07-20-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS
FIRSTREGULAR MEETING
JULY20Tr,2022
INDEX
Area Variance No. 3S-2022 Brett&Pamela West 1.
Tax Map No.226.15-1-17
Sign Variance No.4-2022 Tidal Wave Auto Spa 2.
Tax Map No. 303.15-1-12
Area Variance No.20-2022 Eric Carlson 6.
Tax Map No.239.12-2-S4
Area Variance No.21-2022 Reds LG,LLC 13.
Tax Map No.239.17-1-15
Area Variance No. 32-2022 Christopher&Eva Detmer 20.
Tax Map No.296.11-1-9
Area Variance No. 33-2022 Frank J.Parillo 23.
Tax Map No. 309.13-2-2
Area Variance No. 34-2022 Harley Griffiths 26.
Tax Map No.226.12-1-S6
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
FIRST REGULAR MEETING
JULY 20TK,2022
7.00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO,SECRETARY
JOHN HENKEL
RICHARD CIPPERLY
RONALD KUHL
MEMBERS ABSENT
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,July 20`h,2022. If you haven't been here before,our procedure is kind of simple. There should be
an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up,read the case into the record, allow the applicant to
present their case, question the applicant. If a public meeting has been advertised then we'll open the
public hearing,take input from the public,close the public hearing,poll the Board on the issue and proceed
accordingly,but first we have a couple of administrative items.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
June 22 d 2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TUNE
22ND 2022 Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 20`h day of July,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Cipperly
June 29`h,2022
MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TUNE
29`h 2022,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 20`h day of July,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSTAINED: Mr. Cipperly
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 BRETT&z PAMELA WEST AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) BRETT &z
PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES
TO DEMO EXISTING HOME PLUS SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2 STORY HOME WITH A
5,436 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF
PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREAS AND A COVERED WALKWAY
BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,670 SQ.FT.WHERE
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 8,687SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW
LANDSCAPING, SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, AND STORMWATER
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MANAGEMENT. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. AREA
VARIANCE GRANTED 3/23/2022 FOR SETBACKS, NUMBER OF GARAGES, AND
STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACKS. REVISION TO SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE FRESHWATER
WETLANDS WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED
FOR WETLAND SETBACK. CROSS REF FWW 10-2022;AV 38-2022;AV 57-2021;SP 51-2021;PZ
210-2016; PZ 95-2016; PZ 89-2016; SP 37-2009; AV 47-2007, SP 39-2007 WARREN COUNTY
PLANNING JULY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 096 AC. TAX MAP
NO.226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040;CHAPTER 94;CHAPTER 147
MR. MC CABE-So if there's anybody here the West, the Bay Parkway issue, the applicant has asked to
postpone his meeting until sometime in August,but we advertised a public hearing. So we will open the
public hearing which I'm doing right now,and if you'd like to speak now you can,or you can wait until the
actual meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR.HENKEL-Okay. So when do we table this to,Laura?
MRS. MOORE-I'm going to tell you, I had a conversation with the representative today, and he asked to
be tabled to the second August meeting.
MR.HENKEL-So August 24`h
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
MR.HENKEL-Okay,with any new information due by July 15`h?
MRS. MOORE-He's already.
MR.HENKEL-Okay. So no new information.
MRS. MOORE-Correct.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett&z Pamela
West.Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new 2 story home with a 5,436
sq. ft. footprint with a garage. Also included is installation of permeable pavers for patio and driveway
areas and a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 sq. ft. where
the maximum allowed is 8,687 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and
residential house,septic,and stormwater management.Lot line adjustment but no change to lot size.Area
variance granted 3/23/2022 for setbacks,number of garages, and stormwater device setbacks. Revision to
Site Plan to include Freshwater wetlands work within 100 ft.of a designated wetland. Relief requested for
wetland setback.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.38-2022 BRETT&z PAMELA WEST(MAIN HOUSE),
Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to the August 24`h,2022 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting.
Duly adopted this 20`h day of July 2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. ZAPPER-Thank you for tabling that. I apologize. I didn't realize you had started the meeting.
MR. MC CABE-That's okay. So our first application is SV 4-2022.
NEW BUSINESS::
SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2022 SEQRA TYPE: UNLISTED. TIDAL WAVE AUTO SPA.
AGENT(S): TRACEY DIEHL. OWNER(S): TWAS QUAKER ROAD LLC. ZONING: Cl.
LOCATION: 708 QUAKER ROAD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A FREESTANDING SIGN OF 42.3
SQ. FT. AT DIX AVENUE AND QUAKER ROAD FOR THE TIDAL CARWASH FACILITY. A
WALL SIGN OF 68 SQ. FT. IS TO BE ON THE MAIN CAR WASH BUILDING FACING QUAKER
ROAD. THE MENU SIGN PANELS ARE PROPOSED TO BE AT THE WASH ENTRANCE AND
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
BE 22.75 SQ. FT. EACH OR 45.5 SQ. FT. TOTAL AS THEY ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS,SIZE OF WALL SIGN,AND NUMBER OF SIGNS. CROSS
REF SP 68-2021;SV 1-2017,SP 51-2015;SV 1425-20232. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: JUNE
2022. LOT SIZE: 3.83 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-12. SECTION: 140.
PETE HATCHER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Sign Variance No.4-2022. Tidal Wave Auto Spa,Meeting Date: July 20,2022 "Project
Location: 70S Quaker Road, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a freestanding sign
of 42.3 sq. ft. at Dix Avenue and Quaker Road for the Tidal Carwash Facility.A wall sign of 6S sq. ft.is to
be on the main car wash building facing Quaker Road. The menu sign panels are proposed to be at the
wash entrance and be 22.75 sq. ft. each or 45.5 sq. ft. total as they are adjacent to each other. Relief
requested for setbacks,size of wall sign,and number of signs.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks,size of wall sign,and number of signs. The site is located in a CI
zone on a 3.53 acparcel.
Chapter 140 Sign
One wall sign to be 6S sq. ft. on Quaker Road where 30 sq. ft. is the maximum sign allowed. Additional
menu signs at 22.75 sq.ft.each where two are proposed are considered free standing-where 4 free standing
are proposed and only are two are allowed. The Dix Avenue free standing sign is proposed to be 7 ft.
setback from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the previous tenant had similar signage.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the
applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce
the size of the wall sign,number of signs and relocate the one free standing sign to a compliant location.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code. The signs exceed the number allowed due to the menu board being considered free
standing and the wall sign 3S sq.ft.larger than allowed.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts 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 proposes a new sign configuration that is similar to the previous tenant's signage for the
same use. The plans show the freestanding signs,the wall sign,and the directional signage for the site."
MR.HATCHER-My name is Pete Hatcher. Sign A-1 and A-2,both the freestandings,these are our existing
signs to be re-faced at 42.3 square foot. Sign B,the wall sign,is 6S square foot,and facing north to Quaker
Road,75 foot to the property line. That's 100 feet from the,heading east. The sign is the minimum size
necessary for legibility for the requested speed limits and the distance from the road. C-1 and C-2 are the
menu board signs,and they are 22.75 square feet each and these are not to be legible from the road. They're
only for entrance on site. These explain vital details and pricing required for the car wash. That's all I
have. If you have any questions.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none,it seems pretty straightforward.
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 information on this particular project.
Is there anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. URRICO-Yes,there's one letter. My name is Dan Graves. I am the shop manager for Garvey Auto
Body located at 714 Quaker Road, Queensbury, NY 12SO4. On behalf of owners Sean and John Peter
Garvey,we would like to urge the Board to fully support the application of Tidal Wave Auto Spa for their
signage proposal for the property located at 70S Quaker Road,Queensbury,NY 12SO4. We welcome them
as neighbors and look forward to their Grand Opening in the near future. Sincerely,Dan Graves" That's
it. That's all I've got.
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 Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think essentially what we're doing here is we're replacing previously approved
signage which we've vetted and spent a lot of time on on previous occasions. I think the menu boards are
internal signage. I don't think they'll have any effect on anything.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-Yes,there's no doubt it's a piece of property that's got 3.3 acres with two entrances off two
main roads. So there needs to be a lot of signage to direct people in the right directions to the types of
services that they have there. So I would definitely be on board as is.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, Mr. Chairman,I'm in agreement. I think it's needed. It's a good use of the signage. So
I'm in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in agreement. It's basically a replacement sign for the previous owner,property
that was there before. So I'm in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I agree with the previous comments. It's basically the same signs that are there.
MR. MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. It's no different than it's been for,there's been a car wash
therefor quite a few years. So I don't see that we're doing anything harmful there.
MR.HENKEL-SEQR?
MR. MC CABE-Yes,so first we need to do SEQR here. So,John?
MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO.4-2022.APPLICANT NAME:TIDAL WAVE AUTO
SPA BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING
DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT,THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL
NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 20th Day of July 2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tidal Wave
Auto Spa: Applicant proposes a freestanding sign of 42.3 sq. ft. at Dix Avenue and Quaker Road for the
Tidal Wave Carwash Facility.A wall sign of 6S sq.ft.is to be on the main car wash building facing Quaker
Road. The menu sign panels are proposed to be at the wash entrance and be 22.75 sq.ft.each or 45.5 sq.ft.
total as they are adjacent to each other.Relief requested for setbacks,size of wall sign,and number of signs.
Relief Required:
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
The applicant requests relief for setbacks,size of wall sign,and number of signs. The site is located in a CI
zone on a 3.53 acparcel.
