The URL can be used to link to this page

05-19-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 17-2021 Mark Prendeville 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.13-1-58 Area Variance No. 33-2021 Laphatt Holdings 2. CONSENT TO LEAD AGENCY Tax Map No. 301.8-1-30.3 Area Variance No. 39-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 3. Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84 Area Variance No. 29-2021 Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture 9. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-48 Area Variance No. 27-2021 Burnett Family Trust 19. Stephen A. Burnett (Trustee) Tax Map No. 239.18-1-12 Area Variance No. 28-2021 333 Cleverdale LLC (San Souci) 22. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-43 Area Variance No. 32-2021 337 Cleverdale LLC (San Souci) 23. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-44 Area Variance No. 30-2021 Town Fair Tire 41. Tax Map No. 296.17-1-34 Area Variance No. 31-2021 John Graziano 49. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 19, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN RONALD KUHL BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to welcome you to our meeting tonight. I’d like to open the meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. If you’ve not been here before, the format is fairly simple. There should have been an agenda on the back table, and basically the way it will work is that we’ll call each application up. We’ll read the application into the record. We’ll allow the applicant to present his application. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, we’ll open the public hearing, take public input from the public. You can either do it live or a call in. Our number is 518-761- 8225 if you opt for a call in, and I would ask if you are calling in from the outside, please try not interrupt whoever is speaking at the time if we have somebody from the live audience. We’ll close the public hearing. We’ll poll the Board, see where we stand on the application, and then we’ll proceed as applicable. Before we start tonight, though, we have a couple of administrative items, and so, John, I’d like a motion for the approval of minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 21, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 21, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: TABLE AV 17-2021 (PRENDEVILLE) TO SEPTEMBER 2021 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mark Prendeville. Applicant proposes a 2 story addition with a portion to have a basement to an existing home. The addition is to be 1,518 sq. ft. with 321 sq. ft. of porch/deck area footprint. The existing floor area is 1,964 sq. ft. and the proposed to be 5.808 sq. ft. The project has received area variances for setbacks south side where 10.7 ft. granted and 20 ft. required; height where 28.9 ft. granted and 28 ft. maximum allowed. An additional variance is requested for an addition that exceeds 1/3 of the existing building floor area. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and shoreline planting plan. Relief requested for expansion of a nonconforming home with an addition greater than 1/3. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2021 MARK PRENDEVILLE, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, Tabled until the September 2021 meeting with any new information by the middle of August. st Motion seconded by Brent McDevitt. Duly adopted this 21 day of May 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. MC CABE-So our first applicant is AV 33-2021, Laphatt Holdings. AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED – COORDINATED REVIEW LAPHATT HOLDINGS AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) LAPHATT HOLDINGS ZONING NR LOCATION MANOR DRIVE SEQR-COORDINATED REVIEW- REVIEW PLANNING BOARD REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENCY. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT TWO FOUR-UNIT BUILDINGS. EACH BUILDING IS TO BE 3,200 SQ. FT. WITH EACH UNIT TO HAVE A GARAGE, TWO BEDROOMS, AND A DRIVEWAY ONTO MANOR DRIVE. THE SITE IS TO HAVE TWO ONSITE SEPTIC SYSTEMS AND EACH BUILDING IS TO BE CONNECTED TO WATER. SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTIAL ZONE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DENSITY. CROSS REF SP 34-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.87 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-30.3. SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-So first we’re going to make a motion on this application with regard to SEQR. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Laphatt Holdings. Applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms, and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The site is to have two onsite septic systems and each building is to be connected to water. Site plan for construction of new multi-family buildings in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Relief requested for density. SEQRA: Planning Board requests for Lead Agency. A public hearing has not been scheduled at this time. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO CONSENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD’S REQUEST TO BE LEAD AGENT FOR PROJECT APPLICANT LAPHATT HOLDINGS, AREA VARIANCE 33-2021, Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin. th Duly adopted this 19 Day of May 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, read the application into the minutes, please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2021, Laphatt Holdings, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: Manor Drive Description of Proposed Project: SEQR-Coordinated Review—Review Planning Board request to be Lead Agency. Applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms, and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The site is to have two onsite septic systems and each building is to be connected to water. Site plan for construction of new multi-family buildings in the Neighborhood Residential zone. Relief requested for density. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for density in the Neighborhood Residential zone - NR Section 179-3-040 Dimensional The proposed project is to have 8 units where only 1 unit is allowed. The parcel size is 0.9 ac where a dwelling unit requires 0.5 acres per unit if not connected to sewer and water. 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. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 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 available to reduce the number of dwellings proposed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. 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 to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is subject to SEQR coordinated review. The Planning Board has requested to be Lead Agency. Applicant proposes to construct two four-unit buildings. Each building is to be 3,200 sq. ft. with each unit to have a garage, two bedrooms and a driveway onto Manor Drive. The parcel is vacant and is currently wooded. The project includes two buildings to be located toward the front of the property with parking areas also in the front. The rear of the properties is to be used for four septic systems. Note the parcel is a corner lot so there are two fronts and the remaining property lines are rear. The project includes 16 parking spaces where 2 spaces per unit is required as the project is compliant with parking.” MR. LAPPER-We weren’t expecting to present tonight, just because the Planning Board being Lead Agency has to make a SEQR determination before your Board can act on this. So we just figured you’d table it, but we’d certainly be happy to talk about it. MR. MC CABE-Sure, you’re here. MR. LAPPER-The simple explanation is that everything else on Manor Drive was built out in this way. This was a vacant lot at the end. The zoning has now changed so it requires variance, but what’s proposed is essentially the same as what the other buildings were, and it’s in close proximity to the high school. So it’s basically the same thing as the rest of the neighborhood, but it does require area relief to build what they want to build because things changed. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So I guess my question is, why wasn’t this variance granted initially? MR. LAPPER-This is Matt Steves and Larry Clute and this became available when this was in an estate. It was owned by somebody else. It was the last lot at the end of the street that never got developed. So it was vacant and it became available and they said we’d like to build the same thing as next door. MR. MC CABE-Questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. MRS. MOORE-Mike, there is no public hearing for this at this time. So the public hearing is scheduled for the following meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-We have to table it. MR. MC CABE-Well then should we have tabled this? MRS. MOORE-No, it’s not a tabling. Your public hearing will actually be scheduled for a meeting in June. The only resolution you’re doing tonight is the SEQR consent. That’s fine. MR. MC CABE-All right. I didn’t understand that. So, Jon, I’m sorry I put you through quite a bit. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. MC CABE-So you’re all done, then. MR. LAPPER-Okay. Thank you. Actually, no, you can stay right here. You’re up next. Our next application is AV 39-2020, Jeffrey Godnick. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JEFFREY GODNICK AGENT(S) JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) JEFFREY GODNICK ZONING WR, GLEN LAKE CEA LOCATION 312 GLEN LAKE ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN A 188 SQ. FT. SHED THAT HAD BEEN INSTALLED IN 2019. THE EXISTING HOME IS 4,259 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 5,774 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLING PERMEABLE PAVERS ADJACENT TO THE HOUSE INCREASING PERMEABILITY. SITE PLAN NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 49-2020; AV 71-1994-21320; SP 95-21323 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.49 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-84 SECTION 179-3-040A(5)(b)(3) JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, we’ve already read this into the record. So I guess all we need are any changes. MR. URRICO-I’m just going to read the revised description. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 39-2020, Jeffrey Godnick, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 312 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to maintain a 188 sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. footprint with a floor area of 5,774 sq. ft. Project includes installing permeable pavers adjacent to the house increasing permeability. Site plan new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability and floor area. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements, 179-5-020 Sheds The storage shed is proposed to remain at 3.9 ft. setback from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Shoreline setback is 44 ft. and is to remain where 50 ft. setback is required. Permeability is proposed to improve to 65.8% (Hot Tub sure-step area of 332 is considered hard surface) then (Turf Stone area of 687 sq. ft. may also receive a credit of 50 %-344 sq. ft. may be considered 50% ) where area variance AV71-1994 granted permeability at 69%. The site has a floor area of 5,774 sq. ft.; the 188 sq. ft. shed creates 5,962 sq. ft. floor area and the maximum allowed is 4,527 sq. ft. (At the time of construction indicates floor area of basements was not accounted for in unfinished basements –ZBA minutes 3/15/1995). 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. 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 available to minimize the relief requested for setbacks. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested is 16.1 ft. to the side setback and 6 ft. to the shoreline setback. Relief for floor area is 188 sq. ft. over the existing 1,247 sq. ft. of the currently existing floor area (existing floor area 5,774 without shed, 5,962 sq. ft. with shed). Permeability is to be 65.8% where 75% is required and where 69% had been approved for 1994 variance. (The October 2020 application had proposed 64% permeability.) 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain a 188 sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The survey shows location of the shed and the photos show the appearance of the shed. In addition, the applicant requests to improve the permeability on the site since the 1994 area variance approval additional hard surface has been added to the site. The updated survey does show the areas to be improved, but as described only one area would receive permeable credit. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) The board may have further discussion as the survey does not accurately show the permeability. The survey shows 100% credit where only 50% credit would be granted. Staff would suggest an updated survey and updated site data sheet. (Note at the time of construction indicates floor area of basements was not accounted for in unfinished basements –ZBA minutes 3/15/1995)” MR. LAPPER-For the record, again, Jon Lapper. So Jeff lives two doors down from the Docksider, and this was before you and you asked that it be improved, so permeability has improved. Some pavement has been removed and replaced with permeable pavers on the east side of the house, but what this is all about, this is a shed that he uses to store the cushions and all the summer stuff in and if this were 120 square feet it could be five feet from the property line, but this is 188 square feet. So it has to meet the house setback of 20 square feet and the house next door to the east is very unkempt, hasn’t been painted in years, just nasty next door. So for him it blocks the view with the neighbor’s house. They could have almost this size in almost this location, just slightly smaller. We improved the permeability request. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-So he improved the permeability up to 69%, where he was originally granted the original. It was 64 something, wasn’t it? MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. Am I right there, Laura? MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time, and I made a mistake. I opened the public hearing for the last application. I didn’t do that? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MC CABE-All right. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this application and invite anybody on the outside who wants to call in with regard to this application to give us a call at 518-761-8225. Is there anybody who would like to address this application that’s in the audience right now? So, we’ve got to wait for two minutes to allow people from the outside to call in. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-I can read this letter in from Caffry & Flower. MR. MC CABE-Did we read that in the last time? th MR. URRICO-No, this is from May 18. MR. MC CABE-Okay then, yes, go ahead and read it. That’ll take up the time. MR. URRICO-This is from Caffry & Flower, “Dear Board Members: We represent Erinn McNeil who is an adjoining neighbor to the above-referenced Project’s site. On her behalf, we request that you deny the application for all the after-the-fact area variances for the structure located at 312 Glen Lake Road. In 2019, the property owner placed a 188 sq. ft. large structure on his property without first obtaining the four variances needed to comply with the town of Queensbury laws. These four variances are: Variance on the percent of impermeable surfaces; Variance on the percent of floor area; Setback variance from the shoreline; and Setback variance from the side yard boundary. This letter focuses mainly on the variances related to the percent of impermeable surface and the side yard setback. In 1995, this property was granted variances, including for impermeable surface area. After that variance was granted, the applicant made additional modifications to the property, without obtaining variances, that have further increased the impermeable surface. Now, the applicant again increased the impermeable surface area on his property without obtaining a variance when he placed this structure on it. The applicant has shown a blatant disregard for the limitations of the previous variances and is only before this board now because he was caught. The Zoning Board must consider five factors when deciding whether to grant a variance, each of which are addressed herein - although not in the order listed in the Town Code. Instead, we will be addressing the substantiality of the variance first. When the needed variances are considered in light of these factors, it is clear that this structure does not qualify these needed variances. 1. The Requested Variances Are Substantial. The four area variances needed for the structure to remain at its current size and location are substantial. B. The Setback Variance From The Side Yard Boundary Is Substantial Between an 80% to 90% reduction in the required side setback of 20 feet is needed for the structure to stay in its current location. The application says that the distance between the edge of the structure and the property line is 3.9 feet. However, the photos and survey excerpt enclosed, show it is closer to 1.5 feet away. The first two 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) photos are of the map of survey for 316 Glen Lake Road, the property in which Ms. McNeil has an ownership interest. Please note the location of the stone wall and iron rod relative to the boundary between 316 Glen Lake Road and the Project site. Please also note that the house at 316 Glen Lake Road, which was built in the 1940's, is only is 10 feet from that boundary. The third photograph is of the iron rod, which can be seen on the survey, and the stone wall located at 316 Glen Lake Road and the applicant's structure on his property. The measuring tape indicates that the structure is less than the purported 3.9 feet from the boundary line, and is closer to 1.5 feet from it. If the applicant's numbers are correct and it was 3.9 feet away, that would require a variance of 16.1 feet or a reduction of 80% less than what is required. If the measurements from Ms. McNeal's photos are more accurate, it is an over a 90% reduction in the required setback. In either case, this would be a substantial variance. The application states that this is not a substantial variance because it is a "visually appropriate location.' However, photos taken by Ms. McNeil from in and around her house, show this is not the case. The next 8 photographs show the view of the 188 sq. ft. structure from the neighbor at 316 Glen Lake Road. The first two photos of this set were taken just last week on May 13, 2021. Contrary to statements by the Applicant, the structure is not adequately screened by vegetation. The structure is essentially a wall that is over 20 feet long and 10 feet tall, mere feet from the property line, and barely 10 feet from Ms. McNeil's house on the lakeside part of her property. This is not a visually appropriate location" as claimed. B. The Variance For Percent Of Impermeable Surfaces Is Substantial Even with the recent changes made to the property, granting the variance for the percent of impermeable surface for the structure would result in between 491 sq. ft. to 657.5 sq. ft. more of impermeable surface than this board authorized in 1995. Either would be a substantial deviation from what was approved in 1995 let alone the standard in the code. Errors and Omissions in the Application Must Be Corrected Prior to Review By the Board Applicant's new materials undercount of the amount of impervious surface on the property by erroneously treating new paving materials as 100% permeable. This must be corrected before the application for a variance for percent permeability can be reviewed. Applicant has replaced the 687 sq. ft. area on the side of the house was replaced with "tuff stone," which at most, could earn that area a 50% credit towards permeability (343.5 sq. ft.) However, the calculations written on the plan treat the material as 100% permeable and reduces the impervious "macadam parking, driveway" figure by the entire 687 sq. ft. This erroneously reduced the percent of calculated for pervious area on the property. Similarly, the 332 sq. ft. deck area under the hot tub was replaced with "sure step. Based on the materials available, it is unclear whether this earns the area any credit towards permeability. ' The calculations in the most recent plan treats this new material as 100% permeable and reduces impervious "concrete walks and curbing" figure by the entire 332 sq. ft. (from 446 sq. ft. to 114 sq. ft.). Unless the applicant has completely removed the hot tub and deck area around it, that is an error. These errors undercounted the percent of impervious surface by between 509.5 sq. ft. to 675.5 sq. ft.. The recent map shows that if the proposed structure is allow to remain, the property would be 69% permeable, when in reality, with the new structure, the property would be only between 65.8% to 66.6% permeable. Recent Remedial Actions By the Applicant Do Not Bring The Property Into Compliance With The 1995 Variance In the 1995, the applicant was granted a variance that would allow for a reduction from the minimum 75% permeable cover to just 69% permeable cover. As seen in the map in Applicant's 2020 application, the amount of impermeable surface on the property increased from the allowed 69% permeable cover to just 65% permeable cover by 2019 - without additional variances. The 1995 to 2019 increase in impermeable surface from 31% to 35%, was due the addition of a new paved area on the east side of the house that has access to the basement via a garage door and an impermeable patio walkway and hot tub area. This is contrary to the argument raised by applicant' s representative at the October 2020 meeting that the additional impermeable surface is due to the basement not being counted. After the recent changes, the percent of permeable cover, without the proposed structure, would be between 66.7% and 67.5%. Thus, these recent changes do not bring the property back into compliance with the 1995 variance, even without the structure. Ms. McNeil appreciates the applicant's belated attempt to reduce the runoff from the property. However, this inadequate remediation, does not merit a receiving new variance on top of the existing violations. In fact, these should probably undergo separate review for additional after-the-fact variances. The Percent Permeability Variance Needed is Substantial If the structure is allowed to remain the property would only be between 65.8% to 66.6% permeable. This is at least 8.4% less than the 75% minimum required by the Town in the Critical Environmental Area and 2.4% less than allowed in the 1995 variance. Small project by small project, the Applicant has slowly over- burdened his property. This structure is merely the latest project that the applicant constructed without a variance that increases impermeability of the property. Ms. McNeil is merely asking that this latest violation not be condoned. This variance is substantial and failure of this factor alone should lead to the denial of this variance. C. Variance on the Percent of Floor Area is Substantial With the addition of the structure on the property, the floor area will total 5,962 square feet or 29% of the total parcel area. This is a substantial variance from the maximum 22% authorized under the Town Code in the Waterfront Residential Zone and the 26% coverage approved by this Board in 1995. In 1995, this Board approved a 4,378 sq. ft. residence and a 900 sq. ft. garage, for a total of 5,278 square feet of floor area. This itself is over the 22% allowed in the Waterfront Residential Zone. Since that time, the floor area of the property has increased to 5,774 square feet, not including the proposed structure. Counsel for the applicant has suggested that this increase is because the Town Code at the time did not include basements in calculating floor area. However, the actual resolution from 1995 explicitly addresses the basement: The applicant proposes to construct a residence of 4,378 sq. ft. of which 3,000 sq. ft. is living space, the remainder of which is basement utility area. In addition a 900 sq. ft. attached garage is proposed. Record of Resolution for Variance File No. 74-1994. Like the increase in the amount of impermeable surface, this 496 square 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) feet increase is likely due to gradual illegal expansions on the property - not the exclusion of the 1,378 sq. ft. basement utility area. There are four variances being requested by the applicant in order to leave the unlawfully constructed structure in place. Any single one of those variances being substantial merits that variance being denied.” MRS. MOORE-I apologize for interrupting. It’s up to the Board if you want to give some highlights. MR. MC CABE-How much more do we have? MR. MC DEVITT-I’d be in favor of a summary of highlights. MR. URRICO-I can’t summarize ten pages that quickly. There’s three more pages. MR. MC CABE-All right. Let me summarize this. Our consideration tonight is simply the shed. We can’t really go back and undo whatever was done in the past. We can certainly consider it for the overall, but we’re not going to address mistakes that were made, other than the addition of this shed. Is that fair to say? MRS. MOORE-So, to some point. The Board did ask this applicant to go back and take a look at permeability, which the applicant did, and that information is in front of you. I mean that’s what this Board asked. That’s why it was tabled was to discuss the shed and see if the applicant could do a little better on the permeability. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So the other pertinent fact here is that we do have a licensed surveyor indicating that the shed is indeed 3.9 feet from the property line, and that’s what we would normally go by. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Plus there’s 69% permeability which they’re saying not. MR. LAPPER-I want to just weigh in on that because they had read Laura’s notes. Jeff did change out the material under the hot tub to make it better, but Laura didn’t give him credit for it, the way Queensbury does permeability and that was in her notes and we did take half the credit for changing out the permeability numbers, but that’s how Queensbury does it. So this was all run through the Planning Department and it was better than it was the last time. That’s a lot of words over a shed. There’s obviously something neighbor to neighbor and the people next door it’s like 12 cousins that now own it from the grandparents and this is the only one who’s objecting of the 12 owners. MR. HENKEL-Last time you had a family member that came here in support of it that wasn’t part of that group. MR. LAPPER-Right. Exactly. That’s their side of the fence. MR. MC CABE-All right. 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 was basically in full support of this application the last time and I think the only issue, you know, I think the applicant has proposed increases in the permeability which is a plus as far as I’m concerned. I think the only alternative would be, you know, you could move the shed anywhere in the yard. It’s still going to be out of compliance, whether you put it over on Choppa’s side or the side where it’s current proposed. I’ve paddled by it numerous times. I think because you have the hedgerow leading down to the water’s edge I think that basically mitigates any view from the lake. So the neighbors as I mentioned before is a slightly higher level lot, the ground level above. So I don’t really see that it impedes the view to the lake or anything like that. So I think I would be in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Well I think the last time we did discuss it. From that discussion we determined that the shed really wasn’t that much of an imposition. I guess I would vote in favor. I don’t think that there’s a really large increase to the permeability and I am, you had a 69 and you went down and I’m really not a fan of this after the fact business, but I think that basically the shed appears to be buffered well. So I guess I am in favor. MR. MC CABE-Brent? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project. I have a question though. So the question I have is, does Sure Step allow to permeability? Because in the letter they’re referencing that it does not, and I want to understand. MR. MC CABE-Well it says in our notes that it’s 50%. MRS. MOORE-Tuff Step. So the different products. So if something’s considered decking, so Trex Deck, that’s considered hard surfacing. There’s no credit given. MR. MC DEVITT-No credit. MR. LAPPER-Even though there’s space in between it. MRS. MOORE-Even though there’s space in between it. For consistency review, if something is considered decking, as reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, we have not granted a 50% credit to decking. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Even though there’s slates in the middle of it. What we do give credit for are items that we consider permeable pavers. Tuff Step, we evaluated that. It’s a grid lock pattern and so there is permeability given to that, and our office has given 50% credit. That’s why the calculations are re-done and given to this Board in that sense. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. That letter is saying that it should not be allowed to, oaky. We’re not going to even talk about that. I understand it better now. I am in full support. Permeability was increased which is good, and the view from the lake is mitigated, which is good. You have my support. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I was in favor of this project when it was first presented and I think the applicant has done his due diligence and brought the permeability back to what it was before. The shed itself blends in with that tree line and it’s kind of a shame that one individual goes into writing so many things and going back in time, but this project as presented I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt this family spent a lot of money on re-doing that hot tub area. The shed is put in the best spot on that lot where it’s not viewed from the lake, and really if you look at the pictures it doesn’t look like it’s very viewed by the McNeil family either. So I’d be in favor as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to go along with everybody else and I’m going to be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-So I guess I can’t break the bar here. So I’m going to support the project also. I’m impressed that the applicant did indeed follow our lead and improve permeability. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion, and I’m going to ask Brent if he’d make that motion. MR. MC DEVITT-Sure. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey Godnick. (Revised) Applicant proposes to maintain a 188 sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. footprint with a floor area of 5,774 sq. ft. Project includes installing permeable pavers adjacent to the house increasing permeability. Site plan new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability and floor area. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements, 179-5-020 Sheds The storage shed is proposed to remain at 3.9 ft. setback from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Shoreline setback is 44 ft. and is to remain where 50 ft. setback is required. Permeability is proposed to improve to 65.8% (Hot Tub sure-step area of 332 is considered hard surface) then (Turf Stone area of 687 sq. ft. may also receive a credit of 50 %-344 sq. ft. may be considered 50% ) where area variance AV71-1994 granted permeability at 69%. The site has a floor area of 5,774 sq. ft.; the 188 sq. ft. shed creates 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 5,962 sq. ft. floor area and the maximum allowed is 4,527 sq. ft. (At the time of construction indicates floor area of basements was not accounted for in unfinished basements –ZBA minutes 3/15/1995). SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 21, 2020 and May 19, 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. We have a nice buffer zone from the lake with that hedge line so that is certainly mitigated. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board to minimize the request. Those are not possible. Permeability, as we indicated, has been increased. 3. The requested variance is not substantial and again the permeability which was increased from the previous meeting. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty, while it could be self-created, it is minimal in nature. 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) That there be an updated survey and updated site data sheet for the file. 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. 39-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th Day of May 2021 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Prior to you making your vote, in the Staff Notes I suggested that there be an updated survey to represent the correct permeability on the site, as well as an updated site data sheet. So that is up to the Board if you wish to make that condition. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Brent, would you add that condition to the motion. MR. MC DEVITT-Yes, that the updated survey as well as the site data sheet is conditioned under Number Eight of our motion. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 29-2021. Although we’ve had this application before, we’re going to treat this as a new application right now. So we’re going to start from scratch. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DANIEL GRASMEDER ZONING WR LOCATION 3222 ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 884 SQ. FT. LIVING 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 436 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY ADDITION TO THE SOUTH OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING, CONNECTING THE STRUCTURE WITH AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND REPLACING THE ROOF ON THE GARAGE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE OF 1,152 SQ. FT. WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TWO LEVELS (STORAGE OF VEHICLES ON THE LOWER LEVEL AND A WORKSHOP ABOVE). SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND MAJOR STORMWATER. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACK, HEIGHT OF DETACHED GARAGE, HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATIONS TO THE MAIN HOME, NUMBER OF GARAGES, AND SIZE OF GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 9-2021; AV 8-2021; AV 76-2002; AV 43-02; AV 27-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179-13-010. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TREVOR FLYNN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2021, Trevor Flynn, Balzar & Tuck Architecture, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 3222 Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct an 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to the west of the existing primary dwelling. The project includes construction of a 436 sq. ft. breezeway addition to the south of the primary dwelling, connecting the structure with an existing detached garage and replacing the roof on the garage. The project also includes construction of a new detached garage of 1,248 sq. ft. floor area with a 672 sq. ft. MR. LAPPER- workshop which would include two levels (storage of vehicles on the lower level and a workshop above). Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and major stormwater. Relief requested for shoreline setback, height of detached garage, height of the alterations to the main home, number of garages, and size of garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home and the new garage, number of garages, and size of garage. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure, 179- 2-010 garage, private parking The single-story addition to the main home is to be located 56.6 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The two roof dormer additions of the home are to be 33 ft. 6 inches where 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. The new garage is to be 21 ft. 4 inches in height where an accessory structure is limited to 16 ft. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and size of the garage 1,248 sq. ft. floor area where maximum size allowed on lot would be 1,100 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 limited due to orientation of the existing building on the parcel, parcel shape and parcel topography within 75 ft. of the shoreline for height and setback. The second garage may be eliminated to reduce the number of garages; although the second garage is storage and workshop for classic vehicles. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor for the residential requests and substantial for the second garage request as relevant to the code. The relief for the single-story addition to the main home is 18.4 ft. The relief for the two roof dormer additions is 5 feet 6 inches in excess. The new garage relief is 5 feet 4 inches in excess. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and size of the garage. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes residential additions to the main home, alterations to portions of the three floors, connecting the existing detached garage with a new roof orientation, then constructing a detached garage. The project includes new stormwater controls, site work to reduce runoff, and landscaping for the site. The plans show the additions and the portion of the dormer roof additions that are above the 28 ft. but match the existing structure height. There are elevation views and floor plans for the proposed work on the home and the new garage. The second garage is presented as a workshop for antique vehicles.” MR. LAPPER-Again, for the record, Jon Lapper. The Grasmeders are here. So even though you’ve heard this before, our goal tonight is to re-present the whole thing so that the record is complete. When we were here the first time, I think the Board was more focused on the garage because that was what you were more concerned about. MR. MC CABE-That’s other people’s view. So I think, to straighten this out, I think we should go through each of the variances to make sure that we understand everything as well. MR. LAPPER-So I’m going to just make some general comments and I’ll have Trevor go through exactly so it’s complete for the record. In terms of the improvements to the house, under the standard of practical difficulty, this is taking a 1920’s design home to turn it into a permanent year round structure for their family. So architecturally significant and the goal here is to enhance the architecture in keeping with the original design. The constraints as Laura mentioned in the Staff Notes because the lake is on two sides of the house, in terms of the setbacks when it was built there wasn’t a 75 foot setback. The constraints are to make this a livable living space that works within the layout of the house itself, but we think that what’s being requested for the house is extremely minor. The dormers are just to bring light in obviously. We’re going to 33 feet just to match what’s already there. So it’s just to make it architecturally correct and it’s not like we’re talking about 33 feet for the whole structure. It’s little tiny dormers and the inside living space addition is just to make space that’s usable and there’s nowhere else to put it because of the grade in the back and where the lake is. So again we think this is very modest and just that, obviously we need a thorough record, a thorough resolution on this. So I’m going to ask Trevor to come up and go through the math so it’s all on the record. MR. MC CABE-So, just for the record, what is the setback of the house right now? MR. FLYNN-56.6. MR. MC CABE-So that’s not going to change. Okay, and what is the height of the house right now? MR. FLYNN-Existing you said. Sorry. Currently shoreline setback. BRANDON FERGUSON MR. FERGUSON-Brandon Ferguson from EDP. The current shoreline setback is 59.1 feet and we are proposing it to be decreased a little bit to 56.6. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. FERGUSON-And just one corner of the house, just because of the position of the, where the lake kind of wraps around there, that corner of the house would have been closer to the lake than what it is. MR. MC DEVITT-So it’s 59. what? I’m sorry. MR. FERGUSON-59.1 is what the existing is. MR. LAPPER-And in terms of the height? MR. FERGUSON-The height is, existing is, well it’s still less than the existing. The proposed dormers are less than the existing. MR. MC CABE-Okay. That’s fine. MR. LAPPER-Less than the ridge. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. FERGUSON-And you’ll see that in the diagram when we get to that. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. FLYNN-Trevor Flynn with Balzer & Tuck Architecture representing the Grasmeders at 3222 Route 9L Queensbury. I’d like to thank you guys for your time in advance. Our goal is to be through and precise yet detailed, but really walk you through all six variances related to the house and the garage. MR. MC CABE-Yes. Okay. th MR. FLYNN-We’re here based on the APA variance reversal determination letter memo dated March 26, 2021 recommending in their conclusions section reversal of the variance granted by the ZBA for expansion th of a non-conforming dwelling, February 24, 2021. We’ve already discussed the six variances and I’ll walk you through each one. So just to re-acquaint you with the project, as you’ll see this first area, the shaded area is for the additions. This is the existing house as it currently exists, the detached garage, the proposed mud room link from the attached garage to the living quarters and then the kitchen/living room/dining area off to the west, and as mentioned, the house is a unique house, built in the summer of the 1920’s. Since then the detached garage was built in 2003 and the proposed project involves turning that existing garage into an attached garage with a mudroom link between the two structures. Another addition to the main residence is proposed to provide more living space for the residents to make it a year round home. As aging in place requires more adjacency to programs and a possible, in the future, first floor bedroom as well. As mentioned, the detached garage is also being proposed as the existing is being connected to the house to more afford their everyday vehicles where the detached garage is for the storage of classic cars, property maintenance and also the restoration of some of the vehicles as well. So we don’t believe this is an undesirable change and will not produce, in looking at the context of the existing neighborhood and properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The residence will be expanded to meet the needs of the client which could not be achieved in the existing footprint and I’ll walk you through that in detail. The exterior of the home was updated and provided a visual improvement to the neighborhood as seen from the lake and we’re tying the structure in to the existing roofline in keeping with overall existing form and geometry. We’re removing impervious areas that currently exist where the proposed addition is. So we’re kind of swapping out the impervious area of the roof for current impervious driveways which run down into the lake right now. So we’re almost blocking that and I’ll detail that as well and we’re trying to stick with the harmonious historic architecture of this 1920’s home. The variance sought for the detached garage will not cause a detriment to the neighborhood has it cannot be seen from the road and I have a view shed diagram to show you that as well, and it cannot be seen from neighboring properties as it’s surrounded by woods on both sides. All neighboring property owners have submitted letters of support for the project and the requested variances we are seeking for both the residence and the detached garage. In reference to Variance One, modification of a non-conforming existing structure, again it is a unique home built in the 1920’s where they didn’t have the setbacks that we do today. For the year round addition, currently the existing garage or existing driveway turnaround is right here and there isn’t a very proper kitchen, dining room or entrance for the seasonal winters that we get in Upstate New York. So the mudroom addition is off to the side to connect to the garage as well, and re-orient some of the additional spaces, existing spaces. The proposed addition was studied at length. We are removing some of the older non-historical additions, the one off to the back and off to the side, off to the south I should say, and we currently do not have the mudroom. So you’re every day pulling into the garage, walking into the mudroom and then allowing yourself to get into the main space and into the kitchen, living area. The addition you’ll see this dashed line. That’s the 50 foot and then the 75 foot setbacks. We held the addition back from the lake façade as best we could, as tying into that existing form of that existing roof, but we’ll show you that in the addition slides, but the location of the addition is driven by that historical geometry of the original home. So this is the existing home. You can see it’s a unique roof structure and this is the addition as it ties in and the view from the lake. So in general the proposed addition is smaller in scale and volume than the current existing home. So you see the addition to the south, and this is the proposed dormer up on the third floor and that gets to the height variance. The view of the home from the south per the driveway. This was also that impervious driveway that we were discussing earlier where the truck and cars currently park because that’s where the addition is going. So right now all the sheet flow and rain and water runs down the site. This is all ledge rock. So it doesn’t really percolate into any of these areas and runs right down into the lake. So we’re proposing to remove a lot of these impervious areas as we’re putting the addition in there, re-locating the driveway further to the south and east areas. MRS. HAMLIN-That’s one of the additions in the back there that you’re removing. Correct? MR. FLYNN-This portion? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. FLYNN-That is being removed. That’s where the new front entry is proposed. Next slide, please. So as you notice from the previous image, that is the existing roof form and we’re tying into that and then turning the structure sideways in an effort to pull it back from the lake. If it weren’t for the current zoning, the entire roof would most likely have been extended. So that entire volume, as we saw from the lake 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) would have had a larger impact on the views from the lake and from the road, but this was, in order to do it more discreetly and tying into that existing structure. So we made an effort to keep this addition as far away from the lake as we could in those efforts. So I wanted to go back to the first floor plan, I think, Page Three. Thank you for everyone’s patience. So we explored, Page Four, sorry, Laura. We explored three options. The first is the expansion to the west. As proposed and mentioned, to the east and to the south there other options. Of the three options studied, two of the options are not feasible due to the existing geometry of the house and site restrictions. The second option of extending the addition to the east would infringe on the side yard setback requiring an addition variance requested which would require substantial removal of existing trees, existing utilities, including underground septic, generator and A/C units of the eastern side of the home, all of which we’re proposing to remain, would have to be re-located and would cost the client additional monies as well. The third option of expanding the addition to the south where the current proposed entry is would mean that the existing impervious driveway that we previously showed in this area would exist and remain and during our studies we realized as we tried to pull back and expand this volume, the main entry would have been on this portion, on the western side of the house. So we would have most likely kept and proposed to keep that circular driveway. The area of the south addition is also known for bedrock and so more excavation, blasting would add major cost to the client and more disruption to the site as well. Architecturally in addition to the south it would also interrupt the historic roofline and as seen from those previous images we’re tying into that roof, trying to stay in keeping with the historical nature of the house. From a Code perspective, as the roof ties in, if you go to the next sheet, please, there’s bedrooms. Tying in on that side would require these bedrooms, would block the egress windows, the light and the vent to those spaces, further enforcing our position that the addition to the south of the existing residence is the most viable option. Then just going back to Page Four, I think, Laura, as mentioned to the closest point, which is here, the existing building is 59.1 feet from the shoreline. The proposed design to this corner is 56.6 feet from the shoreline. The requested variance for this additional 2.5 feet is not substantial. I believe the APA was wondering how much of the additional proposed square footage is within that setback. So inclusive of all the proposed patio and new build floor space, 52.5% of that area is within that 75 foot setback. We would also like to address the re-configuration of the existing stair. So currently there is a step down from an existing lakeside porch down to a landing and then a couple of steps down to grade, which grade is higher at this point. With the addition, we still need to provide egress out of the dining room and onto the porch and then with careful study of the existing structure, we wanted to emulate that existing curve and provide the stair, and in doing so we did not encroach further than the previous existing distance from the lake. Page Ten please, Laura. I just want to discuss the building height. This is another area that we do not think is also substantial. So as noted we’re requesting 5.5 feet relief of the 28 feet max. So we’re at 33.5 feet proposed to this dormer on the lakeside. The two dormers, none of which are overpowering to the existing main residence and gabled. So from this diagram you can see the darker shaded areas are, one, the proposed addition, and, two, a re- configuration of the existing addition, which is all within the existing roofline and less than the existing ridge. The lake northern dormer provides Code required light and ventilation for the bedroom up on the third floor. The floor area of this new dormer is also not encroaching on