,I promise,it's for me. Hi,I'm Joe Gross. I'm going to be the resident. I plan on making
this my final home and living there. I'd like to make enough room for the kids and future grandchildren.
I'm not renting out any bedrooms.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR.KUHL-Has this gone through and gotten approved by the other municipality?
MR. ZAPPER-So we're in the process in Lake George, we've been to the Planning Board. We've been to
the Zoning Board. The Planning Board was very supportive. The Zoning Board asked us to come back
with some more landscaping on the lakeside and we're on in another week to do that. So we're going to
get through Lake George.
MRS.HAMLIN-I had a question. It's more of a Staff question. I didn't have a chance to look at the Code.
Are secondary dwelling units allowed in this district?
MRS. MOORE-It's not considered a secondary dwelling because, it's a primary dwelling because it's on
this lot in the Town of Queensbury.
MRS.HAMLIN-But the guest house is not considered a secondary dwelling?
MRS. MOORE-It's the primary dwelling in this case because it's on the Town of Queensbury. The Town
of Lake George has its own side.
MRS.HAMLIN-Well that's interesting.
MR.ZAPPER-So there was always a guest cottage there that burned down. Joe bought the property a year
ago.
MRS. HAMLIN-I understood, but I was just wondering how we could address that, but this is actually
the Lake George side. So we have two primaries on two separate parcels. Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC DEVITT-The waterfront,the roof you described them as roof leaders.
MR.FERGUSON-Yes,so it would be a gutter system on the upper patio area,like a gutter and then piped
into a header pipe underneath there.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MR. MC DEVITT-Okay, and again,to be clear,no driveway runoff in that case,right?
MR. FERGUSON-That's correct. There's no driveway runoff making it to that leader system.
MR. MC DEVITT-That's it,Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
MR.KUHL-Mr. Chairman,can I ask another question?
MR. MC CABE-Absolutely.
MR.KUHL-Thank you. Would you explain to me the permeable gravel.
MR. FERGUSON-'The permeable gravel for the driveway? It will be a gravel system. It's built similar to
how permeable pavers areas abase. There's a stone reservoir underneath and then there's actually a plastic
grid system that gets put on top and then the final coat of stone gets put over that to kind of hold it in place
and keep it from compacting.
MR.KUHL-And what's your maintenance schedule on that?
MR. FERGUSON-That actually requires less maintenance than the paver system because it's not relying
on just the infiltration through the joints. It's just stone. It's a clean stone that's put on top of it that's
held in place with the plastic grid. So it needs to be just kind of raked out and re-graded every once in a
while on top.
MR.KUHL-That's your less maintenance is raked out every once in a while?
MR. FERGUSON-That doesn't have to be vacuumed out.
MR.KUHL-It doesn't?
MR. FERGUSON-Not on the same basis that a paver system does.
MR.KUHL-Okay. Is this something that the Town has approved,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it's going through engineering and it's going back before the Planning Board after
your review.
MR.KUHL-I mean do we know the yield on this gravel? What are we talking about,650/o on pavers?
MRS. MOORE-It's 500/o for paver system. It is going before the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer will
provide comments back to the applicant. So they correspond and their requirement is to have a Town
Engineer signoff.
MR.KUHL-But we're quoting a yield in here, and you're saying it's not been.
MR. MC CABE-Permeability isn't an issue for us.
MR. ZAPPER-We're not asking for a permeability variance.
MR.KUHL-I'm done.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this time I'm going to open
the public hearing, see if there's anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project?
Anybody?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MARTHA NOORDSY
MS. NOORDSY-My name is Martha Noordsy. I am apart property owner at 245 Cleverdale Road which
is this property is two docks over. My family has lived on the lake since IS40 and my concern is wondering
what the legal standard is for them to get an appeal from this Board and the second question is,with 100
feet of shorefront,how many feet of shorefront is it?
AUDIENCE MEMBER-Excuse me,I think you're on the wrong property.
MS. NOORDSY-I'm sorry.
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MR.HENKEL-This is up at 9L.
MS. NOORDSY-My mistake. I was confused. I thought we were just talking about this. My mistake.
Sorry about that.
MR.MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to provide input on this particular project? Roy,do we have
anything written?
MR. URRICO-I have one letter. "The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in
my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The coordination with
the Town of Lake George is appreciated on this project but there is concern for a cumulative review,
especially considering the less restrictive requirements by the Town of Lake George Code for permeability.
The level of disturbance is extensive,increases site hardscape and moves all disturbance closer to the lake.
The development also appears to create a 200 foot continuous structure when the existing residence,
outdoor kitchen structure and guest house are combined. This mass of structure will appear even larger
and taller on top of a large retaining wall running the length of the structures, which appears to be
permitted through a loophole for a grass strip "separating' the wall from the buildings. The project
proposes too much development for a small lot within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake
George and fails to provide the balance necessary to grant the variances requested. There is also concern
about the removal and lack of vegetative surface that will impact water quality. Although mitigation
measures are proposed such as the permeable pavers, there are questions about the long-term benefits,
which may 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-OSO Variance
Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The proposed
variance will result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will be a detriment
to nearby properties.The proposed outdoor kitchen building attached to new guest house will provide the
appearance of the large continuous structure close to the lake that will not be screened by the claimed
small ornamental trees,which are not shown on the plans and should be native trees. There is concern on
amount of hardscape surface and site permeability and the Waterkeeper encourages the Board to review
the cumulative permeability for the entire development. The proposed variances would have an adverse
effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. There is a question
on how effective stormwater reduction and treatment can be when there is an increase in site hardscape
allowed through the permeable paver credit, i.e. there is less vegetative space on the property. There is a
question regarding the shoreline setback for the stormwater management devices with the 6"pipe shown
in the details on page 7. With this level of disturbance, a substantial shoreline buffer should be required,
which cannot be provided by the claimed screening planting, which is not even shown on the drawings.
The applicant is requesting numerous variances within the Critical Environmental Area for a project that
straddles municipal boundaries.It is recommended that the municipalities review the cumulative effect of
the site development and request the applicant to show the site development data for the entire property
as a single table, such as site permeability, which is less on the Town of Lake George parcel. It is also
recommended that the Town of Queensbury request the applicant further investigate alternatives to
reduce the variances requested. 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"
MR. ZAPPER-Okay. So to start responding to that, again we're not asking for a permeability variance in
either Town. We're not asking for floor area ratio variance. Chris is really concerned about the quality
of the lake which he should be. There's no stormwater infiltration. There's no stormwater management
currently on the lakeside. So the fact that we're doing this,even though we can't be 100 feet back,and the
Lake George Park Commission of course changed their regulations,which doesn't affect Queensbury yet,
to 35 feet because everyone recognizes that infiltration is a good thing. So we're at 6S feet for the
infiltration which is a good thing to get it into the ground nowhere near the lake. What's there now is a
pretty good slope, and by putting in,or there's already a retaining wall,but by revising the retaining wall
it's going to have less water running into the lake untreated. The variances, again,that we're asking here
are really minor butting up against the other half of the building in Lake George because of where the line
is, and as you saw in the diagram, 2S feet to 29 and a half is just a few square feet of dormer of the roof.
That's not an impact on the lake. This was always kind of a grand home. That's why Joe bought it. The
house that burned down, again,his house that burned down was within the setback right up against the
north property line. He had the ability to re-build that and maintain that if he wanted to,but he chose
not to. So we're moving it back so it's conforming from the north property line. This is overall better for
the lake. We're reducing impermeability. We're infiltrating stormwater.
MR.HENKEL-Could I ask a question?
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR.HENKEL-Do you know what the square footage was at the other guest house that burnt down?
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
ETHAN HALL
MR.HALL-Off the top of my head I don't.
MR. FERGUSON-If I can go back,I don't have the actual square footage,but I believe in one of these you
can kind of see.
MR.HENKEL-I was wondering how it compared.
MR.FERGUSON-So here's the new one. It sits in the kind of part of the footprint of the old one. The old
one actually juts out closer to the property line. Can you zoom in on that,Laura? We added that dashed
line on here. So it's actually a smaller over, the guest cottage portion of it is actually smaller than the
original one.
MR.HENKEL-Thank you.
MR. URRICO-I didn't read in the Queensbury Planning Board. 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 adopted on June 21",2022 by a unanimous vote.
MR. FERGUSON-The only other thing I would like to add is that we are going through a coordinated
review with LaBella Engineers who is the Town Engineer for both Towns. So they are reviewing it for
both Towns,the stormwater management. So we've already addressed their first comment and sent that
stuff back over to them. So we are in the process of that, and they are looking at this site as a whole for
stormwater.
MR. MC CABE-So anybody else? So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think,you know, as far as our end of it goes,you know,you're well set back from
the lake. I think what you're asking for is minimal. Zero setback is identified because of the Town line.