Chapter 140 Sign
One wall sign to be 6S sq. ft. on Quaker Road where 30 sq. ft. is the maximum sign allowed. Additional
menu signs at 22.75 sq.ft.each where two are proposed are considered free standing-where 4 free standing
are proposed and only are two are allowed. The Dix Avenue free standing sign is proposed to be 7 ft.
setback from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR]
Motion regarding Sign Variance No.4-2022.Applicant Name:Tidal Wave Auto Spa based upon the
information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant,this
Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a
Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald
Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 20th Day of July 2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 20,2022.
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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to
the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? None, as we are
basically replacing what was there with the previous owner.
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue,other than a sign variance? No,he needs the signs for his business.
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Not really. Again, it's replacing the previous owner's
approved signs.
4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district? No,it won't. The signs are needed to direct the customers in and out
of two major roads.
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I guess we could say it is,but they need it for business.
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:
Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
(ZBA Board Member does Dot Deed to read the followingA through F):
A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an
extension of approval before the one(1)year time frame expires;
B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park,the approved variance is subject to review
by the Adirondack Park Agency(APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until
the APA's review is completed;
C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the
Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or
Building&codes personnel'
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
D. Subsequent issuance of further permits,including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these
final plans;
E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community
Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project
requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park
Agency,Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE 4-2022,
TIDAL WAVE AUTO SPA, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 20th Day of July 2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel, Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR.MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. So our next application is AV 20-2022,Eric Carlson,
67 Brayton Lane.
TABLED ITEMS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2022 SEQRA TYPE 11 ERIC CARLSON AGENT(S) CHRIS KEIL
(ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) ERIC CARLSON ZONING WR
LOCATION 67 BRAYTON LANE (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN
EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3-BEDROOM HOME
WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE HOME WILL HAVE A FOOTPRINT OF 3,381 SQ. FT.
THE NEW FLOOR AREA OF 6,033 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW STORMWATER
MANAGEMENT, ALTERATION OF SHARED DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ARRANGEMENT,
GRADING,AND EROSION CONTROL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD-
SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15%
SLOPES,DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%,AND FRESHWATER WETLAND WORK WITHIN
100 FT.OF THE WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS,HEIGHT OF GARAGE,AND
STORMWATER DEVICE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORELINE. CROSS REF SEP 241-2019.,
SP 26-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD
LOT SIZE 1.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-84 SECTION 179-3-040;147 CHAPTER 94;179-
5-020
NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.20-2022,Eric Carlson,Meeting Date: July 20,2022 "Project Location;
67 Brayton Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)Applicant proposes to demolish an existing
home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home with an attached garage. The home will
have a footprint of 3,3SI sq. ft. The new floor area of 6,033 sq. ft. The project includes new stormwater
management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement, grading, and erosion control. Site
plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline,new structure within 50 ft.
of 150/o slopes, driveway greater than 100/o, and Freshwater wetland work within 100 ft. of the wetland.
Relief requested for setbacks and stormwater device less than 100 ft.from shoreline.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks and stormwater device less than 100 ft.from shoreline in regard
to construction of a new home with an attached garage. The parcel is 1.25 ac and in the Waterfront
Residential zone-WR.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Chapter 147 stormwater device
Revised with the garage being attached to the proposed home which removes the height variance. The
portion of the home with the garage is located 6 ft.from the property line where a 25 ft.setback is required.
The stormwater device is to be 50 ft.where 100 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
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. The project
may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the home is moved
further from the back and detached building is in similar location as previous.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the
applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
lot shape,proximity to wetland, and shared access by adjoining properties.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant
to the code. Relief for the setback is 19 ft. and stormwater device location is 50 ft. (revisions relief
requested is less)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be
considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-
created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The plans show the
location of the new home with covered porch areas and attached garage."
MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership,here on behalf of the
applicant, Eric Carlson. As was stated, the applicant proposes to remove the existing single family
dwelling and attached garage and construct a new single family dwelling with an attached garage,shifted
back further away from the lake beyond the 50 foot setback. The additional site improvement include the
realignment of the existing access road off Brayton Lane for the property to the south, as well as on site
stormwater management, landscaping and additional plantings. We are requesting relief for three
variances tonight, the side yard setback to the southern property line, six feet versus twenty-five feet
proposed. We need two variances for infiltration devices, and setback of 50 feet for one filtration device
to the lakeshore and another 50 feet for a separate infiltration device from wetlands on the adjacent
property where 100 feet is required. This project was before this Board back in May of this year where it
was tabled. The Board and the public had concerns regarding the stormwater and getting some more time
to go through the Town Designated Engineer review, as well as some discrepancies and issues with one
particular variance in the garage height being excessive, and since then we have gone through the Town
Engineer's comment letters. We have addressed all their comments, and then they had the most recent
letter had I believe two comments that were minor comments regarding hydro cad modeling calculations
because it was Major stormwater project,and we have since addressed those comments. So I believe there
are no outstanding comments with the Town Engineer, and secondly we worked with the applicant's
architect,Danny Williams,to revise the house design to provide a conditioned space in between the main
part of the dwelling and the garage so that it's considered an attached garage per the Town Code, and no
one requires a height variance. We feel that these improvements have taken steps to address the concerns,
and with that I'll turn it back over to the Board for any questions or comments. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR.HENKEL-Yes. I see you attached the garage to the house. That's a good idea,but why can't you still
bring that over farther so you'd have less relief on that side yard?
MR. ZEGLEN-Sorry,I failed to mention. We actually did shrink the footprint of the garage an additional
foot,and the significance of that is the existing garage that's on site now is six feet off of that property line.
So it won't be encroaching any further on that property line whereas before it was five feet.
MR.HENKEL-Five feet. That's right. So why do you need the,because you've got an entry. You're telling
me you can't incorporate that entry and move that garage a bit farther over towards the house a little bit?
MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, so the reason it wasn't shifted over further was just to allow for turning radiuses for
getting vehicles in and having that turnaround to get back out to Brayton Lane.
MR.KUHL-Even if they moved it eight feet,they'd still need a variance.
MR. HENKEL-Well I realize that,but it would be nice to have a little bit more space there,because you
do have that back,you could back out out of the garage and go out straight. So you're not like backing out
of the driveway. How many feet is that to that turnaround there,that hammer?
S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. ZEGLEN-I don't know off the top of my head.
MR.HENKEL-That's more than two car lengths.
MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,it's probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 20 feet.
MR.HENKEL-It's more than that.
MR.ZEGLEN-Yes,I mean I think the thought was just that,you know,the existing garage was that height
and we're not going further with that. I think this is actually a little bit shorter in height than the existing
garage, that similar footprint, wouldn't encroach on, you know, being more of a detriment than what's
there now.
MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thank you.
MR.KUHL-What about the other people on the street? Are they all in favor of this? You don't know?
MR. ZEGLEN-I don't want to speak for any of them.
MR.KUHL-Okay.
MR.MC CABE-Other questions? So we have a public hearing that's been advertised. So at this particular
time I'll open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this
matter. Chris,you were first there.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Board. My name is Chris Navitsky, Lake
George Waterkeeper. We do have some comments on this project. First off,we feel that,there were a lot
of comments on stormwater at the last meeting,particularly regarding the shoreline setback. It doesn't
appear that there's been any change to that stormwater device. It still remains 50 feet setback and they
may have addressed a lot of the comments with the Town Engineer,but they still don't have a compliant
stormwater system. There is a question regarding this. They're setting it right next to a 9 foot high
retaining wall and all retaining walls have underdrains behind them. So this stormwater device is right
next to where there will be an underdrain. So where is that underdrain? There's no information on that
retaining wall. You don't build walls that high without drains. So I feel that that could short-circuit it
and wind up discharging stormwater closer to Lake George. There's a question why a variance isn't
required for a nine foot high retaining wall within the 50 foot setback. There's an application,I think the
next one that actually is requiring a variance for a retaining wall. I don't know why there's not one required
for this which is substantially higher than the one in another application. Information should be provided
on the delineation of the wetlands. They did show what they marked as a wet area,but I submitted a map
from the Warren County Community map with my comments, and this shows the wetlands extending
three times further into the property. So there could be some questions on that. We feel that that should
be delineated and certified by the APA. Project proposes clearing well into that 75 foot protective buffer
that the Town Code requires along wetlands. So we feel, in closing, the mitigation measures that are
proposed,we recognize the new septic system,some stormwater,does not provide a balance between the
benefit and the impacts from the numerous variances,excessive grading,hardening of the site and the non-
compliant shoreline buffer, and we feel that there should be more information, especially a delineation
shown accurately by the APA. Thank you.
MR.KUHL-Before you go,Mr.Navitsky,APA says 35 feet for stormwater management. Our regs say 100.
MRS. MOORE-So it's the Park Commission that says 35 feet.
MR. NAVITSKY-Right.
MR.KUHL-So are you, as the Waterkeeper, are you in tune in favor of what the APA regs are?
MR. NAVITSKY-It's the Lake George Park Commission,not the APA.
MR.KUHL-Yes.
MR.NAVITSKY-And,no,I was not. I felt that the setback,I understand the change in the setback for the
infiltration from 100 feet, but I felt that that should be equivalent to what the building setback is. So I
don't see the reason you need to push that down to 35, and if building setbacks are either 100 or 75,you
can set those next to the building,such as what this application did. So I do not support 35 feet. There's
no science that that provides better drainage.
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. KUHL-We sit here and people use that to,well, Lake George Park Commission says 35 and ours say
100,and you're the Waterkeeper,you know, and it gets very confusing.
MR. NAVITSKY-I have no regulations.
MR.KUHL-No,you don't,but you have recommendations, and we look to your recommendations.
MR.NAVITSKY-Well,my recommendation is that the 50 feet may be adequate,but it's not in this scenario
because you're putting it right next to a retaining wall that is going to have an underdrain that's going to
drain everything that goes into the ground is going to hit that underdrain and,you know,there's no detail
provided. I mean we all put underdrains behind retaining walls.
