Minutes AV 46-2022 (Randall) 9.21.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JEFFREY RANDLES AGENT(S)
ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) JEFFREY RANDLES ZONING WR
LOCATION 42 OLD ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN
EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH REMOVING THE FIRST STORY DOWN TO THE
FIRST FLOOR AND TO RECONSTRUCT THE FIRST FLOOR WITH A SECOND STORY,
ADDITIONAL BASEMENT AREA AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE USING THE EXISTING
FOUNDATION. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6,968 SQ. FT. AND THE TOTAL FOOT PRINT OF
THE NEW HOUSE TO BE 3,348 SQ. FT. THE MAIN FLOOR WOULD ALTER THE NORTH SIDE
WITH A NEW DINING AREA AND A NEW GARAGE. THE SOUTH SIDE BEDROOM AREAS TO
BE ADDED TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE. THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD
INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE AND STORAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN REVIE FOR A
NEW FLOOR AREA AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXISTING HOME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO
PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS
REF AV 36-2022; SP 51-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2022
ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-11
SECTION 179-3-040
NICK ZEGLEN & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 46-2022, Jeffrey Randles, Meeting Date: September 21, 2022 “Project
Location: 42 Old Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations
to an existing single family home with removing the first story down to the first floor and to reconstruct
the first floor with a second story, additional basement area and an attached garage using the existing
foundation. New floor area to be 6,968 sq. ft. and the total footprint of the new house to be 3,348 sq. ft. The
main floor would alter the north side with a new dining area and a new garage. The south side bedroom
areas to be added to the footprint of the structure. The second floor would include additional living space
and storage. The project includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings. Site plan review for a
new floor area and alterations to the existing home shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval.
Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks from the shoreline to the new construction. Parcel is 0.83 acres
and in the WR zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 147 stormwater
The applicant proposes the new home on the existing foundation. The home on the west side would be 46
ft. from the shoreline where 53.75 ft. is required due to the adjoining home setback. Relief already granted
for the home is to be 8 ft. where 20 ft. is required to the north side. Also already granted was the stormwater
devices setback for 48 ft. and 88 ft. where 100 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 possible to locate the
home in a compliant location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minimal relevant to the code where the relief is 4 ft. to the home.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The project includes
adding stormwater management to the site. The project has been provided to the Town Designated
Engineer and engineering sign-off has been provided.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022)
2
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes project work to remove a portion of the existing home for the construction of the
first and second floor. The plans show the elevations and floor plans. The previous plan had shown a
shoreline setback to a different mark where an updated survey shows the setback distance to the mean
high water mark.”
MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board made a recommendation that based on its limited review has
not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,
and that motion was adopted September 20th, 2022 by a unanimous vote.
MR. DYBAS-For the record, Curt Dybas.
MR. ZEGLEN-I’m Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership. So we are back here tonight
seeking a shoreline setback variance of 46 feet versus the 53.75 feet that is required. As was stated this
project was before the Board last month where we received three variances, side yard setback of eight feet;
stormwater device to the lakeshore of 88 feet; and a shoreline setback of 51 feet where 56.71 was required.
So after the meeting it was discovered that the shoreline that was used by the surveyor to calculate the
setbacks was the shoreline that was taken on the day of the survey, which was February of this year. What
was not used was the Lake George mean high water elevation of 320.2. So unfortunately when you look
at 320.2 elevation and where that falls on the site, it’s essentially a shift of five feet further back into the
site which resulted in a shoreline setback of 46 feet. Unfortunately again since this is not new
construction, normally we could shift the house back, but since we are re-using the existing foundation
and first floor, we were stuck with that footprint and it meant an additional variance. All other aspects of
the site, stormwater management, is the same. It has been signed off by the Town Engineer, plantings,
etc., all the site improvements. Curt, if you have anything to add.
MR. DYBAS-It’s better off that we found it now. I thank Chris for pointing that out.
MR. MC CABE-Questions of the applicant?
MR. CIPPERLY-You used to access by Old Assembly Point Road, isn’t that correct?
MR. DYBAS-The current access to the site is Old Assembly Point Road.
MR. CIPPERLY-How does Clermont access her property?
