Minutes AV 42-2022 (Babcock) 9.21.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK
AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK
ZONING WR LOCATION 15 CHESTNUT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT
A 2-STORY ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING
HOME IS 1,079.2 SQ. FT. WITH 357 SQ. FT. PORCH AREA (FOOTPRINT); THE EXISTING
FLOOR AREA IS 2,230 SQ. FT. THE NEW GARAGE TO BE 554 SQ. FT.; TOTAL NEW FLOOR
AREA IS 2,569 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A
NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA,
AND HEIGHT. CROSS REF SP 57-2022; AV 45-2012; AV 46-2012; SP 55-2012; AV 73-1990; AV
1415; SP 35-88A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK
AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-12 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-
020; 179-13-010
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2022, Thomas & Marybeth Babcock, Meeting Date: September 21,
2022 “Project Location: 15 Chestnut Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to
construct a 2-story addition to the south side of the existing home. The existing home is 1,079.2 sq. ft. with
357 sq. ft. porch area (footprint); the existing floor area is 2,230 sq. ft. The new garage to be 554 sq. ft.;
total new floor area is 2,569 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming
structure. Relief is requested for setbacks, floor area, and height.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and height for the construction of a new garage and a
two-story addition to the existing home.
Section 179-3-040 WR, 179-6-065 new floor area, 179-13-010 expansion
The existing garage to be demolished where the new garage is proposed to be 5 ft. to the side property line
where 12 ft. is required, proposed 16.2 ft. to the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The
2-story addition is to be located 6.8 ft. to the side property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. Relief is
also requested for the garage height of 17 ft. where 16 ft. is the maximum allowed, then the floor area is
proposed to be 2,569 sq. ft. where 1,615 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed noting the additional floor area
being added is 339 sq. ft.
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 lot size of 0.17 ac and the existing house location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for floor area where 35 % is proposed and existing
is 30 %; 5% more than existing and 13% more than allowed. Garage relief is 7 ft. to the side, 13.8 ft. to
the front and at most 1 ft. for the height. The relief for the addition is 5.2 ft. to the side.
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 will have minimal impact
on the physical or environmental impacts. The applicants plans to show removal of a hard surface area
to be replaced with a grid and grass system.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes two residential improvements to an existing property. One is a new garage of 554
sq. ft. and the second is a 2-story addition to the existing home. The applicant has provided additional
information explaining the need for the residential addition and to have a garage suitable to park a vehicle.
The applicant has provided the existing and proposed conditions of the home. The plans submitted show
the elevation and floor plan.”
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022)
2
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant
adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was passed
September 20th, 2022 by a unanimous vote.
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineers, with Tom and Marybeth
Babcock. This proposal involves essentially two parts. There’s a, again, this is 15 Chestnut. There’s a
very small 85 square foot footprint addition proposed on the south side of the existing house that basically
plugs in that little corner and what that allows for them to do is get a minor expansion of the kitchen, and
the kitchen area is very tight, and that allows for them to get a little bit more workable kitchen as well as
the second story, it allows them to get a more workable bathroom. This is not a monster house. There’s
approximately 1900 square feet of total floor, living floor area in the house, not counting the garage and
such, and what we’re looking for is an 85 square foot footprint addition which adds 115 square feet of usable
space over the two floors, and with that it that gets them immediate expansion of the kitchen and the
bathroom upstairs to make it much more functional. As part of some of the work they have done on this
property, one thing they did some years ago is did some major stormwater improvements. They installed
infiltration drywells on both sides of the house. They have guttered the entire house. The entire roof is
guttered and piped into those infiltration devices which are adequately sized and function very, very well.
There’s no longer any runoff that works its way from around the side of the house down toward the lake
which was a problem in the past. Another major improvement the Babcocks have do ne is two years ago
they installed an aerobic enhanced treatment septic system. I won’t say it’s the first one on Glen Lake, but
it was one of the first ones on Glen Lake. It was the first one our office designed on Glen Lake. It’s a full
blown aerobic enhanced wastewater treatment system, UV disinfection pump station, at considerable
expense that they didn’t really have to do but they did it because they wanted to do it, and that was another
improvement they’ve done. They’ve installed additional stormwater improvements to the north of the
existing garage, up in here, which is not something they had to do, but there was an issue with some
driveway runoff from this area in here and some runoff from actually the Town road that works its way
right around their garage and was running down through here. They installed more stormwater devices
there, which has solved that problem, again, adequately sized, and functioning very well. So they’ve taken
quite good care of this property and the second portion of this variance leads to the garage. The garage is
the portion of the structure, and that dashed line is the footprint of the existing garage. It’s now an 18 by
18, which is 330 square feet. It’s got a very small door. It’s an old structure. It’s in very rough shape, and
they propose to replace it with what we feel is the minimal size garage that we can adequately store two
vehicles in. It would be 550 square feet. The proposed garage, which is essentially five feet wider, five
feet wider to the north, and a few feet deeper away from the house, and in doing that, that will allow them
to actually park their two cars in the garage, which when they can do that, they propose to remove, right
now this area is asphalt and gravel. They propose to remove that, replace it with a reinforced turf product
which will be turf grass with a polyethylene reinforcement within it which will allow some overflow
parking in the event they need to get additional parking there, but it won’t be normal parking as it is now,
and it will generate minimal runoff compared to what it does now. In doing that, they’re removing 400
square feet of hard surface on the property so they’re increasing the permeability of the property by a couple
of hundred square feet, even though we’re asking for two minimal expansions. So we think it’s a benefit.
The existing garage, again, it’s a tired old structure and there is a rendering in your packet, the look of the
proposed new garage. It’s certainly not out of character with the neighborhood. When I looked yesterday
there’s at least four places along Chestnut that have garages right along the road. Both the neighbors do.
One of them is very close to the road, and both neighbors, neighbors on either side have garages located up
near the road and then more up the road. So certainly not out of character with the neighborhood. We
believe it’s actually a benefit to the character of the neighborhood as opposed to a detriment. Additionally
they’ve also proposed additional stormwater plantings along the high shoreline, on the shoreline side of
the house, which pick up anything from any of the walkways down there and get some natural planting,
deep rooted vegetation as Chris mentioned earlier, as compared to grass. So with that, I guess, do you guys
want to add anything?
THOMAS BABCOCK
MR. BABCOCK-I guess just briefly, first of all thanks so much for giving us the time and your commitment.
Missy and I have been on the lake for over 35 years. We’re deeply committed to the lake and to be good
stewards of the lake. The lake has brought us a tremendous amount of enjoyment over the years and as we
get older we’d like to spend more time there, and as our families have expanded and they come back on the
weekends or whatever, we just want to have the capabilities, in essence, to be able to have some ability to
be able through the winters to be able to put a car in, versus getting things out. We’re not getting any
younger and then also from the standpoint we have always been extremely proactive in everything that
we’ve ever done with our property and we feel very, very blessed in the fact that we’ve had this wonderful
experience for 35 years, and we just want to be able to continue, and we’re requesting some minimal things
in essence that we believe will help us achieve this. I guess that’s pretty much it.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. UNDERWOOD-You guys are not going to be removing any vegetation, big trees or anything?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022)
3
MR. BABCOCK-No, sir. We have beautiful oaks. We’re a little bit nervous, to be very honest with you,
Mr. Underwood, with the moth caterpillars. We’ve been very blessed.
MR. KUHL-I have a question. Tom, what are you going to do. You have the leach field in front of the new
garage. What’s it going to be, asphalt?
MR. HUTCHINS-That will be asphalt. It’s asphalt now. The leach field is designed to be under a garage.
It was done just a few years ago, 2019. It’s highway rated, infiltration chambers in the stone bed wit h a
foot of highway gravel fabric, road fabric, and it’s designed to be under a road, and that strip will remain
asphalt to enter the garage, but we’re going to get rid of all the asphalt to the north.
MR. KUHL-Right. In the application it talks about 17 feet. In the drawings it looks like 16 feet. Do you
have to measure it from the back? Does it drop off?
MR. HUTCHINS-It’s one of those things.
MR. KUHL-Okay, but just tell me, is it going to look like 16 from the road?
MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, it’s going to look like 16 from the road.
MR. KUHL-Then we’ll stop right there.
MR. HUTCHINS-Okay.
MR. KUHL-Good.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m
going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to comment on
this particular project? Roy, do we have anything written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes, there are two letters, again, both identical. So I’ll read one in and read the names.
MR. HUTCHINS-And those letters were put together in a little bit of an earlier phase of this project. Both
the neighbors are on board. There are some numbers in those letters that are not accurate and they
mention a bunch of distances and they’re not accurate. So they are supporting letters from both adjoining
neighbors.
MR. URRICO-So there’s two supportive letters and I’ll try to leave the numbers out, then. “We
understand that the Babcocks wish to add a two-story addition to the east side of their home. It will allow
them to enlarge their kitchen and upstairs bathroom. Also, they want to replace their garage due to the
decay of the existing garage. The floor slab is severely cracked, and the retaining wall is leaning. The new
garage will be 218.2 sq. ft. larger to permit the use for two cars and some storage of summer items. I, as an
adjoining neighbor, have no objection and support the approval of their applications. They have a new
up-to-date septic system. They have handled stormwater, improving same by installing a large catch basin
in the driveway/parking area and by installing two catch basins at the front of their home that have leach
field piping for any potential overflow. Even with the bump-out and increased size of the garage, the
existing percentage of impermeable area of site will be decreased. The permeability of the site will be
increased . The setbacks are not significantly impacted by the bump -out addition or new garage. The
bump-out is 1.4 feet out of compliance with shoreline setback, but a good portion of home is much closer
to the shoreline. The new garage is set back further from Chestnut Road. With the new septic system
and the improved stormwater system, the overall impact will be positive. Sincerely, Bill Smith 13
Chestnut Road, Lake George, NY 12845” These are two identical letters, and one from Tom Corrigan, 17
Chestnut Road.
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 Ron.
MR. KUHL-This is a small property at .17, but this bump-out that they’re asking for on the house, it’s
already bumped-out and it’s not as close to the property line as the existing, and so I’d be in favor of it the
way it’s presented.
MR. MC CABE-John?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022)
4
MR. HENKEL-I was prepared to say no on this project, but because of the FAR variance, and of course
permeability has nothing to do with it, but they’re still nine percent below what they should be. After
listening to Mr. Hutchins I definitely have changed my tone and I think it’s a good project. They definitely
need the two car garage. It makes sense even though it’s a lot larger than what’s there. I’m on board as is.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s always encouraging when people are proactive as opposed to reactive, when they
do things we need to do on the lake, and I’m encouraged by the fact that even though you’re going to, you’re
way over your FAR allowance, the house isn’t out of character with the neighborhood and I think the
addition that you’ve proposed on that side there is very minimal. I don’t think it’s going to change the
dynamics or be a detriment to the neighborhood or the lake. The garage is going to be a definite benefit
and just slightly larger than what’s currently existing and it’s well set back from the water. So I have no
problem with it.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I look at the addition as really very minimal and actually it’s only going to end up just a
few inches closer to the side line and the garage is kind of a benefit. It’s certainly not going to be a detriment
to anything. It’s a real benefit.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m impressed with the effort to preserve and protect what you’re doing there. So I’d be in
favor of everything you’re doing.
MR. MC CABE-So it’s down to me. I don’t make any difference. I’m insignificant. So actually I’d be hard-
pressed to disapprove a project in this particular area that wouldn’t allow an extra car to get into the
garage. So I, too, will support the project. So, given that information, Jim, I wonder if you could make a
motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thomas &
Marybeth Babcock. Applicant proposes to construct a 2-story addition to the south side of the existing
home. The existing home is 1,079.2 sq. ft. with 357 sq. ft. porch area (footprint); the existing floor area is
2,230 sq. ft. The new garage to be 554 sq. ft.; total new floor area is 2,569 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area
in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for setbacks, floor area, and
height.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and height for the construction of a new garage and a
two-story addition to the existing home.
Section 179-3-040 WR, 179-6-065 new floor area, 179-13-010 expansion
The existing garage to be demolished where the new garage is proposed to be 5 ft. to the side property line
where 12 ft. is required, proposed 16.2 ft. to the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The
2-story addition is to be located 6.8 ft. to the side property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. Relief is
also requested for the garage height of 17 ft. where 16 ft. is the maximum allowed, then the floor area is
proposed to be 2,569 sq. ft. where 1,615 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed noting the additional floor area
being added is 339 sq. ft.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 21, 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. It’s not any different than what currently exists in the neighborhood on that side.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. It’s a slight increase in the size of the
garage. It’s deemed to be reasonable and the addition is minimal.
3. The requested variance is not considered to be substantial because it’s a minimal change from what
currently exists on the property.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022)
5
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. They have an enhanced system for their wastewater treatment and all the proposed
additions that have been proposed here this evening will enhance the property, the property value,
as far as stormwater goes.
5. The alleged difficulty is considered to be self-created. It’s a small lot.
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.
42-2022 THOMAS & MARYBETH BABCOCK, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its
adoption, seconded by Richard Cipperly:
Duly adopted this 21st Day of September 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project.