MR.HENKEL-You used to see outlets in the middle of the wall,halfway up.
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes, I mean you need to. Otherwise the hydrostatic pressure will knock it over. I feel
that that's going to short-circuit any benefit of that stormwater device, and I told the Park Commission I
don't agree with that.
MR.KUHL-Thank you.
MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Ma'am?
PAM LESTER GOLDE
MRS. LESTER GOLDE-My name is Pam Lester Golde. I am also a registered landscape architect who
practices as Pamela Lester. I'm also on the Assembly Point Water Quality Committee and I have been
appointed to the Town's new Master Plan Committee and will be looking at the zoning ordinances,but I
want to add something to what Chris was saying. In this area where this nine foot high retaining wall is
going, it's ledge, and they're basically putting nine feet of fill on top of ledge. So even if the water goes
down, seeps down in,it's going to hit that ledge and then go against the retaining wall. So there's got to
be, as Chris said, some kind of underdrainage. They also have indicated that they are putting in,in that
storm structure,an overflow that goes out onto the front lawn. Well they've only indicated that the steep
slopes is at 150/o. The steep slopes range from 15 to over 200/o,and in the area where that particular retaining
wall is, that's where it's 200/o. So the overflow is going to go onto a steep slope. That's also true of the
infiltration structures on the right hand side of the house that are going down along the property line,but
what I would like to focus on is the Zoning Ordinance. The Zoning Ordinance,the Town of Queensbury's
Zoning Ordinance, under it's Purpose and Objectives, says the Chapter is to promote health, safety and
general welfare of the residents and property owners. This particular area is a Waterfront zone area and
it's a Critical Environmental Area and we're not a closet subdivision. We have, the lots are probably
undersized. They never would have been zoned,the subdivision never would have been what it is under
current zoning,but we have to live with it. The thing is that we can't turn around and just give zoning
setbacks that are egregious to the environment and to our neighborhood. Because our neighborhood was
basically a summertime community, and everything that people buy now turn them into mega mansions.
I'm one of the few that doesn't have a mega mansion. I have a 1930 Abraham Lincoln Log Cabin and
everybody says Pam you've got the million dollar view. Yes,I do, and I pay the taxes for it,but it is only a
three-season home and it can never be winterized. There's no foundation. There's no crawl space or next
to no crawl space under most of the house. The water is not winterized, and when I lie in bed and I look
up at the ceiling,I'm looking at the roof of my house. There is no place to put insulation or any type,shape
or form. The storm that we had last Tuesday, a week ago,lying in bed,the rain comes through the joist.
MR. MC CABE-I've got to shut you off here. We've got a whole bunch of cases tonight. This isn't really
pertinent to this particular application.
MRS. LESTER GOLDE-Okay. What I am pointing out is I'm asking the Zoning Board to respect the
Waterfront designation and the Environmental Critical Areas. So Mr. Henkel brought up the fact that
this garage is,yes, it's six feet from the property line. That's what the existing is,but they're taking the
existing down. They're starting from scratch. There's no reason why they can't overlap it. That garage
is a two car garage. You can maneuver a car well within that driveway and do a three-point turn to be able
to not back out to drive out straight. The other thing that I'd like to note is that they re-submitted on the
20,sometime in June,anew stormwater management,stormwater narrative. The Town Engineer has not
submitted his comments yet. I have FOIL'd them. I asked Laura today.
MRS. MOORE-For the West project?
MRS. LESTER GOLDE-No.
10
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MRS. MOO RE-I apologize. I thought you were talking about the West project.
MRS.LESTER GOLDE-No,this project,and I FOIL'd it because the letter that was given,which was dated
the 23rd by LaBella,is for the May,the March stormwater narrative,not the June stormwater narrative. So
the engineer has to respond to, and I would like to see the comments before zoning accepts the plan. So
that's it.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project?
MR.HENKEL-Is that true,Laura?
MRS. MOO RE-I'll have to look. I know they've responded.
LORI SHAY
MS. SHAY-Hi. My name is Lori Shay, and I submitted a second letter. I'm Mr. Carlson's northbound
neighbor and some of the things I have concerns with were brought up here already. When my dad built
his house, not a mega mansion, but when we built it, we had to conform with all of the rules that
Queensbury had, including setbacks, push backs, take down buildings, all those things. My only
complaint is that I reached out to Mr. Carlson,in full disclosure, to see where he's moving his driveway,
which is now going to abut my driveway. Our driveway has never changed. I have a problem with his
setbacks. We have an original wall that goes around the front of our property that we didn't change,
specifically for water, and we have a sprinkler system. That whole side where Mr. Carlson's wall that's
going to come down and sits on shale,I don't even have a sprinkler there. There is water there every day,
whether he builds something there or doesn't build something there. So all of the stormwater that
everybody has discussed here,I have a concern with,not only with my front stonewall,where I'm going to
get water that's probably going to degrade my stone wall,but we have water all the way down the north
side of the property, and by him putting his driveway,moving it to my side,I'm going to see all the traffic,
all the noise, and I know what he's doing, and he doesn't want to see his driveway. He wants it next to
mine. So I have a concern that my driveway's going to collapse because it's stone and he goes and puts in
his driveway literally next to the property line. So I have a few concerns with what everybody spoke about
and I'd like my letter that I sent to the two representatives entered into the record.
MR. URRICO-I can summarize it,unless you want to summarize what you have in the letter.
MS. SHAY-I don't have the letter with me,but I summarized it in terms of I am the northbound neighbor.
As I said previously, I am Mr. Carlson's northbound neighbor. I've reviewed his materials, okay, and his
re-design, and I see why he had to redesign his garage. My concern is the northbound side and the buffer
and where the septic is going to sit as well. I see it too close to my property line,and I see all of the things
that Mr. Carlson doesn't want anywhere on his nice,green grass next to my property line,because I know
when he does all of this work, I'm going to see damage and/or erosion to my property line. So I'm not in
favor of where his setbacks for his stormwater management is as well. I'd like them to be further pushed
back into the property and he has a big enough property that I don't even think he needs to move the road,
and I know that that property across the street from Mr. Carlson is wetlands, and when you drive out my
driveway there's water on the right hand side of my driveway. There's water on the left hand side of my
property where he's proposing his new driveway. So I have already summarized what my concerns are as
a northbound neighbor. I ask that he be able to put in some kind of plantings on my side,whereas I know
he's putting them all down the southbound properties, but I do have concerns and I don't think they've
been addressed by Mr. Carlson's redesign of his garage at all.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this particular matter?
Do we have anything else written,Roy?
MR. URRICO-No,that was it.
MR. MC CABE-Would you like to address the comments?
MR. ZEGLEN-So as far as the stormwater goes, this was treated as a Major stormwater because of the
slopes, and the Major stormwater as the Town interprets it, because of the slopes. The hydro cad
calculations were provided. They were reviewed by the Town Engineer. There was another letter that
had two comments that we responded to on July II'h. As far as the wetland area and the road,so that new
road is designed to sheet flow water back to the stormwater device and capture that water prior to going
into the wetland, into the wet area, and this site also was developed with no stormwater to begin with.
So that's something else I'd just like to add. As far as the retaining wall, there needs to be separation, in
order to capture water and treat it before it's discharged down to the lake, there needs to be separation.
So to achieve that separation we have built up, as was stated, there is rock there, but we need to have a
stormwater device in that location,50 feet off of the shoreline because that's where the house setback is.
So therefore we had to put a stormwater device in that location. We couldn't put it further away. We
can't pump stormwater up. So we put it at the 50 feet,and we had to raise it up in order to get separation
it
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
above the bedrock in order to treat that water as it passes through the soil, and as far as the overflow pipe,
where it's discharging,it's not shown on this plan,but if you go to the planting plan, we actually have a
berm in that area with plantings,and that overflow pipe will be discharging into that area,not out into the
middle of the lawn. As far as a mega mansion, this project does not exceed the floor area ratio. It's far
below it. I believe you're allowed 11,000 square feet on this lot. They're at I think 6,000,so almost half of
the floor area ratio allowed. There's no height variances. So I think calling it a mega mansion is excessive.
I think that's all I have. Any other questions,I'd be happy to answer them.
MR. MC CABE-So we had quite a bit of discussion about the retaining wall, and did we say it's nine feet
high?
MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,I believe in the one corner where it tries to catch up to existing grade does reach nine
feet,yes.
MR. MC CABE-And the reason for that?
MR.ZEGLEN-Is to keep everything separated up above the bedrock and provide that required separation,
and then in the area where the stormwater device is it's not as high,but then when you extend it out to
finish it off and the grade keeps going,it's going against the grade. So it's steeper at the corner,yes.
MR. CIPPERLY-How high is it at the stormwater area?
MR.ZEGLEN-At the stormwater area I believe it varies because the stormwater area goes along that whole
grade. So I think at the top it's like one or two feet, and then it just gradually continues.
MR. CIPPERLY-That's right against the neighbor.
MR. ZEGLEN-That's correct. And we will submit, you know, we'll have a geotech that designs that
retaining wall and submit that during the building permit process to make sure it's up to Code.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I still have some severe concerns about the size of the structure in terms of what it does to
the setback from the property line and I have concerns about the stormwater device and whether it's going
to be able to handle stormwater during,it's not far enough away to handle the property. So I'm concerned
about it and I would not be in a position to approve it right now.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I guess I share the same concern,along with adding a huge other driveway to the back of
the site to access the site. What is that driveway going to be made of?
MR. ZEGLEN-That will be an asphalt driveway which I think the existing driveway might just be gravel.
MR. MC CABE-So you don't support the project?
MR. CIPPERLY-No.