MR. DYBAS-I don’t know.
MR. KUHL-You’ve got to go on Assembly Point Road.
MR. DYBAS-I think that’s Assembly Point Road.
MR. CIPPERLY-Clermont owns the tiniest little thing, the dock next to your property.
MR. DYBAS-There’s a driveway, there’s a small driveway just to the left. There’s a driveway right there
for this house.
MR. CIPPERLY-I’m talking about Clermont’s. No, go down. Yes.
MR. DYBAS-They can walk across the front yard.
MR. KUHL-It’s kind of grass isn’t it? There’s not a real driveway is there, off of Old Assembly Point Road?
I mean I drove right down there.
MR. DYBAS-Yes, right here, but that little parcel, they walk across the front lot.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. CIPPERLY-They have a prescriptive right of way? I didn’t see the deed so I don’t know.
MR. DYBAS-I don’t know.
MR. ZEGLEN-It’s not on the survey map.
MR. DYBAS-There’s nothing showing it on the survey map.
MR. CIPPERLY-I guess my question is if they currently walk across the front yard, you’re talking about
planting some hedges, and can they still get, can they still get to their property?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022)
3
MR. DYBAS-Yes. Even during construction we’ve made arrangements.
MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. Thank you. Even if it isn’t in the deed by now it’s probably a prescriptive right.
MR. DYBAS-I don’t even know how big this thing is, but I don’t think it’s 10 feet wide.
MR. CIPPERLY-You’re correct.
MR. DYBAS-We’ve never had a dock on it today.
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 make comment on this particular
project. Do we have anything written, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Yes, there are two letters. They’re identical. “We have reviewed the planned renovations
of our neighbors, Jeff & Nancy Randles, located at 42 Old Assembly Point Road in Lake George, New York.
We understand that they are wanting to increase the size of their front porch and are seeking approval for
a variance for the lake front setback. The new porch will not impede any part of our view of the lake and
we have no objections to this request. Respectfully, John and Cathy Hodgkins 41 Old Assembly Point
Road, Lake George, NY 12845” And there are two letters that are the same. The second one is Nancy
Farry, 45 Assembly Point Road.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim.
MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with the request. I think if we had had the correct numbers last
week we would have approved it.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-Pretty much the same. I have no problem, especially using the same footprint for the
house. We’re going to get some additional stormwater. So it’s a plus.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project also.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-We approved it once already. I’m in favor of the way it is. It’s a shame that they had to come
back because of a mismeasurement, but I’m in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-It’s a large piece of property. The permeability’s great. They’re asking for very minimal
setbacks there and I guess I’d be on board.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think what’s being asked for here is minimal, particularly
since the house has existed at that setback for a period of time. So given that information, Ron, I wonder
if you could make a motion for us.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey Randles.
Applicant proposes alterations to existing single family home with removing the first story down to the
first floor and to reconstruct the first floor with a second story, additional basement area and an attached
garage using the existing foundation. New floor area to be 6,968 sq. ft. and the total footprint of the new
house to be 3,348 sq. ft. The main floor would alter the north side with a new dining area and a new garage.
The south side bedroom areas to be added to the footprint of the structure. The second floor would include
additional living space and storage. The project includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings.
Site plan review for a new floor area and alterations to the existing home shall be subject to Planning Board
review and approval. Relief requested for setbacks.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022)
4
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks from the shoreline to the new construction. Parcel is 0.83 acres
and in the WR zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 147 stormwater
The applicant proposes the new home on the existing foundation. The home on the west side would be 46
ft. from the shoreline where 53.75 ft. is required due to the adjoining home setback. Relief already granted
for the home is to be 8 ft. where 20 ft. is required to the north side. Also already granted was the stormwater
devices setback for 48 ft. and 88 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required.
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 as this is a re-build on the existing foundation and it’s a large piece of property.
2. Feasible alternatives really are very limited due to the fact that they’re going to re -build on the
foundation, but they’re reasonable and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is really not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest is self-created, but again it’s because they’re re-building on
an existing foundation. If it were new construction they c ould move it back.
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.
46-2022 JEFFREY RANDLES, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 21st Day of September 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt