Loading...
08-18-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 35-2021 Zachary Vannier 2. Tax Map No. 297.17-1-60 Area Variance No. 59-2021 Harrisena Community Church 6. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-59 Area Variance No. 50-2021 Stewart’s Shops Corp. 11. Tax Map No. 303.19-1-61 Area Variance No. 54-2021 Lester H. Chase III 14. Tax Map No. 239.19-1-17 Area Variance No. 56-2021 Dark Bay Lane, LLC 15. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-37 Area Variance No. 53-2021 Mike Lewis 23. Tax Map No. 307.-1-8 Area Variance No. 60-2021 Michael & Alice Crotty 26. Tax Map No. 289.18-1-17 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 08/18/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 18, 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 LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. What we’ll do is call each case up. I’ll read the case into the record, allow the applicant to present his case. We’ll ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised we’ll open the public hearing, seek input from the public. At that point then we’ll poll the Board, see where we stand on the application, and then proceed from there. First we have to take care of a few administrative items. So we’ll start with you, Kevin. KEVIN MALINOSKI MR. MALINOSKI-My name is Kevin Malinoski. I’m from StoredTech which is the IT service provider for the Town of Queensbury. Last month we were contracted to implement multi-factor authentication or two-factor authentication for all of the e-mail accounts for Town of Queensbury. This month we’re in our implementation phase. So last night I met with the Planning Board and tonight I’m meeting with you all here just to go over high level some changes that will take effect starting tomorrow at 8 a.m. High level overview is for anyone with a queensbury.net e-mail address. The next time you access your e-mail, starting after 8 a.m. tomorrow you’re going to get prompted on each device you access it with for a six digit code that will be sent to your cell phone number. If you can’t receive a tax, you’ll be offered the option of a phone call that will dictate that six-digit code and this is a one-time code that you’ll need to enter on your devices when you check e-mail. The only exception to that is if the device were to go offline for longer than 30 days. You power it off. You don’t check e-mail on it. You will get prompted after 30 days as a security standard and on the back end everybody’s numbers, phone numbers, have been programmed into the system. So there’s no enrollment process necessary. It should be populated for you, and this will start, as I said, tomorrow at 8 a.m. We did it this morning for the Planning Board that we went over this last night. It seemed to go smoothly. Didn’t get any calls about it. And if, you know, to make it a little more approachable, if you use on-line banking I’m sure you’re familiar with the process. A lot of companies have a multi-factor. This day and age cybersecurity is pretty much a standard at this point. So this was just to give a high level overview that we will be implementing it tomorrow at 8 a.m., and if you do have any issues accessing your e-mail, you can call StoredTech at any time, 24/7, and we do have support for it. During the hours of 8 and 5 you will get directly to our support team for this project. MR. KUHL-What’s your number, Kevin? MR. MALINOSKI-It is at the bottom of this page. So it’s 518-793-1111, and option one will give you support. If you call after hours there’s just a triage process. So you’ll basically log your call. Our on team engineers will then reach back out to you. If you call during business hours it’ll probably just be a little more direct, but this change will take effect starting tomorrow at 8 a.m. and we just wanted to give you a heads up so it’s no surprise and you’re prepared for it. So if there’s any questions, I can answer them. MRS. HAMLIN-Just the one code, right? We won’t have to go back and check in? MR. MALINOSKI-Yes. So it’s a one-time code, and again, if the device were to go offline or you get a new device. MRS. HAMLIN-The same code? MR. MALINOSKI-It’s not going to be the same code. It’s going to be different, just like the bank, and just to go over again, you’ll be entering your normal password for your e-mail account and then you’ll get prompted for the six-digit code. It’s that authentication to protect basic resources. So that’s pretty much it. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. MALINOSKI-Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we have two more administrative items. John, I wonder if I could have a motion st for the meeting minutes of July 21. APPROVAL OF MINUTES st July 21, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING st MINUTES OF JULY 21, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE th July 28, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING th MINUTES OF JULY 28, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-And then just one more item. In case of emergency, there are doors in the back of the room that you entered through. There’s a door to the far west end of the room, and there are two doors to the east. So our first application tonight is AV 35-2021, 88 Meadow Drive. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ZACHARY VANNIER OWNER(S) ZACHARY VANNIER ZONING MDR LOCATION 88 MEADOW DRIVE (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 576 SQ. FT. DETACHED SECOND GARAGE ON THE 0.67 ACRE PARCEL WHERE A PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS TO BE A GARAGE OF 288 SQ. FT. AND THE REMAINING SPACE TO BE USED FOR STORAGE OF TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT. A WALL WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO SEPARATE THE TWO SPACES. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,156 SQ. FT. AND 160 SQ. FT. SHED ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF AST 537-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2021 LOT SIZE 0.67 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.17-1-60 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 ZACHARY VANNIER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2021, Zachary Vannier, Meeting Date: August 18, 2021, “Project Location: 88 Meadow Drive Description of Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 576 sq. ft. detached building on the 0.67 acre parcel. The building will be divided into two portions: there is to be a 288 sq. ft. garage and 288 sq. ft. storage area with a wall to be placed between the two spaces. The existing home of 2,156 sq. ft. and 160 sq. ft. shed are to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for setbacks and second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and second garage in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) The building is to be located 9.6 ft. from northwest property line where a 25 ft. setback is required and is to be 28.7 ft. from the southwest property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for having 2 garages. The building is divided into two portions 288 sq. ft. vehicle space and 288 sq. ft. storage equipment space. 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 limited as the applicant has described an existing rock outcrop adjacent to the existing attached garage. The applicant has clarified instead of 2 separate structures on the lot that there would be one to allow for vehicle storage on one side and yard equipment storage on the other; this includes a divider wall between the two spaces. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the setback is 15.4 ft. to the side setback and 1.3 ft. to the rear setback. Relief to have two garages. 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 applicant has clarified the project to construct a detached building that will have one garage door with a space for a vehicle and the other side of the building with one regular door is to be used for storage tools and equipment. The revised plans show the location division of the building for the separate spaces. The applicant confirmed with staff there was an area variance granted for a property in the neighborhood for a second garage. The project was an existing home with a single attached garage and to construct a second garage for two vehicles– for three vehicle spaces total. The applicant had indicated it was similar to the proposed project as there would only be three vehicle spaces for this project. The applicant provided one set of photos of the other applicant’s site with the garages to be included in this project application’s file.” MR. MC CABE-So you have to introduce yourself for the record. MR. VANNIER-I’m Zachary Vannier. My wife Patricia. MR. MC CABE-And so do you have anything more to add? MR. VANNIER-Again through some other advisement we’ve decided that it would work well for us if we could divide this into two sections which we talked about. One will be for vehicular storage and one will be just for storage in general. That’s all. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So the last time basically we asked whether you could make this, instead of a garage, an auxiliary structure, and the difference is the size of the garage door. You kind of put us in a spot when you asked us for a second garage on a pretty small lot. So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Did you change the doors here or are they still the same size, the garage doors? MR. VANNIER-Just one door. MR. HENKEL-Just one garage door, and how big are we talking? MR. VANNIER-Seven by nine. MRS. MOORE-So it’s still a garage door, but with this application it was, it sort of wasn’t clear about what the intent of the building was. So now the Board is more aware of the fact that the applicant is proposing, instead of an additional shed on the site, is to use one building for storage on one side and one bay garage, whereas some parcels even within the neighborhood are at three car, you know, allows three cars. This one would be no different where they currently allow two cars. He’s asking for one additional bay. So it 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) was just more of a clarification to the Board and in the notes that I wrote up the applicant further explained that the property has ledge exposed and so moving that building here or there would be difficult because of the existing ledge that is between the existing garage and where the proposed garage is. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Anybody else? MRS. HAMLIN-So the garage, the 24 by 32 foot garage, has two cars. MR. VANNIER-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-And you still have the shed? MR. VANNIER-Yes. The pool shed.. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 has input on this particular application, and do we have anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So seeing nobody, 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 better application than the first one. I think he’s a little clearer about what his intentions are. So I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think if more people would do what this applicant did that it would be much easier to approve second structures. So I’d be in favor the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I agree with both my counterparts, Roy and Ron, relative to this, and I would be in agreement for the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s really only adding a third garage bay for another car so I would have no problem with this. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m feeling like I’m about to sink here, but it is three bays here. So I think it’s fair that they have three bays, and having a rock cropping is the perfect reason to grant a variance. I still think your property’s getting pretty crowded and I hope this will be the last. PATTY VANNIER MRS. VANNIER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-I guess I would go along with my fellow Board members. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I’d like to see a little bit smaller garage on a property that size also because they have the shed, but I’d go along with what he’s done with calling it a three car garage. I could go along with it. MR. MC CABE-And I can’t support this. To me it’s a second garage on a small property, but my vote is by far overruled. So I’m going to ask Brent for a motion here. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Zachary Vannier. (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a 576 sq. ft. detached building on the 0.67 acre parcel. The building will be divided into two portions: there is to be a 288 sq. ft. garage and 288 sq. ft. storage area with a wall to be placed between the two spaces. The existing home of 2,156 sq. ft. and 160 sq. ft. shed are to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for setbacks and second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and second garage in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage The building is to be located 9.6 ft. from northwest property line where a 25 ft. setback is required and is to be 28.7 ft. from the southwest property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for having 2 garages. The building is divided into two portions 288 sq. ft. vehicle space and 288 sq. ft. storage equipment space. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 23, 2021 and Wednesday, August 18, 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. Minor impacts are associated here. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and this is a minimal request based upon that. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. As we’ve discussed there is a ledge issue and so the requested variance is not substantial. 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 construed as self-created, we believe that it’s minor in context. 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. 35-2021 ZACHARY VANNIER, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 18th Day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt NOES: Mr. McCabe MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. VANNIER-Folks, thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 59-2021. NEW BUSINESS: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH ZONING MDR LOCATION 1616 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 3.8 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT TO BE 1.3 AC. WITH EXISTING 1,590 SQ. FT. 2-STORY HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO REMAIN; THE OTHER LOT TO BE 2.5 AC. FOR A NEW HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR CREATING A LOT LESS THAN 2 ACRES. CROSS REF AV 45-2020; AV 37-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 4.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-59 SECTION 179-3-040 MATTHEW WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2021, Harrisena Church, Meeting Date: August 18, 2021 “Project Location: 1616 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 3.8 acre parcel. One lot to be 1.3 ac. with existing 1,580 sq. ft. 2-story home and detached garage to remain; the other lot to be 2.5 ac. for a new home and associated site work. Relief requested for creating a lot less than 2 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for creating a lot less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density zone- MDR. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The project proposes two lot subdivision where Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 to be 2.5 acres, lot size required is 2 acres in the MDR zone. Lot 1 will maintain an existing house and then lot 2 would be sold for a future home. 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 considered limited as one lot is to be compliant and the other lot with existing home is to be non-compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for Lot 1 is 0.7 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 as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no 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 subdivide a 3.8 ac parcel into two lots. The Harrisena Church will retain Lot 1 that has the existing home. There are no changes to lot 1. Lot 2 is to be sold for future house. Lot 1 access on Ridge Road will remain the same and Lot 2 will have access on Ridge Road. The subdivision plan shows the two lots and proposed house location and septic. In addition, the subdivision plan indicates an existing tree line and no additional clearing is proposed. The proposed driveway would be between 1609 and 1613 Ridge across the street. The ZBA reviewed an application for this parcel that was to be a three lot subdivision. The ZBA had granted the relief requested for lot size and the APA had reversed that decision.” MR. URRICO-And, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to recuse myself from any discussion on this. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Now you can go ahead. MR. WEBSTER-Okay. My name’s Matthew Webster with Van Dusen & Steves Land Surveyors. I’m here on behalf of the Harrisena Church which as you can see is an integral part of the community, and we’re 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) back before you. Just as the summary stated, we’ve previously been here for a three lot subdivision which you guys granted the necessary variances for and our friends at the Park Agency decided would be too much density. As such we have revised our plan and come back with a plan that does not increase density as much. Of course it’s half the number of potential new building sites. In this case it’s relatively straightforward. They’re asking for relief for the existing lot so as to maximize the potential building space for the potential new lot. MR. MC CABE-So any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Just curious. I mean this is good, but no matter which way we cut it we’re going to have a variance. So what is your thinking in the differentiation between the existing lot and the size there and having the 2.5? You could make the other one a little bigger and make it closer to two. What was the thinking? MR. WEBSTER-So as you said either way a variance will be required. In this case this maximizes the potential buildability if you will for the new lot so that whomever purchases it could decide where they want to put their house. The way we’ve shown the concept plan here minimizes a clearing of the lot as well, so as to disturb the area as little as possible. Because this is already a cleared area on the site. MRS. HAMLIN-And you don’t think in any way you’re hampering the way the existing house is in making that lot size that it is? MR. WEBSTER-No because this was the decision of the Church of course and they don’t really use that area at all. So they would much rather see someone else potentially put it to good use rather than just have MRS. HAMLIN-Thank you MR. WEBSTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there is anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do have a public comment, if you want me to read that into the record. MR. MC CABE-Do you have it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So this is from John and Barbara Keyworth. They live at 31 Clements Road. “We are writing in reference to variance AV 59-2021 for the Harrisena Church property. Our main concern is the storm water runoff from building on the new lot described in the variance. 