MR. ZEGLEN-And again just in regards to the driveway, that existing driveway now is just gravel or
asphalt. Water just runs right off that and runs right into that wetland. This new driveway is going to
be done to capture that water,sent to that infiltration device,prior to going to the wetland.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the project needs to be re-thought and modified from what it's presently
being presented to us as a Board. I think the garage could easily be placed on the back side of that lot. I,
too,echo the comments on the stormwater devices as well as the driveway.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR.HENKEL-There's a lot of things. We can't stop them from doing it. When you say it's a mega house,
it's not because they're allowed to put 220/o which is still below. It's at 6,000 square feet and they are
allowed to go to 11,000 square feet. The shoreline setback they're at the 50 which is where they're supposed
to be. So it's tough,but there's no doubt that the stormwater device in this case should be farther than
the 50 feet and I'm not happy with the garage situation. I think they should be able to move that back and
12
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
make it to Code of 25 feet. It's not acceptable to me to be at the six feet,nineteen feet of relief. So I'm not
on board with this project as it is.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I think is new is nice and new gets to be an improvement over the old,but the garage should
be off that property line more. I agree with what everybody else said,that there has to be more work on
the stormwater. So I'd not be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-So you don't have a lot of friends here. The way I view this is I don't think it's practical
to set the stormwater device back 100 feet because 100 feet is well back from where you want to capture
things,and so I think the stormwater device being somewhere around the house is a more practical matter
and then perhaps a cascading device down further to further help capture things because it is a fairly steep
slope,but,you know,what we're being asked to judge here is the setback on both sides. It seems practical
to me that the six feet,if you're five feet now, and you don't have any device controlling runoff,that you're
going to be better off with the new design at six feet,but I think there has to be some better understanding
of what we're doing with the stormwater here. I don't think it's very clear, and I think that's causing the
confusion here. So I think you have a couple of choices here. You can ask for a vote,but you're not going
to do well there. You can table this and go back and maybe look at providing some more definitive
information on the stormwater management. We have a short Board anyway,but that's not going to make
any difference.
MR.ZEGLEN-I think we'll table. Just a little further on the stormwater. As far as the setbacks,the house
setback is 50 feet,so,the house is 50 feet. So that roof is going to be at 50 feet so we can't really move the
stormwater further back than the 50 feet in order to capture the roof runoff.
MR.HENKEL-Without moving the house back.
MR. ZEGLEN-Without moving the house further back. So I understand the garage concern and the
retaining wall. We can take another look at that grading in that area to try to make that. The only thing
I don't know about is pulling the stormwater device further than 50 feet back.,
MR. MC CABE-All right. So I'm going to look for a motion to table.
MR.HENKEL-Until when?
MRS. MOORE-We have room on the September agenda. So if they can get information in by August 15`h
MR.HENKEL-Okay. So which September are we going to do, September 21"or the 2S`h?
MRS. MOORE-I would do the first meeting.
MR.HENKEL-Okay. The 21". Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Eric Carlson.
Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home
with a footprint of 2,3SI sq. ft. which includes porches/deck areas and living space of detached building.
The project includes a detached garage with an S73 sq. ft.footprint. The new floor area of 6,194 sq.ft. The
project includes new stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement,
grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the
shoreline,new structure within 50 ft. of 150/o slopes, driveway greater than 100/o, and Freshwater wetland
work within 100 ft. of the wetland. Relief requested for setbacks,height of garage, and stormwater device
less than 100 ft.from shoreline.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.20-2022 ERIC CARLSON,Introduced by John Henkel
who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to the September 21", 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be
submitted by August 15`h,2022.
Duly adopted this 20`h day of July,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 21-2022,Reds LG,LLC.
13
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
AREA VARIANCE NO.21-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II REDS LG,LLC AGENT(S) NICHOLAS
ZEGLEN (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) REDS LG,LLC ZONING WR
LOCATION 7, 9, 13 NUTLEY LANE (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE
ALTERATIONS TO TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE AND COMPLETE
CONSTRUCTION OF A BUNKROOM WITH NO KITCHEN ON THE SITE. ALTERATIONS
INCLUDE 7 NUTLEY LANE NEW BUILDING OF 540 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES ONE
BEDROOM, 184 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH, AND 24 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRY AREA;
ALTERATIONS TO 9 NUTLEY LANE 704 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND
KITCHEN (FLOOR AREA OF 1,408 SQ. FT.), NEW OPEN DECK OF 440 SQ. FT. WITH
WALKOUT AREA BELOW, ALTERATIONS TO 13 NUTLEY LANE INCLUDE INTERIOR
ALTERATIONS (EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 2,134 SQ. FT. WITH FOUR BEDROOMS).
PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION AREAS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,
SHORELINE PLANTINGS,AND CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL. SITE PLAN FOR
NEW FLOOR AREA FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE,EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE
FOR 9 NUTLEY LANE,AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING, STORMWATER
DEVICES LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORELINE,ADDING A THIRD DWELLING UNIT,AND
PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SEP 37-2021,SP 29-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY
2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-15
SECTION 179-3-040,147,179-13-010
NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2022, Reds LG, LLC, Meeting Date: July 20, 2022, "Project
Location: 7, 9, 13 Nutley Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to
complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete construction of a bunkroom
with no kitchen on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540 sq. ft. which includes
one bedroom,184 sq.ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq.
ft.footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen(floor area of 1,408 sq.ft.),new open deck of 440 sq.ft.with
walkout area below, alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations (existing floor area of 2,134
sq.ft.with four bedrooms).Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management,shoreline
plantings,and construction of a retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane,expansion of
nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief
requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from shoreline,
an oversized accessory structure,and permeability.
Relief Required:
Revised. The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less
than 100 ft. from shoreline, completion of a bunk house—no kitchen, and permeability. The parcel is 0.53
acres and located in the Waterfront Residential zone—WR.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Chapter 147
Revised—no kitchen in 7 Nutley would be considered a bunk house; reduced size of deck at 7 Nutley to
184 sq.ft. The project work on the buildings includes existing and proposed requires relief: Setbacks for 7
Nutley Lane area 16 ft. to the north property line and for 9 Nutley Lane 4 ft. to the north property line
where a 20 ft.setback is required;on the south property line 7 Nutley Lane area 10 ft.to the south property
line and for 9 Nutley Lane 12 ft.to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Expansion of
non-conforming. Stormwater device of shallow grass depressions at 19 ft. from the shoreline where a 100
ft. setback is required. 7 Nutley Lane converted to a bunk house with no kitchen. In addition the deck on
at 7 Nutley has been reduced to meet the setbacks. Relief for an accessory structure of 540 sq.ft.of 7 Nutley
Lane greater than 500 sq. ft. maximum size allowed. Permeability existing is 6778110 and improved to 68.77010
proposed where 75010 is required-noting no relief is required as the site is improving the permeability on site.
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.
14
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The third dwelling has removed the kitchen as
part of the revision. The setback and permeability variances may be limited due to lot shape and
location of the buildings on the site.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is substantial relevant to
the code. 7 Nutley Lane relief—North side setback of Oft, South side setback of 10 ft. 9 Nutley Lane
relief—North side setback of 16 ft.,South side setback of S ft.9 Nutley Lane requires relief for expansion
of a nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for the stormwater management St ft. The device is
also assisting with bank stabilization. Accessory structure size relief for 40 sq. ft. No permeability
relief is requested.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has received
approval for and has installed a new septic system that accommodates each of the dwelling units and
the bunk house on the site.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant requests to maintain after the fact construction of 7 Nutley Lane revised with no kitchen
and a smaller deck and 9 Nutley Lane for deck expansion. The plans show the buildings and the work that
has been almost completed on each of the buildings. The plans show revision with additional stormwater
management on the site and shoreline plantings."
MR.ZEGLEN-Nick Zeglen from Environmental Design Partnership,here on behalf of the applicant,Reds
LG. I also have Tom Esslen here with me. He's one of the Reds LG members as well. The owners of
property at 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. We're here tonight requesting after the fact variances for site
improvements made at 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. Variances are requested for side yard setbacks on both
sides of 7 and 9 Nutley as well as variance relief for an accessory structure at 7 Nutley that's being treated
as new construction that was built without permits or approvals. Additional variances are a setback of 10
feet for a retaining wall from the shoreline where 50 feet is required. Again the retaining wall is proposed
to assist with grading of the stormwater shallow grass protection management areas that will capture
runoff coming down the site from the existing pervious, capture it and store it and infiltrate it into the
ground. This project was before the Board also in May of this year and was tabled based on concerns from
the Town and the public regarding the number of variances. Obviously the construction done without
approvals, the permeability on site, which was previously another variance, as well as the secondary
structure that was built, the use of that structure, and since then, you know, we've worked with the
applicant. We have removed the kitchen from 7 Nutley. So now it's a bedroom with one bath and living
open space. We've also reduced the size of the proposed deck on 7 Nutley to meet the side yard setback
requirements and we went through the whole site and eliminated any asphalt,gravel,impervious area that
was not necessary to improve the overall site permeability to be above the existing permeability and
remove that variance. We're here tonight with the applicant to work with the Board and rectify the
situation. With that I'll turn it back over to the Board for comments.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MRS. MOORE-Can I just offer that there's not a variance to the actual retaining wall. It would be,if this
were treated as a major stormwater it would be the stormwater device,but at this point I don't believe it's
a Major.
MR. ZEGLEN-No,it wasn't actually,based on the disturbance and the reduction in impervious,it wasn't
treated as a minor either,but we did stormwater as a minor. So we improved the site overall. And that's
noted in the Town Engineer comment letter when they reviewed stormwater. We actually got a waiver
from the stormwater requirements,but we felt that,you know,in view of the situation,do as stormwater
as possible.
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Questions of the applicant?