the 75 foot shoreline setback. The driveway’s southern dormer is being re-configured to correct poor snow and water conditions. Right now there’s a lot of water and damage that’s coming up into that room. So we’re essentially re-building that in place, but since we’re reconstructing it, it requires a variance for that dormer. I believe that’s it on the height. So if you want to jump to Page 19, please. So next discussion is the variance for the second garage. The proposed second garage space is for the owner to have a place to store and restore classic cars. There is no commercial intentions for this detached garage, no rental intention as well. You will note a couple of comments that they couldn’t square some comments. There is a wood stove that’s mainly for heating the space and there’s also an oven. This oven’s for curing pyro coated car parts. As he sprays smaller pieces for the engines, he puts them in the oven and heats it up and cures it. So in reference to could the benefits of the detached garage not be met without the required variance, a smaller, at the house, a smaller attached garage would not be feasible or would provide insufficient storage for the property maintenance equipment, the current everyday vehicles and proposed classic cars that are being restored. This is an important hobby to the owner and I’m sure he’d be willing to stand up at the end of the presentation as needed to discuss his hobby in more detail, and we also have this slide to demonstrate what it looks like when he takes apart one of these cars and puts it back together. There’s a lot of space that is required for that. The garage area, we’re requesting 148 square feet relief. Eleven hundred square feet is the max. So we’re proposing 1,248 square feet. The attached garage is 148 feet over that. This variance could not be seen as substantial as it’s 13.5% greater than 1100 square feet. We did explore multiple options with the garage as well due to the site and the topography. We explored a single story three car garage with the addition, but what happened with that is the footprint got even larger. If you can imagine this space being turned up here, it created a 2,000 square foot footprint. So we would have been asking for a larger variance. So the space needed, we thought it was a clever way of addressing that with the bank. So tucking the lower portion into the side of the existing topography with a driveway from the west and a driveway from the south, more shop space and mechanical space with the storage down below. So we think we did our due diligence in creating a smaller footprint for the program that was asked by the client. Would you go Page 21 I believe, or 20. Start with 20. Thank you, Laura. This is just a quick diagram of the view shed of where the garage placement is, and you’ll see it’s quite wooded in all directions around the proposed detached garage. These two dots represent views as seen from the road and once this garage is built, we do not see that there will be any visible appearance from the road. Next sheet please. As for the height variance, you know, we did a lot to keep the height of the garage down. Again, 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) tucking the garage into the side of the hill with that bank barn technique and also sloping the roof away. That workshop area, in plan there are some unusable spaces as the roof is sloping and creating almost knee walls in the space. So there was a lot of effort and care taken in trying to slope the roof away, follow the topography, yet also speak to the existing historical nature of the home. I also wanted to also bring up the height that’s needed up on the first floor. Even if this was a one story garage with the car lifts, the car lifts go up 12, 14 feet with the car on top of that. The structure still needs to clear the top of the car. The client, as he’s moving into his retirement age, is sick of kind of rolling around under the cars. So the car lift is an easier way for him to work on the cars more comfortably for longer extended periods of time. So that height of the ridge we believe would be required whether it was a two story garage or not. So that’s an important feature, and also we’ve done as much as we can to minimize the height of that garage height on the first wall as well, but we’re also tying in to the existing topography. So these two floor levels are set at existing grade, and that’s how we got that. I’d like to jump back to just the site plan overall. So overall we think the project will also have a positive effect on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. As the site exists the driveway has a large area of pavement, impervious area that slopes directly towards the shoreline. The surface water runoff is currently untreated and we’re proposing to treat it. The project involves removal of this paved area and in its place the addition will be built. There will no longer be any impervious pavement within that 75 foot shoreline setback. The addition actually acts as a buffer as the water is coming down the driveway and we have one raingarden to the west, southwest and then the addition blocks where all that runoff is currently running down into the lake. So we’re treating it within that area to pervious pavers. The project also includes additional stormwater measures that do not currently exist. There is a shoreline buffer, but we’re also suggesting to improve it and enhance it, adding more plantings, along with providing permeable pavers on all pathways around this. There’s also grass swales throughout the site to direct the water. I think that’s it for now. MR. MC CABE-You’re all set? MR. FLYNN-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, a couple of things came to my mind. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MRS. HAMLIN-So in previous discussions, you’re asking for a whole lot of variances here, and things get a little confusing. When somebody says, okay, here’s the existing setback right now, to be very clear, the addition is new and when you build new onto a non-conforming structure you need to comply with the latest. So you’re not producing anything, and the way, our numbers, it almost looks like you’re saying well here it’s 59 and now it’s 56. You’re requesting 56 which is still significantly less than 75, and grant it a good portion of the back is within the 75, but still I really think it’s gorgeous, the work you’re doing is gorgeous. I’m into historic preservation. I appreciate this, but that 75 foot shoreline, I think you need to figure out a way to do that. MR. MC CABE-We’re just asking questions now. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. We’re just asking questions. MR. FLYNN-Yes, I would like to mention it is in a unique part of zoning for the Town of Queensbury along the lake here. This is one of the only areas where it’s rural and it’s a 75 foot setback compared to the more typical 50 foot setbacks that you see, and that was in our first design efforts. We did not want to encroach towards that 50 foot setback at all and that was kind of the holy grail. We didn’t want to cross that line. So when we’re studying those roof lines and still trying to get the floor plan to work within that geometry, that’s why the 2.5 feet additional relief that we’re requesting we don’t think is a big ask as it relates to other projects on the lake. We think we’re still within the spirit and intent. MR. MC CABE-We’re just asking questions. MRS. HAMLIN-Well then one question. Why is it that the macadam driveway that you have there can’t disappear regardless? MR. LAPPER-Part of the project is replace it with a house, and also the raingarden which stops the water, but Trevor’s point was if you compare the existing to the proposed we’re fixing stormwater problems where it’s running untreated into the lake. So there’s actually an advantage to the lake of putting a building there to stop it and also raingardens. MRS. HAMLIN-So if you pushed the addition back to some degree. MR. LAPPER-You still have to have a driveway. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. FLYNN-And it would have tied into the structure differently. MRS. HAMLIN-But do you need that much driveway? MR. LAPPER-So the real answer is that when you’re trying to enhance an existing building and you have constraints because the building is not built 75 feet back because that wasn’t the law, and this was, as Trevor said, just a few feet to pick it up to make it make sense architecturally. That’s really what this is about. He really went through the program. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-You mentioned the word rural. Explain that a little more to me, what you mean by that. MRS. MOORE-So the zoning in that particular area has an APA land use classification of Rural Residential, I think it’s Rural Residential. I could be wrong, but in that particular area of the Town there’s a 75 foot setback and it’s part of the APA land use classification versus the Town’s, where the main portion of the Town, going from Bay to the east side is the 50 foot setback. MR. MC DEVITT-Interesting. Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing, see if there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project and invite anybody on the outside who would like to call in and express a view on this project, give us a call at 518-761-8225. So do we have anybody in the audience? Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. The Lake George Waterkeeper supports the determination by the Adirondack Park Agency that the encroachment into the shoreline setback is substantial and excessive. Additionally we feel there are alternatives available that would reduce the overall disturbance and the increased impervious surface within the shoreline setback and Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. Furthermore it appears that the project creates redundant features such as a second main entrance, a second garage, as well as the concrete steps off the lakeside porch where development considerations should be minimized. An undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood. The proposal will increase the existing non- conformity as well as increase the structure area within the shoreline setback, as has been stated, and increase impervious cover around the residence. There’s potentially going to be more driveway, albeit on the one side. I don’t know if a building is going to buffer that from the lake. And there’s limited mitigation measures, all within the CEA surrounding Lake George. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by another method other than an area variance. The applicant could reduce and re-locate the proposed addition to the south, which would eliminate the apparent second main entrance on the western side of the addition. It seems there’s a mud entrance, and then there’s that large real entrance which is just off the driveway that appears it’s going to be a second entrance where right now there’s actually only one entrance to the house on that side. The proposed detached garage could be eliminated and incorporated into the existing garage, which could be expanded and have the entrance doors face west. This would eliminate the probable blasting and concrete work for the detached garage that would reduce disruption to the natural site conditions, which the application material actually states is a concern of the project. It is also said that they couldn’t put the garage on one level because it would increase the square footage, but I think you actually increase the square footage of disturbance more by putting in two driveways. So by having it on two levels you actually, in my opinion, have more disturbance because now you have two driveways instead of one. The proposed variance will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions. The proposed addition will result in increased impervious surfaces near the lake with limited mitigation measures. Additionally the proposed detached garage will result in blasting, excavation and disruption to the natural site condition. It’s more of a planning issue, but again some considerations for what materials are going to be used in that garage with the items necessary for the hobby that would be used. A couple of comments on the, it was said that the practical difficulty was because of the lake. Now that’s the first time I’ve heard Lake George referred to as a practical difficulty. I think the difficulty’s from the proposed addition. It can’t be seen from the road, they showed all that, but obviously it can be seen from the lake, and that’s the main concern on the shoreline setbacks. More than half of this addition will be within the shoreline setback, 52%. So to me that appears to be substantial. That should be reduced. And those are my comments. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) KATHY GRASMEDER MRS. GRASMEDER-I’d like to speak. I’m Kathy Grasmeder and I am the homeowner, and I wanted to just make a couple of comments that Dan and I are lovers of the lake. We are very much interested in the preservation of Lake George, but we also really appreciate old architecture. I think some of the points made by Mr. Navitsky are not, he may not be as familiar with the layout of the current house that we are, that there are some structures of the house that we would like to keep in place. You saw the pictures that there is a very old stone porch, that it would be a shame to have to try to modify that for living space. So there’s a bit of a pinch point in that living area in the front. There’s also an incredibly beautiful old staircase that when people come in and see it they say they just don’t make things like this anymore. The center of the house has a fireplace in it which is unique in that it has a fireplace into the dining room as well as the living room, and those structures, the porch, the fireplace and the staircase, that is somewhat of a pinch point requiring the addition. So in bringing the house up to date from the 1920’s to the 2020’s it’s our opinion that the variance is not substantial. Also I just want to point out that the new stormwater measures that we’re proposing that currently don’t exist, but the plantings, etc., I feel that our team has done a great job from an architectural standpoint as well as from a stormwater standpoint to both protect the character of the building as well as protect the lake. Thanks very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? So I think our two minutes is exceeded here. MR. URRICO-I have some letters. MR. MC CABE-We do have some letters. MR. URRICO-There are four letters in support of their project. I’ll read the basis of one of the letters and then read the names in that support it. It says, “My property is located adjacent to the Grasmeders on the East side of their property. I have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation and addition to the home as well as for the second garage/workshop. It is my understanding that multiple variances are being requested and I wanted to provide this letter in support of the variances requested by Mr. & Mrs. Grasmeder.” And that’s Diane Matthews, 18 Cedar Point. A very similar letter from Jeff and Deborah Myers, 16 Rocky Shore Road, Lake George. Another similar letter from Robert McCormick and Lynn McCormick, 18 Dark Bay Lane, and another letter in support from Lester Chase and Thalia Chase, 3219 State Route 9L. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-This is a long one. This is a lot of thought into this. A lot of individuals. A lot of moving parts, if you will. I guess what I come back to is the meat of this is you’re working with a 1920’s home that is trying to be framed into a 2020 home and there’s some things that have to be worked around and t here’s some considerations that have to be given to that. So I’m in favor of the project The dormers aren’t of concern. They bring in light. I don’t have a big problem with that. So the project, again, is an interesting one, has some complexities. I do follow both sides of the equation here, but I am going to land with what I believe will be a good project in totality once it’s completed. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think the size of the property supports what they’re doing, I think the improvements to the lakeside. I understand and I hear Mr. Navitsky the Waterkeeper talking about the addition, and the size of the addition being within the 75 feet. I don’t know how else you could have placed that to stay out of that 75 foot buffer, but again, the way the property is laid out, I am in favor of it. The second garage, where it is and what it’s going to be used for, again, three acres supports that. Should that 1248 square foot garage, should that be 1100 square feet, they could knock 100 square feet off of that really easy, but what’s the 100 square feet going to do? If in fact it hinges on that garage, but as I said, I’m in favor of the project. I think the property can support it and I think it’ll be a good addition. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt it’s a large piece of property. It does support a second garage. The height on the house is questionable but I understand what they’re trying to do, keep the character of the old house. The first, I did pass this the first time that it came in front of us, but I also said that I thought maybe they could put a lift in the existing garage which would eliminate the height variance on the second garage. I think they deserve a second garage, detached garage because of the size of the property. So I’m going to change my vote now and say that I do not approve this as is for the second garage, the height, that bothers me. I think they can put the lift in the garage closest to the house and still get what they want. Otherwise I approve this as is except for the height of the second garage. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to agree with John almost entirely. I think, I know it’s hard taking a 100 year old home and trying to update it to today’s standards, but we have a chance to create some relief in some areas where things are, especially in that second garage which is new. I think we can reduce the height as well, and I would like the shoreline setback to be greater, but I don’t think that’s going to be a possibility, but I’m going to say the size of the property supports most of the other changes. So it doesn’t have to be mitigated, but I do think the height of the second garage is a problem and I would want that reduced. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree. I think that the alterations to the main home seem reasonable to me. I think the one question would be the addition on the side, you know, whether you should go south with it or not. I think that still can be a consideration, but I’ve always been against the second garage from the beginning. I think if the second garage were just going to be for storage or for cars or boats or whatever it happened to be, but I think the fact that it’s going to be for restoration of vehicles, it’s a residential area. Even though it’s a large substantial residential area, at the same time I don’t think we would allow this on any other residential lot in Town as proposed, and I think that’s still a sticking point for me. So as long as you have the second garage I’m not going to be in favor of the overall project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Well the last time I also had the same reservations as Jim in regards to the garage, but I do believe we made a condition. I’m not so sure how that condition is enforced, how much beyond our purview it is. It’s not so much the size of the garage it’s the use. As he says, it’s not technically commercial, but it’s a commercial like activity. So I’m against that, the use of the garage particularly. The breezeway’s great. I have no problem with the height issues with the dormers or any of that, but it is a large lot, and they’ve been very creative. I think they just need to get a little more creative with the addition. There’s a lot of room in that house actually and there’s more storage being added and I don’t know I think just because it’s a year round doesn’t necessarily need all that much space. MR. MC CABE-So you’re objecting to the whole project? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m objecting to the 75 foot. I’d like to see if we can’t get it to 75, something that can be downshifted. There could be some play here. I’m not an architect, but I see a lot of room in places where things could be re-positioned, and I’m opposed to the use of the garage, the commercial like activity. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So you’re not doing real well here. So let me say my piece and then we’ll give you an opportunity. First of all, the house isn’t 75 feet now. So to get the 75 feet you’d have to tear the house down. So we’re not going to ask, in my opinion, we’re not going to ask the applicant to tear the house down and build a new structure. I think it’s admirable that they are attempting to re-build a beautiful old building like this. So I certainly would support the shoreline setback. The height of the main building we said the dormers aren’t any higher than what exist right now. So approving the construction of the dormers doesn’t really violate height. It’s just because the height’s greater now than, it’s a non-conforming structure. So then it gets down to the second garage. It’s not unusual for us to approve a second garage on a location where the lot size is four acres. We understand that’s a good sized property and that it warrants a second garage, and I don’t have a problem with the size of the second garage, 1278 square feet versus 1100 isn’t a game changer. So it sounds like with several of the other Board members it’s the height of the second garage that’s the problem. MR. LAPPER-So we hear that and we’ll have to ask for it to be tabled. MR. MC CABE-So you’re going to request a tabling here, until when? MR. LAPPER-Next month. We’ll just look at the garage and see what we can do. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So the rest of the Board, did I summarize the feelings? Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-Actually I want it for the record. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I understand you. MRS. HAMLIN-No, I don’t want the house torn down. I’m not talking about the setback from the existing house. This is new construction. It’s an addition to a non-conforming use, and therefore I would somehow. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. FLYNN-Can I put something on the record? Just to note the differences between the garages. When you state that we could bring the lifts into the garage that we are attaching to the existing structure. However there is not enough space in that garage. There were points that we could expand that existing garage that’s currently there to add additional bays, but we’d be adding more bays which would trigger another variance by the Town for a garage. So we can’t have the lift down at that existing garage where there is not enough room to store all the parts and pieces and workshop to work on these cars. So the lift is required in that detached garage if that is going to be a component of the master plan. MR. HENKEL-How big is it? How big is the garage that’s attached? Isn’t it 1900, or is it 13? MR. MC CABE-It’s 1248. MR. KUHL-1248 is the new one. MR. FLYNN-Is the new one. MR. HENKEL-Right, the one that’s attached. MR. MC CABE-No, that’s the detached. MR. HENKEL-’Right, but I’m talking about the attached, because he’s talking about putting the lift into the attached. MR. FLYNN-No, that’s what, you guys mentioned bringing in the lifts. We wouldn’t need a height variance for the detached garage. MR. HENKEL-Right, and that’s what I asked you, the first time you said it couldn’t be done because you said that there wasn’t enough height in there. That’s why one of the questions I asked you way back in the beginning. MR. FLYNN-So there’s one, not enough height in there and, two, the use and function. So putting a lift in that garage wouldn’t be acceptable because there’s, the use needs to be in the detached garage, all the car storage, all the work on the cars. You can imagine the distance between the attached garage and detached garage on this site would outweigh carrying the pieces and the workshop working back and forth. The height in that detached garage is a function of the lifts. MR. MC CABE-So, John, could I have a motion to table this application. MRS. MOORE-I just want to know if this information that’s going to be updated can be provided to our office by next Thursday. MR. LAPPER-Let’s commit to that and if we have to ask for an extension we will. MR. HENKEL-All right. So it’s the first meeting, second meeting? MRS. MOORE-It’s the first meeting in June. MR. HENKEL-All right. th MRS. MOORE-Just to confirm that it’s the meeting of June 16. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture. Applicant proposes to construct an 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to the west of the existing primary dwelling. The project includes construction of a 436 sq. ft. breezeway addition to the south of the primary dwelling, connecting the structure with an existing detached garage and replacing the roof on the garage. The project also includes construction of a new detached garage of 1,152 sq. ft. which would include two levels (storage of vehicles on the lower level and a workshop above). Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and major stormwater. Relief requested for shoreline setback, height of detached garage, height of the alterations to the main home, number of garages, and size of garage. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2021 TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: thth Tabled to the June 16, 2021 meeting, any information submitted by May 27, 2021. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-We’ll see you next month. So next application is AV 27-2021. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II THE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, STEPHEN A. BURNETT (TRUSTEE) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) THE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, STEPHEN A. BURNETT (TRUSTEE) ZONING WR LOCATION 11 ANDREW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE WORK ON AN EXISTING 1.5 STORY CABIN. THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT IS 1,365 SQ. FT. THE CABIN FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 1,793 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,496 SQ. FT.; TOTAL SITE FLOOR AREA IS 4,641 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 4,985 SQ. FT. THE APPLICANT HAD STARTED WORK IN 2019 AND WAS ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING HOME WAS DAMAGED BY A TREE AND IS NOW BEING RECONSTRUCTED; THE EXISTING DECK HAS BEEN REMOVED AND A NEW SMALLER DECK IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE INTERIOR MAIN FLOOR AND BASEMENT AREA ARE TO BE RENOVATED; THIS INCLUDES THE FOUNDATION AND WALL SUPPORTS. EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A NEW ENTRY ROOF FEATURE, DOORS AND SLIDER DOORS ON LOWER LEVEL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 28- 2021; RC 561-2020; PZ 14-2015; PZ 21-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2021, The Burnett Family Trust, Stephen A. Burnett (Trustee), Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 11 Andrew Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete work on an existing 1.5 story cabin. The existing footprint is 1,365 sq. ft.; the cabin floor area is to be 1,793 sq. ft. The site has an existing house on the property with a footprint of 1,496 sq. ft.; total site floor area is 4,641 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,985 sq. ft. The applicant had started work in 2019 and was issued a stop work order. A portion of the existing home was damaged by a tree and is now being reconstructed; the existing deck has been removed and a new smaller deck is to be constructed. The interior main floor and basement area are to be renovated; this includes the foundation and wall supports. Exterior improvements include a new entry roof feature, doors and slider doors on lower level. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of non-conforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR. Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements The new construction on the north side is to be 22.8 ft. where 25 ft. 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home and the repair of a damaged part of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 2.2 ft. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed repair addition to an existing home. The addition was constructed as that portion of the home was damaged. The project also includes interior alterations that have been started for the basement area, the main floor, the entry deck way and the exterior portion of the home. The applicant intends to install a new septic system as part of the upgrades to the home. The parcel has an existing 1.5 story wood frame home on the property that will remain as is with no changes.” MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins here on behalf of Stephen Burnett and the Burnett Family Trust. This is another structure that dates back to the 1920’s. It’s been in their family since that time, since the early 1900’s and it’s been passed down from a number of generations. You may recall if you’ve been on this Board for a while, that in about 2015 two brothers had basically had exclusive use of the two residences. One brother used one and one used the other. At that time they applied to subdivide the properties because the brothers had different visions of what they wanted to do in the future. That application was denied. Subsequently one brother, Stephen, has taken ownership of the property and it’s in his trustee. So it’s all back in one family and he’s trying to clean up the issues with the cabin. Subsequently they started some work repairing this cabin and the work snowballed and it became a little more than just repairing a little roof damage from a tree falling on it, and he’s under a Stop Work Order now. He wants to make it right and move on and repair this cabin. The cabin is being replaced on the original footprint. We’re not expanding. However part of that, the little wing off the north side is 22.8 feet from that northern property line where that side setback is 25 feet. That little wing is there because it contains stairs and putting stairs anywhere else in that structure would mess up the layout of the thing totally. That’s where the stairs have always been. Historically that may have been added on years ago when they put stairs there, but it’s part of the history of the structure. He’s trying to re=build on the footprint. We’ve reduced some asphalt. We’ve reduced the size of the deck. We are doing a new compliant septic system, and we’re here simply asking for 2.3 feet of side setback relief. Everything else is compliant. It’s over 115 feet from the lake. So we’d like your support for what we feel is a relatively simple project. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing no questions, 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 contribute input on this particular project and invite anybody watching on the outside if they have comment to give us a call at 518-761-8225. Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, but I should have read this in earlier. The Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, th and this motion was passed on May 18, 2021 by a six zero vote. MR. MC CABE-So, Maria, you’re normally the time keeper here. You’ve got to let me know when two minute are up. MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. HENKEL-It’s 2.2 of relief, not 2.3. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, did I say 2.3? MR. HENKEL-I thought you did. MR. KUHL-I often wondered what happened with this project. It came back how many times. MR. MC CABE-You were the one that knocked it out. MR. KUHL-I said no. I mean they went to the County, right, to a judge for adjudication on this, right? The judge threw it back and said that it was the Zoning Board because they wanted to subdivide it. MR. HUTCHINS-They wanted to subdivide it. The subdivision required a number of variances. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. KUHL-But after they got turned down, that’s it. The one brother said he would buy it, the cabin, from the other brother. MR. HUTCHINS-They worked it out. There’s a little more to it than that. MR. KUHL-I mean the second person passed away, as I remember. MR. HUTCHINS-There was a death. MR. KUHL-And it was in the will and everybody wanted their money. MR. MC CABE-That’s good recall, Ron. MR. HUTCHINS-I’ve only been involved for two months. MR. KUHL-The thing that I found really sad for the person that was in the house, he retired there. Right? And it was all under one deed and it was being taxed and then the brother passed and nobody was kicking in expenses on taxes and everything. MR. HENKEL-It probably went all the way back to the civil war. MR. MC CABE-Yes, the real problem was two houses on one property. MR. KUHL-Well now you have one person has the whole thing. He probably had to take a mortgage on his house and sell his car. MR. MC CABE-Maria, is our two minutes up yet? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-I think this is a minimal request and I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I think it’s a small request also, even though there’s two houses on one piece of property. They’re pre-existing really anyway, and it’s 1.2 acres. So I’m all for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I’m in favor as presented. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I approve. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I forgot Jim. You can do the motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen A. Burnett, Trustee for The Burnett Family Trust. Applicant proposes to complete work on an existing 1.5 story cabin. The existing footprint is 1,365 sq. ft.; the cabin floor area is to be 1,793 sq. ft. The site has an existing house on the property with a footprint of 1,496 sq. ft.; total site floor area is 4,641 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,985 sq. ft. The applicant had started work in 2019 and was issued a stop work order. A portion of the existing home was damaged by a tree and is now being reconstructed; the existing deck has been removed and a new smaller deck is to be constructed. The interior main floor and basement area are to be renovated; this includes the foundation and wall supports. Exterior improvements include a new entry roof feature, doors and slider doors on lower level. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of non-conforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR. Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements The new construction on the north side is to be 22.8 ft. where 25 ft. is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 19, 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 requested variance for 2.2 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback is deemed to be minimal. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. There really are none because the structure exists and has existed for quite some time now. It’s in been in same family use since the civil war times. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it’s only 2.2 feet from 25 feet. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not note any at all from this project. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because of the placement of the building and as it currently exists it’s a staircase violation. 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. 27-2021 THE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, STEPHEN BURNETT (TRUSTEE), Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th Day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you, Board. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. Okay. Our next application is AV 28-2021, 333 Cleverdale, LLC. AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 333 CLEVERDALE LLC (SAN SOUCI) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) 333 CLEVERDALE LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 333 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL OF OUTDOOR SEATING AREA WHICH INCLUDES EXISTING FOUR 6-PERSON PICNIC TABLES AND ONE 4-PERSON TABLE ON THE RESTAURANT PARCEL AND FIVE TOP TABLES FOR 4 PERSONS EACH ON THE ADJOINING PARCEL. SITE PLAN FOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PLAN AND MODIFICATION OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT (SUP 45-2009). RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY AND PARKING. CROSS REF AV 26-2012; AV 38- 2009; SUP 9-2012; SUP 45-09 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-43 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-9-120; 179-10 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 28-2021, 333 Cleverdale LLC, Meeting Date: May 19, 2921 “Project Location: 333 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests approval of outdoor seating area which includes existing four 6-person picnic tables and one 4-person table on the restaurant parcel and five top tables for 4 persons each on the adjoining parcel. Site plan for modification of an approved plan and modification of the special use permit (SUP 45-2009). Relief requested for permeability and parking. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for floor area, density, permeability and parking in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Variance for property at 333 Cleverdale is for parking where 44 spaces are required and 17 spaces are provided. Permeability is 22.7% and 75% 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 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 to reduce the number of seats. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested for parking is 27 spaces less than required. The relief for permeability is 52.3 % less than required permeability. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add outdoor seating for the existing restaurant. The project includes additional outdoor seating on adjoin parcels. The plans show the location of the outdoor seating and the location of the existing building. During COVID the applicant had outdoor seating and would now like to make it permanent.” MR. LAPPER-For the record Jon Lapper with Tom Center the project engineer. I don’t know if it’s the Board’s pleasure to do this with 337 together. MR. MC CABE-I thought about it. We really should do them separately. MR. LAPPER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-You might want to at least read in the description and the one reason I suggest that is the public hearing, due to the public hearings coming up. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So people won’t get confused as to which one. Yes, okay. I understand. MR. URRICO-So am I reading it? Okay. So this is 32-2021. AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 337 CLEVERDALE LLC AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) 337 CLEVERDALE LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 337 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO UTILIZE A PORTION OF THE 0.15 ACRE PARCEL FOR ADDITIONAL OUTDOOR SEATING FOR THE ADJOINING SAN SOUCI RESTAURANT WHICH INCLUDES 5 TABLES FOR FOUR PEOPLE AT EACH TABLE. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) THE LOCATION IS AN EXISTING HARD SURFACE AREA OF ABOUT 407.2 SQ. FT. OF PAVERS USED AS A WAITING AREA FOR CUSTOMERS. VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED USE AND SOME PREVIOUS PROJECT ACTIVITIES THAT HAD NOT RECEIVED APPROVALS. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND DECK THAT REQUIRE REVIEW. SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT ARE REQUIRED TO ADD A RESTAURANT USE TO THE EXISTING PARCEL WITH A HOME ON IT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AND DENSITY. CROSS REF SP 33-2021; SUP 2-2021 WARREN CO. PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE .15 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-44 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179-10 JON LAPPER & TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 32-2021, 337 Cleverdale Road LLC, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 337 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the 0.15 acre parcel for additional outdoor seating for the adjoining San Souci restaurant which includes 5 tables for four people at each table. The location is an existing hard surface area of about 407.2 sq. ft. of pavers used as a waiting area for customers. Variances are required for the proposed use and some previous project activities that had not received approvals. The site has an existing detached garage and deck that require review. Site plan and Special Use permit are required to add a restaurant use to the existing parcel with a home on it. Relief requested is sought for floor area, restaurant use, permeability and parking. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, and restaurant use. Section 179-3-040 dimensional Variance for property at 337 Cleverdale:: Floor area –existing 1,397 sq. ft. and maximum allowed is 1,607 sq. ft.; permeability- 51.3 % is existing where 75% is required; Deck front setback is 18.4 ft., rear setback is 28.4 ft. where 30 ft. is required; Garage rear setback is 3.1 ft., rear setback is 17.1 ft. where 30 ft. is required; restaurant use per special use permit 5 ac required and 0.15 acres is existing. 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. 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 location of the existing house and proximity to the restaurant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for floor area is 210 sq. ft. in excess; permeability is 23.7 %, Deck front setback is 11.6 ft., rear setback 1.6 ft.; Garage rear setback west 26.9 ft., south 12.9 ft.; Restaurant use 6.85 ac. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes on the residential site to allow for 5 table tops for 4 persons each and to request approval of existing conditions of a deck and garage. The outdoor seating is associated with the existing restaurant on the adjoining parcel as outdoor seating is proposed on that parcel as well. The outdoor seating was offered during COVID and the applicant would like the use to be allowed permanently.” MR. MC CABE-So we’ve got to have two separate determinations here because we have two separate projects. MR. LAPPER-Absolutely, but it’s easier to talk about together. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. MC CABE-I understand. MR. LAPPER-Just to begin, so the Sans as it’s referred to, the San Souci is without worry in French. So this has been since 1913 is my understanding this has been there. A very unique and important destination on the southern basin of Queensbury. It’s been in multiple ownership, mostly everybody losing money and then the next guy taking over. So in 2018 eight families, because the then current owner Larry Clute was getting tired of financing the loses or breaking even and everyone who was a patron wanted to make sure that it was maintained as a resource for the community as a gathering spot in the community. So a bunch of people decided to pool their resources and buy it. Since then they have done some nice cleanup on the inside, mostly cosmetic, light fixtures, carpet, paint, hired a new chef, but it’s the same use that’s been there for all of these decades and it allows people to walk or to drive from Cleverdale, Assembly Point, Pilot Knob, just all the areas in the southern basin of Lake George, rather than having to drive into Queensbury proper or Lake George Village. So just serves an important purpose. People have stories for decades, you know, kids who then grew up and bought houses nearby and everyone gathers there, and for that reason it operates very different than any other restaurant in Town or most anywhere else. Look at the parking. The people park two deep. Everybody knows everybody and if there’s an issue you’ll hear someone say okay white Toyota SUV you’ve got to move because somebody’s leaving. Nowhere else would anybody put up with that, but here that’s absolutely how it works and how it’s always worked. If you’ve familiar with the site, there’s the lower parking lot on Cleverdale Road and the higher parking lot on Mason Road. The area, because of COVID, where the tables have been placed is basically inside, you can see from the map, inside of the parking. So you’ve got the two streets and you’ve got the parking areas along the streets and this is the area that’s basically buffered by the cars, buffered by the roads. With that said, when you’re all concerned, last March and April, and not knowing how contagious everything was, sitting outside was pretty important, and it’s been helpful making people feel comfortable but also it’s nice to sit outside. So it’s the same use that’s happened there for over 100 years, but it would be nice to have seats outside. The garage that was discussed isn’t a garage. It’s a storage area. It’s considered a garage in Queensbury because the door is six feet wide, but that’s just where they keep equipment for the restaurant, decorations, etc. This is a request that is supported by many, many people, and we’ve got letters from dozens and dozens of neighbors and people that walk to the restaurant or people that drive to the restaurant because it’s really important there. It’s a lifestyle thing. I know that there are some neighbors here and they wish this was a house instead of a restaurant but it’s been here for a long time before anybody else. This is like a year after the Titanic sunk. It’s been there a long time. So I’m going to ask Tom to go through the variances just to summarize and explain why they chose what they chose. We’re not asking for the A-frame to become a restaurant. It’s just that it needs a Special Use Permit so that the outdoor seating can go over the line into that property. MR. CENTER-Do you want me to address the variances on both parcels or just the tavern parcel? MR. MC CABE-First you’ve got to tell us who you are? MR. CENTER-Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. Do you want me to address the variance on both parcels? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. CENTER-For the restaurant parcel the only variance that we’re looking for is for the parking for less than the required parking. Jon I think explained, you know how the parking works. MR. MC CABE-Well also permeability. MR. CENTER-There is no additional permeable hard surface for this parcel. I’m not sure why that’s in there, Laura. We didn’t, there’s no additional hard surface. There’s no new construction. There’s nothing. Everything that’s there has been there. That portion of that patio was actually in the previous submission when we did the other work when they did their expansion. So there is no additional hard surface. That patio, the garage and the deck actually, if you look at GIS, were added sometime between 2008 and 2010. So the only thing we’re looking for on the tavern parcel is parking. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So is that true, Staff? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. CENTER-So we just need parking. In regards to the residential parcel, like we said, the garage and the deck were added some time in, it looks like 2008, from the GIS you can see it pretty clearly, and those are for the setbacks for those and they were done by a previous owner, and the patio also was sometime between that 2008-2012 timeframe. So we’re looking for, that would be the permeable relief there and for the setbacks for the deck and the garage and also the last one would be to use the parcel for the restaurant 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) for a Special Use Permit. Again, they’re only looking to add these things to an already existing services that were there. If you have any questions. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions? MRS. HAMLIN-In general? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. HAMLIN-So the house itself, is it occupied? MR. CENTER-Yes. It is owned by the same owners, and it is rented out. MRS. HAMLIN-It’s rented. MR. CENTER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. I just see a lot of your non-compliance could get a little less if it was feasible to merge those lots. Has that been considered? MR. CENTER-I don’t think merging them, and it’s really, this wouldn’t have come up if we had not had COVID and the allowed outside usage and the way that it was accepted. So that’s really why this has come forward. It’s not like, you know, I know previously there was a patio built on the other side that’s been removed that they did ask for that was not approved that has been removed by this owner. The entrance off that side was removed, and it was brought back into green space area over there. MRS. HAMLIN-The people living in that house don’t mind having patrons around? MR. CENTER-I believe they’re related to the owners. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. HENKEL-I mean I don’t know if this changes this or not, but was there any discussion about hours that people could be outside? If this is approved. MR. LAPPER-That’s something we could certainly talk about as we get into this. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. LAPPER-For the outside. MR. KUHL-These tables are not taking up any parking spaces? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. CENTER-That’s correct. No. We’re not losing any parking. Parking remains the same. And also I guess I was talking with somebody else who goes up there, some folks from North Queensbury that said that also a lot of people use golf carts up there and bring golf carts in to get there. MR. KUHL-But this is really a result of the Corona Virus where everybody had to sit outside. MR. CENTER-Correct. They didn’t just start this and then come back for approval. This is because of how it was accepted during COVID and the outside seating and knowing in the future some people are going to want to sit outside or have that space. So they’re looking for it. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised and so I’m going to, for the purposes of the public hearing, I’m going to consider both of these requests together, and then after we’ve accepted input from the public then we’ll separate them. So is there anybody in the audience who’d like to speak on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED NICK GAZETOS MR. GAZETOS-Could you show me the first slide on this and give me the top because that’s my property. Nick Gazetos, 97 Mason Road. I’ve owned the property for almost 19 years and again I acknowledge and 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) accept the San Souci as is. I was born and raised in Glens Falls. My family’s owned property up on the east side on and off for a long time. MR. KUHL-Did you state your name? MR. GAZETOS-Yes, Nick Gazetos. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. GAZETOS-Okay. So my property is on the other side of the wood frame house, right across Mason Road. So that corner, I’m right there. So I know all about the San Souci, and I’m going to tell you about the house. The gentleman said it’s rented to relatives. I don’t think so. It’s like an Airbnb, okay. People come and go during the summer. So it’s a little different spin here, all right. So what they’re asking for is a 50% increase in occupancy. The occupancy right now stated inside is 105. Forty-eight is almost 50% of it, of 105. So you’re asking for a big increase without one single car parking space being added, okay. Now I, at the top here, and my property’s two-tiered. So I have, in the old days there used to be a tennis court there, okay, and it’s now my leach field. Those guys, when it’s crowded on a weekend, they park there. They park in my driveway. They throw bottles. They throw trash. They are rude. They come flying around the corner, and I have seven grandchildren, and rude behavior. They swear at us. They come flying around and act like we’re the problem, all right. It’s inappropriate. And again, loud voices late at night. We have a garbage smell sometimes, compressor sounds. Again, I just don’t think it’s the right thing to do. I’m okay with it as is. It’s been there. Her uncle who would be 96 this year had his first drink there when he was 14. So again, we know all about the history going back to 1914. MR. HENKEL-Was it called Staples before? MR. GAZETOS-Yes. MR. HENKEL-It was a dance hall. MR. GAZETOS-Yes. And then they had, you know, Walter had it. We know the history. You know th the history, but as is, okay. Fifty percent increase in parking on a July 4 weekend, they’ll take over our yards. Just telling you. MR. MC CABE-So the other lady was. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, just a reminder about the timing of public comment. Typically you offer only three minutes. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So try to keep your comments to three minutes. If everybody’s saying the same thing, we’ve already heard this one. So try to talk about other things. MELANIE O’BRIEN MS. O’BRIEN-Okay. I’m Melanie O’Brien. I’m also part of that family that owns 97 Mason Road. That’s my husband that just spoke, and I just. (Phone ringing) MR. MC CABE-Can you hold on just a second. Hello. This is Queensbury ZBA. After the people who are in the general audience talk. MR. KUHL-Melanie, what did you say your address was? MS. O’BRIEN-97 Mason Road, with the owners of 97 Mason Road. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Sorry about that. MS. O’BRIEN-That’s all right. So I’ve reviewed some of the file, the prior applications and so forth, Special Use Permits, and there’s been a lot of variances for various things, changing the restaurant, putting in some holding tanks, side line setbacks. There’s been a lot with this non-conforming use to bring it up, to make it better, to make it serve the population and so forth, and so okay, but at some point some of these rules and these variances, you have to consider the surrounding community as well, the neighbors as well, and with all due respect, some of the people that speak are not neighbors contiguous to this property and abutting it and they don’t share the same concerns. They go there. They have a good meal and they go home, and we go next door. So again the applicant does seek an increase of 48 permanent outdoor seats, and this is in addition to the indoor capacity of 105, totaling a 153, which they may not all use but legally once it’s granted they have the right to use either this owner or a future owner, and the capacity is especially intense during the summer months and that’s when their outdoor capacity is going to be maximized. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) People are going to want to be outside and they will be. Also currently the patio area is used as a waiting area for people waiting for tables inside the restaurant. They will not have that space if they have people sitting and eating there. So I don’t know what you’re going to do with those people and where they will be if you’re taking away their patio area where they have sort of a holding area for them. So we really consider that variance as very substantial to add 53 permanent seats and also the fact that you’re now kind of also sort of growing this use beyond the commercial into now a residential space as well. Secondly the applicant acknowledges 44 parking spaces would be required for this increased capacity by seeking a variance to use its existing 17 parking spaces, notwithstanding the increased capacity and when you discount the spaces reserved for handicap use and for two that are allotted for their employees, you’re using that 17. So this variance is really substantial. Adding this kind of capacity and not making parking arrangements. I know we keep saying they have this special system going on and they park in tandem, but if you Google restaurants on Cleverdale and it comes up San Souci, there’s nothing telling you there’s special parking arrangements. If you’re from out of state or out of the area, you just parking on the road. You just park on my property or you park in Janet’s property. So it is a concern and I know the applicant discounts it, but it is a concern. Thirdly, the quality of life for the surrounding properties. So parking is a problem, but that’s not the only problem. The application doesn’t address noise and the hours and the gentleman brought up, and bars, I understand bars can be open well past midnight. So that will create some noise that does not exist because there’s not now 48 people out there. MR. MC CABE-I think in Warren County they can’t be open past midnight. MS. O’BRIEN-Okay. Well if you say so but I don’t know what the regulations are for that. MR. MC CABE-I remember a meeting about that. MS. O’BRIEN-It is in your Special Use Permit they cannot be open past a certain time? MR. MC CABE-I don’t think it makes any difference. I think in Warren County the bars have to shut down at midnight. MS. O’BRIEN-Okay. I heard a much later time, but I hope you’re right. So it is a bar as well as a restaurant. So we just feel that this is a material change to the area and noise hasn’t been addressed. Lighting, litter control haven’t been addressed by the applicant. So we think that these are the quality of life issues that we need to be addressing. So I am not in support of the variances being requested by the owner that would expand the seating capacity by 50% but not include a plan for parking, for adequate parking and noise and related impacts to neighboring properties. Thank you.. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, just to let you know there are people outside waiting to come in to speak. So if you have spoken and you could give up your seat I’d appreciate that so the people can come in from the outside to speak. MR. MC CABE-So the lady in the back, you’re next. CAITLIN MILLER MS. MILLER-Hello members of the Board. My name’s Caitlin Miller and I am co-owner with my family members of the residential property at 93 Mason Road. So if you look up at the map here, I am that corner lot as well as the lot across the street to the west. I’m speaking to you tonight to express our extreme opposition to everything addressed in this application. Our property shares those three borders with the San Souci property and our family has owned the property since the 1970’s. My grandfather owned the property until he passed away a few years ago. My mother was raised on the property as were my brother and I. It is our understanding the San Souci has in the past been granted a Special Use Permit to operate a commercial business in a residential zone. The current application requests modifications to the Special Use Permit in order to utilize the property in a much more intense way. It’s because of our love for the community and our experiences with the property that we feel it’s appropriate that we strongly oppose all parts of this application. Our oppositions are as follows. The outdoor seating as has been mentioned by my neighbors is being requested to be increased, the capacity of the restaurant by 50%. In past years the area where the tables were during COVID 19 was used as a waiting area. The applicant has stated that this area was installed by a previous owner. It’s important to note it was used by the previous owner on the residential property to have seating and tables well before COVID 19. We understood that due to COVID 19 we were all impacted. So we did not complain about additional noise and things that were caused by the seating in that area. However as we can note none of us are wearing masks tonight. The Pandemic is hopefully coming to an end. So we don’t see that this is necessary that it become permanent. On many occasions the wait times for seating have caused patrons to congregate in the parking lot and the adjacent streets for long periods of time. One occasion even resulting in a Frisbee game that stopped traffic on Mason Road. On 11 separate occasions this past year patrons of the Sans were found trespassing on our property and Janet Stasio’s property. On one of these occasions, the most appalling of which, the 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) patrons were on Ms. Stasio’s deck to take pictures of the sunset and were asked several times to leave. This is something that we dealt with in the past, but not as frequently and we definitely noticed an uptick with the outdoor seating during 2020. We have issues with noise pollution. This application seeks to modify an existing Special Use Permit allowing additional commercial use. During the 2020 Pandemic, we got to see a preview of what life would be like if the outdoor seating continued at the San Souci. We noticed a substantial increase in noise and disturbance to our otherwise quiet neighborhood. This can be directly attributed to the addition of the outdoor seating area. The noise often occurred late into the evening and caused us to close windows of our home without air conditioning on hot summer nights in order to try to mitigate that. The noise generated by constant shuffling and re-parking of cars in the lot as substantial as well. The system that they use, the applicant has stated is a well -used system. They’ve used it for many years. While this may be true, it causes a lot of problems for the neighbors. We often kick people off our property. Often people are honking their horns or yelling in the parking lot while moving cars. MR. MC CABE-So noise is a problem. So we’ve got to kind of speed things along here. MS. MILLER-In addition we have a hard time believing that the septic system is going to support the additional increase. MR. MC CABE-That’s not our purview. MS. MILLER-Okay. We also have an issue that the Special Use conditions of the previous Special Use Permits are not currently being met and have never been met. MR. MC CABE-So the Special Use Permit isn’t, again, part of our purview here. MS. MILLER-On a more personal note, my family and I question why the Sans is seeking to expand the outdoor seating when historically there has been none. In fact the only reason that outdoor seating was allowed for this was because of COVID 19. We understand that the Pandemic was a hardship and therefore didn’t complain but that’s no longer the case. Our property was purchased with the understanding that the restaurant would be for indoor dining only and not outdoor dining. Our property is the most affected since we share a full eastern property line with the Sans as well as the southern and eastern boundaries of our back lot. In addition to this, would you like me to address the other application as well? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MS. MILLER-So obviously we’re opposed to this as well. For several other reasons. So this, if approved, which the applicant has glazed over, this would change the zoning of a lot that is a residential lot to a commercial zoned area permanently. As adjacent neighbors we’re opposed to. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me, but that doesn’t change zoning. You just get a variance. So the zoning is the zoning, no matter what. MS. MILLER-We believe it would change the character of the neighborhood and it would open up the door for that area to be used in the future if they wanted to have live band nights, if they wanted to have weddings. It would open up the door for them or for future owners to use that space as they see fit as commercial property. We don’t think that there is any rationale to prove hardship and there’s no benefit to the community other than what the Sans already has. The expansion of the restaurant into outdoor seating would further exacerbate the issues that we’re already experiencing as neighbors and it sets a dangerous precedent. So if this proposed zone change goes though many of the properties passed down from generation to generation would be in danger of also being changed over to commercial property. MR. MC CABE-So again we’re not changing the zoning. MS. MILLER-It’s because of our love for our community and experiences on our property that we feel it’s appropriate to be strongly opposed to all of the parts of this proposal. We hope that you take our coming here tonight to heart and that you understand that we are not asking for any changes made to the restaurant as is. We’ve lived in peace for many years with them, but we don’t feel it’s appropriate to expand to outdoor dining. MR. KUHL-You gave her four and a half minutes. Why do you have a gatekeeper if you don’t close the gate? MR. MC CABE-She’s a resident. BILL KIMMONS 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. KIMMONS-Hi. My name is Bill Kimmons. I own the house at 87 Mason Road. I’m cattycorner from the restaurant I itself. First, in a hurry here because we’re on a time constraint, but we moved, my wife and I moved 2012. We knew the restaurant was there. Everything’s fine. We’ve helped them. We helped the other owner. People would come by. They were very confused, when are they open, when are they not, and we would try to sell the thing. We’re all for the Sans as it was before. All right. Now let me just go back to last night. Last night there was a meeting. We weren’t allowed to speak. It was a different kind of meeting for the Planning Board. Last night somebody from the Planning Board said, asked a question about, well they were very sentimental. They said the Sans, we love the Sans. Everyone likes the Sans. We’ve only been there 10 years. We love the Sans. However, now the new owners want to change the game. They want to change the Special Use. They want to use pieces and some things were said that aren’t exactly so, and COVID was brought up last night that, well no one complained last year plus because we were trying to be good Americans and go with the flow, okay, of the whole thing, as we all I think would hope to think we did, and also let’s remember, COVID. We had people sitting there. They were meal pickup and there was limited outdoor dining. It was a very different time. We all struggled through it. The parking. The parking’s the big thing. I want to go to the board. You see there is currently right now there’s supposed to be a dumpster corral. They were ordered to do it, it never existed and it doesn’t exist to this day. There a three dumpsters, two dumpsters and one for grease and oil, and it shows that hatched area there as being grass area. Well that’s currently where parking is now. So we said does any of this effect parking? Well it does. The three dumpsters there and the grease container, and then the picnic tables that you see up there, guess what, they’re in the parking area, too. So the 44 parking spots that now we’re allowing them to work under 17, okay, that now we’re going to have how many more cars with the 48 people? I don’t know, pick a number. Let’s say it’s 10 more cars, 6, whatever. I don’t know. We don’t have enough parking now. So where do they park? I have parking across the street from me for about five cars. I’m a good guy. I let people park there. It’s not a big thing to me. I’ve had people, not a problem, but they park in my driveway now. I have a picture of a really nice Mercedes in my driveway. I wish I owned it. All right. I’m in a hurry with the time, so I’m going to go to the Comprehensive Plan. Queensbury has a Comprehensive Plan. In the application it talks about being mixed use. We’re not mixed use. We are Rural Residential. The nearest mixed use is at Bean’s Country Store. We’re not even close. We’re 10 minutes away from that. This is Rural Residential. MR. MC CABE-It’s actually Waterfront Residential. MR. KIMMONS-Well, when you look at the Comprehensive Plan, they refer to it, and I have the maps, as Rural Residential. MR. MC CABE-Sir, hold on a second. So, Laura, is this Rural Residential or is this? MRS. MOORE-The classification is called Waterfront Residential which allows not only residential uses but other uses through Special Use Permit such as this restaurant use. A restaurant use is an allowed use. I understand that the Comp Plan talks in generalities. So this may be why it talks about Rural Residential use in that particular area or that they specify what the APA’S land use classification. So it does talk in generalities, but the Zoning Code specifically has that area as Waterfront Residential. MR. KIMMONS-And in the Comprehensive Plan which was adopted in 2007 it also talks about targeted areas, and ours isn’t one. It’s not even near.. I think that is a, it comes into this. It says that we’re in harmony, it says that we’re in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan, but it’s not. We’re a little teeny, you probably all know it’s a little place. Adding all of these people could potentially be a problem, because we have to not only look at the current owners. We have to look at what it could be for the next owners, and using that portion, like I said, those picnic tables they’re in the parking lot. The dumpster area, the grass, there’s no room for grass. That’s just make believe. The parking is huge. The people park wherever. The roads are too small. What if Mr. Gazeto’s property catches on fire? The fire truck has to get by. I hope he has a good day where everyone’s parking somewhere else because it’s going to be hell to pay, and how about the poor people that are beyond the restaurant in the Point? Now they have to deal with traffic congestion to just get to where they want to go. This is really unfair. We knew we moved next to a restaurant, inside restaurant. When Becky was there we helped her, the whole thing, but this is beyond the pale now that they are encroaching, and this is only the first step in a plan, obviously, that they want to do more with the cottage. My wife and are completely against it, and last, in closing, they said well it’s a neighborhood thing. It’s a neighborhood thing. Here’s the Chronicle. Here’s an advertisement for the Sans. MR. MC CABE-We don’t need that. We understand. MR. KIMMONS-No but they’re here tonight. They’re reaching out and say well people can walk from Assembly Point. Really, you’re going to go for a beer and walk from Assembly Point and you’re going to go 9L, you’re going to take your life in your hands. MR. MC CABE-Jim uses a kayak. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. KIMMONS-Well that’s great, and you can come in my dock, but you know what I’m saying? That’s a reach to say maybe there are outliers that could do that, but are many people going to do that? I highly doubt it. So what are they doing? They’re coming by car. They’re coming by car. Whether they’re single, doubles, carpooling, a lot of cars. I know some of those cars end up in our, in my driveway, and I’ve been a good guy up until now. Those five spots, I’ve let people use them. One time a guy gave me a really tough time. I said could you move, I said you’re close to my son’s bike. He said what business it of yours. I said I own the damn property. I just don’t want you to scratch my son’s car. He’s very into his car. This is the kind of day to day nonsense. I’m the guy that does and swims. I love snorkeling. I clean the stuff up from the lake. If I can’t carry it with my bags, I’ll put it on the dock. I’m trying to help the lake. My wife and I have only been here for 10 years, but we’re very into the lake. We’re talking about adding 48 people to 105. You’re adding, I like to look at it as a third, big difference. I would kindly ask you to look at this as a quality of life. We haven’t really talked about noise and lighting and all the other things. I’m done. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Go ahead. So I hope you have something different than what we’ve already heard. JAMES MILLER MR. MILLER-I’m going to try. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. MILLER-I’m James Miller. I’m the husband of Deborah Miller and Caitlyn Miller who spoke earlier. I won’t talk about the things that have already happened. The problem here is that these two applications are being joined together. MR. MC CABE-Just for discussion’s sake. We’re going to vote on them separate. MR. MILLER-So the general theme is that they’re asking for 48 more seats over two properties. The two properties need to be looked at separately. The existing San Souci property is a modification to an existing Special Use Permit. I mean that’s what it is, and the point to be made is that based on all the information that has been given already, the previous Special Use Permit is not working on issues of parking, on noise, on light pollution, right across the board. They’re looking to increase the intensity of that use. What they’re asking for doesn’t even come close to meeting the requirements that are in the Zoning Ordinance for that property. I can go point by point, but I think other people have done that. So switching to the residential property, this is the introduction of a new Special Use Permit, okay. That’s the way it’s stated in the application. So what they’re saying is they want to put commercial in an existing Waterfront Residential use. This entails a change of the Zoning Ordinance, okay. I’m not an architect. I’m a city planner. In your Ordinance, it goes in very specific manner explaining how one can apply for and obtain a Special Use Permit. I do not see this application addressing any of those items. MR. MC CABE-Because that’s not our purview. We have nothing to do with Special Use. MR. MILLER-Yes, but. MR. MC CABE-So what we’re going to pass judgment on here, with the first property, is whether they can, they’re supposed to have 44 parking spots, whether 17 is adequate. MR. MILLER-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-That’s what we’re going to do for the first one. The second one there are a number of variances listed, okay, much more complex. Most of them are setbacks. So there’s nothing to do with zoning here. There’s nothing to do with Special Use. It’s strictly area variance. That’s what they’re requesting. MR. MILLER-Sir, respectfully I would say that when you’re reviewing the property that is existing residential, you have to look at that in terms of how a commercial use meets the requirements of that land use. MR. MC CABE-That’s what the Special Use does. That Special Use allows them to have a restaurant in a Waterfront Residential area. MR. MILLER-I know, but if you’re here to grant a variance, what are you giving a variance to? You have to look at that as a Waterfront Residential piece of property, which says that you cannot put a food service use in that zone. MRS. MOORE-That’s a density issue. So the Special Use Permit for the Town of Queensbury is handled by the Planning Board. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. MC DEVITT-Right. It’s just not our purview. It’s not under our umbrella. If it were we’d talk about it. It’s not under our umbrella. It’s a Planning Board issue. MR. MILLER-Yes. I understand. So I was at the Planning Board meeting last night and they referred it to you folks and then. MR. MC CABE-So what happens is what we have to do is we have to pass judgment on the variances, and then it goes to them, and they’re the ones who are in charge of the Special Use. They’re the ones who are in charge of noise. They’re the ones who are in charge of lighting, and so all of that is handled by the Planning Board. So what you went to was a public meeting, not a public hearing. So tonight is a public hearing, and that allows you to speak, and that’s what you’re doing and you guys have taken a lot longer than what would be normal. We’re going to be here until midnight because there are a bunch of other cases besides this. MR. MILLER-Right, but this is very important to us. MR. MC CABE-Sure, and I understand that. That’s why I’m giving you some leeway here, but I’ve got to kind of keep things contained, too. MR. MILLER-So let me wrap up what I have to say. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. MILLER-For the San Souci property there’s current problems that are not being met. They’re looking to intensify that use and create more problems. We’re Waterfront Residential property. I believe that you have to review that as a Waterfront Residential property. Any changes that introduce commercial use to that property have to be done by a new Special Use Permit. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Go ahead. JANET STASIO MS. STASIO-I’d just like to read my letter that I sent to both Boards. I’d like it on the record. MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, do we have a letter from? MR. URRICO-We have a total of 38 letters sent in. MS. STASIO-I’m Janet Stasio. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So you’re going to read your letter rather than Roy. MS. STASIO-Janet Stasio. As a neighboring resident at 95 Mason Road, Cleverdale, New York, {the Sans Souci has an address of 92 Mason Road on some internet advertisements), I am writing to object strongly to the above applications. If the proposals, special permits, and variances are granted, I believe they will negatively affect the environment and character of the local community. For decades the Sans Souci was a tavern for indoor eating and drinking and should remain that way. It should not be allowed to change the atmosphere of the neighborhood with permanent outside seating, increase in parking spots, and other modifications that that would bring about. The Pandemic constraints influenced the San Souci being allowed to have limited, temporary outside dining, but this was not granted for permanency. Currently, even without the allowances, there’s unwanted noise, including a constant irritating sound from their compressor which can be heard in neighboring yards, outdoor lights left on at all hours without particular reason, increase in traffic, litter in neighbors’ shrubbery, I’ve picked up beer bottles, smell of garbage from their dumpsters in neighboring yards, I’m kitty-corner to this, need of extra vigilance on the road for walkers and bikes because of the traffic and parking issues. I have had my summer home here on Mason Road for over 40 years. In the past 25 years, I doubt I have been in the Sans Souci more than 5 times, the last being the summer before the pandemic when I needed to enter to find the Sans Souci customer who had parked in my parking spot in my back yard so I couldn’t even get into the grounds. He didn't even apologize. Some of the charm of the Cleverdale community neighborhood is in its laid-back , residential appeal, not being an extension of some of the Lake George Village activity. We don't want to lose our historic, unique character. I even have one of the original books of how Cleverdale got its name from 1882. I strongly urge you to decline the application, and I’m Janet Ruether Stasio. You’ve heard my name mentioned by neighbors for things that they’ve found people on my property. Thank you very much for your time. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So anybody else? Go ahead. GREG TERESI 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. TERESI-Good evening. My name’s Greg Teresi. I’m a resident of the Town of Queensbury and a member of the east side lake community and a particular fan, believe it or not of this restaurant. I’ve got many friends that live in this area. I have many friends that frequent it. I have many friends that have moved into Cleverdale because of the fact that they have a restaurant. I understand that there’s two sides to every story. There’s two perspectives on what should be allowed and what shouldn’t be allowed. The truth of the matter is this restaurant has been here for years. The gentlemen that now own the restaurant are trying to build on something that they’ve envisioned. They took over the restaurant because they knew it was a vital part of the community. There are those of us that live here year round and love that restaurant. We go there on the off season when the tourists aren’t there, and the guys that bought this place said we want to keep that tradition going because we want to offer the residents of the east side of the lake a place to go, a place to congregate, a place to call their own, a community. That’s exactly what these gentlemen have done. They’ve invested a significant amount of money into this restaurant to try to make it better, brighter, to make it the home that a lot of Cleverdale never had before. I’ve lived on Cleverdale during the prior ownership and it was a mess. It wasn’t run well. It wasn’t respectful of the community. The owners weren’t putting money into the property, and as a result it reflected poorly on the finished product. That’s not what we have here before you today. These gentlemen are asking to provide an outdoor experience that every restaurant in the Adirondacks has the ability to do. This is a use that’s been granted time and time again and we’re asking that you give this restaurant the same ability as any other. Are there concerns with respect to parking? Yes, I get that, noise, yes I get that, but can there be a balance, can this Board provide a balance so that the restaurant can provide to the community and the community can benefit from the restaurant? There’s no doubt in my mind. There is a happy balance and I’m confident that this Board can find that. I appreciate the opportunity to be here. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? LEN ROMEO MR. ROMEO-I’m Len Romeo. I live at 282 Cleverdale Road. I remember we bought the house in 2016 and shortly thereafter the San Souci closed for a summer and it was a pretty bad thing for the residents. We walk up there all the time. A lot of people walk up to the restaurant. Not everybody drives up to the restaurant. I think it’s a good thing for the community. I think a lot of people look forward to it. I think the people that own the restaurant right now, I think one of the guys is hustling the restaurant, he’s an accountant. I don’t know why he wants to do it. It makes no sense to me. I wouldn’t do it if I were a businessman, but he is and we just appreciate the place and obviously it’s been through a lot of owners and it’s having trouble making it with 105 seating. Maybe if we gave them the extra seating they might be able to succeed. So that’s something to take into consideration. I like the restaurant a lot. We go there a lot, four, five times a week or so. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Ma’am? DEB MILLER MRS. MILLER-I’m Deb Miller. I wasn’t going to speak tonight because speaking publicly is not my thing, but I’d like to address what the gentleman just said. I live at 93 Mason Road. I border it on three boundaries, the lot adjoining them, and I own the property across the street, the old Tide Crest hotel. He just said that the San Souci is a wonderful place to go. I don’t deny that. He also said that he felt that they should expand just to make it. I’d like to point out that there is a downstairs of the San Souci that is perfectly capable of taking chairs and tables and feeding people that is still enclosed indoors. I have lived there for 47 years. I moved there when I was 11. I’m the one who found Walter Evans dead under my dock as a kid. I watched the San Souci burn down. I grew up there. That’s my home, and I have never had a problem with the San Souci that couldn’t be handled, but it has never been an outdoor venue and now that it has been an outdoor venue for one year, and no I did not complain. I did not complain because of COVID, but believe me it bothered me every day. My windows were left shut all last summer because of the noise, because of the smell and I don’t have air conditioning. I’m not a millionaire on Cleverdale. I’m a kid who grew up there, and Cleverdale was not a place for millionaires. I do not wish to see outdoor seating. It can flourish as it always has. People are saying that they went there as kids, that they enjoyed it, that they don’t want to see it gone, and I agree, but it never existed outdoors. Never. And that changes the game completely. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? So we have a bunch of written correspondence. MR. MC DEVITT-You’ve got one. MR. MC CABE-I’m sorry. I didn’t see you. DAN COURTNEY MR. COURTNEY-My name’s Dan Courtney. I’m a Queensbury resident. I’ve lived on Cleverdale for years. I have a little different maybe perspective. I was on the Lake George Planning Board for seven 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) years. I was the person spearheading the outdoor seating on the Lake George sidewalks for the restaurants. My occupation my whole life is owner/operators of restaurants, built them, operated them. It took me two years to convince people that work with the Village to understand that people want to eat outside. I’d send pictures, nice patios, and the business side of it, the reality is is that once we added the seating outside to all these restaurants in the Village the insides declined quite a bit because people want to be outside in order to survive. You’re in the Adirondacks in the summer, outdoor seating, what will happen is the people, instead of inside they have no choice, they’ll eat outside. There’ll still be some inside, but it’ll shift dramatically. When you go to the Village, you walk down, patios are packed, you go inside, there’s not a lot of people in there. Nobody wants to eat inside. That’s just the reality of it. It’s my profession. It’s what I do. So I understand also the people, listening to everybody, I get it, the parking, the noise. The San Souci is extremely unique in the fact that for us it’s like a community center. Without it I wouldn’t have met my girlfriend. I wouldn’t have met my best friends. I wouldn’t have, it’s just very difficult to meet people, especially all the new people coming into Assembly Point, Cleverdale right now, Pilot Knob. I mean, no offense, we don’t want them meeting by getting a letter from the Town of Queensbury saying, hey, your neighbor’s going to do a project, this is how you’re going to meet them. Do you approve or not. They don’t know who the heck they are. It’s nice to be able to meet people and that’s, it really is. It’s kind of our community, but as far as the professional perspective, it’s critical to have outdoor seating. How you guys balance it, that’s on you. I get that. Your job is to balance the community, and my professional perspective is that less people would be inside, more people would be outside, and I appreciate your time. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. DAVID HARTMANN MR. HARTMANN-I’m David Hartmann. I live in Queensbury and I live on Assembly Point Road. So, no, I don’t walk there. I’m not walking through 9L. I suppose some people do, but nobody can pass my house, they’re driving to the San Souci, they get ride to the San Souci. I’ve only been here eight years, but that’s a community. It’s fantastic. The Sans is a big part of that. The first time I went there, somebody worked in there, they said how are you, Dave, Dave this is Paul. Paul lives on Assembly Point. Paul just bought a house down the road from you. It’s a wonderful place. That’s the atmosphere. It goes well beyond the Sans. I think it’s Queensbury in general. It’s a wonderful community. This is a local place. To go beyond the restaurant aspect of it, they let the water quality associations meet there. They’ve opened up to birthdays on off season times for some people in the community. Christmas wreath making in the wintertime has gone on there. Just a lot of, they’re part of the community. So just consider that. They do a lot for the community. It’s amazing. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. (Phone ringing) MR. MC CABE-Hold on just a second. Hello. This is Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals.. Sure. Go ahead. So first you have to identify yourself. Go ahead. BRAD THAYER MR. THAYER--Sure. My name is I’m a resident directly across the street from the Sans on 89 Mason Road. I’ll be really quick. The Chairman of this committee indicated that these were simple decisions, straightforward, the first one being is the parking adequate. It’s clearly not. So I think there’s a pretty clear answer there that no further variance would be granted. Secondly, you’re also considering whether a property that is zoned as residential can be used as commercial and whether you want to grant a variance to that . MR. MC CABE-No, that’s not the issue here. MR. THAYER-Okay. What is the issue, please. MR. MC CABE-The issue or the property has already received a Special Use Permit to be commercial. So that’s not something that we’re going to decide on. MR. THAYER-The residential property has been granted a Special Use Permit to be used as commercial? MRS. MOORE-No. Mr. Thayer, the variance that’s being sought for the residential parcel is relevant to the size of the parcel. MR. MC CABE-So there’s no decision being made tonight on commercial or non-commercial use. MR. THAYER-Okay. I understood what the Chairman said, that the second question was whether you all would grant a variance on a residential property to be used as commercial land. I appreciate that 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) everybody has, that certain people have indicated that, you know, we shouldn’t look to close the Sans. I don’t think anybody’s talking about closing the Sans. I also, take it from one of the previous speakers that it’s a good idea to have outdoor seating for restaurants. That’s great. It’s worked well for the Lake George Village. None of us chose to live in Lake George Village. We chose to live on Cleverdale, and I’ll leave it at that. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Sorry. Go ahead. JEFF HOLDEN MR. HOLDEN-My name is Jeff Holden. I live at 256 Cleverdale Road. Typically we’ll have guests over, they’ll park in my yard then we’ll walk down to the Sans, and last year during COVID we always sat outside. So I agree with Dan Courtney, you’ll probably see a shift in more people sitting outside than inside, which I think the parking issue is a little bit overwhelming. And I hope the Board can come up with some sort of balance that allows them to have some outside seating because we prefer it. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Okay. TIM COLLINS MR. COLLINS-Sorry, I’ll be very brief. My name is Tim Collins. I live in North Queensbury. I grew up in Cleverdale I’m a former owner of the Sans in the early 2000’s, and I think some of the things you hear tonight are accurate in regards to it’s really a community gathering place. It’s really a place that brings the community together. Jeff who just spoke, I remember when he bought his house. Where was your first stop? The Sans. So it really does bring the community together. I think some of the parking issues, I’ve seen them, I’ve worked at the Sans on and off since 1987. I currently work there two nights a week. So I see it frequently, and I would say that the parking is, are there occasional parking issues, I would say yes. Has it been overblown here tonight? In my opinion I would say yes, and as a former owner, I know the struggles of owning a restaurant, and I certainly think that having the variance to operate the outdoor space is warranted and may be helpful to the owners. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? Is anybody outside? Okay. So we have 38 letters. MR. URRICO-Well what I’m going to say is that some people have already spoken on both sides. So in total there have been 32 letters in support and 6 opposed, and generally all the points that have been made in these letters were covered by people that were speaking. So again 32 in support, 6 opposed. And that’s for both. MR. MC CABE-You mean supporting the variances. MR. URRICO-The Area Variance 28-2021 and Area Variance 32-2021. There were 32 letters in support of granting them the variances and 6 opposed. They didn’t separate them into different variances. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So let’s see. We’ve got a couple of hands here. The first person that I saw was the lady with the grey top. DEB MILLER MRS. MILLER-I’m Deb Miller of 93 Mason Road, the one who shares three borders with the San Souci, and I’d like to say when you say there are 36 in favor, none of those people are the people who are here tonight saying that they own property that is within 1,000 feet of the San Souci, and I’d like to ask would any of you want to live, and I said before, I like the San Souci. It’s always been indoors, but would you like it if you lived in a community where they change the rules after 70 years. People bought the property knowing the Sans was there. They knew it was inside dining. They pay their property taxes knowing the Sans was across the street. The fact that they’re going outdoors is changing the entire ballgame, the entire history of the San Souci and the people who are in favor of it are people who come and visit a couple of times a week. They’re people that usually have summer residences there and they bring their friends and it’s a fun place to party, and that’s wonderful inside, but these are not people who share borders or the difficulties that come with the San Souci. Like I said I’m in favor of the San Souci and always have been. We bought our property there. My parents did. My grandparents did, and they knew that dining was indoors. That’s the parameter. Now you are changing it. MR. MC CABE-We aren’t doing anything. MRS. MILLER-I know, but I’m saying that people who are in favor of it, they’re not the people who are going to be affected by it. They’re the people who enjoy it, and that’s very different in terms of quality of life. MR. MC CABE-Well if they enjoy it, then it’s also affecting them, isn’t it? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MRS. MILLER-They’ve enjoyed it for all these years. They keep saying they’ve enjoyed it for years. MR. MC CABE-So we heard you. So the lady with the sleeveless. I saw you next. CAITLYN MILLER MS. MILLER-Caitlyn Miller. I live at 93 Mason Road. My comments really feed off of my mother’s comments. It’s lovely that so many people support the Sans. It really is. It’s a wonderful part of our community. We are not asking for any of that to be taken away. All of these people can still come in and meet with their friends at the Sans. All of these people can still come in and enjoy a burger and walk to the Sans if they want to, but again to reiterate. They are not sharing their borders. They have not had my entire lifetime of parking problems, of lighting problems, of noise problems. It’s not they that are being woken up in the middle of the night when there’s a loud conversation in the parking lot. It’s not they who have to pay for the new fence on their property when people parking at the Sans hit it as they leave after having a few too many drinks. This is really something where, I love that there’s so much support for the Sans, but it really should be taken into consideration, those of us who live right next door because it really is a completely different scenario. I don’t think any one of you would sign up to live across the street from the Garrison or any of the night clubs in Lake George and we’re talking about it like it’s the same community, and it’s not. It’s a residential community that we all hold very close to our hearts. We’re not asking to take anything away from the residents who already enjoy the Sans. We are just asking for once to consider the people who live next door. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. The lady in the yellow? AUDIENCE MEMBER-I was just going to say the same thing. MR. MC CABE-The same thing. Okay. So, Jon do you have anything to add? MR. LAPPER-Just to sum up. As you guys know, you don’t get 32 letters of support on anything. People usually only show up if they have something to complain about, and if you look at the addresses, these are all people in the southern basin of Queensbury, Pilot Knob, Cleverdale, Assembly Point, everyone if you look at where they are. So that’s not true. This is a resource that is important as a gathering spot for everybody in that area. Yes, there are different impacts than if it were a house, but everyone knew that when they moved there. The restaurant preceded everybody. I live next to the Community College. There are times of the year where there’s a lot of traffic, but there are community benefits, and when you live next door to something that has wider benefits you put up with some more impacts, but this is not a young restaurant. This is not a wild restaurant. I mean if somebody throws a beer bottle that’s ridiculous and you shouldn’t do that, but you can’t criticize the owners of the restaurant because somebody finds a beer bottle. That’s not the kind of place it is. It’s old white haired guys like me. It’s not kids. It’s not a nightclub. It’s a tavern, but it’s an important place, as I think you’ve heard tonight, and the outdoor dining is a really nice thing to have. It’s not hooting and hollering and we’re not asking for music outside and we’re not asking for that parcel to be commercial, restaurant. It’s just that little paver patio area. MR. HENKEL-That creates a whole lot of problems. The wind blows. Things are going to blow off the table. Like you said, there’s not bottles out there, but it’s just bottles, people drinking at tables, yes bottles can be thrown where if it’s inside you’re not going to get bottles thrown outside, papers aren’t going to get blown around. MR. LAPPER-I think we can suggest a couple of mitigation, now that we’ve heard the neighbors. I think we can talk about a fence to enclose that area. Like I said we’ve started, it’s in the center of that area with parking on both sides. So there are some things that we could do to address the issues that were raised, to give people, give the Board some more comfort. Right at the top of the area where the patio is, we talked about it, do a stockade fence there. So no one would be looking at it and nothing would get blown away. So there are plenty of things we could talk about. MR. HENKEL-I’ve been there numerous times, Jon. It’s a fun place to go. I enjoy it, but I don’t live next door. MR. GAZETOS-I’ve got to show you one thing. You have to read this. This is a letter that was sent out to the people not next door, people in the neighborhood, and it says. MR. MC CABE-First of all, identify yourself. MR. GAZETOS-Nick Gazetos, 97 Mason Road, RE: Sans Souci, Special Use . I’m going to read this fast. Okay. It says, Dear Chairman Traver, McCabe and Board members, and it tells you how to fill this in. We strongly support the approval of 24 permanent outdoor dining seats at Sans Souci restaurant. We want the Planning and Zoning Boards to know The Sans supports the entire Lake community in Queensbury as a local gathering place which has functioned as such for over 100 years. The patrons are mostly residents who understand that parking can be limited and many patrons walk or carpool or park two-deep on the 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) Sans property. During the COVID pandemic, temporary outdoor seating worked out very well and there was no excess noise or area impact. We urge the Boards to approve the Applications. This was the propaganda that was sent out to everybody but the people next door, okay. This is the propaganda and you got the letters. This is the form, all right, and I can give this to you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. GAZETOS-My brother signed that and he felt hoodwinked afterwards, and he’s a big patron of the Sans, and he said, hey, they didn’t say anything about 48. They said 24. That’s what it says. 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 Cathy. First of all, we’re going to address two separate issues here. So the first we’re going to address the issue of the 333 Cleverdale. MR. URRICO-Can I ask Jon a question? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. URRICO-A few years ago, and I’ve been on the Board for a long time. So it may be longer than a few years ago, the Sans Souci came before us and asked to have the parking lot used. Was that for outdoor dining? Was it for a waiting area? What was it for? MR. LAPPER-It was for a waiting area. That was a prior owner. MR. URRICO-Yes. So that was when you were granted relief for the use of the parking lot. MR. LAPPER-I think that was a time when the holding tanks were put in instead of the septic field, and I think that was a series of upgrades that happened at that point and that was a request for an outdoor seating area. MR. URRICO-Was it used for dining before last year? MR. LAPPER-No. MR. URRICO-Was the second lot used for dining outdoors last year? MR. LAPPER-No. It was never for outdoor. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So first we’re going to address 333 Cleverdale which is basically the, no, that’s the restaurant. The parking spaces. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. MR. MC CABE-So they’re required 44 but they only have 17 available. MRS. HAMLIN-And my form says 40, but maybe that’s elsewhere. I think that’s a big ask. So I’m a no. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The outdoor seating is a complete departure from the currently existing Special Use Permit, and I think that the addition of taking away parking spaces to create that is the wrong direction we should be going in. I think that the neighbors have substantiated that there has always been problems and everybody recognizes the problems, the long term effect of too many people arriving at the same time at the Sans at certain times of the year when it’s very oversubscribed, but I think at this point in time it would be wrong for the Board to approve this request and I don’t think the Board an approve the request for outdoor seating because it’s a grand departure from what’s already existing. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think everybody has to take a step back here. For one thing we just went through two years of hell and we’re still going through it. We don’t know what the situation will be, you know, a month from now or a year from now. So we have to be very careful about making changes to zones and variances for things that didn’t exist prior to last year. Because last year was an exception. We did things that we never did before and that includes restaurants. They had to survive. People going to restaurants had to do things differently. So I don’t think we should be making changes right now that’ll be permanent beyond this year. Hopefully we won’t have to live through what we lived through the last couple of years, 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) but if we make a change now, if we grant this variance, we’re going to live with it permanently. It will be a permanent change that may not be acceptable any longer after this summer, but beyond that I think squeezing in more people into .27 acres plus with the permeability and parking issues that it has, I think it would be wrong and I would be against it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Like I said before, I like going to the Sans. It’s a great place. I’d love to see outdoor seating there. It would be a little bit more fun to go to, but I’m not going to stop going there just because they don’t have the seating outside, and I don’t live right there, but I boat around there and I do walk from Harris Bay Yacht Club and do enjoy it, but I just don’t think it’s fair for the people that live right there to change what’s been going on there for 100 years. So I would not be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I mean I don’t yacht around there the way you do. I also like the restaurant, but, you know, it is what it is what it is, and what I find is the people that come out and talk are the ones that we, I mean, whether it’s 32 for and 6 opposed , those are the people, anybody can sign their name. When I was presented with this, I looked at this and I remember going to that restaurant, and I do sympathize with the gentleman that talked about outdoor seating it causing more people to come. I got that. I go to other restaurants that don’t have outdoor seating and wish they had it, too, but this restaurant is an indoor seating restaurant. We had to go and give the Recovery Grill a variance for parking, and how much asphalt is in front of that place. Here you have 17 parking spaces, and if we increase the capacity by, it’s not 50%, it’s something less, you know, how many more people are going to come, and it’s not right. So I mean we state in our words that the Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary. That doesn’t work. So I’m totally against it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-One of the first times my wife and I went out on the lake last season was a tough time in the area. It was a tough time in the country. COVID was going on. Everybody was stressed out, businesses were struggling, restaurants were really struggling, car guys were struggling, contractors were struggling. We sat outside and we had a meal, and I enjoyed it, I really did. There were two tables that were sitting outside, us and another one. It was not busy. It may very well have gotten busy later in the season. It was not busy then. I fully appreciate both sides of this issue. I fully appreciate the history of the Sans. I used to have a very good friend that still lives in Takundewide and we used to take a golf cart down, probably for good reason, and we really enjoyed the place. This has nothing to do with my feelings of the Sans, the success that I want the Sans to have. I realize the difficulties which are inherent in the restaurant industry. I realize the difficulties that are inherent in a seasonal business. I get it. I know it’s a tough nut to crack, but my issue here is it has been an indoor place, and we are now trying to change the game, and I can’t be part of that and what I’ve tried to do here over the last hour and a half is figure out a happy medium. I’ve tried to figure out a way to broker a deal. How do we put up a fence, as Attorney Lapper indicates? How do we maybe limit the hours was something I was coming up with to broker a deal to find a happy balance as Mr. Teresi in the back here said, and I’ve tried to do that, but I’m not coming up with one and I know as hard as I’ve tried to do that I ultimately have to fall on the side of what is right for the contiguous property owners, what is right for the folks that live there year round, and so I am against it, and it’s not that I’m against it because I’m anti-Sans. I am very pro-Sans. I’m looking forward to dining there this year, but I will be a no on this, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-So the issue here is if we okay, for the first property, 333, the outside tables, then that would require 44 parking spaces, and we only have 17, and we’ve okayed reduced parking spaces before, but not to this extent. Forty-four to seventeen is a big stretch. Now in defense of that, there’s not a place that you can go on Cleverdale Road where parking isn’t an issue and where the neighbors complain about the other neighbors taking their parking spaces, and the summer residents coming in and taking the parking spaces. So I can’t support that reduction, 44 to 17. MRS. HAMLIN-Can I ask a quick question? Are we only voting on the parking on this 333 Cleverdale, r is there an issue? MR. MC CABE-Yes, the first time it’s just 333, then we will have to go to 337. They’re two separate applications. MRS. HAMLIN-Where it says relief permeability, that’s not an issue? MR. MC CABE-Permeability determined is not an issue because they’re not changing permeability. MR. MC DEVITT-Just parking. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. LAPPER-So before we get to a vote, I’m not used to seeing zero to seven, but we came in here knowing that the neighbors were not going to be happy about this, and I’ve got some suggestions to mitigate this further than what we’ve asked for the Board to consider. So one is to reduce it to just 24 tables on the paved area in the center, get rid of the picnic table area, the parking, but what we also could do is say that we’re not increasing the number of tables on the whole site because if they were going to be outside, then we wouldn’t be using the downstairs. So we keep it at the same number of seats that we have now. That way there’ll never be any more than what’s there, but we’d like to have 24 outside because in the summer it’s nice to sit outside. MR. MC CABE-Well then that wouldn’t’ require any action from us then. MR. LAPPER-No outdoor seating. MR. MC CABE-That’s Special Use. That’s part of the Special Use. That’s not what we’re talking about here. All we’re talking about with the property 333 is 44 parking spaces are required but only 17 are provided. MR. LAPPER-You’re correct on 333, but 337. MR. MC CABE-We haven’t approached 337 yet. MR. LAPPER-All right. My question is whether the Board would feel more comfortable if we limited it to the total of 24 outdoor and that we reduce the number of indoor. If it’s raining everybody’s indoors, but if the weather’s nice and they’re outdoors they can’t have more people. It’s just nice to have outdoor seating. We certainly can limit the hours. MR. UNDERWOOD-He’s got to withdraw the whole application. MRS. MOORE-So the idea of utilizing the, not utilizing indoor space seating but allowing outdoor seating also would trigger that variance because you’re also, because of the seating. MR. MC CABE-Well how would we ever enforce it? MRS. MOORE-You’re at 17. That’s what you’d be granting. MR. MC CABE-Well how would we ever enforce taking away one table inside to add one table outside? MRS. MOORE-So your relief that’s being requested is to maintain 17 parking spaces for a number of tables that are being proposed that will be outside during the summer months. MR. MC CABE-And so what you’re saying is that if you gave up those tables inside then you wouldn’t need 44 spaces. MR. LAPPER-Right. Just what’s there. MR. MC DEVITT-But to your point, it would have to be tied to a definable metric. Saturday night in August when it’s jamming in there, how are we going to know if a table went from inside to outside or vice versa? There’s just no way of tracking that. MR. MC CABE-Yes, but if we grant you a variance here, we have to have some way to know that variance could actually be enforced. We aren’t going to have Codes an Enforcement up there every weekend. MRS. MOORE-So in that case if you were to move toward something like that, I would ask that the Board table so we can evaluate what those enforcement abilities are. I don’t know them off the top of my head and I would prefer to have it evaluated to discuss with the Zoning Administrator and staff as well as the applicant. MR. MC CABE-All right. So we’ll take your proposal into consideration, but we’ll ask you to table at this particular time. MR. LAPPER-That’s fine. MR. URRICO-I just want to say that the only way I would consider any adjustment would be if the 337 gets taken off the table. MR. LAPPER-Well, Roy, the only issue with 337, if you just look at the map, is that that’s where the seating area is. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. URRICO-Well you’re saying that for this property, 333, you have. MR. HENKEL-Four picnic tables. MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO-So that, isn’t that your 24? MR. LAPPER-I was proposing to take the picnic tables. MR. HENKEL-Yes, there’s six at the table. MR. URRICO-On that first property. MR. MC CABE-Well we’re taking up too much time. Let’s table this one and we’ll move on to the next one. MR. LAPPER-And what Roy said, if that was important to you, we had re-configure the pavement area and put these 24 seats on the restaurant site. MR. URRICO-I’m not even saying I will agree to it. I’m just saying the only way I will consider it is if the second application variance was gone. MR. LAPPER-We’ll look at re-configuring. MR. HENKEL-So when are we tabling it to? MR. MC CABE-To June? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-I apologize, my June agenda has, I try to be a little bit flexible, but there’s a lot of applications and unfortunately I would move it to the July agenda. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So table it to July with pertinent changes to be submitted to the Board by the middle of June. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 333 Cleverdale LLC (San Souci). Applicant requests approval of outdoor seating area which includes existing four 6- person picnic tables and one 4-person table on the restaurant parcel and five top tables for 4 persons each on the adjoining parcel. Site plan for modification of an approved plan and modification of the special use permit (SUP 45-2009). Relief requested for permeability and parking. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 28-2021 333 CLEVERDALE LLC (SAN SOUCI), Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Tabled until the first meeting in July 2021 and any new information submitted by the middle of June 2021. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Okay. So now we have the issue of 337 which is floor area, permeability, setbacks and then restaurant use in a five acre where only .15 exists. So we have. MR. LAPPER-Why don’t we table that as well. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-That’s also until July? MRS. MOORE-Correct. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 337 Cleverdale LLC. Applicant proposes to utilize a portion of the 0.15 acre parcel for additional outdoor seating for the 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) adjoining San Souci restaurant which includes 5 top tables for four people at each table. The location is an existing hard surface area of about 407.2 sq. ft. of pavers used as a waiting area for customers. Variances are required for the proposed use and some previous project activities that had not received approvals. The site has an existing detached garage and deck that require review. Site plan and Special Use permit are required to add a restaurant use to the existing parcel with a home on it. Relief requested for floor area, restaurant use, permeability and parking. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2021 337 CLEVERDALE LLC , Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled until the first meeting in July 2021 and any new information submitted by the middle of June 2021. th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2021, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Just for clarification that’s the first meeting in July. AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Underwood MR. HENKEL-So they’re both going to be tabled to the first meeting in July. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So our next application AV 30-2021, Town Fair Tire. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TOWN FAIR TIRE AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING OWNER(S) OMALL, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 863 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 2,740 SQ. FT. BUILDING TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 7,269 SQ. FT. TIRE SALES AND SERVICE FACILITY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW PARKING AREA, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPING. SITE PLAN FOR NEW COMMERCIAL USE AND BUILDING IN THE CI ZONE AND FOR BUFFER. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 32-2021; SP 39- 2019; AV 21-1999; AV 16-1996; SP 20-99; SP 21925 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 LOT SIZE 1.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.17-1-34 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & ROB OSTERHOUDT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2021, Town Fair Tire, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 863 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 2,740 sq. ft. building to construct a new 7,269 sq. ft. tire sales and service facility. The project includes new parking area, stormwater management, lighting, and landscaping. Site plan for new commercial use and building in the CI zone and for buffer. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Commercial Intensive zone –CI Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirement. The new building is to be located 57.4 ft. from the front property line where a 75 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 reduce the size of the building. 42 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 17.6 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 2,740 sq. ft. building to construct a new 7,269 sq. ft. tire sales and service facility. The site is proposed to have 42 parking spaces where 37 are required. The plans also show truck traffic delivery. The plans also indicate the building location is designed to have a one way on the north-side allowing customers to access the bays to the rear for appointments. The floor plans show the sales and display area facing Route 9 and the service area to the rear of the building. There are to be 6 service bays.” MR. LAPPER-For the record, Jon Lapper with Rob Osterhoudt from Bohler Engineering. So Town Fair has 101 locations in New England. They have one in New York. This will be their second in New York. Very different than what we have in Town in the area, in terms of the tire business. The front of the building is a showroom, retail where they have fancy wheels and tires displayed, a waiting area and the service area is in the back. They don’t do anything but replace tires, align, front end alignment and wheels. They don’t do general auto repairs at all. By moving the building closer to the front than the 75 foot setback it’s better for the neighbors in the back because we’re moving it away from the residential and a residential area. So I think it’s advantageous. It’s closer to the road than what the Pizza Hut was, quite closer than what’s there now. It certainly looks appropriate, and I think it’s better in terms of compatibility with the residents, but Laura was grilling me about this, and the main concern would be noise. This operation is air conditioned. So the garage doors are always closed, and it’s different than what we’re used to. The compressors are top end. You can talk in front of them in the shop. So the neighbors aren’t going to hear anything because the doors will always be closed and that can be a condition. That’s just how these guys operate. Retail up front, small service in the back just for tires and wheels and a much nicer update of a site than what’s there now proposed. We talked about it last night with the Planning Board and they obviously recommended this, the fence and all new plantings in the back, but there’s room for a bunch more plantings in the back, and we’ll talk to the Planning Board about that when we get back with them. That’s the justification for the variance. It’s better to move a little closer to Route 9 than to the residents. There’s no permeability or green space. There’s no other variances. Everything conforms. Let me ask Rob to go through the details. MR. OSTERHOUDT-My name’s Rob Osterhoudt with Bohler Engineering. I wanted to just orient everybody to the site. We’re at 863 Route 9, the former Pizza Hut site, which is just south of Walmart and the Harbor Freight store here. So this is the site, existing access into the site, and the Pizza Hut building off to the north side. The existing building actually is non-compliant with the northerly side setback. It’s just under 20 feet, it’s 19.3 or 19.4 feet. So that’s non-compliant today. We are, as part of the proposal, increasing that setback to be compliant. So we’re eliminating one non-conformance there. Jon mentioned that we’re moving the building closer to the street than the Pizza Hut. Just to clarify that, we’re actually putting the building one foot further back on the site than the Pizza Hut is. So the setback is actually increasing. The non-conformance on the front yard setback is actually decreasing as part of this project by one foot, but I also wanted to point out that the southeasterly corner, if you’re looking at the plan on the screen now, north is up the page. The southeasterly corner of the building is compliant. It’s just that we have the unique geometry of this parcel that requires us to seek the variance for that northeasterly corner of the building and again we’re decreasing the existing non-conformance by one foot with this variance request. Other than that the site layout is very straightforward. You can see it on the plan. We’re maintaining the existing access into the site. We’ve got parking on the site that’s adequate for the business purpose. We have reduced the parking from what’s out there today, from the former Pizza Hut use. There were 51 spaces. We’re down to 42 with this plan. There are existing retaining walls on the site, along the northwest and south sides. The majority of those are remaining. The proposal is to modify the one wall on the south side, on the southwest corner of the site. As Jon mentioned, the service bays are to the back of the building. However the space is conditioned, meaning that the employees have air conditioning and heated spaces so the doors won’t be open for the service. This footprint also is a six bay, six service bays, one for alignments and the other five for tire changes. The normal Town Fair Tire footprint is seven bays. So they’ve actually gone with a smaller building for this site than what they would normally do, and with that I think that covers like the highlights that I wanted to hit. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-What is the stockpile area? What is that supposed to be all about? MR. OSTERHOUDT-In the southwest corner of the site, is that what you’re referring to? 43 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. OSTERHOUDT-So there’s two concrete pads there, one would be for the trash enclosure and then the other would be for what’s called the tire cage. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. OSTERHOUDT-So tires that are taken off of vehicles and stored for recycling would be kept in that tire cage. It’s fenced. It has privacy slats on it. MR. LAPPER-They get picked up once a week. MR. OSTERHOUDT-It gets picked up once a week by a tire recycler during normal business hours sand it’s also got a roof over it. I would like to point out, too, that I mentioned the retaining walls. This site lies lower in elevation than the properties to the west and to the south. Those retaining walls have earth above that. So it’s not like our site is elevated above the adjoining properties. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? A public hearing has been advertised. So I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this application and invite anybody that’s on the outside, if they want to speak on this application, to call in at 518-761-8225, and if you’re calling in, I would just ask until the person who’s speaking is done so we don’t interrupt that person. So go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BLAIR DAVIES MR. DAVIES-I’m Blair Davies. I live at 15 Greenway Drive which is, that’s going to be in my backyard. I just have a question. You talked about a fence. Is that going to be similar to what Harbor Freight’s got? MRS. MOORE-So what I would ask is that you address your questions to the Board and then the information will be gotten from the applicant. MR. MC CABE-Yes, we’ll get that information for you. MR. DAVIES-Okay. I don’t have any big problem with this if you’re going to have the bay door, but I was just worried about honking horns and all that. I can hear Walmart, air guns and all that. MR. LAPPER-It’s a fence and plantings I hope. MR. MC CABE-So I’ll ask you then to respond to that. Just state your name again. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Rob Osterhoudt, Bohler Engineering. In response to that question, the project is proposing a six foot high privacy fence, 460 feet of six foot privacy fence along the back of the property, the west side and the south side of the property that is shown on the plan. In addition, the plan shows that we are putting in 50 trees along the south and west sides of the property along the perimeter of the property to help with screening in addition to the fencing. MR. MC CABE-Will the fence have any noise reducing properties? MR. OSTERHOUDT-It’s a standard, six foot high privacy fence, wood fence. MR. URRICO-What kind of trees are you putting in? MR. OSTERHOUDT-Right now our plan shows arborvitaes. However, we’ve been talking with our landscape architect and we think we’re going to go with something more appropriate, with white pines. MR. URRICO-They don’t last in this area. MR. OSTERHOUDT-That’s what’s out there today, and we have a concern with the arborvitaes surviving in that location under the existing trees. If white pines are a concern, we can talk to our landscape architects about some other options. MR. URRICO-It’s only a personal thing. MR. MC CABE-Are there other? So the lady in blue. CATHERINE HUNT 44 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MS. HUNT-My name’s Catherine Hunt. I live at 24 Greenway North which is on the southwest side of this proposal. Right now in the summertime I can still see Pizza Hut’s red roof. That’s all I can see, but when Harbor Freight came in they came backwards and cut down all those trees so the houses like his straight on to Route 9, no buffer, no nothing. They put up a fence. I don’t know where his fence is going to start at six feet. Is it going to start on his property? Or is it going to start further up the hill so the six feet is actually what we’re going to see and not straight out to Route 9. Is he going to cut down more trees in my backyard? The lighting is going to be a problem . I know the noise and the traffic is going to be a problem. Right now I can, from Harbor Freight being built, I can see through to their driveway coming off of Route 9 and this is just going to add to it. It’s too much commercial use in that particular, you’ve got Walmart. You’ve got Harbor Freight and now we’re going to have this. It’s too much in that short a span of space. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MS. HUNT-I hate the idea. I’ve lived there for over 20 years and is he going to cut down more trees in the wooded area toward our house like Harbor Freight did? MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’ll ask you again, address her concern. MR. OSTERHOUDT-Rob Osterhoudt, Bohler Engineering. Just to respond to those items, the fence, six foot privacy fence, will be installed at the property line, which is the high part of the property. Like I said, the grades drop from the westerly property line then the southerly property line towards the Pizza Hut building. So the fence will be on the high part of the property as will the trees. The trees will be along that perimeter as well. As far as the clearing, I do acknowledge that there has been some clearing on this site. That was not an act that was undertaken by Town Fair Tire. Town Fair Tire is merely an applicant who is entertaining an option on this property. The trees were cleared by others prior to Town Fair Tire coming into the picture. However, Town Fair Tire is proposing the 50 trees that I mentioned to help mitigate the loss of the trees that have previously been cut. MS. HUNT-So you’re not cutting anymore trees? MR. OSTERHOUDT-Good point. Thank you for reminding me. As far as cutting trees, we’re maintaining the retaining walls along the north, the west and a portion of the south side. There’s a portion of the south side where we will re-locating one of the walls and there will be some minor clearing in that area. MS. HUNT-Right on our property line. MR. OSTERHOUDT-No, it won’t go back to the property line. It’ll be consistent with the edge of the walls. Laura, if you can pull that plan up again. That’s good. Thank you. So roughly in the middle of the building, in the east/west direction here, from right to left that would be. You see the landscaped island on the south side of the parking lot, down the page, further to the right back in there, Laura, the squarish one. That landscaped island in the parking lot. From that point to the left is where the wall is being re-located, over to the corner. MS. HUNT-Re-located from where? MR. OSTERHOUDT-So right now the wall is further into the parking field, and we’re re-locating it further to the south. MR. DAVIES-You’re getting rid of it. MR. OSTERHOUDT-We’re not getting rid of it. Well, we’re putting a new wall in. We’re re-locating the existing wall from where it is a little bit further to the south. MS. HUNT-Where are you going to be taking the trees down? MR. OSTERHOUDT-In that area. MS. HUNT-So we’ll be able to see straight through. MR. OSTERHOUDT-There’s a lot of existing vegetation in between that point and the property line. MR. LAPPER-And there’ll be new trees planted. MR. OSTERHOUDT-And then we’ll be putting in new trees and the fencing as well. MS. HUNT-And I hope they’re not white pine because that’s just too much in that area. We have a lot now without planting new ones. 45 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. MC CABE-Ma’am, you wanted to say something. KATHY FRASIER MS. FRASIER-I’m Kathy Frasier. I live on 22 Greenway North which is, my backyard butts up to everything he’s just described. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MS. FRASIER-There’s a six foot chain link fence around the property now, and as I stand in my backyard I can still count the number of people that go into Harbor Freight daily. That’s not climbing a ladder to see over the fence either. That’s just standing in my backyard looking over the fence. MR. MC CABE-But he’s south of Harbor Freight. MS. HUNT-Yes, closer to us. MR. MC CABE-Right. So what’s his property have to do? MS. FRASIER-The six foot fence isn’t going to hide anything. Is what I’m saying, and you’ve got trucks going in and out of there. You’ve got traffic in and out of there. MS. HUNT-Lighting. MR. MC CABE-But you must have had that with Pizza Hut? MS. FRASIER-I don’t know what the parking situation was. MR. HENKEL-But you had later hours. You had Long John Silvers there plus Pizza Hut at one time. MS. FRASIER-Long John Silvers has been gone for years. MR. HENKEL-But I’m saying it was there. MS. FRASIER-But that was fewer parking areas. MR. HENKEL-But they were later hours than what this store is going to be open I would imagine. MS. FRASIER-Well how would you like to live next to a tire place that’s changing tires all the time and h hear that compressor. MR. HENKEL-You’re not going to hear it, like he was saying. MS. HUNT-I don’t believe that. I can’t hear it from Walmart. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we’ve heard your concerns. MS. FRASIER-And the lighting, too, is going to be straight into our yards. BRAD PATCH MR. PATCH-My name’s Brad Patch. I live right in the middle of all that. Let me take you back a few years, ’74, ’75 when Pizza Hut went in there they gave us a 50 foot buffer forever. Now Al Boychuk who’s the owner, he clear cut the first 25 feet last year about this time and by the time somebody came I called in the morning, got an answering machine. Somebody finally came early afternoon and shut it down. They were on the last tree. We asked them what’s going to happen. They said they’re going to have to re-plant. Well it’s been a year, nothing’s happening. Now you’re telling me they want to take away 25 feet of the buffer. MR. MC CABE-Wait a minute, he said he’s putting in 50 new trees. MR. PATCH-And they want to put in white pines. That’s what they did back then. Do you see the white pines? They’re 100 feet in the air. All the vegetation’s up here. I can see right through. We get lights and everything from the shop on the other side there, that warehouse. When Pizza Hut was there they had a light in the parking lot, right in my window. I’d sit there and watch tv with a light in my eyes. The buffer it’s not supposed to be touched and Al touched it. Now he’s selling the property and getting out of there. I don’t want to see the buffer go away. Whatever was in there they took away, big trees, little trees, it didn’t matter. They did it just to get rid of them, knowing something like this was going to come in and going to take that wall and cut it in. I don’t want to see that. 46 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. URRICO-Mr. Patch, your son sent a letter in. MR. PATCH-No, my daughter. MR. URRICO-Your daughter. It said you weren’t going to be here. MR. PATCH-That letter is for tomorrow night. You can read it if you want. MR. MC CABE-So is there anybody else here that would like to speak on this matter? So do we have letters? MR. URRICO-Well it’s just this one letter, but he said it’s for the Planning Board, but I’ll read it anyway. “Good afternoon. Both my father, Brad Patch and I are unfortunately not going to be able to make the planning meeting regarding the Town Fair Tire on May 20 as we both have to work that evening. I am hoping this email will find its way to the proper members of the town planning board. My parents property directly borders the property in question, the old Pizza Hut property. They reside at 20 Greenway North and I reside at 8 Greenway North. As business owners ourselves, we are not opposed to other businesses going in just the particular nature of this business and the noise level that will be associated with it. Have you ever been to a Warren Tire or other service center? I don't know many people that can say they haven't. Just think back to the time when you were there and what you heard. The constant noise of the air wrenches and all the other tools and how loud and annoying they are. In the summertime, imagine the noise while you are trying to sit and have a nice meal or do some gardening or relaxing on your back deck. Not to mention hearing it while inside your own home. There will be no escaping it, day in and day out. The summer months will be twice as bad as the cooler months with all the doors open. However in the cooler months even with the garage doors down you can constantly hear the noise of all those tools. All the neighboring houses in behind that property which surround it on two sides are going to have to listen to that noise from early in the morning until whatever time they close. The sound travels quite far so I can only imagine that a good majority of the neighborhood will be able to hear the constant sounds. Wouldn't that noise nonstop drive you crazy? It will definitely put one in an irritable mood nonstop. The residents of the neighborhood have worked extremely hard to be able to enjoy their homes and enjoy being outdoors and indoors for that matter without the constant irritation of that noise....cranking, zipping, and the torqueing of air wrenches. How would you like to hear that noise all day? People will not even be able to go out into their yards and enjoy them without that constant irritation. On a summer day, being outside at my parents house you can even hear the Walmart service center at certain times and that is quite a distance away. At which I can only imagine how that noise will travel if it is located behind my parents home. We will be able to hear it all the time as well... it will create constant headache. Not to mention that the 50 foot buffer of trees that was originally in that parcel that was supposed to barricade some of the noise of Route 9 has been cut back as well. The current owner at the time, Al Boychuk, had been stopped by the town because they were clearing out trees that were not allowed to be. However when the tree cutting began in the morning, phone calls were made to the town and by the time they showed up in the afternoon to stop the tree removal, all but one tree had been cut .... damage already done. New trees have not yet been planted to the point in time and to the best of our knowledge there were no ramifications for it. As an owner of the parcel, they had to be aware of the buffer zones. Although planting new baby trees does absolutely nothing to helping replace the massive ones that were existing. There are many residents of the neighborhood that are at retirement age and are home mainly all day. They deserve the right to enjoy their peaceful lives without the constant irritation of the loud rattling noises; as do the rest of us in the neighborhood. Like we stated before we are not opposed to business being there just as long as it's reasonable where we can still enjoy the quiet neighborhood that we are custom to. Even though we are located amongst everything, this neighborhood is extremely quiet and a great place to live. We do not hear much of the noise traveling around us. It really is a gem! We are close to everything, yet tucked away. So I can only pray that you all put yourselves in our shoes and hear that noise in your head. Some may have the opportunity to live in neighborhoods that are a bit farther from local business and have complete quiet and peace, however many of us are where we can afford to live. We work extremely hard and do also deserve to keep the quiet peace that we have in our neighborhood as well. Thank you all for your thoughts and consideration and hope you have a truly wonderful night! Thank you! Britt Patch, 8 Greenway North” MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? MR. URRICO-I have a question for Laura. Is there a buffer there that was supposed to be maintained? MRS. MOORE-What the applicant is speaking of, and both the neighbor, there was a buffer to be maintained and when the clearing did occur staff went out and identified to the Boychuks, the idea was that when he would come in for site plan for the next project, whatever that was, that he was to present a planting plan, and at this point this is what the planting plan is. MR. LAPPER-Let me give you some more explanation. So Al Boychuk bought the property last July I think and didn’t know anything about the buffer, which is unfortunate. There were white pines which were very mature that were leaning towards the Pizza Hut building and probably 100 year old trees, and he took them down as a safety issue. Craig called when he was just finishing up and what he agreed to is, 47 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) as Laura said, when this site gets re-developed there would be another buffer planted. So what we propose, and we talked about it last night with the Planning Board, is they’re going to, it’s not going to be white pines because they don’t have an understory eventually. We talked to the Planning Board about a 50 foot buffer. There’s plenty of room for it here because the building is up closer to the road. So we’ve proposed a stockade fence which you can’t see through and plantings on the inside. There’s a whole area of plantings that the Planning Board’s going to specify suitable plants for that. MR. MC CABE-So the stockade fence will be six feet high. MR. LAPPER-Yes, at the top of the hill. MR. MC CABE-So a backyard like that, what’s our limit for height of a fence? MRS. MOORE-So for a commercial property it can be as high as you wish it to be. There’s no limit other than it probably can’t be higher, I think there’s an issue with having the barbed wire fence on top of it. MR. MC CABE-But we’re not talking about barbed wire. Right? So I wonder how high would we have to go to block the neighbor’s view? MR. UNDERWOOD-Walmart has theirs, I think it’s about eight feet high. MR. LAPPER-The Planning Board’s going to come up with a whole buffer requirement that’s going to be a mix of fence and plantings. So if you want to just make it conditioned upon a suitable buffer that the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-And the other thing I would say is you could put some noise retaining material on the fence to help it out. MR. LAPPER-’I think the condition that the doors have to be closed all the time. MR. MC CABE-Probably, but this additional. MR. LAPPER-I don’t know that that fence is really going to make a difference in noise. MR. MC CABE-Well, actually it will. So what you could do would be, the wood itself is going to be a barrier, and so if you put like a foam material, a rigid foam material on the inside of the fence, what that foam material does is absorbs noise. Then the wooden fence reflects the noise back into the absorbing material, and so you have the double action of the absorption, and it’s really an effective noise barrier, and so the best example. MR. LAPPER-Outdoors though? Is that going to withstand weather? MR. MC CABE-The best example of that was when they put in the ride at The Great Escape. The Bobsled one. MR. URRICO-And that didn’t work either. MR. MC CABE-Yes, it did. I’ll tell you. I’m probably a mile away from it and, yes, and it went from, I could hear that slide all the time. MR. URRICO-Aren’t we getting into an area that’s beyond our purview? MR. UNDERWOOD-We can make suggestions. MR. LAPPER-I think a condition that a suitable noise barrier has to be there and leave it to the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-Okay. That’s fine. MRS. HAMLIN-Can I ask Laura a question? Laura, does the Planning Board usually ask for something similar to the light plan here, like a sound attenuation plan that shows where the decibels go out to? MRS. MOORE-There’s no noise ordinance in the Town of Queensbury. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. Regardless of the noise ordinance, do they request it as part of site plan review? MRS. MOORE-No. I would say that it has not occurred. MR. MC CABE-So I think we’ve had enough discussion here. So I’m going to close the public hearing. 48 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look at this project and it appears that they’re leaving a buffer area behind the fence that’s existing already, and they are doing some plantings and hopefully the Planning Board will come up with the right plantings to help the neighbors behind it so that they don’t have to see as much. I’m in favor of the project the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, they do sit in a hole there, and they’re below this cement wall and they’re only asking for a small setback from the front and it’s a nice looking project and I’m sure the site planners on the Planning Board will address these other problems. So I’m all on board the way it is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-As long as we can add in the contingency that the noise, some kind of noise protection or prevention fencing be put in there or whatever you want to call it, I’d be in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project. I think it’s well thought out, you know, what the neighbors are saying, I do respect 50 trees. I do think the white pines are not the best idea. I would go with something else personally, but the A/C, I’ve actually been to one of these locations n another part of the State. When the doors are closed, you know, being A/C, being heated, relatively quiet. I’m not going to suggest that if you’re right up next to that door you can’t hear something, but it very much has a deafening sound based upon how they build these locations. The fence, the new plantings, I would like to see an eight foot fence as opposed to a six foot fence, but I’m going to defer to our good friends on the Planning Board to sort all of that out. So with that said, I am in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m basically in favor of the plan but I think the Planning Board should really be the one that the neighbors should go to because I think like your business model with the doors on the back of the building is kind of the opposite of what we currently have in Town, almost all the commercial businesses that do tires have the doors on the front side facing the roadside which dissipates the sound. It doesn’t put it into a residential neighborhood. So I think that should be a consideration for the Planning Board, but as far as moving the building less than the 75 feet back, I don’t have a problem with that. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I mean per our only purview we have here they’re really only asking for a minimal setback., So I’m in favor but I’ll reiterate what everybody has said that some sort of sound attenuation. It could be in the building, if it’s not in the fence. Whatever you and the Planning Board work out works for me. The lighting I see you included that plan, the photometrics. That looks good, too. I’m good. MR. MC CABE-And I support this project also. I think what’s being asked of us h ere is about 17 and a half feet of relief off of 75, which is a pretty standard request and nothing greater than what we’re used to, and so I’ll support this project also. So, Ron, I’m going to ask you to craft a motion here, and just condition this with some sort of sound attenuation. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Town Fair Tire. Applicant proposes to remove an existing 2,740 sq. ft. building to construct a new 7,269 sq. ft. tire sales and service facility. The project includes new parking area, stormwater management, lighting, and landscaping. Site plan for new commercial use and building in the CI zone and for buffer. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Commercial Intensive zone –CI Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirement. The new building is to be located 57.4 ft. from the front property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. 49 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 19, 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 as on the south side of this property it meets Code. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial due to the layout of the building. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered 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) That some kind of a noise control and/or fencing be provided to shield the neighbors on the western part of the property. 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. 30-2021 TOWN FAIR TIRE, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 19 Day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr.. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. Good night, everyone. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. Our next application is AV 31-2021. AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOHN GRAZIANO AGENT(S) NICHOLAS ZEGLEN (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP) OWNER(S) JOHN GRAZIANO ZONING WR LOCATION 195 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-STORY ADDITION OF 866 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, A SINGLE STORY 124 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT MASTER BATHROOM ADDITION, AND 344 +/- SQ. FT. ROOF AREA OVER TH E EXISTING FRONT PORCH. THE EXISTING HOME HAS A FOOTPRINT OF 1,900 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 3,137 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN IS REQUIRED DUE TO EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 30-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO 226.19-2-1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010; 179-6- 065; 179-5-020 NICK ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2021, John Graziano, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 195 Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-story addition of 866 sq. ft. footprint, a single story 124 sq. ft. footprint Master bathroom addition, and 344 +/- sq. ft. roof area over the existing front porch. The existing home has a footprint of 1,900 sq. ft. and floor area of 3,137 sq. ft. Site plan is required due to expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks. 50 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant proposes the new 2 story addition to be located 8 ft. to the north property line; the covered deck is to be 5 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief requested for expansion of non-conforming structure. 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 location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for north side setback is 8 ft. for the new garage/house addition and 5 ft. for the front covered deck, where a 20 ft. setback is required. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: Applicant proposes residential additions to an existing home of 1,900 sq. ft. footprint/3,137 sq. ft. floor area. There is to be a two story addition of 886 sq. ft. footprint, a single story of 124 sq. ft. footprint master bathroom addition, and a 344 +/- sq. ft. roof area over the existing front porch. The new floor area is to be 4,699 sq. ft.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant impacts th that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted May 18, 2021 by a unanimous vote. MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership. The applicant, Mr. Graziano of 195 Assembly Point Road is proposing site improvements in the form of an attached garage addition on the west side of the existing house, a master bathroom off the south side of the existing master bedroom as well as the expansion of a covered deck off the front of the house. These additions will create a setback relief requested on the northern property line for a side yard setback. The existing setback on the house is 6.7 feet and the proposed setback would be 5 feet, so an increase of 1.7 feet. So there was a letter in support from the northern property owner. This addition would directly affect them and they submitted a letter to the Town in support of the project. Also part of the site improvements are a new septic system with an Elgin enhanced treatment unit as well as stormwater management on site. There’ll be a drip edge to catch some of the new garage runoff as well as a raingarden to catch the rest of the new roof runoff as well as some of the existing. The applicant is also proposing to remove about 1600 square feet of existing asphalt and transforming that to permeable pavers to reduce the imperviousness on the site. There’s also an existing shed that was on the southern property line that was beyond the setback. The applicant is moving that shed to be in compliance. Overall we think all these site improvements outweigh the 1.7 foot setback variance and it’s a good project. With that I’d like to turn it over to the Board for any questions. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward. 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 provide input on this particular project and invite anybody on the outside who may have comment to give us a call at 518-761-9225. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 51 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) MR. URRICO-I have a letter. “I, Robert Carbognin am the owner of 197 Assembly Point Road. My property abuts John Graziano’s lot on the north side. This is the side of the proposed addition requiring a variance due to lack of side yard setback. I have no issue with the proposed addition. I wish him well on his construction project, and hope the Board will approve it. Sincerely, Robert Carbognin 197 Assembly Point Road, Lake George” MR. KUHL-Why did you show all the pictures of the dock across the street? MR. ZEGLEN-Just to show the shoreline buffer. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of this project. I think it’s well thought out. I think it’s minimal. We have a neighbor to the north that’s in support. I will be voting yes on this. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-It’s pre-existing non-conforming being there. They’re just adding on. It’s the minimal necessary. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. It’s a good project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Me, too. MR. MC CABE-So basically what we’re asked here is to okay 1.7 feet of setback from what’s existing right now and I think that’s very minimal and so I, too, support the project. So I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John Graziano. Applicant proposes a 2-story addition of 866 sq. ft. footprint, a single story 124 sq. ft. footprint Master bathroom addition, and 344 +/- sq. ft. roof area over the existing front porch. The existing home has a footprint of 1,900 sq. ft. and floor area of 3,137 sq. ft. Site plan is required due to expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant proposes the new 2 story addition to be located 8 ft. to the north property line; the covered deck is to be 5 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief requested for expansion of non-conforming structure. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 19, 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: 52 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Feasible alternatives, really we didn’t need to consider them. This is a very reasonable request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s a small increase compared to what’s existing. 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. 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. 31-2021 JOHN GRAZIANO, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 19 Day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to recommend that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 19, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 19 day of May, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 53