1. We feel that the area in question for the requested building lot on the corner of Ridge Road and Clements Road provides some buffering for storm water runoff and that building a house on this lot will only add to the problem. 2. The water runoff from that area is already a problem for us. In the winter we have had 2 to 3 inches of water over our driveway that would freeze and thaw depending on the weather conditions. 3. The original variance (AV 45-2020) called for a waiver for Storm Water Management. Even if this was not granted in the future we would still worry that the results of ay septic system failure or chemical use will also end in our yards regardless of the time of year. 4. It should be noted that the dense growth on this property has also become a wildlife refuge and transition point for animals of all types as they pass through our area. Thank you, John and Barbara Keyworth” MR. MC CABE-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-That’s it. I apologize to the individual that’s stepping up to the mic. I must not have the public comment that you believe was provided. We’ll read it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you. BRIAN WILLETTE 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MR. WILLETTE-Hi. My name is Brian Willette. I am one of the neighbors that adjoins, is close to that property in question, and this is Katherine Standbridge. KATHERINE STANDBRIDGE MS. STANDBRIDGE- The owner of 8 Clements Road on the corner of Clements and Ridge Road, and I talked to Craig Brown yesterday. On the phone I gave him my concerns which are very similar to the first, but this, I have since seen this information last night later than I talked to Craig. So my comments have changed a bit. It sounds like they have listened to what we said last time and we appreciate that. Do you want me to read those first? And then Brian has some additional comments. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MS. STANDBRIDGE-So my original concerns and still are, if this changes at all, I would still have this concern, is that our driveway, from the original print that we saw, it would come, our driveway is there now. The new one would come out directly opposite our driveway. Very inconvenient and very close to the road and we’re concerned about the traffic. We have an awful lot of traffic coming down Clements Road and Ridge Road. So I’m really concerned about having another driveway here in that vicinity at all, but this seems to address it. This new plan says the driveway will come out onto Ridge Road. So that plan states, my concern is, I guess my questions, are we informed if this changes? Now is that a normal procedure? MR. WILLETTE-The facsimile of the drawing at hand is not appeasing us as well as where the driveway is located, where the structure is and what there is for non-disturbance of both. MR. MC CABE-Of course you know this is just conceptual. There’s no structure planned. MR. WILLETTE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-At this particular time all we’re doing is subdividing the lot. So there’s no, you know, we’re not okaying any building or any control of runoff or anything like that. All we’re doing is splitting the property into two lots. MR. HENKEL-We could put a condition that the driveway is on Ridge. Right? MR. MC CABE-You could, but, again. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. So that potentially could be something that the Planning Board reviewed and taking your concerns to the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-That would be more their. MR. WILLETTE-As was stated earlier as far as taking more property for that 1.3 and that would reduce the variances for that second garage, but if that one lot, the second lot was to exit, enter through Ridge Road it would be more preferable than off of Clements. Because as of right now we have a business that’s at the other end of Clements and there’s cars and high volume of traffic that goes down Clements. So now we’ve got to cause more concern for people coming and going. So if this drawing is pretty much standard for the exit and entrance for Ridge Road, you know, when we looked at it, this was more appealing to us. MS. STANDBRIDGE-Currently. MR. WILLETTE-Yes. MS. STANDBRIDGE-So in addressing what you had said, though, I agree that they’ve gone to the 1.3 on the smaller and the 2.5 on the larger lot. With that, though, if you, as the Zoning Board, agree to the 1.3, a subset of that decision forces the corner to be 2.5 and a structure that would be built there is again our concern. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MS. STANDBRIDGE-And secondly, I was concerned about the stormwater issue that flows down the road. There’s a large amount of water that flows down almost like a stream, down Clements Road, but that was addressed by John Keyworth, these comments in his e-mail. And so he covered that. MR. WILLETTE-Some of the basements, the dwellings down that road are, and that kind of encourages the possibility of mold. So we want to prevent that as much as possible. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MS. STANDBRIDGE-The folks down the street. We don’ t have that issue. The water is across from us going down by the new, where they may put a structure on that corner down Clements Road that corner there. It comes from across Ridge Road down Clements Road. MR. WILLETTE-Into a culvert. MS. STANDBRIDGE-And again the third thing I had was like John’s concern, the environmental. There’s a lot of very wonderful, and that’s why we moved to the country, wonderful animals, turkeys, birds and everything else over there, deer, rabbits, everything. So anyway, it’s a beautiful spot, and our concern at first was to have anything done but as I saw the second appeal from the applicant I said okay at least they’/re listening to us and they even stated in part in their application to address, in quotes, to address the neighborhood concerns. We do appreciate that. MR. WILLETTE-To preserve some of the habitat. MS. STANDBRIDGE-And I wanted to say, too, that, those are basically my major concerns, but I wanted to say that it’s real important that we have this Zoning Board and the Planning Board. By the same token it takes people that are on these Boards maybe 15, 20 minutes to make this decision and a briefing of what’s going on, but those of us that live there, have lived there for 20 years or more. So just something stated. So our concerns at this point are these things, plus the fact that if this changes, the new proposal changes, we would like to somehow, as neighbors, be informed. Because we’re okay with what they’ve done , mostly, but if that changes and like you said we don’t put it in the minutes or whatever we need to do to say we don’t want driveways on Clements Road, that would be a lot of help, but if we don’t do that we’re concerned that that might happen, once Harrisena sells, the contractor builds it and then he sells it, it could bring up all these concerns again. MR. MC CABE-Or nothing might happen. MS. STANDBRIDGE-That’s right. MR. HENKEL-As a contractor, you look at that property there’s no way you’re going to build a road that’s going to enter on Clements Road. There’s a big gully there on that side. It makes total sense to put it on Ridge Road because it’s right there. MR. WILLETTE-And that’s one of the concerns and that would be greatly appreciated . MR. HENKEL-It’s commonsense anyway. MS. STANDBRIDGE-That would be wonderful if you could put that in, whatever you people need to do. I don’t know your process, but that would be wonderful if you could consider that. That’s what I have to say. Is there anything you’d like to say? MR. WILLETTE-I think that was pretty good, and thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Thank you. Anybody else who has input on this particular application? 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-It’s a 3.8 acre parcel and I think the 1.3 acres that will house the Church and the current building that exists on site is adequate because that’s what’s utilized presently for the use of the Church and the gathering room in the back part. As far as creating the new lot at 2.5 acres, I think that’s more than adequate in size. I think we could go with a recommendation from our Board that the access be located off Ridge Road. It doesn’t make any sense to put it off of Clements Road. We could craft it that way. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you. I agree. I believe that that access off of Ridge, by default, when a contractor goes to do what they’re going to do, it’s probably going to occur anyway, but we hear you loud and clear relative to everything you’ve said, but I do believe that that would occur. The other way doesn’t work, but we heard you. As a screaming environmentalist, I do have a little bit of an issue with this habitat that’s being referenced here, etc., but I’m going to set that portion aside and believe that this is fine. I think it’s relatively well thought out. So it has my support. MR. MC CABE-Brandon, how do you feel on this? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) BRANDON STARK, ALTERNATE (FILLING IN FOR ROY URRICO) MR. STARK-I feel good. I like the fact that the access would be on Ridge Road rather than on Clements Road and I agree with what the previous Board members said. I’d vote in favor of this project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m very happy that we got to the two lots. I think prior to, if I’m correct, all three were substandard in the process. So at least we have one that is, as was mentioned, more than adequate above the two minimum. I think I might, as a screaming environmentalist, we could make some sort of condition. I don’t know, this is probably the most buildable spot anyway. So like you all have said before, it’s unlikely that it would be built anywhere. MR. MC CABE-Well, just let’s make it clear. All we’re doing tonight is determining whether there’s a subdivision here. MRS. HAMLIN-I’m wondering though, I mean, conditions are conditions. MR. MC CABE-Yes, but you also have the Planning Board and that’s more their bailiwick. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I wouldn’t mind some sort of comment that hopefully, well, does the Planning Board do a Planning Board review on a single residential? MRS. MOORE-They have to do the subdivision first and sometimes Boards have done site plan review for, if there’s a future development on the site. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So if none is proposed at the time of subdivision, then they may not do future site plan. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-And what’s the minimum soil disturbance for stormwater review? MRS. MOORE-One acre. What we require if someone, if the applicant comes before the Planning Board, the Planning Board has been, I guess, pointed about being aware of those things and asking those questions about stormwater. So I don’t think it’s going away. MRS. HAMLIN-Regardless of whether they did that. Okay. Yes, I’m for it and hopefully future developers will heed what we see here in front of us, because it does protect that habitat and it’s just the most logical place to put something. Hopefully future Planning Board review will catch all of this. MR. KUHL-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think no matter what we would have done, with two acre zoning they would need a variance, no matter what, when they split this up. I think it’s a good project the way it’s presented and it should satisfy everybody’s needs. So I would be in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. HENKEL-We’ve got to remember we’ve approved this with three lots and this is a much better project with the two lots and where they have the house shown on this survey makes more sense. So I’d go with the project. MR. MC CABE-I, too, support the project. I supported the previous one and so I guess it would be only right if I continued my support. So with that in mind I’m going to ask Ron for a motion here. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, Mr. Chairman, before I go any further, are we going to put a condition on the access from Ridge Road or are we going to leave that for the Planning Board? MR. MC CABE-I think we’re going to leave that for the Planning Board. MR. KUHL-Okay. Fine. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Harrisena Community Church. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 3.8 acre parcel. One lot to be 1.3 ac. with existing 1,580 sq. ft. 2-story home and detached garage to remain; the other lot to be 2.5 ac. for a new home and associated site work. Relief requested for creating a lot less than 2 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for creating a lot less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density zone- MDR. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The project proposes two lot subdivision where Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 to be 2.5acres, lot size required is 2 acres in the MDR zone. Lot 1 will maintain an existing house and then lot 2 would be sold for a future home. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 18, 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 this is just subdividing 3.8 acres into two lots. One being the lot with the house on it and the other being the lot with the Church on it. 2. Feasible alternatives really have been considered and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial as it was only 3.8 acres and to split it into two they would have had to get a variance, and this division seems to be very good. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest is self-created. 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. 59-2021 HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 18th day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. WEBSTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 50-2021, 777 Quaker Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. OWNER(S) STEWART’S SHOPS CORP. ZONING CI LOCATION 777 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 744 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 2,954 SQ. FT. BUILDING, A 100 SQ. FT. NEW ROOF OVERHANG ON BOTH THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND REPAINTING THE FAÇADE AND ADDITION STONE VENEER ON THREE SIDES OF THE BUILDING. SITE PLAN FOR MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED SITE PLAN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 45-2021; AV 5-1989; SP 20-89; SP 59-2004; SP 8-2007; SP 60-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 LOT SIZE 1.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.19- 1-61 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS POTTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2021, Stewart’s Shops Corp., Meeting Date: August 18, 2021 “Project Location: 777 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 744 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,954 sq. ft. building, a 100 sq. ft. new roof overhang both on the west side of the building and repainting the façade and addition stone veneer on three sides of the building. Site plan for modification to an approved site plan. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a building addition with overhang greater than 2 ft. in the Commercial Intensive zone, CI. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The addition is to be located as follows: The building addition is to be located 27 ft. to the property line and the overhang is to be located 22 ft. to the property line where a 25 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 considered limited due to the location of the existing building on the site as well as the orientation of the building. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 3 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicants propose to expand an existing business with a 744 sq. ft. addition and 100 sq. ft. overhang. The overhang is for coverage at the access door and some building equipment. The plans show the location of the addition and overhang. The elevations and floor plans have also been provided.” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion was passed on th August 17, 2021 by a six zero vote. MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MR. POTTER-Good evening. Chris Potter from Stewart’s. We’re proposing a 12 foot addition off the rear of the building which does meet the setbacks. It’s the door that does not. We’re asking for a minor three feet of relief. We did look at other alternatives. It would be difficult to add on two feet to the north or east side where the parking is and there’s shared access that goes through there. So any sort of addition to the south. We did look at making the addition smaller so we wouldn’t need a variance, but what we were trying to do is to re-model and gain additional space. If we reduce it by three feet we just wouldn’t gain what we would need to make the project feasible. MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward. Do we have any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-I have one. I’m just wondering, what is this land of Edwin D. King, the slice of pie? Did anybody ever try to buy it? MR. HENKEL-King Fuels. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Just curious. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 has input on this particular project, and do we have anything written, Roy? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is nothing. MR. MC CABE-So, seeing nobody, 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 John? MR. HENKEL-A little bit of relief that they’re asking for, and what it’s going to do for the store, the looks of it, appearance, it’s definitely well worth it. So I’d be on board with this project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-We’re challenged with giving minimal relief and I would say this passes that test. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. I think it’s minimal. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think it’s a good request. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. The request is minimal. So with that in mind, 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 Stewart’s Shops Corp. Applicant proposes a 744 sq. ft. addition to an existing 2,954 sq. ft. building, a 100 sq. ft. new roof overhang both on the west side of the building and repainting the façade and addition stone veneer on three sides of the building. Site plan for modification to an approved site plan. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a building addition with overhang greater than 2 ft. in the Commercial Intensive zone, CI. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The addition is to be located as follows: The building addition is to be located 27 ft. to the property line and the overhang is to be located 22 ft. to the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 18, 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. In general these are both commercial properties butting up against each other. 2. Feasible alternatives were presented and considered by the Board as presented by the applicant with regards to access to other lots and traffic. This the only logical place to create this addition. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. We’re only discussing something that’s with the overhang, not even the footprint. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created, but this is to improve. It’s necessary to them. 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. 50-2021 STEWART’S SHOPS CORP., Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 18 Day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. So our next application is AV 54-2021, 3219 State Route 9L. MRS. MOORE-So I apologize. I had sent out an e-mail and it was late in the afternoon that this application needed to be tabled. There was an additional variance that needed to be requested and the nd. applicant is working on those details now, and so this application is to be tabled to September 22 AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LESTER H. CHASE III AGENT(S) MEYER, FULLER & STOCKWELL ZONING SPLIT (RR-5A & LC-10A) LOCATION 3219 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 1,650 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AS A REPLACEMENT GARAGE OF 1,596 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING 1,582 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 378 SQ. FT. SHED (NO CHANGES). SITE PLAN FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, SIZE OF GARAGE, AND NUMBER OF GARAGES. CROSS REF SP 49-2021; PZ 130-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.08 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.19-1-17 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040 MR. MC CABE-So, John, could I have a motion with respect to that. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lester H. Chase III. Applicant proposes to construct a 1,650 sq. ft. detached garage as a replacement garage of 1,596 sq. ft. The site has an existing 1,582 sq. ft. home with a 378 sq. ft. shed (no changes). Site plan for new construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for setbacks, size of garage, and number of garages. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 54-2021 LESTER H. CHASE, III, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: nd Tabled to the September 22, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE th MR. HENKEL-Any new information to be submitted by the 15 of September, or August. MRS. MOORE-They’re in the middle of getting that information together. So they have time working with me, and just to be aware that because there’s an additional request it’ll be re-advertised. So I know there’s a public hearing this evening, but it will be re-advertised. MR. MC CABE-So I was going to open the public hearing. Shall I do that? MRS. MOORE-In case someone’s here to speak. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing for AV 54-2021, 3219 State Route 9L. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this particular application? So seeing nobody, I’m going to leave the public hearing open. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-Okay. So what will happen is those that are within 500 feet will get re-noticed. Because it needs additional relief and it should be part of the notice. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 56-2021, 40 Dark Bay Lane.. AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DARK BAY LANE, LLC AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP OWNER(S) DARK BAY LANE, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 40 DARK BAY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVERAL RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,067 SQ. FT. INCLUDING A DECK. THE NEW FOOTPRINT IS TO BE 2,658 SQ. FT. WHICH 653 SQ. FT. IS THE NEW GARAGE FOOTPRINT. EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,650 SQ. FT. AND NEW FLOOR AREA IS 4,378 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING HARD SURFACING AREA FOR A TOTAL OF 4,842 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES PLACEMENT OF ROCK RETAINING WALLS, A NEW WELL AND A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A NEW SCREEN PORCH AREA, DECK REPLACEMENT, NEW RAISED ROOF AREA AND NEW UPPER LEVEL. SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, HEIGHT, RAIN GARDENS WITHIN 100 FT. OF SHORELINE, AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 48-2021; SEP 298-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-37 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-010; 179-6-050; 179-6-065 BRANDON FERGUSON & TREVOR FLYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2021, Dark Bay Lane, LLC, Meeting Date: August 18, 2021 “Project Location: 40 Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes several renovations to an existing home and to construct an attached garage. The existing home is 2,067 sq. ft. including a deck. The new footprint is to be 2,658 sq. ft. which 653 sq. ft. is the new garage footprint. Existing floor area is 2,650 sq. ft. and new floor area is 4,378 sq. ft. The project includes replacement of existing hard surfacing area for a total of 4,842 sq. ft. The project includes placement of rock retaining walls, a new well, and a new septic system. The project also includes a new screen porch area, deck replacement, new raised roof area and new upper level. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, height, rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline, and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, height, rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline, and expansion of a non-conforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR. Section 179-3-040, Chapter 147 supplemental minor project The rebuilt deck is to be located 22.8 ft., from the shoreline and the main house improvements proposed to be 31.3 ft. setback where a 75 ft. setback is required. Screen porch renovations 19.4 ft. and main house improvements on the other side with a proposed 16.5 ft. setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. Floor area is proposed to be 4,378 sq. ft. or 22.75% where the maximum allowed is 4,233 sq. ft. or 22%. Rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline. 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 considered to reduce the floor area request; the existing home location may limit the alternatives to the improvements to the shore side of the home. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is for the shoreline 52.2 ft. and the home is 43.7 ft., floor area is 0.75% in excess, side setback for the screen porch of 0.6 ft. and the house improvement side setback of 3.5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: There are several upgrades to the home proposed. The north elevation facing the shore –basement area façade change, exterior deck reduction to 208 sq. ft. +/- from 296 sq. ft. per RPS, improvement of screen porch to 180 sq. ft. +/- with deck entry area was about 168 sq. ft. +/ per RPS. The main floor interior is adjusted to include an expanded kitchen, living area, new laundry area, mudroom entry, main house entry, stairway to new upstairs area. The west elevation shows the new garage addition, the new living space above, the new living space over the existing home, the new entry area to the existing home portion. The east elevation shows the new raised roof area, the new dormer areas and a portion of the covered porch (the covered porch facing the lake), also the new addition of the garage and living space above roofline. The south elevation shows the new roofline with a dormer and the roofline of the new attached garage with living space. The orientation of the fireplace appears to be changed – or may be a new fireplace.” MR. URRICO-The Town of Queensbury Planning Board based on limited review identified the following areas of concern: The FAR variance from three members of the Board. And that was adopted unanimously th by a six zero vote on August 17, 2021. MR. FERGUSON-Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. Trevor Flynn with Balzer & Tuck. The applicant, Michael Chase, is here as well tonight. I want to start off with when we first started looking at this project and Mike first approached us with it, his plan was to take an existing old property, and to remodel it and turn it into a year round residence. We first looked at it and the site restrictions on there, in conversations we had with Craig Brown we were