MR.KUHL-How many parking spaces are there on this property?
MR. ZEGLEN-So all the parking is actually up in the upper area. That's where the septic system is also
it's the gravel area. There's a decent amount of parking up there. It could probably fit.
MR.KUHL-Five?
TOM ESSLEN
15
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. ESSLEN-I was going to say eight.
MR. KUHL-Really? Next time I'll bring my tape measure. Really? It blew my mind, when I thought
about all the bedrooms you have and I mean I went down between seven and nine,I drove down there,and
I took my life in my hands. Anyway. I can't see how that's enough to support that property or what you're
doing,but maybe I'm just narrow-minded. I don't know.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this
particular time I'm going to open the public hearing,see if there's anybody in the audience who would like
to provide input on this particular project? Sure.
PUBLIC HEARING OPEN
CLAUDIA BRAYMER
MS. BRAYMER-Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. My name is Claudia Braymer from
Braymer Law, an attorney representing the adjoining neighbor to the north, Mr. Robert O'Brien, and I
wanted to let you know that I brought hard copies of the letters I submitted in May and also I have another
letter for you tonight and I brought copies for each of you and I'll hand those to you in just a moment. The
first question I want to ask you, and I know you won't be answering me,but just rhetorically,why are we
here? Originally, this is basically the same variance request that they had asked for in the spring, and 7
Nutley has not been removed. That's the one that is most uphill from the other two residences. They
need a variance for a third dwelling where only two are allowed per two acres,I'm sorry,where only one
house is allowed per two acres, and here this property is only 0.53 acres and they're trying to put on three
different principle buildings,two of which are already four bedroom homes,and this one would be,as they
mentioned, a single bedroom in that 7 Nutley. Also I want to mention that in the Staff Notes it says
something about this being a bunkhouse,but a bunkhouse is not a use allowed anywhere in the Zoning
Code. It's not even a thing. It's not mentioned. I also want to remind you that the Planning Board,in the
spring,unanimously voted to recommend to you that you deny all of the variances that were requested at
that time. I also want to mention,as they said earlier,that 7 Nutley is considered new construction and it
should be removed. It is not allowed by the Zoning Code, and it will add to the already very intense use
of this property. As I mentioned, the building that is closest to the lake has four bedrooms. The one in
the middle also has four bedrooms. You will see on that application documents that they attempt to refer
to that as a two bedroom house, but per your Building Inspector, he found the four bedrooms and has
issued a Notice of Violation and they were required to reduce that and eliminate two of the bedrooms.
However, I do not see anywhere in their application documentation documents showing Number Nine
down to two bedrooms. In any event,what is happening there is you're having a dozen to maybe 20 people
possible staying on that piece of property,eight to ten cars with families and kids. It's a lot of activity on
a very small site, and what we are asking you primarily, our main ask of you, is that you deny all of the
variances related to 7 Nutley and you have them remove that illegal structure that was built without any
permitting. I do want to mention that we are asking you, if you go through the criteria for the area
variances, that it will create negative impacts to community character because of the number of people
that could stay on that piece of property,which would increase the noise and disturbance from that piece
of property. The negative impacts to the adjoining property, Mr. O'Brien,because specifically Number 7
sits directly in front of his home just across the driveway,the shared driveway and the way that the lot is
configured this actually sits basically in their front yard. You would never have two houses where one is
sitting in front of the other,normally they are at an even level. That's what Number 13 is. Number 13 and
Mr. O'Brien's residence are right next to each other in the normal configuration. And then finally there
are adverse impacts from Number 7 because of the impervious surface created by Number 7 results in
negative stormwater impacts and the applicant has said they are removing some of the impervious surface,
but they could be even more close to compliant with the 750/o limit,actually maximum is required,if they
removed 7 Nutley completely including the deck and all of the impervious surface that goes with Number
7. So I thank you for considering our comments and we ask that you deny it. Thanks.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular matter? Chris?
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We also have concerns about
the intensity of development,much of which is unapproved,the amount of impermeable surfaces and the
relief for mitigation measures. The requested three dwellings on .53 acres is excessive, especially when
the site cannot mitigate the development proposed. Stormwater is too close to the lake to provide
adequate treatment. Stormwater is too close to the lake to provide adequate treatment. This is down to
19 feet,really no treatment there. It should be moved further away from the lake. A previous application
we talked,you know,you can actually capture stormwater with gutters and direct them uphill a bit. So
that's how you can actually push stormwater further away than what the setback of the house is.
Permeability should be reduce. I echo the previous commenter, by eliminating that requested accessory
structure,and I think according to the neighbors that presented at the last,provided testimony at the last
16
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
hearing, this does appear to be detriment to the neighborhood. So I also support denying the variances.
Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-We had somebody else in the back there.
MARTIN FARBER
MR. FARBER-My name is Martin Farber. I represent myself and my wife Susan Farber. Thank you for
allowing me to speak on this matter. I had sent basically the same letter to the Planning Board at the May
meeting. We live at 33 Antigua Road, directly across the small cove from 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. We
would like to express our concerns regarding the proposed alterations to those addresses. For the last
several years these properties have been used as Short Term rentals. This is attracting people who seem
not to appreciate their proximity to other residents or the courtesy one expects from the neighbors and
their boisterous activities certainly have affected the character of the neighborhood. We have frequently
been subjected to overly boisterous activity which has extended frequently far into the night disturbing
our sleep and actually requiring us to call the police about the noise, and this has happened last year and
it's happened on at least one occasion this year as well. Increasing the occupant capacity,which I count
as 20 in this small lot, would seem to be excessive and only serve to further foster more of this behavior.
We're also concerned that,as Mr.Navitsky mentioned,that this increase in human activity on such a small
plot is going to stress the septic system. The parking area is over the top of the septic system which would
serve to compress it and make it less effective. We, as all the other houses in that cove,use that water for
the drinking water, and this is not going to be a good situation. Lake George is already facing issues with
algae blooms and this is not going to help the matter at all, and I hope that the fact that this construction
was already underway before the appropriate permissions were requested is not going to be used as an
excuse to approve them and in fact would hope that if the negative feelings at the previous meeting are
carried over into this meeting that those alterations that have been made already will be taken down.
Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Anybody else?
DENISE FREIHOFER
MS. FREIHOFER-Thank you. My name's Denise Freihofer and I live just to the north of this property,
and I agree with everything that's been said so far. So I'll keep this very short. As Mr. O'Brien's attorney
said,there could be up to 20 people staying between the two houses,if not more, and this bunkhouse is a
pretty good size. I think it should be torn down,but there'll be no control over how many bunk beds go
in there,or,you know,they call it one bedroom,but I just think it's too much for that property as everyone
else has said, and all these people funnel down to the dock and this is where all the noise is and it comes
across the bay at night and during the day I feel there's a beach party there every week and I feel like I live
next to a hotel on the weekends. I just don't think they should add anymore bedrooms to the place. So
that's all I have to say.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else? So, Roy,we have written?
MR. URRICO-No,the people were here and they've expressed themselves.
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,well,first of all I guess I'll let you provide any comment.
MR. ZEGLEN-I mean I'll kind of just stick to the technical engineering concerns that were raised and I'll
let Tom talk to some of the use and the rentals and whatnot. We didn't design the septic system,but just
by.
MR. MC CABE-The system isn't of concern.
MR. ZEGLEN-Okay. The stormwater, again,was something that we did kind of try to help, offset what
was done. We added a bunch more plantings down by the shore and we would certainly try to slide the
stormwater back a little bit further. I think this is one of those situations where that existing house is 41
feet from the shore, so it's just tough to get it up higher,but we'll take a look at that. We can probably
slide it a little bit further,you know,just to help get that further away from the lake.
MR. ESSLEN-I'm Tom Esslen. I'm part owner of the property with my nephew who was here in May. I
was away that week.
MR. MC CABE-They blamed everything on you.
17
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. ESSLEN-Yes, and I blame them. Anyway, I'd like to address some of the things. The property was
called 7-13 when we closed on it and there was always three structures there.
MR. MC CABE-I think we established that.
MR. ESSLEN-Okay,but we did not build a brand new,what they're calling that a bunkhouse.
MR. MC CABE-Well,you added a kitchen to it. That was the argument.
MR. ESSLEN-Right. It's not even in, but,yes, it was going to be. So that we can take out. And Mr.
O'Brien's a great guy, and his family from New Jersey, and they,you know, it was Kerry's cabins back in
the 40's. That's what we learned. So all these little cabins were all over the place. So O'Brien's, his
property,and even the Sullivans who now sold next door. So that's why there's so many different numbers
all over the place. Even Mr. O'Brien has,if you want to call it that way, two cabins right in front of his,
and he doesn't, you know, he has some sons and they have kids and when there's overflow, and they're
great people,they've slept in that one,if you want to call it bunk bed. I think there's a small bathroom in
there,whatever. Sothis is just the character of the property. So we didn't change the structure at Number
13 which is closer to the lake, other than doing interior renovations. We didn't change the footprint, I
meant to say the footprint,of Number 9,but other than we tried to put two other bedrooms in,but now
we're going to reduce those and not use those as bedrooms. So there'll just be a two bedroom. So it would
be a four bedroom at Number 13,a two bedroom at Number 9 and then a one bedroom at Number 7,which
we're referring to the bunkhouse, and that's what our septic system was designed for and approved and
now instead of having old septic systems that were like just totally falling apart, got so old, and much,
much closer to the lake, probably within 50 or 60 feet of the lake, really bad condition, now we have all
these grinder,three different grinder pumps for each structure going out over 200 feet away from the lake,
maybe even 250 because the lot's 300 feet high, and it's designed to be driven on. So it's not going to
degrade. It better not. I paid a lot of money for it. So that I think is all a very positive thing, and I was
there earlier today, and you know it rained last night and it's like a chute. The water comes down
obviously from the road,beyond the road and,you know,having all these places for stormwater to catch
and the retaining wall would only be like three feet high. It's just a matter to have a slightly more level
area there and also a place to put another area to catch the stormwater. I mean I was taking pictures today.
