Minutes AV 47-2022 (Bernard) 10.19.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022)
1
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DON BERNARD AGENT(S) AJA
ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S): 20 BRAYTON LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 20 BRAYTON
RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OF 730 SQ. FT.
FOOTPRINT AND 885 SQ. FT. DECK/PORCH AREA. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 2,643 SQ. FT.
THE APPLICANT’S PREVIOUS HOME HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL
APPROVAL WHICH HAS SINE EXPIRED IN JUNE OF 2022. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE
SAME PROJECT WITH A CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME AND MAINTAINING EXISTING
OUT BUILDINGS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING
WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR WORK
WITHIN 100 FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 54-2022; FWW 12-
2022; AV 61-2019; SP 79-2019; FWW 1-2020; FWW 8-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
OCTOBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.8-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040
JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2022, Don Bernard, Meeting Date: October 19, 2022 “Project
Location: 20 Brayton Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a new
single-family home of 730 sq. ft. footprint and 885 sq. ft. deck/porch area. The new floor area is 2,643 sq. ft.
The applicant’s previous home has been demolished as part of the original approval which has since
expired in June of 2022. The applicant proposes the same project with a construction of a new home and
maintaining existing out buildings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of
shoreline, and Freshwater Wetlands permit for work within 100 ft. Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. The relief for the
setbacks of north side and east side.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements – Waterfront Residential Zone -WR
The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from the north side where a 9 ft. setback is proposed
where a 12 ft. setback is required. Then on the east side is proposed setback of 22 ft. as a front setback
where 30 ft. is required. Permeability was 60% and proposed is 71% as an increase in permeability relief is
not 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
configuration of the lot and proposed location of the new home.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant
to the code for setbacks. The side setback relief is 3 ft. and front setback is 8 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 as proposed will have
minimal impact to the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and to upgrade the site of 0.28 acre odd shaped
parcel. The applicant has revised plans for request for setbacks – no relief requested for floor area or height.
The applicant has indicated the new home is to be in a similar location as the home to be demolished. The
plans show new areas of low native plantings, a rain garden area, lawn area and areas of vegetation to
remain. The existing garage is to remain along with the shoreline deck area, four sheds to be removed and
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022)
2
one shed to remain. The height is proposed to be 27 ft. 6 inches and the floor area is proposed to be 2,643
sq. ft. where 2,690 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed.”
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 adopted October
18th, 2022 and that was a six to zero vote.
MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper. So this is an unfortunate story where Mr. Bernard had all of his
approvals from the Zoning Board, Site Plan, all the plantings. We started the project in the spring,
knocked down the house, removed all of the storage shed which the project required to remove. We called
Laura and found out that that wasn’t enough to qualify for grandfather because he didn’t start building.
He just demolished it. He also had to bring in new electrical line, which was kind of a big deal for this,
but none of that qualified. So by the time he had that discussion it was too late because his last renewal
had expired. So we had to apply to the Zoning Board and the Planning Board for the exact same thing,
but most importantly, and the reason why you granted it last time, not floor area ratio variance. It’s a
modest house. Odd, irregular shape lot, not a height issue, not a permeability issue. Just setbacks because
of the shape of the lot. So we’re just asking for the same thing. We couldn’t ask for a renewal because it
was too late. So we’re asking for it to be re-issued. We were at the Planning Board last night. They had
no problem with it and recommended that you approve it.
MR. MC CABE-Just a quick question. It mentions that they’re within 100 feet of the wetlands. How far
are they?
MR. LAPPER-Because where it is on the peninsula, right next to the lake. If I recall the wetland is back
by the driveway entrance area.
MRS. MOORE-Right. So it’s near the marina itself actually. So the wetland is actually on the marina
property.
MR. HENKEL-Next door.
MRS. MOORE-Next door, not physically on the property.
MR. MC CABE-Just trying to get some answers. So do we have any questions of the applicant? 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 who would like to address us on this particular project. Roy,
do we have any written communication?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No, sir.
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 think due to the fact that we’ve previously reviewed and presented this project and
it’s essentially the same I think we can approve it.
MR. MC CABE-Brent?
MR. MC DEVITT-I agree with Jim. We’ve approved it. It’s kind of an odd shaped lot, and I’m in favor of
it, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I agree, also. I think even if it came in for a new proposal we could approve it.
MR. MC CABE-Well it is a new proposal, unfortunately.
MR. CIPPERLY-This is the first time I’d ever seen it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project as proposed.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022)
3
MR. KUHL-Yes, Mr. Chairman, I agree. I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-If I can remember correctly, I think we downsized it from the original. We worked on it a
few times. We didn’t just approve it the first time. We brought it down to where it needs to be. So I
approve it as is.
MR. MC CABE-And I approved it the first time so I guess it’s appropriate that I approve it this time. So,
given that, Ron, I wonder if you could make a motion for us here.
MR. KUHL-Why, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be overjoyed to do that.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Don Bernard.
Applicant proposes to construct a new single-family home of 730 sq. ft. footprint and 885 sq. ft. deck/porch
area. The new floor area is 2,643 sq. ft. The applicant’s previous home has been demolished as part of the
original approval which has since expired in June of 2022. The applicant proposes the same project with a
construction of a new home and maintaining existing out buildings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA,
hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and Freshwater Wetlands permit for work within 100 ft. Relief is
requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. The relief for the
setbacks of north side and east side.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements – Waterfront Residential Zone -WR
The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from the north side where a 9 ft. setback is proposed
where a 12 ft. setback is required. Then on the east side is proposed setback of 22 ft. as a fro nt setback
where 30 ft. is required. Permeability was 60% and proposed is 71% as an increase in permeability relief is
not required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 19, 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 was previously approved. Nothing has really changed. It’s just that they missed
their window of opportunity.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to
minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is really not that substantial as it fits. It’s an odd shaped piece of property
and the dwelling fits in nicely.
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 it’s only due to the fact that it’s a .28 acre
lot and it’s an odd shaped piece of property.
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.
47-2022 DON BERNARD, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John
Henkel:
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022)
4
Duly adopted this 19th Day of October 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project.
MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everyone.