That's the only issue with that one. I think if we were reviewing the entire project from the waterfront,I
would think that it would be incumbent upon the applicants with the Lake George and the APA and stuff
like that, I think they're going to probably require you to have more vegetation, mature trees in front of
that place. It appears to look very commercial,you know,the main part of the building,but as far as our
part of the building goes in the back,I think it's a minimal request and I think we should grant the request.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-I agree. This is very minimal. They're actually only asking for really kind of two variances.
The other one is because of that property line, the way it goes, and I think it is minimal like you said.
They're asking for a foot and five inches for height, and that's really not too big of a deal. It's only a very
small portion of the house,and knowing Mr. Gross,he's going to be a good steward and I'm sure he's going
to definitely do all he can to keep that lake in good shape for the future. So I'd be on board with it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I kind of, you know, I kind of agree that it's small. I mean we've got two municipalities,
hopefully they're not playing one against the other and saying,oh,well,Queensbury said yes so you should
say,you know. I'm still into the new term now of permeable gravel. So new things. Thank you. I'll be
in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm also in favor of the project. I'm not thrilled about the height relief,but all things
considered I'll be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS.HAMLIN-I have comments going forward in working with both municipalities and an engineer that
anything I see as an issue it doesn't affect what we're looking at. So I would be in favor of that, and if I
could mention quickly the question previous as to the footprint,if you look at the engineering report,it's
there. It was 1,532 and it will not be 1,225.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor,Mr. Chairman. It's been well setback from the lake. Infiltration is a good
thing. It's an interesting one being two municipalities. When I first read the thing I'm like oh my gosh
what is this,but overall I'm in favor of the project.
MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project,considering that there's only three variances required here,
the setback which is technical, the height which is a very small square footage compared to the overall
project, and the stormwater device setback which again is impossible to meet the Code. So I think that
they've done a good job with this given what they have. So with that,I'm going to make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 3 Antigua Road
LLC. (Revised)Applicant proposes to construct a new 1,225 sq.ft.home with an S45 sq.ft.covered porch
footprint with a floor area of 3,979 sq.ft. The new home is to be greater than 2S ft.in height. The driveway
area included permeable pavers of 1,170 sq.ft. and 7,4S3 sq.ft.hard-surfacing. The parcel that is located in
the Town of Queensbury adjoins a parcel that is in the Town of Lake George that has frontage on the lake.
The project includes a new walkway and a portion of the new outdoor kitchen that is located in both the
Town of Lake George and Town of Queensbury. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for
setbacks,height,and stormwater device setback.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks,height,and stormwater device setback.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,147 Stormwater device
The construction of the new home requires relief from height where 29 ft. 5 inches is proposed and 2S ft.
is the maximum height allowed;relief of I ft.5 inches. Relief for rear setback is proposed to be 0 ft.setback
where 30 ft. is required. Relief is requested for the stormwater devices located less than 100 ft. from the
shoreline where 76 ft.is proposed. The covered outdoor kitchen is located 63 ft.from the shoreline where
a 75 ft. setback is required. Permeability is being improved from 5S.12%to 6S.550/o where 750/o is required
no variance is necessary as it is an improvement.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 1S,2022&Wednesday,June 22,2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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 overall there's going to be a considerable improvement of the appearance of this
particular property.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but generally are not reasonable, again,
because of the fact that this property spans two different municipalities.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's actually minimal. The most substantial of the three
variances required is the stormwater device setback and again it's been explained that that's just
because of the physical arrangement of the property.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. In fact we're improving the environmental conditions because we're adding the
stormwater devices.
5. The alleged difficulty is,of course,self-created.
6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,-
S. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
22-2022 3 ANTIGUA ROAD LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 22110 Day of June 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Hamlin,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody.
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 24-2022, Alice and Jack Lynch, 14
Highview Road.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ALICE &z JACK LYNCH AGENT(S)
REDBUD DEVELOPMENT(GEFF REDICK) OWNER: ALICE&z JACK LYNCH ZONING WR
LOCATION 14 HIGHVIEW RD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW OPEN DECK
ADDITION OF 563 SQ. FT.,INSTALL A POOL OF 123 SQ. FT., AND CONSTRUCT A COVERED
PORCH OF 166 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER CONTROL
MEASURES, SITE LANDSCAPING AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS.. THERE IS AN EXISTING
SHED OF 169 SQ. FT. THAT REQUIRES REVIEW FOR AFTER-THE-FACT WORK. THE
EXISTING HOUSE IS 2,775 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH NAN EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 4,773
SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50
FEET OF SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND POOL LOCATION. CROSS
REF SP 36-2022; AV 45-1996; SP 42-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-19
SECTION 179-3-040;179-13-010
GEFF REDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;ALICE LYNCH,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 24-2022,Alice&Jack Lynch, Meeting Date: June 22,2022 "Project
Location: 14 Highview Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct new
open deck addition of 563 sq. ft., install a pool of 123 sq. ft., and construct a covered porch of 166 sq. ft.
Project includes installation of stormwater control measures, site landscaping and shoreline plantings.
There is an existing shed of 169 sq. ft. that requires review for after-the-fact work. The existing house is
2,775 sq. ft. footprint with an existing floor area of 4,773 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and
hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and pool location.
Relief Required:
The applicant relief for setback of a shed and pool location in the Waterfront Residential Zone WR.
Section 179-3-040 WR,179-5-020 Shed and Pool
The applicant proposes a 123 sq.ft.spa and under Town Code meets the definition of a pool where relief is
requested for locating a pool in the front yard. The shed is located 23 ft. to the shoreline where a 75 ft.
setback is required. The applicant has identified a retaining wall on the eastside that is located 6 inches to
an easement area—this is not subject to a variance.
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 character 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 available to relocate
the shed but may cause additional disturbance on a steep slope site.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested 52 ft. for shed setback. Relief for the pool location
in the front yard.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant requests to maintain the existing shed in the current location as there is an existing fire pit
area and items are stored in the shed. The update to the deck area on the house with the pool is to upgrade
the house. The plans show the location of the shed and new deck area."
MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on a limited review did not identify any
significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And they passed
that motion on June 21",2022 by a unanimous vote.
MR. REDICK-Good evening. My name is Geff Redick from Redbud Signs. I'm here with Alice Lynch,the
owner. I'd like to just give you a brief introduction of the project description,what we're trying to do with
the project. So I'll start with the shed variance request. With some description to understand that the
shed was built and the owner acknowledges that they did not build in compliance because they didn't
realize that they needed a permit or needed to go through the process,and essentially what happened was
they placed the shed here because that was really the only flat piece of property on the land, and there had
already been,from the previous owner, an area that was filled with debris and what not. So they cleaned
and then placed the shed. The use of the shed is basically for supplies for both boating and/or the dock.
It's probably understood the contours of the land are extremely steep. There's also a tremendous amount
of bedrock on the property in general which makes it very difficult for them to be able to bring materials
back up to the house and store them in the house, and then it also kind of helps to define that this is
reasonable location to put the shed because of all the bedrock and what not that's on the site and the
steepness of the slopes. We did also look at other potential alternatives for where the shed could be
relocated,but if you see here the sort of squiggly line that actually carries all the way out through here,and
it also is here. It's a little bit hard to see,but if you actually look you can see it in here. So the existing
tree line kind of does this. It also does this,but if you were coming up the lake and you tried to put the
shed and you were on this side,you would be looking right at it all the time. Placing it in here where they
actually did provides for a location that's actually hidden in the trees, and then our proposal is also to
introduce even more vegetation in here to help that, again, disguise or hide the shed,hide this patio space
that's in front of it, and then the third thing to note is,with the residence as far away as the shed is now,
there's actually no storage in the house. There is no basement. It's just basically a crawl space because
the house was built all on bedrock,and then the garage,the size that it is,it's just literally enough room for
two cars. So it is,we again recognize,not a legal location for where the shed could go,but trying to even
move it farther uphill requires either some significant challenges with bedrock and/or the removal of ore
mature trees, which I think is a detriment. Then the other part of our request is what is again defined in
the Town Code is there is a spa, there is a pool, which let me explain the project a little bit further first.
We were proposing to remove an existing deck here, replace it with a new deck, essentially the existing
deck is just dated and not in great shape anymore. This deck is actually going to be a little bit smaller than
the previous deck, and then if you follow this line here, this is the foundation of the house. We're
proposing another deck on this side of the house that's going to come down a set of stairs and then go to
the spa,and then there's going to be a series of retaining walls that are out here because our grade elevation
change from this part of the house to literally right about here at present is somewhere around 1S feet. So
there's a significant grade change between the actual back of the house and the existing grade. So we want
to bring that up and place this,again,what we're defining as this therapy spa significantly up on the slope.
What's happening right now is this retaining wall is going to be somewhere around eight feet to nine feet
depending on this location. This is another four to five foot wall and the spa sits up on top,and then we're
going to have significant plantings,here,here and on the bottom of this wall to hide it. So in essence this
spa won't be visible from the lake. It's going to be elevated so high that when you're at the lake and looking
up all you'll see is either plantings and/or retaining walls and then you won't be able to see that spa. The
other thing that we're introducing as part of this project is a stormwater retention area. So currently on
the property there is no stormwater management. It's just a steep slope from the house straight to the
lake. There is a lawn. We're introducing the stormwater management area and capturing rain water from
both this general area and also from all the roof gutters in the backside of the house. So about half of the
roof gutter or half of the roof system on the house is now going to go into this retention system which is
part of this project, which, again, there is no stormwater management on the site at present. So I'd also
like to speak a little bit to why the owners would like the spa. They're aging. They would like to have a
hot water body that is closer to the house,they can literally just go out and have something that can reach
104 degrees. All the controls for the spa are going to be in the house. So it's really for helping them to
11
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
enjoy the lake and enjoy their property without having to necessarily go swimming in the lake which is
obviously a colder body of water. So in essence that kind of closes out the application, or excuse me the
description. Do you have any questions?
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MRS.HAMLIN-I'm not finding what is the relief for the pool?
MR. MC CABE-It's in the front yard.
MRS.HAMLIN-No,but I mean what's the?
MRS. MOO RE-So that's the definition. So a pool is not allowed in the front yard currently,and so just to
let you know, the way the Code is written, anything with 100 gallons or more is considered a pool. I
understand that our Code is not necessarily New York State Building Code, but right now our Code is
more restrictive than New York State Building Code.
MRS.HAMLIN-So because it's got two front yards.
MRS. MOORE-That's how it's classified in the Town Code.
MR.MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none,a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular
time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there who has input on this
particular project. Roy,do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Cathy.
MRS.HAMLIN-Well I mean looking at the topography,I don't like after the fact,but you really don't have
any place else, I don't think, to put it. So it's a lot of relief,just so you know, but I guess I will vote for
granting relief.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-There's a significant grade change on the property. There's a lot of slope. It is what it
is,and so it is a good amount of relief. Understanding that,I also believe that the plantings,the stormwater
management area, catching waters from the roof gutters, etc., is very, very important. So I think it's a
positive,not a negative. I'm in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-The placement of the shed is logical and I think that we can make the distinction
between the pool and the spa. So I have no problem with it.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-I agree with my Board members. I'm on board with it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-I agree with everything that's been said. I think it's minimal and I'd be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project,too.
MR. MC CABE-So I've got to dissent. I don't have a problem with the shed,but if we approve a pool in
the front yard,lakeside,that sets a very dangerous precedent, and so I oppose the project. However,I'm
only one vote. So, at this time I need a motion. So, Ron,could you give us a motion.
MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Alice&z Jack
Lynch. Applicant proposes to construct new open deck addition of 563 sq. ft.,install a pool of 123 sq. ft.,
and construct a covered porch of 166 sq. ft. Project includes installation of stormwater control measures,
site landscaping and shoreline plantings. There is an existing shed of 169 sq. ft. that requires review for
after-the-fact work. The existing house is 2,775 sq. ft. footprint with an existing floor area of 4,773 sq. ft.
Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief requested for
setbacks and pool location.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setback of a shed and pool location in the Waterfront Residential Zone
WR.
Section 179-3-040 WR,179-5-020 Shed and Pool
The applicant proposes a 123 sq.ft.spa and under Town Code meets the definition of a pool where relief is
requested for locating a pool in the front yard. The shed is located 23 ft. to the shoreline where a 75 ft.
setback is required. The applicant has identified a retaining wall on the eastside that is located 6 inches to
an easement area—this is not subject to a variance.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 22,2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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 as it blends in with the existing property with the sloping.
2. Feasible alternatives are limited and due to the sloping of the property,have been considered and
are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial again because of the slope of the property and the pool
being in the front yard.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty you could say is self-created only because of the property and the distance to
the lake.
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,-
S. 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.
24-2022 ALICE&z TACK LYNCH, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 2211d Day of June 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Hamlin,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt
NOES: Mr. McCabe
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. REDICK-Thank you.
MRS. LYNCH-Thank you very much.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MRS. MOORE-I just want to bring to the Board's attention that the next item is to be tabled.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MORGAN GAZETOS AGENT(S)
MORGAN GAZETOS OWNER(S) GREG FRANCIS ZONING WR LOCATION 2930 STATE
ROUTE 9L APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DECK ADDITION
NOT CONSTRUCTED AS APPROVED. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED
ADDITIONAL WORK WITHOUT APPROVAL INCLUDING DECK AREA NEAR SHORELINE,
SHORELINE PATHWAY DECKING AND A RECONSTRUCTED SHED/CHANGING
ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NEAR THE SHORE. EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINT 1,285 SQ. FT.
REMAINS THE SAME. THE DECK AREAS TOTAL 2,270 SQ. FT. WHERE THE APPLICANT IS
TO REMOVE THE PATHWAY DECKING, REDUCING THE DECKING TO 1,930 SQ. FT.
(ORIGINAL 2014 DECK AREAS WERE 1,408 SQ. FT.) SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR AS-BUILT
CONDITIONS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS OF UPPER AND LOWER DECKS,SHED,
AND WOODEN WALKWAY. CROSS REF SP 35-2022; AV 84-2014; SP 72-2014. WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 092 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-19 SECTION 179-3-040;179-13-010
MR.MC CABE-Okay. So I do have a question on this AV 25-2022. We approved a variance back in 2014.
So probably five of us were involved in that, and the project was completed in 2015 and our Code
Enforcement Officer reviewed the construction and found out that it was greater than what was approved,
and told the applicant that he had to come back to us to request additional variances, and then nothing
happened until seven years later. Is that the way this?
MRS. MOORE-That's correct. He was provided that information on a yearly basis or as much as we
possibly could say that eventually he would be brought to court.
MR.KUHL-Can I say something,Mr. Chairman?
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. KUHL-I went in and reviewed the 2014 approval. The drawings you've given us here are not dated.
They're actually the same ones as 2014 and in that other documentation the inspector said that when he
went there,there was a 22 foot by something that was now 28 foot. Nothing in the drawings presented
says 28 by 12. These drawings are not dated and they're the same ones as the original offering.
MRS. MOORE-So if you read through the narrative, Morgan identified that those plans that were drawn
up by Mr. Miller were from the previous application,but the survey is current. So he explained,it's in his
narrative why. There's a set of drawings that show the deck and then there is a survey that is the most
recent one.
MR. KUHL-Right. I'm not arguing the survey, but you requested them as built drawings, and if the
inspector saw 28 feet,these drawings say 22 feet. There's no 28 foot.
MRS. MOORE-Because there's no, so he hasn't re-drawn deck drawings. Like Mr. Miller was not asked
to re-draw that drawing.
MR.KUHL-Okay.
MRS. MOORE-You're going to open the public hearing.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. That's right. So I need to open a public hearing for AV 25-2022. Is there anybody
here who's hereto address that particular project? So I'm going to keep that public hearing open.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.HENKEL-So when do we table it?
MRS. MOORE-You would table it to the second meeting in August.
MR.HENKEL-So August 24`h. Right?
MRS. MOORE-I apologize. The first meeting in August.
MR.HENKEL-The 17`h
MRS. MOORE-Yes.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MR.HENKEL-Okay,with any new information,or is there not going to be any?
MRS. MOORE-There's going to be new information due by July 15`h
MR.HENKEL-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Morgan
Gazetos. Applicant requests approval for construction of deck addition not constructed as approved. In
addition, the applicant has completed additional work without approval including deck area near
shoreline, shoreline pathway decking, and a reconstructed shed/changing accessory structure near the
shore. Existing home footprint 1,306 sq. ft. remains the same. The deck areas total 2,270 sq. ft. where the
applicant is to remove the pathway decking,reducing the decking to 1,930 sq.ft. (original 2014 deck areas
were 976 sq. ft. specific to the house area). Site plan review for as-built conditions. Relief requested for
setbacks of upper and lower decks,shed,and wooden walkway.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2022 MORGAN GAZETOS, Introduced by John
Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brent McDevitt:
Tabled to the August 17`h,2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with new information to be submitted
by July 15`h,2022.