You can see everything that comes down and then with proper gutters on the house I think it would be
much better,but between moving the septic way back and proper stormwater,to me that's all,everything
about water quality. Not anything negative at all. So the last thing I'll say is about activity, and by the
way.
MR. MC CABE-So let me just ask the question,will you fall under the new Queensbury rules for air b and
b's January I"?
MR. ESSLEN-Well,I don't think it's going to matter too much. I don't know how you guys are,but I just
retired,just like five months ago. I didn't want to do an air b and b. We got this situation with COVID
hitting in March of 2020,and then when you guys,when we stopped working on this,which was like May
of 2020,that's when we like,geez,what are we going to do,and we had a house that's totally unlivable,the
closest one,the original four bedroom. So that's when we started doing the rental. I don't even want,you
look,we owned the property almost three years prior to that,we didn't rent once because that's not what
I bought it for, you know. So I mean my whole thing, and I know Mr. O'Brien, the one that we rent is
actually Number 9, which is close to him. His lawyer accidently said Number 13 or somebody did.
Thirteen is the one closest to the lake,only 40 something feet from the lake,the original old house built in
the 1500's. So my goal is to not rent, or rent very few weeks with the one closer which we can't rent
because it's totally,you know,it's not finished at all. We tore out some old sheet rock and everything else.
It's not done yet because we've had a Stop Work Order and then there would be no other big activity. So,
I mean,I'm coming from a family of five sisters and two brothers. So as far as 20 people there,that doesn't
happen too often,but only if there was like a family party. This isn't about a money making thing and have
all these people there. It's not what I,you know, and I will say,yes,there were some rentals last year that
got out and were in the cove with the Antigua and there's people on their boats that dock across and the
one neighbor who was very nice, and it's a great area and,yes, I tell every single renter now, you know,
after 9:30,10 o'clock you have to be really quiet or get off the dock,but my goal is to not really do it anymore,
and that's the honest truth.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. At this particular time I'm going to poll
the Board, and I'm going to start with Dick.
MR. CIPPERLY-I have a question.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR. CIPPERLY-Supposedly our Building Inspector issued a,what did the Building Inspector do?
MR. MC CABE-Issued a Stop Work Order.
1S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. CIPPERLY-Stop work because?
MRS. MOORE-They were doing work without approvals.
MR.MC CABE-Without the variances required to do anything. They were nonconforming. So anything
they had to do needed the variances.
MR. CIPPERLY-So you're talking about a two bedroom which would be allowed, and they're going to a
four bedroom. Is that part of it?
MRS.MOO RE-So at this point they received aseptic variance back in 2019. So 2019 they actually supplied
a plan,went before the local Board of Health,received a septic variance,for a seven bedroom cottage. So
as described.
MR.HENKEL-All three units.
MRS. MOORE-Yes. So as described,understanding that, apparently no one else did any further digging
into that and so when we learned at Planning and Zoning as well as Building and Codes that there was
work being done on the site without approvals,we went out,we visited the site We talked to the owners
as well as the other individuals that were working on the site and explained that they had to go through
this review process.
MR. CIPPERLY-Thankyou.
MR. ESSLEN Just to reiterate,there was already set up,the main house.
MR. MC CABE-Yes,we understand that.
MR. ESSLEN-Okay. It wasn't like we added, other than the basement of Number 9 is not going to be a
bedroom anymore. So that's just two,four and then the bunkhouse which that was already there.
MR. MC CABE-So go ahead.
MR. CIPPERLY-That's fine.
MR.MC CABE-So basically what we're doing is we're considering relief requested for setbacks,expansion
of nonconforming. So anything that they do needs a variance because the structures are in nonconformance
and then the stormwater device being less than 100 feet from the shore.
MR.CIPPERLY-If anything I have an issue with,that's the one I have an issue with,the stormwater device.
That site is,if I use the word scary.
MR. MC CABE-It's very steep,no question.
MR. ZEGLEN-So just to add,the stormwater device.
MR. URRICO-I think you're going to have to let us deliberate now.
MR. MC CABE-Yes,we're all done with the discussion. So you don't approve this project as is.
MR. CIPPERLY-I have some reservations. I'll just say that.
MRS. MOORE-So in regards to the stormwater,there's no relief being requested for the device itself. So
the primary relief being requested is for setbacks, not for the stormwater device,but for the setbacks for
the work that's been done on the structures.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So this says stormwater less than 100 feet.
MRS. MOORE-I understand. Because it's a minor application it is not,there's no setback.
MR. MC CABE-So all we're doing is the setbacks.
MRS. MOORE-Correct. So the bunkhouse and so for my understanding,in my visitation to the site and
my review of the application materials,that bunkhouse,there has always been a third building. It's never
been the size that's been presented at this point.
MR. CIPPERLY-In the notes you describe it as a new building of 540 square feet.
19
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MRS. MOORE-And when we went out to the site and visited it,you can tell that there's elements inside
the building,you can clearly see that part of it is an old structure and part of it is a new structure.
MR. CIPPERLY-So they've expanded it by some amount.
MRS. MOORE-Some amount.
MR. URRICO-So, Laura, Item Number Three says relief requested for the stormwater management, St
feet. That's no longer?
MRS. MOORE-No longer,correct.
MR. MC CABE-So it's just setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming. So you have reservations?
MR. CIPPERLY-I guess I share the same reservations about the expansion of the nonconforming. It's a
small site to put that many units on.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. That's fine. Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a Waterfront Residential district. I don't think that a.53 acre lot anywhere in
the community of Queensbury on the waterfront that we would allow anybody to have seven bedrooms.
Even though you've upgraded the septic, I think that the two lower units could be modified. That's six
bedrooms down there total. I'm not in favor of the bunkhouse whatsoever. I think it should be completely
removed and I don't think we should act until it's been removed.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'll also agree with Jim. If you look at the old survey, there was definitely a building
there for Number 7,but was it a shed? What was it? Definitely you could tell,like Laura said,it was added
on. It's just too much for that.53 acres,too much there,not good. Not good for the lake. I would not be
on board at all.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-Yes,I agree with everything that's been said. I'm not in favor of the project It's overbuilt and
that's all I have to say.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, even with the stormwater device removed from here, I think this is an overwhelming
number of variances being asked for. I would not support the project.
MR. MC CABE-Once again you don't have too many friends here. So you have a couple of choices. You
can call for a vote or you can ask to table and take another look at the project and come back.
MR. ZEGLEN-I think we'll table and reassess with Tom and Mike and John and go from there.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MR.HENKEL-How much time will you need?
MRS. MOORE-So the next tabling would be until September's agenda. Would that work for updating
information by August 15`h?
MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,we can make that work.
MR.HENKEL-So you want the 21"or the 28`h.
MRS. MOORE-I would do the first meeting again,yes.
MR.HENKEL-Okay. That's getting pretty full.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reds LG,LLC.
Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete
construction of a third dwelling unit on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540
sq. ft. which includes one bedroom and kitchen, 2SS sq. ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area;
alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,40E sq.
ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below, alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior
alterations(existing floor area of 2,134 sq.ft.with four bedrooms). Project includes grass depression areas
20
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, and construction of a retaining wall. Site plan for new
floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing
within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater
devices less than 100 ft.from shoreline, adding a third dwelling unit,and permeability.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 21-2022 REDS LG, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who
moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Tabled to the September 21", 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be
submitted by August 15`h,2022.
Duly adopted this 20`h day of July,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Underwood
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. ZEGLEN-Thankyou.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 32-2022,Chris&Eva Detmer.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 CHRISTOPHER &z EVA DETMER
AGENT(S) DAVID H.BOGARDUS OWNER(S) CHRISTOPHER&z EVA DETMER ZONING
MDR LOCATION 70 BROWNS PATH APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW
SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE HOME IS 2,237 SQ. FT.
THE PROJECT SITE CONTAINS WETLANDS AND INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR RETAINING
WALL,SEPTIC AND DRIVEWAY AREA. SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACE WITHIN 50 FT.OF
THE SHORELINE AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS WORK WITHIN 100 FT.OF A WETLAND.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 45-2022; FWW 9-2022 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.11-1-9 SECTION 179-
3-040;CHAPTER 94
DAVID BOGARDUS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2022, Christopher & Eva Detmer, Meeting Date: July 20, 2022
"Project Location: 70 Browns Path Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct
a new single family dwelling with an attached garage. The home is 2,237 sq. ft. The project site contains
wetlands and includes site work for retaining wall, septic and driveway area. Site plan for hard surface
within 50 ft.of the shoreline and Freshwater Wetlands work within 100 ft.of a wetland. Relief requested
for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks to the construction of a new single family home. The parcel is
1.42 ac located in MDR(SR1A Maple Rowe Farms Subdivision SUB 3-19SS)
179-3-040 MDR,Chapter 94 Wetland
The house is proposed to be 10.4 ft.from the wetland where 75 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the
location of the wetlands and lot shape.
21
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is for 64.6 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have
minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered to be self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a new single family with associated site work. The applicant has received a septic
variance for the system proposed. The plans show the location of the new home and the site work."
MR. BOGARDUS-Good evening. My name's Dave Bogardus and I'm with Northeast Land Survey. That
summed it up very well. This is a lot that was approved in a subdivision in 1959. It was never built on,
and I believe the wetlands got created,prior to that there was a small catch wetlands,it resulted in soils
and grading on that lot after all the other lots were built. There is no other place to put this house, other
than where we show it. We've been through this with the septic variance and with the Planning Board
last night. This is the most desirable spot that we can come up with for the house. It doesn't impact the
wetlands. The reason for the retaining wall is so it separates the grade to the wetlands from the backyard.
