Loading...
Meeting Minutes 3.17.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROCKHURST LLC (CHRISTOPHER ABELE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) ROCKHURST LLC ZONING WR LOCATION ASSEMBLY POINT RD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2 STORY HOME 2,300 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 3,822 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND EXTERIOR PATIO AREAS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK (FILL, GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE LANDSCAPING, NEW SEPTIC & WATER SUPPLY FROM LAKE). PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV SP 57-2020; AV 22-2020; SP 81-2011; P20110614; PT 582-2020; PT 583-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-35 SECTION 179-3-040 GAVIN VUILLAUME & JOHN ALLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2020, Rockhurst LLC, Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project Location: Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new 2 story home 2,300 sq. ft. footprint with 3,822 sq. ft. floor area and exterior patio areas. Project includes site work (fill, grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic & water supply from lake). Planning Board: site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for shoreline setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for shoreline setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new home is to be 50 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The parcel involved was part of a subdivision in 1993 where the Town Code required a 75 ft. setback, today’s code would be 50 ft. setback from the shoreline. Note – the applicant has revised the application and reduced the height to 28 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes a new single family home and removing two existing camps. 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 parcel along the shoreline. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the shoreline setback is 25 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The project includes a new septic system, stormwater management, site plantings and shoreline plantings. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new single family home with 2,400 sq. ft. footprint and 4,300 sq. ft. floor area. The project includes site work, fill and grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic and water supply from Lake George. The shoreline setback is due to subdivision of 1993 and the code requirements for setbacks at that time. The plans show the work to be completed on the site and the new home to be constructed. The plans have been revised to show the height area at 28 ft.” MR. MC CABE-So do we still have Gavin here? MRS. MOORE-Yes, Gavin’s here. MR. VUILLAUME-Laura, there was another plan that we submitted that I think might read a little better. I know this is from the site plan package. MRS. MOORE-The site plan is the only one that I have. MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. We’ll use that one. That’s fine. MRS. MOORE-All right. Sorry. MR. VUILLAUME-That’s all right. Okay. John, you’re still wit h me? MR. ALLEN-I’m still here. MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. All right. So like the previous application I’d like to just again give the Board the changes that were made since our last meeting, and then John can talk, again, a little bit more about how the project meets the criteria for the variances. So as you recall from the last meeting, the two variances that we were seeking were for the shoreline setback and the building height of 28 feet. So we went back, the architect Mike Tuck who is also on the Zoom meeting this evening if you have any more specific questions on the building. He went back and modified the structure and lowering it. Laura had the one sketch up there earlier. I don’t know if we need to see it again, but essentially we’ve reduced the height of the building from approximately 30 feet down to the 28 feet that’s required. So, again, as part of this initial presentation, again, I can’t stress it enough. This project now meets all the current zoning criteria in front of, that is established for this zoning district. In other words, we meet all the shoreline setbacks, all the side yard, rear yard setbacks, all the permeability, the square footages of the buildings, green space. Everything is met exactly to the way it is currently in the Code. The only reason, and John will get into this I’m sure, that we’re in front of this Board is because this project was subdivided back in, what was it, 1993. So again this is, you know, just the way that the Town looks at their projects and establishes criteria. As we stated last time, in a lot of instances that sometimes would have helped the applicant with some of the setbacks, but in this particular case the setback criteria changed from 75 feet to 50 feet. So we do meet the 50 foot criteria for the shoreline setback with this application, as well as all the other setbacks and permeability and square footages. So as far as the site plan goes, we did make some additional changes besides the building, and I’ll just quickly go over those. As you know we just talked a little bit about the driveway. Now that we have clear access to the main resident lot, I just want to, again, give more information on how this driveway now meets the criteria for the project and how it protects the lake, which is obviously what a lot of people are interested in when considering these types of applications. So we are providing numerous means of stormwater management and protection for the lake. So this one reads a little bit better. Again, getting back to where I was with the driveway, you can see now where the stormwater basin area in the center of the lot. You’ve got two small depressions. These are going to be infiltration swales and basins that will handle all the stormwater from the building and from the driveway. It’s located right at the center of the property. Along the driveway that we were just speaking of, the new driveway for the cottage lot, there’s also some stone infiltration and gravel diaphragms along all the edges of the driveway. The driveway would be proposed of bituminous driveway, and again, this could be porous pavement. If there’s more concerns we can always add porous pavement to it. The patio areas, all the pavers and walkways also would be porous pavers, and to help address some of the concerns by some of the neighbors just to the south of us, we’ve included two larger culverts taking drainage from the property along Assembly Point Road. You can see the two dashed culvert pipes that are running parallel along Assembly Point Road. That would take drainage not only from our project but also from other areas just to the south. So none of the drainage from this project impacts any of our neighbors. It’s their drainage from their property that’s actually coming on to our property, and we are, in fact, handling that stormwater, passing it underneath our project, and bringing it to a safer discharge location. Getting back to the variances, again, John will go into this a little bit more in detail, but as we stated a little bit in the last application, currently the existing cottage buildings that are proposed to be removed are approximately 38 feet or 40 feet from the shoreline. The new structure now would bring it back to 50 feet, which is what is currently required for the shoreline setback. So we are improving the setbacks from what the existing conditions currently are. The next thing I just want to quickly point out is, again, where John was talking about the minimum area in which we can put the structure, you can see the area highlighted in red. It’s a very narrow lot. It’s very linear. The lot itself obviously only has one real general location where you can put the new building and that would be into the space in which we’re currently showing it. We can’t move it back any further because we really have to be able to provide access into the structure and also to the main residence lot. The only other alternative would be to really push the building completely all the way almost touching all the other setbacks, and completely re-designing all the driveways towards the front of the lot, which would obviously impact the lake more than the porous patio that’s currently being proposed. So those are some of the new changes. Again, we decreased the, I believe the square footage went down approximately 500 square feet from what we had before. So not only the square footage but the actual footprint of the building has been reduced by eliminating a screened porch and also making the garage a little bit smaller. So we have also increased our permeability, and again I think that 75% is currently permitted, and we’re at 80% permeability. So we meet all the other criteria with regards to the application. John, I guess if you want to go into a little bit more detail on how we meet the balancing test. MR. ALLEN-Thanks, Gavin. I’d be happy to do that. Gavin’s given you a very good explanation of how the project has changed from what was presented to this Board in January. Although we’re still at 50 feet, the first floor of the structure is in fact 53 feet from the lake, but there’s a cantilever of about two and a half feet for a portion of the second floor that makes the measurement, we’ll call it 50 feet, it’s more like 50 and a half, but I don’t think a half a foot is making a big difference here. I don’t know if the Board members have studied the general area, but there are 10 lots beginning at the southerly boundary of this property, the east side of Holly Lane, running down to Brayton Road. Th ose lots, based on our investigation, all are in violation of the current 50 foot shoreline setback. The houses have been there for a period of time, but we will have a shoreline setback larger than any of that, and we have a lot that is about twice the size of the biggest one of those lots and about three times the size of most of the residences. So we’re looking at a neighborhood where the waterfront lots range from about 7500 square feet up to 22,500 and we have an acre. As Gavin mention, I would refer to the need for the variance as an unintended consequence in the Town Code. The Town back in I believe it was 2009 changed the number of requirements for the Waterfront Residential district in terms of setbacks. The fact that there’s a provision in the Code that basically says if you were a subdivided lot you are, I’m going to say, stuck with what the requirements were at the time of the subdivision, notwithstanding that those requirements wouldn’t be imposed today on a lot that hadn’t been part of a subdivision in that period of time. So it’s clear, this issue with the shoreline setback for this particular lot is one which any lot in the Town that is in the Waterfront Residential area and was a product of the subdivision before 2009, they would all be stuck with this problem. It was not that the Town fathers and mothers on the Town Board looked at this particular property and said we’re going to impose a greater setback on this property than anything else in the Town. We have done our best to come up with a house design that is now limiting us to one variance not two as were discussed at the prior meeting, and as Gavin has said, we will be fully compliant with all of the current setbacks. If a 75 foot setback from the shoreline were required here it would either necessitate other variances that this Board would have to grant or it would not leave the applicant with the reasonable use of his property. Again, I think we’re improving the situation. The existing structures are closer to the lake, will have a new state-of-the-art septic system for this new building as opposed to the rather poor systems that existed for the two cottages that are to be removed. In fact those septic systems, as I understand, have been removed because they just were, from a practical position, just not useful or functional, and we want to improve conditions at the lake as opposed to making them worse or continuing unacceptable conditions, and we feel with everything we’re doing we’re not going to have an adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and Gavin talked about that a lot. There’s no need for me to go over it, and we do acknowledge that the setback or there is a self-created hardship here, although it’s largely due to this one provision of the Code rather than our not meeting the current Code requirements. So we would respectfully ask the Board to approve the application for the shoreline setback variance. Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Hearing none, there is a public hearing advertised this evening. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask that anybody who has input on this project provide it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So I think Chris is on. I don’t see any other hands raised at the moment, but I know Chris wants to speak on this one. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Laura and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will preface I did submit a lett er and I will apologize that some of that focused on the height variance that I misinterpreted in the application. So I appreciate the applicants’ efforts to reduce that and eliminate that variance, and I apologize for any confusion that that may have produced. The variance that remains is the shoreline setback. Obviously the concern with that is the reduction of impervious cover, especially in that Critical Environmental area. You take a look, there’s still a proposed patio. It’s not tied to the shoreline setback, but that is as large, that’s actually larger than the existing porch of the existing cottages. That is as close to the lake as the existing cottages. Doesn’t require a setback variance, but again I think they’re still encroaching in that area that we need to protect the lake. This is in the area that we’ve had the harmful algae bloom. So I think any alterations that we do to the natural environment in the area. They’re bringing in four feet of fill. This isn’t a Zoning Board issue, but that clearly is something to address at the Planning Board. I appreciate the discussion on reducing impervious. Maybe this could be combined driveways. They talk about the benefit of the stormwater management. When they’re bringing in fou r feet of fill, I find it hard to capture all the runoff from this . So I don’t think that the environmental benefits that are claimed are as good as they’re claimed, especially when the patio that they’re proposing is closer to the lake than their stormwater facilities. The septic system that they discuss, that is irrelevant. Under the Town Transfer law they had to put in a new septic system. It didn’t matter what they did on this property. So that’s irrelevant to any decisions as well. So again I feel that there’s more that can be done to reduce the impervious in this area, and create a site plan and a development that will be more lake friendly and reduce the impacts they will have to the lake. So thank you, again, very much. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So, Laura, is there anything written? MRS. MOORE-There is another one written. I’m not quite certain if it’s relevant, but I will provide information. So it was submitted the other day, being in March, but it has dates of February 17th, 2021, and February 23rd, 2021, and it’s from Lorraine Ruffing at 66 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point, and some of these items were already read at the January 20th, 2021 meeting and I’m just trying to sort of compare the two documents and they’re fairly similar in the fact that she’s concerned with stormwater management on the site, concerned if there’s wetlands, and I think those are the primary things that have come out of that letter, and I don’t know if she’s on line or not to speak, but I just wanted to make sure that you know that there was another letter but it has dates in February, not necessarily March. MR. MC CABE-So those would have been read during our last. MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. There was comments read in January by the same speaker because she did speak on Zoom, but the letter in January was dated January 20th and 26th, and I’m assuming that’s for the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, and in this case they are in reference to the February 17th and February 23rd meeting which this application was moved to March. MR. MC CABE-But they sound like the comments that were made the first time that we listened to this application. MRS. MOORE-Correct. That’s all I have. So I have Mr. Abele that wishes to speak. He’s the applicant. I don’t have any other public comment or people raising their hand to speak. So I’m not quite sure what you want to do, Mike, if you want to let Mr. Abele speak. He’s the applicant himself. MR. MC CABE-Sure. CHRIS ABELE MR. ABELE-Thank you very much. I want to thank the Board for hearing this application, and I also want to compliment my attorney, John Allen, and Gavin Vuillaume and I do want to address a couple of specific things relative to Chris Navitsky. Chris was kind enough to come to the site. I think I might have mentioned that in the previous meeting, and I also had the fellow from the Lake George Fund as well, and I actually made contact with Walt Lender today or actually excuse me, two, three days ago. So I’ve reached out to the environmental community. As I’ve said before, this is a residence for me and my family and I have roots on the lake back from the early 60’s when we used to go to Hearthstone. So I have a tremendous amount of love for the lake, and I would never want to do anything detrimental to it, and as far as specific comments relative to what Chris said, and I don’t want to assume here that I can match what Gavin did very, very well, but, you know, I took possession of this property on October 5th of 2020. Within two to three weeks, I had the three septic systems totally pumped and dismantled. Now he made reference to an algae bloom. That algae bloom was in November and it was all over the Adirondacks, but trying to see what was down the pike, I hired a hydrologist to test the water that comes not from me but from properties to the south of me. I can produce that report and it showed no ingredients that would cause anything close to an algae bloom. I can produce that documentation . As far as the stormwater, okay, currently there is no stormwater protection on this site, and I respectfully talked to Chris and say this. Yes, we are bringing some fill and the grade will be raised, but that will be sloped somewhat back away from the lake, and the water will then go into the grass swales and the detention and infiltrators that Gavin mentioned, and I want to say this with all due respect because we’re all here trying to do the right thing, have a beautiful home, enjoy it, and not do anything negative to the lake, but in my humble opinion, it defies logic that this is not an environmental plus for Lake George. So I would hope that this will come in my favor. Because this is a net gain to the lake for everybody around it, including my family. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So is there anybody else out there, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, I don’t see anybody raising their hand. There’s no one doing any chat or anything like that, so I believe there’s no more folks involved in the public hearing. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I just, this is one of the ones that the numbers sometimes don’t tell the full story. I’m having problems with the setbacks, and I’ll be honest with you. I appreciate everybody’s comments on this and what’s being done, but to me the setbacks still need to be scaled back. So I’m going to be a no on this. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I mean I’m kind of in agreement with Roy, but looking at some of the other projects we did tonight with their setbacks, I’d have to disagree with that, just with this one setback. At least it meets the Code that we work with with the 50 feet setback from the shoreline, and they did reduce the height. They did that for us. It’s a large piece of property. The only problem I’m having is still with the driveway. I kind of understand what they’re saying, that it causes problems when you have a shared driveway, but I still think that that driveway can be incorporated with that easement and so I’d like to see that done. So I would not be in favor of the project as is with that driveway entering on Assembly Point with two driveways. So I would not be on board as is, with that driveway the way it is. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-John, you took the words right out of my mouth, but looking at this property with the new driveway for the adjoining parcel, I see an opportunity to join these two driveways in a small way near the Assembly Point Road and that would help eliminate some of the permeability issues, not that it’s a real issue, but whatever we can do in this incredibly critical environmental area. So if we co uld have them join the driveways and accomplish improving the permeability, I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-But the permeability is not an issue here. MRS. HAYWARD-I know, but I think it could still be improved. MR. MC CABE-What we’re passing judgment on here is the setbacks. So both John and Michelle, you’re saying that the setback is inadequate? MRS. HAYWARD-The setback is, to me, 50 feet versus 75 feet, I’ll use your word, inadequate. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I mean personally I think the setback it’s something, it’s a throwback to previous subdivisions. So if 50 is what would be good for any other project, I think that it’s satisfactory here. I do take note of what Chris said about the pavers, that they don’t count in the setback but they probably should . Permeability is technically not an issue, but there’s no reason why we can’t continue to try to do a better job with these driveways, and I don’t think the applicant understands what I’m saying. I’m not necessarily saying I want you to move the driveway so you can move the house back. I mean they’ve moved it back. They’ve lowered the height. They’ve done a lot and I appreciate that, but there’s a State law that says you can’t provide access with an easement. So I don’t know how the Town handles any of this. There are shared driveway agreements. There are ways to remedy these issues. I get that they want to have their own access, but, you know what, towns have the right to say we want you to do something different here., and I would love to vote for it, and based on just what we’re looking at as a ZBA, but I really hope that the Planning Board can work with them and that the applicant will be open- minded about making something happen with those driveways. I guess I will vote for it. I just want to have my say that I do have a problem with the driveways, but I think that’s beyond our purview at this point. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I still think we’re being disingenuous here, because I think if we were actually going to look at the subdivision regulations as they exist today, even though it’s a 50 foot setback now, it was a 75 foot setback when they subdivided this property in ’93. Also you have to keep in mind the fact that, you know, we wouldn’t have two, one acre lots here today in a subdivision because it’s two acre zoning is the smallest lot you could have on Lake George. So I think that I would still like to see this thing moved further back from the lake. I don’t think it’s met the test. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I agree. I want it moved a little bit further back, and I can appreciate, I want the applicant to know and counsel to know and everybody that’s involved, and there’s a team working on this, that I think you guys are going to get there. I think you’re going to get something that everyone can live with, but that’s my issue still and I just am, I was having a tough time with this a few weeks back and I still am, but I do believe that there is a project to be had. It’s just that issue with proximity to the lake. MR. MC CABE-So you’re a no? MR. MC DEVITT-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The public hearing is closed. This is just discussion among us. When we get done here then we’ll let you have a chance to speak. MR. ABELE-Okay. That’s fine. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So, Brent, you’re a no? MR. MC DEVITT-As it is I am a no, correct. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So first of all the way I look at this, I’ve got to support the project. I think that, you know, the applicant came before us before with two very serious requests, a height, which we’ve always been pretty stringent on, and setback from the lake, which we’ve also been pretty stringent on. He’s reduced the height. So we’re down to just the setback from the lake, and I bel ieve, as pointed out in the drawing, that if we follow the 75 feet, then, you know, he’s pretty restricted in the size of the house that he builds here and the configuration of the house that he builds, and I think that you do have to look at the fact that this is a one acre lot in an area where a one acre lot is pretty rare. So I certainly will support the project, but unfortunately there’s not enough yeses here. So I think we’ve got to give the applicant a pretty clear picture of what’s required here. So is it just the permeability of the second driveway, or is it indeed the setback from the lake? So I’ve heard permeability from a couple of people. Is that the real concern or is it setback? MRS. MOORE-Can I just say, so, Mike, you mentioned that the issue for the Zoning Board is the setback variance. Permeability is not part of this, the relief being requested. So I’m not quite certain, I mean you have to be pretty specific to identify your concerns and the only relief that’s being requested is setbacks at this point. So I just wanted to make sure that the Board is aware of that. MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, allow me to be clear. I have nothing, I’m not talking about permeability. I’m not talking about driveways. MR. MC CABE-You’re pure setback. MR. MC DEVITT-I’m setback. MR. MC CABE-Roy, you’re setback? MR. URRICO-Yes, I am. MR. MC CABE-Okay. John, you’re pure setback? MR. HENKEL-I really didn’t have a problem with the setback. I just have a problem with the driveway, but I guess that’s something we can’t do anything about. MR. URRICO-But the setback affects everything else. So let’s, yes, we’re talking about setbacks, but this is a little bit more complicated than that. So if you want to start breaking it down, then we’ll get back to what Jim said earlier about segmentation and what’s happening. So we need to look holistically at the project, not just. Setbacks is the variance, but the variance is setting off other a larms. I’m against the setbacks. I want the project scaled back. MR. ABELE-May I speak, please? MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I indicated I’d give you a chance to talk here. So go ahead. MR. ABELE-Okay. I do hear the Board, obviously. It’s not a pleasant situation. Look it, if a home, if I have to comply with that 75 foot setback it basically renders the property useless, and I don’t want to cry poverty. I paid a lot of money for this land, and I’m complying with every regulation that is currently in the Town Code, and as my attorney said, basically everybody on Holly Lane is in violation of the current setback. So I just cannot believe I’m in this situation. Now in terms of specifics, although what my attorney and consultant said, yes, just for practical reasons we wanted to keep the driveway separate. We didn’t want shared maintenance agreements. It basically does create issues that we want to try to avoid, but if that would secure some favorability, I would concede on that and I would re-design it and have a common driveway, but, and we were talking about permeability. I think Gavin said I have 80% permeability. So in every which way I’ve complied with the laws and the regulations and we still, remember, we’ve still got to go through the planning process, but if you hold to that 75 foot setback, you’re basically taking my lot away from me and I find it despicable and I cannot believe that, it’s almost like I’m being singled out for this because you go all around Assembly Point, the neighborhood, Holly Lane. If they’re at 50 foot they’re lucky and I did everything in my power to try to build a very nice house as you’ve seen the depictions, the elevations. I paid a lot of money for the lot. I’m proud of that, and this is going to be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood, but if you hold on that 75, you’re basically taking this away from me and my family, and I find that totally, totally ridiculous, and I don’t say this in a personal way, but I cannot believe I’m in this situation. So I implore you people to hear what I’m saying. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I haven’t really heard from Michelle and Cathy there. So are you guys definitely 75 footers? MRS. HAMLIN-No, I said I was happy with the 50 because it’s kind of compliant with. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. MRS. HAMLIN-I just have the driveway issue and, I mean, personally, I mean I get it. MR. MC CABE-Yes, you were a yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m a yes, but I really hope that the Planning Board can do something to address, I mean even the layout of the house. I’m sorry, if it makes some compromise you have a very long, skinny lot. Maybe take advantage of that in some way. Architectural plans cost a lot of money, but we don’t always get what we want, but I would vote yes today simply because he’s right. With the exception of the 75 he is compliant, and if he were building it today he’d be compliant. Yes, I’m yes, but. MR. MC CABE-So, John, you’ve indicated that the driveway is a concern. MR. HENKEL-I agree. He’s definitely compliant with every setback rule. I mean that’s my only concern is the driveway. I wish there was something they could do about the driveway and just make one curb cut. MR. ABELE-The driveway is a non-issue. I’ll concede on that. I’ll make it one. MR. HENKEL-That would be great. I’m all for the project, then. MR. MC CABE-All right. So that’s still not enough votes. MRS. HAYWARD-May I speak? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. Like I said, I agreed with John. My concern was the driveway, and if Mr. Abele is willing to merge the two driveways, that would be a compromise that I could live with. MR. ABELE-I will do that. MRS. HAYWARD-So I would be in favor of the setback as proposed. MR. MC CABE-All right. So then I’ve got John is a yes. Michelle is a yes. Cathy is a yes and me as a yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Can I ask one question, though? Can we make that a condition? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’m going to make a motion. So I’m closing the public hearing. I did that, right? MRS. DWYRE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to make a motion. MR. URRICO-Basically I’m doing the previous variance, then? MRS. MOORE-No, the previous variance was simply to allow access. MR. URRICO-That’s going to change that, right? That’s changing that access? MRS. MOORE-No, but it’s simply allowing access. It didn’t describe. MR. MC CABE-I guess you’ll have to answer that question, Laura. Did we destroy the other variance by combining these driveways? MRS. MOORE-That’s not accurate. You didn’t destroy it. The previous Area Variance was simply for access. You granted access. MR. MC CABE-Okay. All right. So at this particular time I’m going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Rockhurst LLC. (Revised) Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new 2 story home 2,300 sq. ft. footprint with 3,822 sq. ft. floor area and exterior patio areas. Project includes site work (fill, grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic & water supply from lake). Planning Board: site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for shoreline setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for shoreline setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new home is to be 50 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The parcel involved was part of a subdivision in 1993 where the Town Code required a 75 ft. setback, todays code would be 50 ft. setback from the shoreline. Note – the applicant has revised the application and reduced the height to 28 ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 16, 2020 & Wednesday, March 17, 2021. 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 because the variance will allow the construction of a new property and greatly improve management of stormwater runoff in this particular area. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are deemed not reasonable because they don’t allow for the needs of the applicant. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Although it appears substantial, it really meets the present criteria of the Town Code. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We believe that granting of this application will actually improve the environmental conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 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) The driveway to the main residence lot must be combined with the driveway for the cottage lot. b) 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. 49-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC (CHRISTOPHER ABELE), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th Day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So you have a project. MR. ABELE-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. VUILLAUME-Thank you very much, everyone.