Duly adopted this 22110 day of June,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Urrico
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 27-2022,Joe Sheehan, SO Rockhurst Road.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JOE SHEEHAN AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) JOE SHEEHAN ZONING WR
LOCATION 80 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 618 SQ. FT. GARAGE
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AND A 500 SQ. FT. DECK TO REPLACE AN EXISTING
DECK. A PORTION OF THE NEW DECK WILL BE COVERED; THE DECK IS OVER A PATIO
AREA WITH ACCESS FROM THE BASEMENT. A NEW ENTRY AREA TO BE CONSTRUCTED
IS ALSO COVERED. PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE
PLANTINGS, RETAINING WALL AND STEPS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED. THE HOME WILL
HAVE A NEW FOOTPRINT OF 2,500 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 3,728 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN
FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE,
AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR
SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 40-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO.227.13-
2-42 SECTION 179-3-040;147,179-5-020;179-13-010
ETHAN HALL&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.27-2022,Joe Sheehan,Meeting Date: June 22,2022 "Project Location:
SO Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 61S sq. ft. garage addition
to an existing home and a 500 sq. ft. deck to replace an existing deck. A portion of the new deck will be
covered;the deck is over a patio area with access from the basement.A new entry area to be constructed
is also covered.Project includes stormwater management,shoreline plantings,retaining wall and steps to
be reconstructed. The home will have a new footprint of 2,500 sq.ft.and floor area of 3,72 S sq.ft. Site plan
for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, and expansion of nonconforming
structure. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area.
Section 179-3-040 dimensions,179-4-OSO-decks
The deck addition is to be located 2S ft. 11 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The deck
addition is to be S ft.5 inches where 20 ft.is required for the south side. The garage addition is to be 10 ft.
3 inches from the north side where 20 ft.is required. The garage is 12 ft. 3 inches to the front yard where a
30 ft. setback is required. The floor area ratio relief where 40.41%is proposed and 220/o is the maximum
allowed. The permeability improved to 67.750/o no variance is required as it is an improvement.
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
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
due to the location of the existing home and the need to make the site accessible.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief for the shoreline setback is 21 ft.l inch.The relief for the deck
on the south side 11 ft.7 inches,the garage on the north side relief is 9 ft.9 inches,the garage front relief
is 17 ft. 9 inches. The floor area is IS.410/o in excess.
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 to complete a garage and deck addition to an existing home. The project includes
the removal of an existing deck and replacement of the deck. The garage addition is to assist the owner
access to the home. The plans show the existing and proposed conditions."
MR. URRICO-And then 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 June 21"
2022 by a unanimous vote.
MR.HALL-Good evening. For your records,.Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture.
With me tonight is Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design Partnership. Mr. Sheehan can't be
here tonight. He did ask me to read a letter in to the Board. I asked Laura if she wanted to read it,but she
said she would rather have me read this. So bear with me. I'm going to try and get through this. I don't
know if any of you know Joe. This will give you a little bit of an idea of where we're at. "Dear Members
of the Board: Thank you for allowing me to submit this letter. I wish I could be here in person but
unfortunately, I am unable to. I realize your time as well as the time of the attendees is valuable so I will
make this as brief as possible. I realize my renovation exceeds the FAR values but please consider the
following in making your decision....All I desire is to achieve the finest quality of life I can get! I have
been going to Lake George my entire life! I always looked forward to my vacations in Lake George! As I
grew older I fell more in love with it and always dreamed that someday I would retire there. Unfortunately
I was forced into early retirement......but my dream can still come true. Lake George has given me a
lifetime of happy memories including learning how to water ski,snow ski,scuba dive,power boating,
sailing, attending Americade every year, hot air balloon rides, and walks through the
Village.....But......The greatest memory was when I proposed to my wife during the Winter Carnival.
Although my proposal didn't go as planned she said yes and we were married in August 2009. We even
spent 2-weeks honeymooning enjoying the lake and house and celebrating with friends and family. We
are still happily married today and look forward to relocating to Lake George and making it our
PERMANENT HOME. Unfortunately in 2015 I was the victim of a tragic near-fatal explosion that put
me in the hospital for six months with severe burns over 730/o of my body." This was the Fischer's Marina
explosion,the boat that exploded there. "I had to learn how to walk,talk,eat and go to the bathroom all
over again and spent many agonizing hours in physical therapy. So far I have undergone over 30 surgical
procedures and am told I may need more. I have been home now for several years adjusting to my new life
being permanently disabled and coping with what will be a lifetime of perpetual recovery. That said, I
have accepted my physical disability which mostly affects my hands and legs but the most challenging to
live with is my difficulty enjoying the outdoors. Each time I go outside, regardless if it's sunny or
overcast, I must wear long pants and long sleeve shirts. T-shirts and shorts are no longer an option for me
and are no longer part of my wardrobe as I need maximum protection at all times. My body's natural
chemistry has drastically changed where my ability to sweat and deal with sunlight and heat is non-
existent. Exposure to the sun&z UV becomes painful and extremely uncomfortable. For the rest of
my life, I cannot be exposed to sustained heat, sunlight,or UV light for any period of time! I need
permanent overhead protection to cover and shield me if I have any chance of appreciating my home. In
the end, I am fortunate to have this house and just want to the same opportunity as anyone else....to
appreciate being outside with friends & family and enjoying everything Lake George has to offer. It is
imperative for my well-being that my home serve me as I need it to. I am hoping the Board may have
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
some level of compassion and sympathy and try to comprehend what it's like to live a day in my life. I fully
understand the policies that are in place to protect the lake and environment but I believe there are always
extenuating circumstances and each case should be dealt with accordingly and individually. All I desire
is to achieve the finest quality of life I can get! Your help and understanding in approving this project
can provide that opportunity to me and would make yet another Happy Lake George memory that
would last for years to come. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,Joseph Sheehan"
With that said,basically what we're trying to do here is allow for Joe to utilize the house that his family
has owned for years. The setbacks that we're asking for, if you look at the overall site plan, the small
shaded area that was on there is where the setbacks would allow a building to be built. The existing
building is over the setbacks in all directions. So what we've tried to do is put a garage on the north side
that an accessible garage can into so that Joe can unload in the garage and not have to be outside. He can
go directly from the garage into the house and not have to worry about being outside. The covered deck
in the front,the existing deck runs all the way across the front. The lakeside is the front in my opinion.
So the deck runs all the way across the front of the building now. We're proposing to cover a third of that
with a roof so that he can be outside and utilize that side of the house, and then the covered front porch is
just so that he's got a spot outside that he can be in the back of the house,the roadside of the house,without
being outside and exposed to ultra violet light. So that's really where we're at with it. The floor area ratio,
again,it seems like a big lift. Eighteen percent sounds like an awful lot. It's really the garage. The house
itself has,it's already a full finished basement. There's already a full finished main floor, and then there's
attic space. What we're doing on the main floor is we're opening that attic space up so it would be vaulted
and cathedraled, so it would be kind of taking away some of the floor area there and we've utilized that
into the garage. There will not be finished space above the garage. It's just,we've put a high roof on it
just so that it kind of matches the existing house.
MR. MC CABE-So just a quick question. If there was no construction,the house is already over the FAR
ratio required?
MR.HALL-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-By how much,do you know?
MR.HALL-The existing floor area ratio is 32.9.
MR. MC CABE-Questions? So, seeing none, at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing
and see if there's anybody in the audience who wants to provide input on this particular application. Do
we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes. "The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity
as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Lake George Waterkeeper
recognizes the difficult site constraints, specifically the lot size,but these are known conditions and the
application must improve the balance,especially with the significant requests for Floor Area Ration(FAR)
and permeability within the Critical Environmental Area. To improve the balance,it is recommended that
the proposed retaining wall expansion be eliminated, which brings disturbance closer to the lake.
Additionally,there is a question why a variance is not required for the expansion of the retaining wall that
will have an increased height and will now traverse the majority of the property with 5 feet of fill.The Lake
George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations,specifically§179-
14-OSO Variance Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application.
The proposed variances would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental
conditions of the neighborhood.The variances for FAR and permeability have the greatest impact to water
quality within the CEA and the mitigation measures proposed will not adequately balance the impacts
from the overall site development The stormwater proposed is only for the addition and leaves the existing
impervious area/building unmitigated. Additionally, the construction of the retaining wall closer to the
lake will require subsurface drains that discharge water, thus eliminating any benefits of infiltration. It
should be noted the wall is not required for the stormwater basin as test pits indicate satisfactory soils
exist The applicant should be required to eliminate the expanded retaining wall, which should require a
variance, and increase stormwater infiltration by utilizing the proposed landscape planter with leader
piping as well as expand the proposed stormwater basin. 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" "My name is Stephen Kirshon and I own the property at S4 Rockhurst Road,
Cleverdale, NY. My property abuts the property owned by Joe Sheehan at SO Rockhurst Road and is
directly north of the Sheehan home. Mr. Sheehan has provided me with the proposed site plan for the
renovation he would like to have done on his property, which he intends to make his primary place of
residence. I have reviewed the proposed site plan and I am satisfied that the finished product will enhance
the neighborhood. It will also help protect Lake George by replacing an aging septic system with holding
tanks. I have known Joe Sheehan since I became a neighbor of his family back in 19ST Joe was,
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
unfortunately,involved in a boating accident which caused him to incur severe burns over a large percent
of his body. Due to the injuries he suffered,it is important that Joe limit his exposure to sunlight. Thus,
having a deck over the patio that faces the lake is essential to his well-being. Furthermore, even though
the proposed garage encroaches on the setback to my property,I have no objection should the zoning board
of appeals approve that variance. In summary I am happy to see that the Sheehan property is being
improved and I encourage the authorities to collaborate with Joe Sheehan and his team to achieve the best
possible outcome for the project. Very sincerely yours,Stephen Kirshon" And he's at S4 Rockhurst Road.
"I am the owner of 77 Rockhurst Rd. directly across the street from the Sheehan property. I fully support,
as does my family,the renovations that have been proposed for SO Rockhurst Road. Please note that we
are in full agreement with what has been proposed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter.
Jeffrey Clark" 77 Rockhurst Road. "Per the SO Rockhurst Road project for the Sheehan Trust, we
understand from Joe Sheehan that the variances for the septic system were approved. This unfortunately
was at a 2 ft. variance from the South property line. As noted in our email in September (as we are the
immediate next door neighbors) we request that the variance of 5 ft. from the South property line be
honored. The issue for us is that this area is supported by a retaining wall for both the Sheehan's and our
lot. We are concerned that the closeness to the property line will compromise the retaining wall and cause
higher costs and risks of water issues for the Lake. The Sheehan's are in alignment with the 5 ft. request,
and we would like the Town to honor this request to provide the variance of 5 ft. to the South property
line of SO Rockhurst Road. We understand there is a review June 21-23 for this project. Please include
this request to the Board. Thank you. Matt and Jeanne Lucas7S Rockhurst Road" "We own the home
across the road from the Sheehan residence and have followed the Sheehan's thoughts regarding improving
their lake property for several years. We are pleased with their plans to improve the house on the existing
footprint and expect that the refurbished structure will enhance the neighborhood. Rockhurst Rd. is a
confined neighborhood and most home rebuilds have been the same size as their predecessor, along with
significant attention being given by the Town to on-site landscaping improvements, storm water
management and septic issues. Concerning septic, we would hope that the Boards will consider the
expectation of a "Community Sewer" for Rockhurst which is in the planning phase and which has been
grant funded by NYS DEC. The Sheehan's should only be expected to install minimal holding tank
capacity at this time,tankage which would be compatible with the proposed sewer. Thank you for your
consideration. Sincerely, Steve and Debbie Seaboyer S3 Rockhurst Rd" That's it.
MR. MC CABE-Do you want to speak?
TOM BARBER
MR. BARBER-Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Tom Barber. I live here in Queensbury. I have a
cottage just down the road from Joe Sheehan. I live, I have a place at 6S Rockhurst. I am completely in
favor of what they're doing. I've known Joe for 45 years, and his family, It's a beautiful place. I'm really
excited he's coming back. That's all I've got to say. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else?
MR.HALL Just to touch on the septic for a minute. We did go before the Town Board. We got variances
to do holding tanks there. The intent,Joe understands he's got a grant to put the holding tanks in,but he
does,he has been following the Rockhurst septic plan that's been in the process for like some time. The
idea is that we're putting the holding tanks in with the intent that eventually one will become his septic
tank and the other will become the effluent pump chamber to pump to the new septic. We will maintain
the five foot setback. That was the final variance that we got from the Town Board. I'll let Brandon talk
about the stormwater.
MR. FERGUSON-There are enhancements being made to connect on this property. This is a minor
stormwater project so we are adding stormwater management where there is none now. That is that
shallow vegetative depression on the lakeside of the garage that will capture the roof runoff and help it
infiltrate through the ground, and we are doing significant plantings along the shoreline as well that will
enhance that shoreline buffer. Right now there's minimal plantings. There's some brushy stuff right near
the shore,but we're going to do a nice native planted buffer along the shoreline to enhance it as well.
MR. MC CABE-Anything else? So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Ron.
MR. KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. There are projects that come in front of us that have extenuating
circumstances, and this is one of them. They're looking for a lot of relief,but having said that,you know,
extenuating circumstances,I'd be in favor of the way it's presented.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
1S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement. The neighbors seem to be in agreement as well. So I'd be in favor
of it.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would actually like to mention that the inclusion of these engineering reports are
very helpful and do we have something from the Planning Board? Did I hear that? They saw nothing?
Okay. So,yes,it is a really huge ask,however, and generally speaking the plight of the homeowner is not
to be considered. It's the property itself,but the owner of the property probably has the best interest of
the lake at heart and I think as long as the Planning Board heeds the engineering suggestions with the
retaining wall that should satisfy the neighbor and I will vote to grant the relief.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I'll be voting in favor of this. We have several neighbors, Mr. Clark, Mr. Kirshon, Mr.
Barber who's here, and we have extenuating circumstances. These are opportunities where we can do the
right thing for our friends and our neighbors in this community. So I'm in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABS Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think under normal circumstances if you were requesting this we would probably
give you a big,fat no on it,but I think given the extenuating circumstances I think we can all vote in favor
of it.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd like to see a little bit smaller garage, but in this case I'd agree with my Board
members and I'd be on board.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. So at this particular time, Brent, would you make a
motion?
MR. MC DEVITT-You bet.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joe Sheehan.
Applicant proposes a 61S sq. ft. garage addition to an existing home and a 500 sq. ft. deck to replace an
existing deck.A portion of the new deck will be covered;the deck is over a patio area with access from the
basement. A new entry area to be constructed is also covered. Project includes stormwater management,
shoreline plantings, retaining wall and steps to be reconstructed. The home will have a new footprint of
2,500 sq.ft. and floor area of 3,72E sq.ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft.
of the shoreline, and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area.
Section 179-3-040 dimensions,179-4-OSO-decks
The deck addition is to be located 2S ft. 11 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The deck
addition is to be S ft.5 inches where 20 ft.is required for the south side. The garage addition is to be 10 ft.
3 inches from the north side where 20 ft.is required. The garage is 12 ft. 3 inches to the front yard where a
30 ft. setback is required. The floor area ratio relief where 40.41%is proposed and 220/o is the maximum
allowed. The permeability improved to 67.750/o no variance is required as it is an improvement.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 22,2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They're limited due to the location of the
existing home and to do some things to accommodate some accessibility issues here.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
3. The requested variance is not substantial and can be considered moderate relative to the Code.
4. There is not an adverse 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
environmental conditions of the area.
5. The alleged difficulty, while it certainly is self-created, as discussed there are some situations
where we have to look out for friends and our neighbors.
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,-
S. 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.
27-2022 TOE SHEEHAN,Introduced by Brent McDevitt,who moved for its adoption,seconded by James
Underwood:
Duly adopted this 22110 Day of June 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR.HALL-We very much appreciate your time.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 29-2022 Meghan&Stephen Orban.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 MEGHAN &z STEPHEN ORBAN
AGENT(S) STEFANIE BITER OWNER(S) MEGHAN&z STEPHEN ORBAN ZONING WR
LOCATION 21-25 DUNCAN COVE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN
EXISTING HOME AND OUT BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,548 SQ. FT.
FOOTPRINT WITH A PORCH AREA OF 463 SQ. FEET; NEW FLOOR AREA IS 4,584 SQ. FT.
THE PERMEABLE PATIO FACING THE LAKE WILL ALSO INCLUDE A HOT TUB (DEFINED AS
A POOL PER CODE). PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE AND SITE PLANTINGS PLAN, DEVELOPMENT FOR
PERMEABLE PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREA;A NEW ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WATER
SUPPLY DRAWN FROM THE LAKE; A NEW ACCESS DRIVE FROM DUNCAN COVE RD. TO
CLEVERDALE THROUGH PARCEL 226.16-1-9. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA
AND HARD SURFACE WITHIN 50 FT.OF SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS
AND POOL LOCATION. CROSS REF SP 39-2022;AV 82-1992 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO.226.16-
1-7&z 226.16-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040;147,179-5-020
STEFANIE BITTER&r BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2022, Meghan & Stephen Orban, Meeting Date: June 22, 2022
"Project Location: 21-25 Duncan Cove Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes
demolition of an existing home and out buildings to construct a new home of 2,539 sq.ft.footprint with a
porch area of 447 sq. ft.; new floor area is 4,554 sq. ft. The permeable patio area facing the lake will also
include a hot tub (defined as a pool per code). Project includes site work for stormwater management,
shoreline and site plantings plan,development for permeable patio and driveway area;a new on-site septic
system and water supply drawn from the lake; a new access drive from Duncan Cove Rd. to Cleverdale
through parcel 226.16-1-9. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surface within 50 ft.of shoreline.
Relief requested for setbacks and pool location.
Relief Required:
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and pool location for construction of a new home in the
Waterfront Residential zone WR.
Section 179-3-040 WR,Chapter 147 stormwater,179-5-020 pool
The project involves placement of a stormwater device at 42 ft.from the shoreline where 100 ft.is required.
