Minutes AV 43-2022 (Dark Bay Lane LLC) 8.24.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DARK BAY LANE, LLC AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) DARK BAY LANE, LLC ZONING
WR LOCATION 40 DARK BAY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING
2,000 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A HOUSE FOOTPRINT OF 2,658
SQ. FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 4,378 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A NEW
SEPTIC SYSTEM, UPDATE TO PARKING AND SHARED ACCESS ARRANGEMENT,
SHORELINE PLANTING AREAS, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SITE PLAN FOR
NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE.
RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP
58-2022; AV 56-2021; SP 48-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2022
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-37
SECTION 179-3-040; 147
JON LAPPER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 43-2022, Dark Bay Lane, LLC, Meeting Date: August 24, 2022 “Project
Location: 40 Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an
existing 2,000 sq. ft. home to construct a new home with a house footprint of 2,658 sq. ft. The new floor
area is to be 4,378 sq. ft. The project includes a new septic system, update to parking and shared access
arrangement, shoreline planting areas, and stormwater management. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA
and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks, floor area, and
permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, stormwater device within 100 ft. of shoreline. The
property is located in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR on a 0.44 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040, Chapter 147 supplemental minor project
The project is for a tear down new build in the same location as the original project where the applicant
found that the additions to be added the existing home couldn’t support. The new deck is to be located
22.8 ft. from the shoreline and the proposed main house is to be 31.3 ft. setback where a 75 ft. setback is
required. North office/study side is to be 19.4 ft. to the side and the South side main house side proposed
16.5 ft. setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. Floor area is proposed to be 4,378 sq. ft. or 22.75% where
the maximum allowed is 4,233 sq. ft. or 22%. Permeability – no variance is required but should be noted
the existing is 57.5% and the proposed is 60.1% where a 75% is required – the project improves site
permeability and not subject to a variance.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce
the floor area request; the existing home location may limit the alternatives to the improvements to the
shore side of the home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the deck to the shoreline is 52.2 ft. and to the
home is 43.7 ft., floor area is 0.75% in excess, side setback for the screen porch of 0.6 ft. and the house
improvement side setback of 3.5 ft.
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 stormwater
management and additional plantings.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022)
2
The new home to be constructed is to be in a similar location as the current home. The existing floor area
of 2,650 sq. ft. and the new floor area to be 4,378 sq. ft. The height is to be 27.92 ft. The project includes
rain garden, shallow grassed depression and permeable pavers to assist with stormwater management. The
materials have been provided to the Town Designated engineering (firm) for review and comment.”
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was approved August
16th, 2022 by a unanimous vote.
MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson from Environmental
Design Partnership and Mike Chase is behind us. Dark Bay, LLC is owned by Mike and his wife. So they
have an existing approval, as Laura’s notes stated, right now, which was granted a year ago, the 5 th of
October, which they could go in and build now. They were starting that process. The builder is Matt
Cifone, very good quality builder. The plan was to reinforce the foundation and then fix what’s there and
he got down into it he just said he wasn’t willing to do that, that it didn’t make sense to work with that
existing foundation. So that’s why we’re back with an almost identical project, but it’s this time a
teardown instead of working with the existing foundation, just because of the condition of it. So the
reason for the variances are the constraints of the lot. I know you guys were all there, with that steep slope
in the back, this isn’t a situation where you can push the house back away from the lake, but that’s being
mitigated, but right now there are trees on either side of, on the lakeside and the other side of the property.
Those are all going to remain and there’s some pretty substantial plantings and stormwater devices being
put in between the house and the lake to make up for the fact that the house has to be closer to the lake
than would be permitted, but with new stormwater, new septic system, this is an improvement to the lake.
It’s a modest size house. Small lot obviously but the permeability, excuse me, the floor area ratio request
of 22.75. So it’s only .75 over. We could take that out of the basement and make it into storage space, but
it wouldn’t gain anything for the neighborhood. It’s a tiny difference. So we don’t think it’s really self -
imposed. It’s really based on the constraints of the lot. The side setbacks are supposed to be 20 and it’s
19 and a half and 16 and a half. So not huge variances. It’s really just the distance to the lake and that’s
because of the lot. So with that I’ll ask Brandon to walk you through the site plan.
MR. FERGUSON-So I’m sure most of you are familiar with the site plan.
MR. MC CABE-I’ve just got to have you state your name.
MR. FERGUSON-Sorry. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design Partnership. I’m sure most of
you are familiar with the site plan as you saw not too long ago. Nothing significantly really has changed
on it. We are decreasing the permeability on the site, and with this project he’s doing a brand new septic
system with a Clarus BTU unit and a UV system. So it’s a huge upgrade to the septic on the lot, which we
know it’s whereabouts is but we don’t even really exactly know what the existing septic is. And we’re
also making great improvements to the stormwater. There’s no stormwater on site right now. The
permeability is higher than where it is right now and everything just goes off this steep site into the lake.
So we’re doing as much stormwater management as we can, including adding permeable pavers to their
parking area and the front of the garage with a drywell and some, this little parking turnaround area is
going to be permeable pavers and then we’re doing our shallow grass depression on the lakeside, take
whatever runoff we can. So we’re really utilizing every portion of this site we can for stormwater
management which I think is going to be a great improvement from where it stands now. Do you have
any questions?