The retaining wall is only four feet high. It's just a block retaining wall. There's no impacts to the wetlands
or the adjacent area and we just need that one 7.4 variance for the setback for the building.
MR.MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It's pretty straightforward. 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 input on this particular project? Come forward,please.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
TOM KUBRICKY
MR.KUBRICKY-Hi. I'm friends of the Detmers. They bought the property back 17,1E years ago and they
were one of the first people to buy off the Valentes in there. A couple of years after they bought it soils
were dumped from the other lots in there,and that's what kind of created that little wetland. It was a tree
dump for dirt,and I just want to say that I'm all for this project.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Anybody else? Is there anything written,Roy?
MR. URRICO-No.
MRS. MOORE-So I will offer that what's not in your packet is that the Planning Board provided a
recommendation no adverse effects and they unanimously passed that.
MR. MC CABE-Yes,we've seen their letters before.
MRS. MOORE-I know. It's just,I don't think it's in there. I apologize.
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 Ron.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm in favor of the project as presented. It's something we just
have to get by. I'm in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-I've walked the property. I know the property. It is the lowest spot of that whole
development. The water does drain down the road and it ends up a little bit down thereat times,but most
of the time it's not a problem. So I would be on board as is.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It's an approved subdivision. I don't see any undesirable changes or any feasible
alternatives.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
22
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. CIPPERLY-I agree. I think it's an approved subdivision. I also agree that if they dumped soil down
there it would affect the land,and the siting of the house and the septic system,the whole thing,that's the
only place it can go.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project for the reasons my fellow Board members have just talked about.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. It's a minimal request and so given that,Jim, make a
motion here for us.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Christopher
&z Eva Detmer.Applicant proposes to construct a new single family dwelling with an attached garage.
The home is 2,237 sq.ft. The project site contains wetlands and includes site work for retaining wall,septic
and driveway area. Site plan for hard surface within 50 ft.of the shoreline and Freshwater Wetlands work
within 100 ft.of a wetland. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks to the construction of a new single family home. The parcel is
1.42 ac located in MDR(SR1A Maple Rowe Farms Subdivision SUB 3-19SS)
179-3-040 MDR,Chapter 94 Wetland
The house is proposed to be 10.4 ft.from the wetland where 75 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 20,2022.
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.
2. Feasible alternatives have been discussed and the only place proposed for the house is the only
place they could build something realistically.
3. The requested variance is deemed to be moderate,but it's understandable as it's the last lot in the
subdivision to be filled in.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is really self-created because of the wetland setbacks from the runoff from
the rest of the subdivision.
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.
32-2022 CHRISTOPHER &z EVA DETMER, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its
adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 20th Day of July 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
23
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR.BOGARDUS-Thank you very much,fellas.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 33-2022,Frank Parillo,199 Corinth Road.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FRANK J.PARILLO AGENT(S) VAN
DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S) FRANK J. PARILLO ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 199
CORINTH ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT COMMERCIAL SUBDIVISION OF A
4.39 ACRE PARCEL. THE NEW PARCELS ARE TO BE 1.29 AC. WITH THE EXISTING TACO
BELL AND THE 3.1 AC. IS TO BE VACANT AND BECOME A CORNER LOT. THE 1.29 ACRE
PARCEL IS A DEVELOPED PARCEL FOR TACO BELL WITH ONE EXIT POINT TO CORINTH
ROAD. WAIVERS ARE REQUESTED LANDSCAPING,CLEARING,GRADING AND EROSION
CONTROL,AND STORMWATER AS NO NEW DEVELOPMENT IS PROPOSED AT THIS TIME.
SUBDIVISION FOR CREATION OF TWO LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ACCESS
FRONTAGE. CROSS REF SUB 6-2022;SUB 7-2022; PZ 143-2016; PZ 74-2016;PZ 54-2016;SP 2-
2013;SP 31-2012;SP 54-2011;SV 53-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 LOT SIZE
4.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.13-2-2 SECTION 179-3-040 CI 18;179-4-050
JON ZAPPER&MATT STEVES,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2022, Frank J. Parillo, Meeting Date: July 20. 2022 "Project
Location: 199 Corinth Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot
commercial subdivision of a 4.39 acre parcel. The new parcels are to be 1.29 ac with the existing Taco Bell
and the 3.1 ac is to be vacant and become a corner lot. The 1.29 acre parcel is a developed parcel for Taco
Bell with one exit point to Corinth Road. Waivers are requested for landscaping, clearing, grading and
erosion control, and stormwater as no new development is proposed at this time. Subdivision for creation
of two lots. Relief requested for access frontage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for access frontage for one of the two lots of the subdivision. The property is
located in the CI-IS zone and is 4.39 ac.
Chapter 1S3 subdivision,179-4-050 frontage
The applicant proposes a two lot commercial subdivision where the 1.29 acre parcel with Taco Bell
building access is located on the proposed 3.2 acre parcel. Relief is requested for direct access - to and
from.
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 limited due to the
applicant having share access without creating additional driveways.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for each lot to have direct access.
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 an 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 two lot subdivision where the existing site has ingress and egress that is to be
located on the proposed vacant lot. The lot with the existing building would be left with an egress only
where the site requires ingress and egress. The plans show the lot arrangement with the access points."
24
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. ZAPPER-Good evening,everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Matt Steves. Fora change Matt
and I think we have a simple application for you. So the Site Plan was approved a number of years ago
when Taco Bell decided they wanted to own the site Taco Bell operated. Frank's now 79. He's been
acquiring properties all his life,but he's happy to sell at this point. It was designed all along so that there
would only be one curb cut for the egress. When you're at a Northway ramp and on a County road it
makes sense to minimize curb cuts which the Code requires in terms of access management,but here as
Laura said,and Roy said,every lot is supposed to have its own frontage. Here the Planning Board said last
night it's better planning not to have its own frontage. We don't want to have another curb cut closer to
the Northway entrance ramp. So pretty straightforward. There's no proposal for the remaining lot he'll
own. It's for sale. It's a good location. We expect at some point someone will want it and we'll be in for
site plan, or they'll be in for site plan,but this is still better for the whole development to have one access
point.
MR.HENKEL-I thought we did a subdivision for this didn't we? It was supposed to be a hotel,wasn't it?
MR. ZAPPER-We came in with an application for a hotel,but these were the guys that wound up behind
the Mall. So they started down the road and then got that site and decided they wanted to be at Exit 19
instead of Exit 1S. So it never got done.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant?
MR. URRICO-I have one. On Route 9 we have the situation with the McDonald's it shares the two lots
that they have. One lot belongs to one owner and one lot belongs to the other owner. Will this create a
problem down the road for whoever buys it?
MR. ZAPPER-So the answer is as part of the contract and as part of our application there's a deeded
easement that's going to Taco Bell. So they have the right to use it and share the maintenance so it goes
with the land.
MR. URRICO-No matter who owns it?
MR. ZAPPER-No matter who owns it.
MR.KUHL-So Taco Bell will have to maintain the road,is that it?
MR. STEVES-That was put in place in the subdivision as the access easement for them and they lease that
1.29 acres and in the lease they have the access easement so nothing changes. So instead of leasing the
property for 50 years they own the property with the same access and during the subdivision, as Jon
mentioned, that was brought up to try to minimize the curb cuts on Route 9. So you have your ingress
and egress there,but you also have an egress farther to the east which is a right turn only egress out of the
Taco Bell.
MR. ZAPPER-So under the agreement is that when it's only the one user Taco Bell's responsible for the
maintenance,but once there's another user they'll share the maintenance costs.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Other questions of the applicant?
MR.KUHL-Do you know who's going into that land?
MR. ZAPPER-Nobody's looking.
MR.KUHL-Nobody's looking. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-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 out there that would like to provide information on this particular
project? Seeing nobody,do we have anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with John?
MR.HENKEL-It makes total sense. Good project.
25
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR.KUHL-Growth requires things like that. It would be good that somebody gets into that property for
sure. I mean I could suggest why didn't the line go over and Taco Bell keep it,but you've explained that.
So thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I'd be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-It makes sense. I'll go with it.
MR. MC CABE Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Nobody will ever know.
MR.MC CABE-And I support the project also. So I'm going to suggest that Ron,given all this information,
make a motion for us.
MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman.
MRS. MOORE-I just want to make sure that it's on the record that the Planning Board did provide a
recommendation that there were no adverse impacts.
MR. MC CABE-Thank you.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank Parillo.
Applicant proposes a two-lot commercial subdivision of a 4.39 acre parcel. The new parcels are to be 1.29
ac with the existing Taco Bell and the 3.1 ac is to be vacant and become a corner lot. The 1.29 acre parcel is
a developed parcel for Taco Bell with one exit point to Corinth Road. Waivers are requested for
landscaping,clearing,grading and erosion control,and stormwater as no new development is proposed at
this time. Subdivision for creation of two lots. Relief requested for access frontage.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for access frontage for one of the two lots of the subdivision. The property is
located in the CI-IS zone and is 4.39 ac.
Chapter 1S3 subdivision,179-4-050 frontage
The applicant proposes a two-lot commercial subdivision where the 1.29 acre parcel with Taco Bell
building access is located on the proposed 3.2 acre parcel. Relief is requested for direct access - to and
from.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 20,2022.
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 this property will be able to be sold and they'll have their one curb cut on Corinth
Road.
2. There really aren't that many feasible alternatives. They've been considered by the Board, are
reasonable-and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's going to enable the property to be sold and
be utilized.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty we could say is self-created but it was only because of wanting to have just
one curb cut.