In addition the applicant proposes a spa/pool area on the shoreline side of the property that is considered
a pool in a front yard requiring a variance.
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 character 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 locate
the home so the stormwater devices do not require relief.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal
relevant to the code. Relief is requested for stormwater device setback of 5S ft. The pool location is
for the front yard.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The project includes a new on-site
waste water system.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a new single family home with associated site work for stormwater management,
septic,water supply,plantings etc. The plans show the survey of the existing conditions and the proposed
lot arrangement with the new house. The project includes developing an access from Duncan Cove to
Cleverdale on a separate parcel across from the house project parcel."
MR. URRICO-And then 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 motion was adopted
on June 21",2022 and that was a unanimous vote.
MS.BITTER-Thank you. I'm Stefanie Bitter,here this evening with Andy Allison and Sara Tuttle from AJ
Architects as well as Brandon Ferguson from EDP as part of the team for this project. Let me start from
the beginning. These folks just purchased this property in January. Meghan Orban has been along time
resident of Cleverdale,or her family has and this is part of her dream to find her own piece of Cleverdale to
stay and have with her family. That being said,Laura,if you can move to Page Two. You all have it in your
packet,and many of you have visited the site. This is how it exists today. There's two principle residences
which are right up against the shoreline and there is a fairly large garage. It is the plan of our clients to
demolish all of those structures and re-construct a home which Laura did have on the screen before I asked
here,and in a compliant location. The only requests that are before you this evening are two items relative
to the project assigned. The setback of the stormwater system,which I'll let EDP go into details,is within
100 feet of the lake. The other item is a hot tub, all right. When we presented this plan to Laura, she
unfortunately had to give us the bad news that it wasn't here determination,it was Craig's that a hot tub
is considered a pool,although my clients won't be swimming in this hot tub,because of its size,it then has
no compliant location on this property because pursuant to 179-5-020,as you had heard from the applicant
before us,because this is on the lake,the lake is considered the front yard as well as the architectural door
is considered the front yard and a pool, even though it's a hot tub,has to be in the rear yard. So there's
nowhere on this property that our folks can have their hot tub. So the hot tub is being placed in the
location where everyone would expect it to be,right outside of the patio, and on the,what they consider
to be the rear yard,all right. Those are the only two variances that this project needs. Because it was our
clients'purpose and their direction for this team to make this the most zoning compliant lot because we
started with this,all right. Jon Lapper,before he left,wanted me to mention to you that he represents the
Perrys. The Perrys are the folks to the south, and they are thrilled with this project because now the
houses that are right against the lake are no longer going to be there and they're going to be placed in a
setback which is a compliant location. So they support this variance. That being said, although Roy
mentioned it, I'm going to mention it again, there is going to be a compliant septic on this property.
Obviously we're before the Town Board for the extension so that that is also constructed together with the
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
new development of the house. The water supply will remain with the lake, and like I said, overall we're
trying to achieve zoning compliance. Relative to your burden,you're to review the variances that we're
seeking,and we feel that really when you look at this balancing test the benefit to the applicant outweighs
any detriment that can be defined relative to the community or affecting the community. No undesirable
changes are created by both of these requests, the stormwater and the hot tub. There's no stormwater
being addressed right now. So we're obviously improving that in that regard. The benefit for either
stormwater or the hot tub cannot be achieved in any other manner. Obviously like I had mentioned with
179-5-020 being in place,there's no compliant location to put a spa/hot tub/pool,whatever you refer to it
as. It's all placed in that same definition. We do not believe that this request should be deemed substantial
due to the efforts and design that have been put forth for this project. It's overall headed in the direction
of zoning compliance, far better than it is in its current state and we don't believe any adverse effects,
physical or environmental, can be deemed to exist with the request being proposed, and although the
alleged difficulty can be deemed self-created because it's part of the design,we do not feel that that should
be detrimental to the request before you. As Roy also mentioned, we did receive a unanimous
recommendation from the Planning Board last night. I'm going to turn it over to these folks to give more
details as to the project.
ANDY ALLISON
MR.ALLISON-Good evening. My name is Andy Allison. I'm the principle of AJ Architecture Planning.
As Stefanie said, the clients came to us and asked us to design them a very compliant house. They have
two reasons for that. One is they want to get the project started. They don't want to have any hold ups
in the permitting process. They're also quite dedicated to the overall quality of the lake and of this area,
since Meghan kind of grew up on Cleverdale,and I know part of the project that's not in your purview that
we're also doing is the dock and boathouse. They're actually re-designing what is,they're going to re-build
a new dock and boathouse,docks and boathouse which are quite larger than what is required and is limited
by the lake right now and they're making that in compliance, and they're also moving it to the center of
their property to get it out of the view shed of their neighbors as part of the project. So they've really gone
the extra mile in trying to be compliant. The main thing is really how we're pushing the house back. Again
we're both out of the 50 foot setback to the main part of the house. The main patio is near the line,which
opens up the views of not only their views around,but both neighbors to the south and north,and,Laura,
if you could go to Page Five. I want to talk about why we thought that this was the best spot for the hot
tub. The hot tub,mind you, is a six by eight in-ground hot tub. So it doesn't sit up on the deck. They
want it to be in-ground so visually people won't be looking at it. It's six foot by eight foot,just around 300
gallons. So it's a standard size,six or eight person hot tub. We've put it tucked away in this corner over
here because there's a significant amount of natural growth on this northern border to the neighbor to the
north who's house is quite closer to the lake than the house now. They're going to really plant this area
and make that a private place. The neighbor to the south, most of their outdoor lawn area is sort of
adjacent to what is going to be the Orbans outdoor lawn area. So they really didn't want this hot tub being
in their view shed or kind of up next to them or have to block their views. They didn't want to increase a
lot of plantings here which would block views from them looking out toward the lake. So it's somewhat
strategic in that manner. It also works best for their layout of their house. Their kitchen's back here. This
is their outdoor kind of covered patio area, and it just makes sense to have it there,but it's a very private
place. The activity around the hot tub is more like sitting around a campfire than it is a pool with kids
and slides and diving boards and that. So we feel that it met the intention of the Code when the Code talks
about hot tubs or pools on corner lots,it has a lot of language in there about how you treat a hot tub or a
pool with respect to a rear yard lot line,you know,we're well within those guidelines. I know this isn't a
rear yard,but you kind of interpreted that,that met the intent of when you have a lot that doesn't have a
defined backyard how you handle it. So that was part of our placement plan. Do you want to talk about
the hot tub, or do you want to have us go through the stormwater system as well first before we have
questions?
MR. MC CABE-Whatever you want to do.
MR.ALLISON-Well,I can field questions on the pool itself.
MR. MC CABE-You guys do your presentation and then we'll have questions.
MR. FERGUSON-I'm Brandon Ferguson from EDP. So, yes, the stormwater management, as Stefanie
mentioned earlier,there is nothing on the site now. Those houses are right on the lake. I think one's five
foot off the lake,one's twelve, and they essentially shed water right into the lake. So by pulling the house
back we're greatly improving the stormwater situation just by doing that, and this is a Major stormwater
project. So now we have to infiltrate stormwater from any proposed impervious surfaces. So we're doing
some shallow detention areas around the house,in these areas,and then all the paved surfaces are going to
be permeable as well. From a permeability standpoint,I know we're not asking for that variance,but we're
improving it greatly on site,too. It was noncompliant before. It was a little under 570/o,and now it's going
to be around 7S%. So it's going to be a huge improvement in permeability on this site. . As far as the
variance,we're looking for a setback variance on this shallow grass depression here. That's going to take
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
the roof runoff from the house. I've done a lot of these. The setback of 100 feet for a Major stormwater
becomes difficult when the house is within 50 feet of the lake and there's not really room to push the house
back on the site to get further from the lake. It's going to need to get a septic system in there as well, and
the septic will be compliant, over 100 feet from the lake. We're kind of squeezing it up here. So that's
going to be,that's not going to require any Board of Health variances. I'll turn it back over to you guys if
you have any questions.
MR. MC CABE-So does anyone have any questions of the applicant?
MR.KUHL-Suppose you couldn't get the hot tub approved. Would you go ahead with the project?
MR. ALLISON-I think we'd have to discuss that with the clients again, talk about what their options
would be then. It was one of the main things they wanted as part of the project from the beginning. They
use it mostly just for relaxation. It's an integral part of what they wanted for the project. So I'd have to
talk to them.
MR.KUHL-The other interesting thing,if you take that hot tub and put it in the garage,you wouldn't even
be here,would you? It would be inside,right? But anyway. I thought we were adamant about swimming
pools towards the lake and, I don't know. You might have to discuss that with your clients. My wife's
wanted one for 25 years and I've said no,but I just wanted to know whether that had been discussed.
MR.ALLISON-We've discussed it,and they've asked us to come here and seek the variance.
MR.KUHL-Okay. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant?
MR. URRICO-What about reducing it so that it doesn't need the variance?
MS.BITTER-There's nothing that changes it anywhere on the site,because I did ask Laura if I moved it to
the south.
MRS. MOO RE-So it's location would still trigger it as a problem. The number of gallons makes it a pool.
So it's 100 gallons.
MR.ALLISON-The smallest you can buy on the market it a 200 gallon. I don't know what a 100 gallon.
MRS. MOORE-Basically a bath tub would trigger it.
MR.HENKEL-Have you thought of pushing it back to the 50 feet setback?
MR.KUHL-No,because it's still a front yard.
MR.HENKEL-Right,I realize that.
MR.KUHL-Wherever you put it.
MR.HENKEL-So there's no way around it.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MRS.HAMLIN-Uniform Code,this wouldn't need approval,right,with the Uninform Code.
MRS.MOORE-Yes,it just happens that the Town Code is stricter than the New York State Building Code.
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 see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to provide us
with input on this particular project.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
THOMAS HANS
MR. HANS-Good evening. Thomas Hans. I own property right directly to the north. I haven't met the
new owners. I was unaware that there was a meeting last night. I was unaware that there was a meeting
tonight and I think there's one tomorrow night. So somewhere I didn't get communication. So I really
haven't seen anything. This is the first I've seen of the project and I welcome them as neighbors. I have no
issues with that. I have a problem with the hot tub because the hot tub is really kind of almost directly
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
off my master bedroom in the house. Also I have a kitchen that has a large picture window looking south
on the lake, I'm not sure if the hot tub would be an obstruction of that view or not,but it is very close to
our property line. Both the house and the existing camp that's there right now are no more than I'd say 20
feet away from each other. So it's already pretty close to the property line.
MR. MC CABE-So that's not one of the variances that we're looking for here.
MR.HANS-What's that?
MR. MC CABE-Their side setback.
MR.HANS-I'm just talking about the hot tub.
MR. MC CABE-I understand that,but the location of it,with the side of the property,is not a question.
MR.HANS-I thought it had to be behind the house,or? So it's okay where it's located then,right there?
MR. MC CABE-No,it's not okay,but it's not too close to your side of the property.
MRS. MOORE-It's not a distance setback. It's a location.
MR.HANS-Okay. I don't understand that,but that's all right.
MRS. MOORE-It would have to be 20, it's actually more than 20 feet setback to the side property line.
That would be the setback distance. It meets that. It's location is in what's considered a front yard.
MR. HENKEL-You have two front yards when you've got a road and you've got a lake. And in the Code
you can't put a pool anywhere in Queensbury in front yard.
MR.HANS-Okay. Sothis is not considered a front yard?
MR.HENKEL-Yes,it is a front yard.
MR. MC CABE-That's what they're looking for the variance for.
MR.HANS-Okay. And that's why I'm saying I do have a bit of a problem with it being there.
MR. MC CABE-Okay.
MR. HANS-If it was in the middle of the property I really wouldn't have a problem with that because I
mean you folks would probably have a bigger problem with that than I would,but it's just being moved
away from my property line a little bit,just for my protection.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Okay. Thank you.
MR.HANS-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Ma'am?
MARTHA NOORDSY
MS. NOORDSY-I would like to speak.
MRS. MOORE-So could I just acknowledge one thing as this gentleman is walking away. So the
information was provided. It was sent to a Florida address.
MR.HANS-Okay. I never got it.
MS. NOORDSY-My name is Martha Noordsy. I'm a part owner of 245 Cleverdale Road which is two
doors down from this proposed building. My concern is the hot tub. As someone who's come to the lake
for years and years, I find it disturbing that people need a pool on the lake. It doesn't make any sense to
me,plus the fact that if it leaks or it overflows,and that's a problem as far as water quality is concerned. I
look at the lake as something that needs to be protected,and I'm not getting a strong feeling of protection
here. People spend a lot of money to live on the lake, and they spend a lot of money and they think that
they can do as they wish. I look at it that I'm only here for a little while and the next generation will take
over,but if we keep on building and building and building and having extraordinary prices for homes,what
happens to the quality of the lake? What happens for the next generation when they are looking at
spending time on the lake that was pristine and hopefully will continue to be pristine. My concern is the
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
hot tub. My concern is,is it going to be a permanent residence? Are they going to be renting it out? Are
they going to turn it into a seasonal rental? Because that has happened on Cleverdale. People have said
they're putting up houses for relatives and they rent them out. So I just want to make sure that it's going
to be a permanent residence. It's a very congested area. It's a very small road. It's very difficult to navigate
that area, and I think that needs to be considered as far as the increased traffic, if it's going to be rented
out. I see that as a problem,people coming and going. The road is limited and there's been tremendous
build on Cleverdale,but I think we really need to think about the quality of the lake and I hope that you
comply with that. I think that is important to do because it is a pristine body of water that needs to be
protected I believe. Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So do we have anything written, Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, we do. "The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my
capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Lake George
Waterkeeper commends the applicant for the decision to construct the new dwelling in a compliant
location and shoreline setback, which will benefit the lake. The Waterkeeper would recommend the
variance for the stormwater setback be significantly reduced by pushing the basin in line with the
proposed dwelling, which can be easily accomplished. The Waterkeeper is not in favor of the hot tub
within 32 feet of the lake with the chemicals that are associated with its use and could contaminate the
lake. Finally, the Waterkeeper recommends the Board require the applicant to review hardscape and
permeability for the proposed design. For example, the driveway width should be reduced, and patios
reduced. Another issue that would affect permeability is the fact that permeable pavers are proposed for
the driveway where the grade is approximately 150/o and permeable pavers should not be installed where
grades exceed 50/o according to the New York State Stormwater Design Manual. The Waterkeeper
recommends that Zoning Board of Appeals table the application and require the applicant to seek
alternative, more compliant location for the stormwater basin, eliminate the hot tub, and revisit the
permeability coverage for this project located in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George.
The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of
Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your
consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky,PE Lake George Waterkeeper" That's the only letter I
have.
MR. MC CABE-So do you guys want to comment? First of all,Chris doesn't usually give compliments.
MS. BITTER-And I think essentially that was just the beginning of this letter,by the Planning Board last
night,that they found that these requests were minimal. There were a couple of items they asked us to
look into,which we absolutely did and,you know, obviously the only variances we're talking about right
now is stormwater and the hot tub, but there are actually two access points to this property. There's
Duncan Cove as well as Cleverdale. So traffic isn't going to be a problem and I can't stress to you enough
that this couple,well it's a family,are just trying to make a place of their own on Lake George. This is not
going to be something that has a lot of traffic other than their family,but no more than anyone else. So I
think that relative to the concerns of the water being pristine, this project absolutely supports that,that
that's the intention of the applicant. They're creating stormwater. They're placing the house in a
compliant location. They're removing the excess buildings that are currently what occupies this parcel
and they're placing a compliant septic system. This isn't the first time you've talked about this variance
tonight relative to a pool or a hot tub on a lake lot. We think there's absolute similarities in what we're
requesting as to what was being sought by the Lynches and in fact this hot tub is sunken in. It's going to
be protected. There's landscaping that surrounds it. We think all of that supports the request and lessens
any concerns relative to that.
MR. ALLISON-I want to mention two things I forgot to mention about the hot tub. It is going to be a
saltwater pool. So it's not a chlorine or bromine system, and we actually talked about the maintenance
schedule on that so that normally a hot tub you have to empty out every four to six months. So we're
actually going to have a holding tank put in where the hot tub can be pumped up to it and then the water
can be taken off site. So it's not dumped into the ground near the lake. That was something the Planning
Board talked to us about last night and we actually had already previously mentioned that to the owners
as a way to maintain that,and then the gentleman to the north,we just haven't had the opportunity to sit
down and look at the exact location and how that would impact his view,but I know the owners are very
much interested in working with him to make sure it's placed in a way that doesn't impact his views,
without getting it any closer to the lake for sure.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MR.HENKEL-You were talking about the Lynches there. That was 52 feet from the lake,that spa or pool,
whatever you want to call it. I think it is a good project and there's no doubt you're improving that area,
but I would not be on board with the pool that close to the lake.
MS. BITTER-But you're in favor of the stormwater?
MR. HENKEL-The project as is is great. I think it's a good improvement to that area. There's no doubt.
The only problem I have is with the pool.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm in favor of the project, all but the tub. I would not approve
it,and that's the long and the short of it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I think it's a good project also, but I'm definitely not on board with the pool, hot tub,
whatever you want to call it in the front yard,it's almost like a corner lot. It needs special attention and
in this case it can't get any attention. So I would say no.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS.HAMLIN-I agree as is. I would be more open I think to the hot tub re-located and possibly look at
Chris'suggestion with regards to moving the stormwater infiltration device,if that's possible to move that
back more. Otherwise,just do the infiltration test and make sure that everything is copasetic. At this
time without moving the hot tub,I'd be against it at this point.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR.MC DEVITT-I would echo the sentiments of my Board members. I actually think the project in total
is a great project. I think the stormwater is an improvement. There's nothing on site now. Great
improvement. Permeability being improved is great. Recognizing it's a saltwater situation and then also
recognizing what you had indicated,you know,with sort of a maintenance schedule there,but the project,
I'm only sounding my voice here,which is I'm in favor of the project. I'm not in favor,currently,as the hot
tub sits. So that's my sticking point. Otherwise you have a project that I would support.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes,I have no problem. I think you should be complimented for the design and the
setbacks because you don't have any other variances you're asking for. As far as the groundwater
infiltration,I think that's a non-issue in my book. As far as the hot tub goes,I think you can move it down
in the center of the lot,in the middle of the deck up there closer to the front of the house. I think that way
you would not be causing any ill effects on either neighbor on either side of you. So I would think that
would be a reasonable re-location and I think that's what you should consider and come back to us with.
MR.ALLISON-I'm wondering if we could talk about that now,just to get the Board's favor.
MR. MC CABE-We're not done yet. So again I voiced my opinion with the first application. It's a
dangerous precedent for us to okay a pool on the lakeside. I don't have a problem with a front yard on the
other side of the house,but I definitely have a problem with the pool/hot tub on the lakeside. I support
the stormwater device and I commend you with the effort that you've made to make everything else
compliant, but from my standpoint, we've strongly avoided allowing pools on the lakeside and to be
consistent,I'd have to vote against that. So right now you're not doing well. You don't have a lot of friends.
MS. BITTER-Well, I was just curious, and again I don't mean to ask, but this was my thought process.
Okay. Environmentally we're addressing the concerns raised by the Planning Board relative to drainage.
When I think of a pool and the intentions of this section, 179-5-020, the concept is for swimming and
activities to be isolated. So that's where the rear yard comes into play. The reason I bring this up is what
do you think is happening on the lake? So if everyone is swimming on the lake,having a hot tub there is
the same activity as is already occurring. So that's why when Laura alerted me that that's what brings us
before you,I was confused as to the intention of the Code and although I appreciate the concept of we're
worried about, one, setting a precedent, when I envision Lake George and the concept of the resort area
especially that's where the pools are located. They're right on the lake,the hot tubs as well. So I'm just
trying to understand,other than setting a precedent,what would be the concern?
MR. MC CABE-So if you can find a pool lakeside anywhere in this area,you let us know. I think you're
going to have a hard time finding that in the Town of Queensbury.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MS. BITTER-I don't know that they ever reviewed it. Is that true? Because you told me that there was
only one application.
MR.MC CABE-No,we've had a couple. In fact one of them was a really attractive Infinity pool and again,
it was a pool, and it was exotic, but that was counter to what we've been trying to do in the Town of
Queensbury.
MS. BITTER-That was a pool,not a hot tub. No hot tubs. This is your first.
MRS. MOORE-This is the first time I've seen the Board evaluate a hot tub. That's correct. And I don't
know,but I would say there's probably hot tubs.
MS. BITTER-All right. Well I think I've made my point.
MR. MC CABE-So we've got to ask you,you know,you can take a vote,but you're probably not going to
get the.
MS. BITTER-I just wanted to get the feeling of the Board because to be perfectly honest this is not at all
what I thought was going to be a concern,because we re-created this site and eliminated everything that
was ever a zoning variance that we'd have to come before you for, floor area, setback. So I'm surprised
that.
MR. MC CABE-And we commend you for that.
MR. MC DEVITT-You did great work,by the way.
MS. BITTER-But that's why I was just kind of like,for a hot tub.
MR. ALLISON-It's a little confusing in the Code because it doesn't come out and say that hot tubs and
pools are not allowed in the Waterfront Residential. It's very convoluted in the Code. So I wanted to,if
you could,I'd like to see the Board have favor. We did, at one time,talk about bringing this thing.
MR.KUHL-I think we're going to vote on this,aren't we?
MS.BITTER-Well,we're just asking. We have a meeting tomorrow night,and these folks are,they already
have the septic ready. Everybody's ready to go.
MR. MC CABE-So I think from our standpoint the pool/hot tub is the sticking point on the lakeside.
MR.ALLISON-Right. So we had talked,at one point,about,you know,what would the hot tub look like
if it was inside the 50 foot setback, closer to the home, which I think,you know,the owners would be in
favor of,rather than not having one at all. I didn't know if that,because I heard some of you say it was just
the distance to the lake, and I'm assuming that's why the previous applicant got approved farther away,
but if it's the distance,I think we could be in here.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in that area would work for me. That's where I would put it.
MR. MC CABE-What I would suggest is that you table this.
MS. BITTER-And it's not that I don't want to, Mr. Chairman. It's that we have a septic extension, too,
and I'm just trying to keep them all done, because obviously it's in the Town's interest to see the septic
removed , decommissioned and everything started in the fall. So I'm trying to keep our agenda item for
tomorrow night so that we have that ability. So if there is an interest to support Mr.Underwood's concept
of putting it in the middle,to be in the 50 foot setback,we would be very appreciative.
MR. MC CABE-I don't think we can negotiate here. Not right now. I think you almost have to table this
or else take a vote and take a chance on losing it.
MS.BITTER-I thought we had the ability to make less of a variance? That's really what we were trying to
accomplish is to achieve what the requests were.
MRS. MOORE-So because it's still non-compliant in the front yard.
MS. BITTER-Right. It's still the same variance. We were just placing it in the middle.
MR.ALLISON-Can we tell our client if we brought it within the 50 foot setback would that be better for
you? So I can advise our clients what to do.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MR. MC CABE-Well then I'd have to poll the Board again.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the other feasible alternative is to move it indoors. With sliding doors.
MRS.MOORE-So the applicant could remove the pool from the application at this time and create a whole
new variance application. So that would be.
MR.ALLISON-I think that's how we would proceed. They don't want to lose time.
MR. MC CABE-All right. So you want to remove the hot tub at this particular time?
MR.ALLISON-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So,John?
MR.HENKEL-I'm on board with it then,yes,great project.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS.HAMLIN-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-You've got it.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-And I'm okay with it also. So,Jim,can you make a motion for us?
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Meghan &z
Stephen Orban. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and outbuildings to construct a new
home of 2,539 sq.ft.footprint with a porch area of 447 sq.ft.,-new floor area is 4,554 sq.ft. Tl-,e pefinea.i
patio afea b ).Project includes site work
for stormwater management, shoreline and site plantings plan, development for permeable patio and
driveway area;a new on-site septic system and water supply drawn from the lake;a new access drive from
Duncan Cove Rd. to Cleverdale through parcel 226.16-1-9. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard
surface within 50 ft.of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and pool leea �
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and pool location for construction of a new home in the
Waterfront Residential zone WR.
Section 179-3-040 WR,Chapter 147 stormwater,179-5-020 pool
The project involves placement of a stormwater device at 42 ft.from the shoreline where 100 ft.is required.
in addition the appheant pfoposes a spa/pool area on the shoreline side of the ffopefty that is eensidefed—
nb
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,June 22,2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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. I do not believe so because the house has been designed properly with no setbacks
2S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
necessary and the stormwater I believe will be complimenting the property where none exists at
the present time.
2. Feasible alternatives would be to locate it further back,but it's basically almost in line with the
house which is located more than back from the lake. This would be 42 feet back from the lake.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because the lot itself does not create that much runoff
based on its topography.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. We also note that the Planning Board unanimously approved the (recommendation
for)this request last evening.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because that's where they want to place the current
stormwater device.
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,-
S. 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.
29-2022 MEGHAN &z STEPHEN ORBAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Brent McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 22110 Day of June 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MS. BITTER-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So we have a couple of items that we need to take care of. So at this time, I'm going to
make a motion that we extend our first meeting in July,which is the 17`h,to six o'clock so that we can have
a meeting from six to seven where we're going to have a talk about stormwater devices. So it's going to be
a training opportunity for us. So I have a motion,could I have a second,please.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Second.
MR. MC CABS Jim.
MOTION TO BEGIN THE JULY 20`h, 2022 MEETING OF THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AT 6 P.M. INSTEAD OF 7 P.M. TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE
(WARREN COUNTY) SOIL&z WATER TRAINING ON STORMWATER, Introduced by Michael
McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 22nd day of June, 2022, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: NONE
MRS. MOORE-I have a waiver request for you to look at.
MR. MC CABE-I'll take care of that. Anything else?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I ask a request of Staff? Can we get what the Adirondack Park Agency ruling
is on spas and pools in the front yard?
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022)
MRS. MOORE-We have an approved land use plan. So we supersede that. We have our own rules.
MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to adjourn tonight's meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
TUNE 22ND,2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 22 d day of June,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe,Chairman
30