Minutes AV 48-2022 (Mason) 10.19.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II WILLIAM MASON AGENT(S)
WILLIAM MASON OWNER(S) ROBERT & RUTH FINEGOLD ZONING WR LOCATION
4 ONONDAGA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. HOME
TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF THE SAME FOOTPRINT WITH A SECOND STORY AND
BASEMENT LOCATED IN THE TAKUNDEWIDE DEVELOPMENT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS
TO BE 2,354 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 32 SQ. FT. NEW PORCH LANDING ENTRY
AND AN 18 SQ. FT. SMALLER ACCESS LANDING TO THE EXISTING PORCH. THE PROJECT
HAS COMPLETED CONNECTION TO THE TAKUNDEWIDE COMMUNITY SEPTIC AND
WATER SUPPLY FROM THE LAKE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF
IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 67-2022
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT
SIZE 0.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-49 SECTION 179-3-040
WILLIAM MASON, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2022, William Mason, Meeting Date: October 19, 2022 “Project
Location: 4 Onondaga Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of existing
768 sq. ft. home to construct a new home of the same footprint with a second story and basement located
in the Takundewide development. The new floor area is to be 2,354 sq. ft. The project includes a 32 sq. ft.
new porch landing entry and an 18 sq. ft. smaller access landing to the existing porch. The project has
completed connection to the Takundewide community septic and water supply from the lake. Site plan
for new floor area in a CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks, permeability, and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming
structure for constructing a second floor. The site is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 2,288
sq. ft. parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement
The applicant proposes the new home with two porch areas. The applicant requests relief from setbacks,
permeability, and floor area. The setbacks for the home are proposed north to be 7 ft. (fireplace), 8 ft. east
porch entry, 6 ft. to the south porch entry and 10 ft. west (shore side) where a 15 ft. setback is required for
all four sides. The permeability is to be 64% where 75% is required. The floor area is proposed to be 67%
based on the lot size where 22% is the maximum allowed – the applicant has explained the parcel is part
of an existing HOA where a majority of the 18.7 acres is common area for the association members –in
addition the master plan indicates the 18.7 ac is to be considered during the request for a house expansion
with the HOA.
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 appear limited due to the
existing lot size.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the fireplace side is 8 ft., east is 7 ft., south
is 9 ft., and 5 ft. on the west. The permeability relief is in of excess 11 % and the floor area is in excess
of 45%. In regard to the Floor area, the applicant has explained that the parcel is part of an existing
HOA where a majority of the 18.7 acres are common area for the association members. In addition, the
master plan indicates the 18.7 acres are to be considered during the request for a house expansion with
the HOA.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on 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:
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022)
2
The applicant proposes removal of the home for construction of a two story home with a basement –the
footprint would be 768 sq. ft. and two entry landings. The project occurs in the Takundewide cottage
development off of Cleverdale Rd. In 2003 the Planning Board adopted an MOU with Takundewide HOA
outlining activities for future development. The project is similar to other cottages on the site where the
increased floor area is the proposed 2nd floor mirroring the style of the other housing. The submission
includes renditions of the proposed home with the existing roofline shown on the plans. The floor plans of
the existing interior arrangement are provided.”
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 passed by a six
zero margin on October 18th, 2022.
MR. MASON-My name is William Mason. I’m representing the applicant. This is very similar to anything
I’ve been in front of this Board for. It’s almost identical to the one the Board approved I think it was two
years ago for Matt and Joyce Smith which is exactly on the south side of the beach area. This is on the
north side. It’s a critical setback. You talk about setbacks a lot on Takundewide. The critical one is the
lakefront one which we’re actually coming back a little farther just by moving the fireplace around to the
north side. I don’t really think that impacts anything, but it does change the numbers a little bit. We are
beyond the 50 foot which is required on that critical one. All of the other setbacks, floor area ratio and the
permeability, are really mitigated because we have 21 acres at Takundewide with only 32 homes. Roughly
2/3rds of an acre per parcel that don’t get considered when we fill out the form. That’s why I spent all that
time talking about them because they’re not going to be developed. This Board would have to approve it
if they ever, somebody tried to develop them. There’s no additional homes that are going to be put on
them. So they should be considered as part of this project. I don’t know if there’s any other questions.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I do. I see you have egress windows here for the basement. So obviously.