26
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,-
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.
33-2022 FRANK 1. PARILLO, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 20th Day of July 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations you have a project.
MR. ZAPPER-Thank you,Board. Thank you,Laura.
MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 34-2022,Harley Griffiths,29S Cleverdale Road.
AREA VARIANCE NO.34-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 HARLEY GRIFFITHS AGENT(S) SRA
ENGINEERS, ERIK SANDBLOM OWNER(S) TIA &z HARLEY GRIFFITHS ZONING WR
LOCATION 298 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 200 SQ. FT. DECK
ADDITION TO AN EXISTING BUNKHOUSE OF 740 SQ.FT.(+/-). THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,301
SQ. FT. (+/-) FOOTPRINT WITH 1,300 SQ.FT. (+/-) FOOTPRINT PORCH/DECK AREAS AND IS
TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING
STRUCTURE IN A CEA/ RELIEF FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 47-2022 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.24
ACRES TAX MAP NO.226.12-1-86 SECTION 179-3-040;179-4-080
ERIK SANDBLOM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2022, Harley Griffiths, Meeting Date: July 20, 2022 "Project
Location: 29S Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 200 sq.ft.deck
addition to an existing bunkhouse of 740 sq.ft.(+/-). The existing home is 1,301 sq.ft. (+/-)footprint with
1,300 sq. ft. (+/-) footprint porch/deck areas and is to remain with no changes. Site plan for expansion of
nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setback to construct a deck addition. The property is within the WR
zone on a 0.24 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040 WR,179-4-OSO deck
The deck and stairs of 200 sq.ft.is proposed 1.4 ft.from the property line where 20 ft. setback is required.
The project is an expansion of a non-conforming structure.
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 bunk house location and the onsite septic system.
27
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the setback is IS.6 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe 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 proposed to add a 200 sq.ft.deck area attached to the existing bunk house. The plans show
the existing survey and site plans with the setbacks to the deck area. The floor plan shows the layout of
the home and the bunk house. Also included are photos of the existing shoreline area to remain."
MR. SANDBLOM-Good evening. Erik Sandblom from SRA Engineers here representing Harley and Tia
Griffiths the owners of the property. As indicated it's pretty straightforward. It's an expansion of a
nonconforming structure. The structure is currently 1.4 feet from the property line, similar to the next
door neighbor to the north. The buildings are pretty close together there and the plan is to construct a
deck attached to the building and just maintain that same line from the edge of the building there. So it
would hold that same distance from the property line. It's 200 square feet in size and that's pretty much
it,if you have any questions.
MR. MC CABE-It's pretty straightforward. So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR.KUHL Just out of curiosity,is this used for personal use,or is this an air b and b?
MR. SANDBLOM-It's personal use. The family has owned it for many,many,many years.
MR.KUHL-I mean they don't rent this out?
MR. SANDBLOM-No.
MR. HENKEL-The problem I see is they've already got an existing porch that's closer than 50 feet to the
lake, and if this is not a rental, why can't they walk down and use the existing porch that's closer to the
lake than 50 feet? Now you're adding so much to that property. I mean you've got a six bedroom house
on a.24, and you're adding more. The permeability is already terrible,which you're not asking for. The
permeability is 59%. It has nothing to do with this,but I just think you're adding too much to this piece
of property. There's too much there. I would go for a much smaller deck myself, but here you've got a
beautiful porch in the front there that's close to the lake already.
MR. SANDBLOM-Well the area that's right in front of you,we're not showing the topography there,but
it does slope down. So the desire is to have a flat surface where they can hang out next to the building
there. As far as the impermeability,yes,by definition it meets the definition of an impervious surface. It
is going to be a non-roofed deck with spaces in between the slats. . So it will not be concentrating flow,
and we are proposing a gravel mat underneath to actual, it should improve existing conditions when it
comes to runoff,and as far as why they can't use the additional space,Tia Griffiths is here. I can ask her to
come up and answer that question directly from the owner.
MR.HENKEL-And plus your floor area ratio is already over 1400 feet,over what you're allowed. Right?
MRS. MOORE-The deck doesn't.
MR. HENKEL-I realize that,but I'm just saying now you're adding so much more to a piece of property
that's very small.
MR. SANDBLOM-It's the same family that's there. It's a big family and they would like to provide some
separation when they have guests to have their own space.
TIA GRIFFITHS
MRS. GRIFFITHS-I'm Tia Griffiths. We never rent out. We never will rent, and,you know, I have the
children,they have children and sometimes certain family will go up there and it's just like a separate little
place. There's no kitchen or anything. There is a bathroom,and we just thought it would be nice to enjoy
it.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.
MRS. GRIFFITHS-The garden is there and you can see the lake. It is a,we just thought it would be nice.
2S
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. MC CABE-Sure. Other questions of the applicant? So 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 in the
audience. Is there anything written,Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No there's no written comments.
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 Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it's a reasonable request. I don't think it's a big over the top request. A 200
square foot deck is nothing. I'd be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I'm in favor of it also. I like the site and it just kind of makes sense.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes,I think it's a reasonable request as well. I'd be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I have a wedding on July 30`h, and it's my granddaughter who got engaged December
14`h, and her fiance rented an air b and b on the Hudson River to bring his family from Indiana, and the
property that the air b and b was,was somebody that came and sat at your table and said we want to put
on an apartment for my mother-in-law. Okay. For my mother-in-law. Well that apartment is now an
air b and b. I am not going to come to your house and knock on your door to make sure it's not an air b
and b,but I do have reservations with things like this because of what's going on and I hope that you're
honest and upstanding in what you're saying because I would like you to enjoy your property. You have a
small piece of property and you're asking for a lot,but that's my story. I am in favor if you use it for the
right thing.
MRS. GRIFFITHS-The interesting part is my mother used that place for,she was the great-grandmother,
and she used that place for herself to get away from all the kids. So we're sort of doing that too sometimes
to be honest.
MR.KUHL-Okay. Thank you.
MRS. GRIFFITHS-And my family,I can guarantee that it will never be rented.
MR.KUHL-Thank you.
MRS. GRIFFITHS-Thank you. I understand.
MR. MC CABE John?
MR. HENKEL-I would like to see a little less. So I'm not approving it. I understand what you're trying
to do. I'd like to see it off the property line more,but if that's what you want,but I'm not going to say I'm
on board with it.
MR. MC CABE-Okay, and so I support the project. I believe that the request is minimal and therefore I
will support the project. So at this particular time I'm going to make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Harley
Griffiths.Applicant proposes a 200 sq.ft. deck addition to an existing bunkhouse of 740 sq.ft. (+/-). The
existing home is 1,301 sq. ft. (+/-) footprint with 1,300 sq. ft. (+/-) footprint porch/deck areas and is to
remain with no changes. Site plan for expansion of nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief requested for
setbacks.
Relief Required:
29
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
The applicant requests relief for setback to construct a deck addition. The property is within the WR
zone on a 0.24 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040 WR,179-4-OSO deck
The deck and stairs of 200 sq.ft.is proposed 1.4 ft.from the property line where 20 ft. setback is required.
The project is an expansion of a non-conforming structure.
SEQR Type II—no further review required,
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 20,2022.
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. They're simply adding a deck to one of the structures on the property.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,but won't meet the requirements of the
applicant.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's only a 200 square foot deck.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. We've heard that there will be some provision underneath the deck to collect runoff so
it's actually going to improve the environmental conditions.
5. The alleged difficulty is,of course,self-created.
6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,-
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.
34-2022 HARLEY GRIFFITHS,Introduced by Michael McCabe,who moved for its adoption,seconded
by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 20th Day of July 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr.Henkel
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project.
MR. SANDBLOM-Thank you very much.
MR.MC CABE-So I thought that the training session was really good,Laura. So make sure that you make
sure that Soil & Conservation appreciates, or tell them that we appreciate the effort, and I wonder,you
know,if we could do more things like that.
MRS. MOORE-He has a whole presentation.
MR. MC CABE-So does anybody have any idea or anything that they,you know, have questions about?
A 100 foot setback when you've got a house 50 feet from the water makes no sense. I don't care what Chris
said about running,you know, gutters.,you still have to get out in front of the house. And I see benefit
from providing cascaded devices to control runoff and they certainly wouldn't meet the 100 foot setback
and again,there's no provision for,you know,what's the slope of the property. One hundred foot on a flat
property is a lot different than 100 foot on like the real steep property like the one that, who were the
people on 9L, Grasmeders. I mean that was a long, steep property there. So 100 foot stormwater device
was useless because so much of the runoff was down below that.
30
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022)
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the issue still is, though, with Waterfront Residential being only a 50 foot
setback as we know most of the properties are located closer than 50 feet. You have to keep it in
perspective. You have to have some kind of a stormwater collection device somewhere between the
shoreline and the house.
MRS. MOORE-So thinking about the Comp Plan and the language that we want to encourage for when
they do the update to the Zoning Code, I mean both Boards are in agreement that you'd like some sort of
device in front of there, between the house and the shoreline, period, but we have this requirement that
there be a specific setback, and that doesn't resolve the issue when we call it a specific setback.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to be accepting of whatever is done just because sometimes it's like
this. Sometimes it's dead flat,the house is 12 feet off the water. Anything you do is going to help.
MR. CIPPERLY-Some device is better than no device.
MR.MC CABE-Absolutely,and that's the case on the Nutley Lane thing. I mean they've got nothing there
now, a really steep property, and to let that go on forever and ever, to me there's something wrong with
that,but that's just me. So,based on that,I'll make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY
20TI 2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl:
Duly adopted this 20`h day of July,2022,by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Underwood,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe,Chairman
31