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I think, when it came in front of us it was about a year ago?
MR. FERGUSON-Yes.
MR. HENKEL-Weren’t you talking about a heated driveway or something at that time?
MR. FERGUSON-Yes, and they’re still talking about it for this portion of the steeper portion of the
driveway. He does want to use this year round. You can’t put heated under the permeable areas because
they require insulation, but there was some talk about possibly doing some heated driveway up in here.
He hasn’t made a final decision yet, but I shouldn’t say up in here. In this steep portion right here that
we’re taking out.
MR. HENKEL-Eliminate the need for salt.
MR. FERGUSON-Yes, that’s part of it. Because he knows, he’s owned the property for a while. There’s
a significant amount of maintenance that has to go into that driveway. That’s pretty steep.
MR. HENKEL-Thank you.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022)
3
MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time
I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody in the audience has input on this particular project,
and I suspect that there is somebody.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
CHRIS NAVITSKY
MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I was just, I had
questions. I didn’t know why, it seemed like nothing much was changing on the application, but my
concern is last year in October when you reviewed and approved this. It came back for revisions because
there was concern about more mitigation. The plan back in October had a raingarden along the front. It
had a big stormwater basin here on the side. I see this new plan, I don’t see those. So that’s what my
concern is. There was a lot of concern, they based that justification for the variance on the mitigation
measures. It seems like there’s a lot less stormwater on this plan from the one that was approved last year.
So I just think, why don’t they keep the same stormwater that they said they needed last year for
mitigation? And now they don’t have it. So, thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Would you like to provide some information on that?
MR. HENKEL-What was the permeability last year?
MR. FERGUSON-The permeability was the same last year on the approved plan, and actually that
stormwater management on that side that got taken off prior to your approval last time. And the reason
for that was through the Town Engineering review, through LaBella, this neighboring well is in this
location right here, according to the neighbor’s records, and we were too close to that well and there was
fear of compromising that well, and DOH has a requirement for a setback from a water supply well with
infiltration. So while we would have liked to have kept those stormwater devices in those areas, they were
too close to that neighboring well and LaBella, the Town Engineer, asked us to remove those at that time.
So they were actually off the plan that ultimately got approved, even though initially they were submitted
with those.
MR. LAPPER-It’s worth mentioning that just coincidentally we got the signoff letter today on the new
plan from LaBella, the Town Engineer, but that was certainly a fair question for Chris to ask.
MR. NAVITSKY-The drawing here is from September 2021.
MR. MC CABE-Is there anything written, Roy?
MR. URRICO-There is no written comment other than the LaBella letter, but I don’t know if that needs
to be read in.
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 Ron.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no issue with it. I think it’s presented right. I’m glad you
brought it up. I’m glad Mr. Navitsky brought up that stormwater issue. I mean we live and learn. We’ve
been dealing with stormwater all along. I would have never thought that that stormwater device would
have an effect on the neighbor’s well, but we live and learn. So I’d be in favor of it the way it’s presented.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Ron. I’d be in favor as well.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-Yes, I would be in favor of it. Whatever else was done, we’ve got a few more
improvements.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Due to the previous approvals I’d be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think there’s not too many negatives. I think it’s a good project. I’d be on Board.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022)
4
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. We approved it before, and I think we’d be negligent if
we didn’t recognize that something had to be done with the foundation. We wouldn’t want to approve a
building on a substandard foundation. So, given that, I’m going to ask Ron if he’d make a motion here.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dark Bay Lane,
LLC. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 2,000 sq. ft. home to construct a new home with a house
footprint of 2,658 sq. ft. The new floor area is to be 4,378 sq. ft. The project includes a new septic system,
update to parking and shared access arrangement, shoreline planting areas, and stormwater management.
Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested
for setbacks, floor area, and permeability.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, stormwater device within 100 ft. of shoreline. The
property is located in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR on a 0.44 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040, Chapter 147 supplemental minor project
The project is for a tear down new build in the same location as the original project where the applicant
found that the additions to be added the existing home couldn’t support. The new deck is t o be located
22.8 ft. from the shoreline and the proposed main house is to be 31.3 ft. setback where a 75 ft. setback is
required. North office/study side is to be 19.4 ft. to the side and the South side main house side proposed
16.5 ft. setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. Floor area is proposed to be 4,378 sq. ft. or 22.75% where
the maximum allowed is 4,233 sq. ft. or 22%. Permeability – no variance is required but should be noted
the existing is 57.5% and the proposed is 60.1% where a 75% is required – the project improves site
permeability and not subject to a variance.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 24, 2022.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter
267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties. The reason being this was previously approved and the design had to be changed.
2. Feasible alternatives are really limited, have been considered by the Board, and are reasonable and
have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is really not substantial as it kind of blends in and the setback relief is really
minimal.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self –created, but the reason for this is they were
just tearing down one and building up another.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the
neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO.
43-2022 DARK BAY LANE LLC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 24th Day of August 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022)
5
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project.
MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody.
MR. FERGUSON-Thank you very much.