MR. MASON-I’ve built a number of these, and one of them I built one time they put them in without egress
windows and it scares the heck out of me to have a basement with only one access.
MR. HENKEL-It could also make it possible for other bedrooms in the future.
MR. MASON-It is not for a bedroom. What they’re putting in the basement will be a large office. The
man is a doctor, a radiologist from Maine, and he loves books, and I keep warning him basements
sometimes get wet, but anyway, he’s going to have his office down there and a little hobby room with a
utility room and a bathroom, but there will be no.
MR. HENKEL-So there is going to be a bathroom down there.
MR. MASON-Yes, there will.
MR. HENKEL-That’s not on the plans.
MR. MASON-I didn’t, we have not developed that yet, but, trust me, there’s no bedroom down there.
That’s normally the issue. It is a basement, though. I am including that we will be making that, finishing
it as an office.
MR. KUHL-Did you hear that word, John, trust him?
MR. HENKEL-But it could be a basement and a bedroom later, maybe two.
MR. KUHL-But he’s stating that it’s not going to be.
MR. HENKEL-Trust me.
MR. KUHL-Trust him. We’ll take him at his word.
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 and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would
like to speak on this particular project? Seeing nobody, is there anything written, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No, nothing written.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going close the public hearing.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022)
3
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Brent.
MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. It seems like the use is remaining the same
and it’s been done for a few other individuals. So I’m in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-Way back in 2003 Roy and I were still on the Board and at the behest of the ZBA
and the Planning Board both you requested a group leach field on a septic be created on the property with
the HOA and I think that was done because we recognized the postage stamp size of the lots and I think
the variances are about the same as what we’ve given in the previous areas of this property. So I’d be in
favor of the request.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-If you look at the property at .05 it would not be allowed. If you’re looking at the overall
property, the whole complex it’s equal to about two acres per house. So, yes, it’s a little bit bigger than
what I’d like to see, but I’m for the project.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes, we’ve seen these before in this community, with its common area. It’s a good thing that
they’re tearing down the old house and building a new one and we can trust Mr. Mason that everything
will be done properly. So I would be in favor of this, Mr. Chairman.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project.
MR. MC CABE-Dick?
MR. CIPPERLY-I’m in favor of the project. It certainly meets the criteria of the Homeowners Association
and it looks like all the rest.
MR. MC CABE-And so I think this is the fifth one of these that I’ve approved, and you haven’t mislead us
yet. So I’ll go along with this. So given that, Jim, I wonder if you’d make a motion for us.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William
Mason. Applicant proposes removal of existing 768 sq. ft. home to construct a new home of the same
footprint with a second story and basement located in the Takundewide development. The new floor area
is to be 2,354 sq. ft. The project includes a 32 sq. ft. new porch landing entry and an 18 sq. ft. smaller access
landing to the existing porch. The project has completed connection to the Takundewide community
septic and water supply from the lake. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief is requested for
setbacks, permeability, and floor area.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming
structure for constructing a second floor. The site is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 2,288
sq. ft. parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement
The applicant proposes the new home with two porch areas. The applicant requests relief from setbacks,
permeability, and floor area. The setbacks for the home are proposed north to be 7 ft. (fireplace), 8 ft. east
porch entry, 6 ft. to the south porch entry and 10 ft. west (shore side) where a 15 ft. setback is required for
all four sides. The permeability is to be 64% where 75% is required. The floor area is proposed to be 67%
based on the lot size where 22% is the maximum allowed – the applicant has explained the parcel is part
of an existing HOA where a majority of the 18.7 acres is common area for the association members –in
addition the master plan indicates the 18.7 ac is to be considered during th e request for a house expansion
with the HOA.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 19, 2022.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022)
4
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 similar to other homes in the HOA.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and we are satisfied that this plan is
similar to the previous.
3. The requested variance is substantial, but it’s mitigated by connection to the community water
and wastewater that’s been created.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, but it’s due to the small lot sizes on the 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.
48-2022 WILLIAM MASON, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Brent McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 19th Day of October 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MASON-Thank you very much.
MR. MC CABE-Sure.