looking at seven variances. We worked with Mike to reduce those variances, eliminate as many as we could, and reduce the ones we were asking for as much as possible. So I think when we look at it we have five variances we’re looking for tonight. Four of those variances we feel are driven mostly by the existing house and are pretty much unavoidable in any modifications we made at all, and the fifth one, FAR, we feel like we’ve reduced to the maximum setback. So starting with the existing conditions on the site, it is a .44 acre parcel. The existing home right now is located about 21.8 feet from the lake. So the plan is to save this existing house foundation and the exterior walls on the first floor and then to expand upwards and then add a garage off the rear, but as the house exists now, the whole house is within the 75 foot setback to the shoreline. It is also 19.4 feet to the side yard back to what I’m calling the north here and then to the south it is 16.1. So it’s already, the existing house is legally non-conforming. All the restrictions are, there is a common driveway that provides access to the house to the north, as well as access to the house to the west to add permeable area on to this site are for their access, mostly for the adjoining landowners and not for this landowner. If we go to the proposed variance plan. So the first variance we’re asking for is modification and expansion of a legally non-conforming structure. That’s because we’re proposing to modify the house as it is instead of a teardown, re-build. We feel that trying to tear down and re-build on this lot would be very costly and it would still end up with numerous variances and it would be a waste of energy really. This is a good, solid structure that’s there now. There’s no structural issues. It just needs an update and expansion to make it a year round home and tearing it down, re-building would be a big impact on the neighboring properties, a bigger impact than keeping this existing home and modifying it for their means. So Variance Two is for the shoreline setback. So right now, there’s a red dotted line. That’s the existing house structure. That shoreline setback is driven by the existing deck. So right now it is 21.9 feet off of the shoreline. So they’re actually re-constructing that deck on the lakeside and it’s actually going to increase the setback slightly, a slight improvement over what the existing condition is now. Variance Three is the setback to the I’ll call it southern property line. Right now it is at 16.1 feet. However, that’s largely driven by again this deck which has a narrow section that extends down on the shoreline of the structure towards that property line. That section of the deck is going to get removed. So then we go off of the existing house foundation and what’s going to be proposed as well. Here we’re at 16.5. So once again a slight improvement from what is existing. The fourth variance is the side yard setback on the north. Right now it’s 19.4 feet to that screened in porch. The plan with that screened in porch is to essentially re-build in place. So it’s still going to keep the same footprint as the existing. I believe the roof height is getting raised slightly in that area, but it’s not going to impede any further on that line. It’s a decent sized porch. It just needs to be re- made or re-modeled for their needs. So we’re holding that at 19.4 to match the existing. So before getting into the fifth variance, I’ll quickly talk about other things that we did on site to reduce the amount of variances we need. When we first looked at this, we thought we would need a variance for permeability. There is, because of this common roadway that comes through here, as well as some of the other impervious 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) area that benefits the adjoining landowners on site, the permeability was already over, and now we were adding an addition to the home. However, we were able to reduce some of the pavement areas around the parking spaces and use permeable pavers in areas because that 50% credit actually reduced the permeable area on the site by 494 square feet. The other variance we were first looking at was a building height variance, but Balzer & Tuck worked hard in using the existing topography of the land and really analyzing it they were able to keep the house, further reduce the height of the house to keep it under 28 feet. So with the FAR, too, I think we originally started out with .26 when we first looked at it. Instead of coming in front of this Board with a .26 and maybe get rejected, we said let’s look at what can we do to reduce that before going to the Town, and that’s where they kept coming back and coming back in areas and working with the owner to get it down to that .2 percent. So a lot of work has gone into this to really reduce the number of variances and try to minimize the ones that we’re asking for. With that I’ll turn it over to Trevor to talk more about the FAR. MR. FLYNN-As Brandon mentioned, we were at .26 and we’ve reduced it since that time 616 square feet. A lot of that was done in the garage, breezeway and entrance. So just to walk you through the existing structure, what is currently on site now, and re-iterate some of the points Brandon made. There’s an existing front entry porch without a roof. You walk into the living and dining room. This is more of an Adirondack camp great room, vaulted space, views out towards the lake. To your left this screened porch and the stairs and most of the deck we’re keeping completely intact. We’re really just reconstructing some of the walls of the screened porch and that roof as well, just from a massing standpoint and the way it ties into the new proposed roof. The same with the deck. We’re actually pulling that back to re-construct it, refinish the deck’s surface and add a couple of stone piers. From this point on we’re actually removing that deck. When Mike and Jen Chase first came to us they wanted to make this their forever home and the problem was the number of bedrooms and a smaller kitchen. They didn’t have a garage to pull down into a mud room, laundry room. So those were the main charges to try to find those spaces on the first floor, and in doing so we kicked the three bedrooms to an upper level and I’ll walk you downstairs as well in understanding what has encumbered us from using the space down there, a lot of ledge rock and foundation. So these three rooms got re-located to the second floor and under the roof line. So I wanted to point out, and I’ll show you on the first floor proposed plan as well. We’re really restricted to the site constraints of Brandon walked you through the septic, you know, existing drives, the driveway itself and then they have a lot of ledge rock, too. So we tried to squeeze the garage as close to the house as we could. I doing so there’s a lot of complicated roof volumes that have to come together to still make that space usable on the second floor for height clearances and Code issues, at the same time deflecting the weather off so they don’t get ice damage. So you’ll see a lot of these volumes are derived based on those constraints from an interior standpoint. And then the rest is all the existing footprint and we’re really just raising the roof for that second floor, adding knee walls to get in the master bedroom suite. . So as previously mentioned, this is the exterior footprint of the house as it stands. We’re leaving all those walls intact, the subfloor or basement, taking off the roof and then adding floor joists on top of those walls to stand as minimal as possible. We’ve worked with a structural engineer as well and we’re re-locating the stairs over towards the front entry to get down into the basement and up to the second floor level. As you look at the garage, it’s roughly 24 feet outside dimension by 26 feet deep. We had even looked at trying to reduce square footage in this area but what starts to happen is you’ll see we pulled back a front entry porch because that also adds FAR. We still wanted to give them enough space to enter under cover and under a roof and then enter into a small foyer. So this 26 feet was part of that, you know, evaluation and understanding that if we pull the garage out a couple of feet, normally it’s 24 feet we went to 26 feet. That adds other opportunities for the entry into the house, and again, we’re dealing with a lot of complicated volumes on the back side that we had these roofs come together. So we did look at removing FAR there. It was roughly 24, 48 square feet per floor. So that is one area we tried to reduce. We just couldn’t get that down as well, and prior we were out further with the garage as it helped originally with the grading of the site, coming down that steep hill. So you weren’t sliding down into the garage itself during the winter, and we worked with EDP to go as low as we can and pushed the garage as tight to the house. So again from this point back is all the addition and the second floor. I also just wanted to reiterate from an APA standpoint, all of our additions are to the rear of the structure and we’ve amended that square footage to 250 square feet. That 250 square feet is theirs to add on to the structure when you’re within the setbacks. The rest of the square footage falls within the 75 foot setback which you see here. So the basement, this is all existing. So an existing bedroom on both ends and an existing recreation room. The whole back side is all ledge rock. So again we’re keeping that foundation intact., The ledge rock goes from roughly one foot below the floor joists on the far side and slowly it slopes. It even technically goes underneath this bed in the bedroom as well, and it slopes down to about zero back in this area. So this entire area is all less than five square feet, which doesn’t count for its FAR, but the reason I’m bringing it to your attention is we studied, you know, trying to add bedrooms down into this space to see if that would help with the square footage and re-located some of the program and we just couldn’t get it to work, this and the existing ledge rock. So lastly I think it’s important to note, I did note on the first floor plan, but if you recall the existing living and dining room, and we’re stuck within that existing footprint for the most part. We also looked at taking a four to five foot swath out of that area, but what we would have had to have done was tear down that side of the house, build a new foundation and construct ta new. In studying that, we could have gotten for 150 square feet that we’re in here for tonight or asking for, for relief, but again that would have come at more cost to the client and again we wanted to keep that existing footprint intact and working to the addition. So up on the second floor you’ll notice there’s a lot of orange area. so 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) what we’re doing is we’re fitting that second floor plan under the new proposed roof. All those areas are less than five feet in height. So the five feet in height is what triggers habitable space or usable space which triggers your FAR code. So that’s what you can see. What’s important to note on the second floor, and I think where we tried to reduce space, we got asked by the Planning Board, understanding this is called an exercise room, you know, what if it turned into a bedroom in a couple of years or another space. I think our reply was it doesn’t matter what it is. If it’s attic space, it still counts towards FAR. So anything over that five feet from this point on, the knee wall, counts towards FAR, and that all has to do with trying to re-locate another bedroom to the second floor with windows and the master suite under the main roof volume and getting the height of the stairs to clearances and Code compliance. So this was our diagram and how we initially studied the height of the overall structure. This is an important image because you’ll see the existing roof and the proposed roofs. So from this point on that’s the existing top of plate height and we’ve added a floor structure. So that small distance, roughly a foot, two by twelve, we added a floor structure in and then from that point on we’re building our second floor walls and the roof. So that’s our max height that we could reach from the roof pitch as well, but as you look down to the lower left, we basically took the existing topography and all the points around the house and raised that 28 feet, and that was our zoning envelope. So every move we made and geometry that we studied within the roof was used to keep it under that 28 feet and that also resulted in some of our FAR struggles back and forth. So again this is that 28 foot line as you take the topography around the entire site and bring them up to 28 feet. Last we just wanted to show what the house looks like from the view shed of Lake George. So the upper left hand corner is the existing house, and then what we’ve done is superimposed the proposed house on top of that and gave you the transparency, just so you can really start to understand what that roof line looks like. We feel this is not overwhelming as it sits on the lake. It’s really kept to scale of a lot of the homes in the area, even lower, as the whole second floor is within that roof line. Yes, on the lakeside it’s considered three stories, but what you also don’t see is this is an image taken in the middle of the winter where there’s not a lot of foliage, even some of those trees. So the vegetation in wooded areas actually come in and crop in the sides of the house so it’s not so visible and tucked into the site itself . This red dashed line is the existing eaves roof line. So you can see the house really falls away as it recedes and climbs up the hill. So from our perspective, head on from the lake, it’s minimal compared to the existing structure. Lastly is, so just to truly understand the site conditions that we’re contending with and trying to get the garage to fit in next to the existing house and then some of the areas where we’re trying to slip into that front entry. If you recall we pulled up the front of the house to slip it in under the entry. We also are re-constructing the screened porch, but as you see on the right hand side is the ledge rock that we’re constrained by and this is that image, the existing house and that ledge rock, and then another view of it. So really constrained overall site wise. Again, the site is .44 acres. We’ve worked really hard to minimize our FAR impact and reduce overall square footage. We feel that we’re slightly encumbered where the hardship is that we’re working within the existing footprint of the house and we’re tied in to that square footage and then as you start to move around some of the spaces, add them to the second floor, that’s when the square footage increases. It’s coming as a great value to the owner. It costs a lot less to keep that existing foundation and keep the existing structure, first floor walls, and you’re not re-building. So you come to a higher cost if we were to tear it down, and I think that’s one of our points that we’d like to reiterate that due to the site constricts, the site size, if we were to tear it down, it comes at a cost environmentally, as well, and you could re-build. I think we would still be here for at least four of the variances and possibly the fifth one of FAR and I think our goal would not be for the FAR, but due to the size, it’s an undersized lot. Typically it’s two acres, typical size. So again I think we’re really trying to abide by the Codes that you guys have set forth and the spirit and intent of your zoning law. MR. MC CABE-So when was the original house built? Do you know? MIKE CHASE MR. CHASE-Hi. I’m Mike Chase, the property owner. The history of the property is that there was a summer home on the property in the 1950’s. There was a much larger structure. It was much closer to the lake. That burned down. When they re-built, they used part of that footprint to build a single room structure that is now our great room, and this particular structure was added on to in 1971. That’s when they built the foundation, adding in what was a set of stairs that lead outside, and enclosed the storage space that was underneath, built into the ledge rock, added on the second floor. So the structure as it is has not had any new construction since 1971 along with the pump up system and the septic system that’s there now. We bought it in 2011. MR. MC CABE-I think I have the picture now. Thank you very much. So do we have questions of the applicant here? MR. KUHL-I see in your application you talk about a new septic system. How many bedrooms are you sizing it for? MR. FERGUSON-I don’t have the plan in front of me. I believe it was four. We did get a Board of Health variance for that. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MR. KUHL-You believe it’s four or you know it’s four? And the house has two bedrooms, right? The house has two bedrooms and an exercise room? MR. FLYNN-Right now the proposed house has four bedrooms and an exercise room. MR. KUHL-Really? MR. FLYNN-Yes. The existing house is a five bedroom house. I was going to reduce it to four. MR. KUHL-But the septic is four? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. KUHL-I’ve got it. I see the other two. I missed them. I’m sorry. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and, Chris, are you still back there? So I’m going to seek input from the public. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. And I appreciate the presentation that was done. In our opinion the project proposes too much development and expansion for a small constrained lot within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George and fails to provide the balance necessary to grant the variances requested. Although mitigation measures are proposed, there are questions about the long-term benefits of those and they may actually result in greater impacts to Lake George and its water quality. Proposed variance will result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed expansion of the non-conforming structure will increase the volume of the structure within the shoreline setback, creating a much larger structure within the protective shoreline setback. This structure will appear much larger since the structure’s setback is much less than adjoining properties, and I think if you compare to the adjoining properties, it’s about half of the setback of the other homes in the neighborhood. There is a question on how effective the claimed increase in permeability will be as the project proposes to actually have more pavement and building coverage and the effectiveness of the permeable pavers will be reduced by the shallow depth to bedrock as indicated by the soil test pits as well as the testimony that was provided. And as you all know permeability is tied to runoff and there’s only so much storage that will be under those permeable pavers, especially if they have to blast them in. Additionally, there is the question on how maintenance will be guaranteed on the permeable pavers. We’ve seen this come in a lot and the thought is great, but how will they be maintained long term? And there’s a question whether they will become ineffective without routine maintenance and will they actually become impervious surfaces if they’re not maintained yearly, and why not use reinforced grass pavers? Those are used around and you can really actually get more permeable surfaces. The proposed variances would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical ad environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The expansion of the non-conforming structure creates a low area in front of the garage where the applicant proposes to install a catch basin with a discharge which actually goes to the west of the house. Now that’s a low area. They’re going to excavate down two feet and try to infiltrate there, along where all that bedrock is. So our feeling is that that will actually become a direct discharge down significantly steep slopes to Lake George, and really that’s a practice that should not be encouraged around the lake. Again there’s a question on how effective the stormwater reduction can be in the area with the bedrock and with the excavation. Additionally the applicant fails to provide any information on the shoreline buffer requirement in the zoning code. I think they showed a picture of it. I think there needs to be a lot more work on that, especially if variances are considered. Furthermore, there is no information contained regarding the suitability for the infiltration devices that are required and requested to be put within the shoreline setback variance. What’s the soil information? Can they actually support infiltration? The applicant is requesting several variances on a property that has already received four variances for the septic system, which demonstrates how constrained the site is. Therefore the Waterkeeper that the Zoning Board of Appeals table the application and request the applicant to amend the design to reduce the number of variances requested and provide a more balanced design, especially for a project located in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. And I think those echo what the Planning Board’s concerns were. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to provide input on this particular project? Seeing nobody, is there anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. The only one was from Chris and he covered it. MR. MC CABE-So first of all I’ll give you guys a chance to respond. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MR. FLYNN-Again, Trevor Flynn with Balzer & Tuck and Brandon Ferguson with EDP. I think we’d like to point out originally that this site is a lot of ledge and rock that currently exists and an existing driveway that slopes down towards the lake itself, and we’re introducing these permeable pavers and stormwater measures which don’t exist. We’re trying to put more into the site as we add to the building because we understand it’s a delicate balance around the lake. We do want to mention that we don’t think it’s a large expansion of the footprint by any means. The footprint extension is to the rear of the structure as previously discussed and we’re also reducing the footprint that’s towards the lake and towards the sides. So on that comment we think we’re actually, our addition is beneficial as it’s to the rear and we’re not adding to that overall expansion of the footprint. The roofs currently slope towards the lake and do not have gutters or any measures that are part of that. We are proposing gutters and adding to it, re-directing that stormwater that currently flows off the roof towards the lake. So that’s part of our suggestions and design moving forward. We do also want to note that, yes, there are a lot of permeable surfaces on the site itself. However, most of that is due to the existing drive, the lane that goes to other houses on the lake and the neighbor’s driveway as well. So anything that we are adding from our standpoint to the driveway is for stormwater with permeable pavers. Lastly I understand the maintenance of permeable pavers always comes up and also the pitch of this driveway. It’s a steep slope going down again, and typically you would add salt or sand to those areas. Our client’s willing to put a little more money into this project and budget and look into heating the driveway in that area so he’s not adding salts. So there would be less maintenance that would need to occur on the permeable pavers. Because that’s typically when you see it is in the winter when those sands and salts come down into the permeable pavers, and we understand that the ledge rock is shallow. However, I believe the minimal requirement for the permeable pavers, to get the percentage that we need is a foot. So we’re going to meet all that criteria in those permeable paver areas. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-How about shoreline buffering? MR. FERGUSON-Shoreline buffering, I mean, that goes to the Planning Board, and we still have to go for Site Plan Review for that. We are maintaining the shoreline buffer that’s there. So there is a pretty densely wooded area on what I’m calling the northern end of the property along the shoreline. We’re maintaining that, and there are larger trees and encroachment on the southern end of the property as well. We’re also adding a raingarden on the lake side of the house to take some of that roof runoff and that will be planted up, to add some plantings and buffering as well. So we are doing some stuff, and when we go back to the Planning Board I know they have a lot of jurisdiction over that site plan and over the planting plan and buffering. We’re more than willing to work with them to make sure that that’s properly buffered. 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 Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you,. Mr. Chairman. I was glossed right over on how to maintain the pavers. Conversation you have is, well, we’re going to put the pavers in. Well what’s the underlayment going to be? I wish I would have a vacuum cleaner and be the guy to maintain these pavers, because they’re going to become ineffective as they get filled up with salt and sand. That’s my biggest itch. I understand that you’re coming in front of us with pre-existing, non-conforming. I got that. I understand that. I think you’ve done some good work with the FAR. You said you were going to have gutters, and yet you’re talking about a raingarden towards the lake. What are you doing with the gutters? Are you containing them? Again, that’s not our purview, right? That goes to the Planning Board. I think you’ve done a lot of good work. So I’d be in favor of this project, but I’m, it’s up to the owner to maintain the pavers. It gives you, as an owner, a right to do things on a small lot, but if they’re not maintained, they’re going to become ineffective. Okay, and I don’t know how we, as a municipality can police it, because we really can’t unless we require people or we have a gee whiz truck in the garage that has to go out to the houses every year, and again, I don’t know how we’re going to police that. I am on the fence with this, but I think you’re asking for, I mean, I take value in what the Waterkeeper talks about. I don’t agree that it’s a big, large structure because you’re going vertical within the 28 feet, anyway, enough said. I’ll be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m kind of in agreement. I think we’re pushing the envelope on a project that even though it’s trying to maintain the current footprint, it’s really expanding on that footprint, and that footprint, when it went in, was pushing the envelope. So are we going to still let them, looking at the property as a whole, because that’s what we have to do is look at the property and what it’s going to be in the future, is this pushing it incrementally, and then, you know, if the pavers don’t work, does that make the impervious part of the site pervious, and does that create conditional, an additional way we’re overlooking something. So I really have a problem with the number of setbacks. I mean you keep bringing up what you would have had if you just re-built it, but that’s still up to us to decide whether you get those variances and our job is keep it as little as possible and I don’t think this does it. So I would not be in favor of it. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I have one question. I didn’t quite hear, what was the Planning Board’s comment that was read earlier? MR. MC CABE-They had issues with the Floor Area Ratio. MRS. HAMLIN-They did. Okay. So that being said, why is a raingarden a problem here? MRS. MOORE-So in our Code, you should be somewhat familiar. When we installed the stormwater code regs, there’s a section in the Code that requires infiltration devices down gradient to be greater than 100 feet from a water body and other, I can’t remember exactly the wording. MRS. HAMLIN-So a raingarden is considered a downgrade? MRS. MOORE-Something to that effect. I’m probably saying it wrong, but it’s the relief that is required based on that section of the Code. We rarely see it. MRS. HAMLIN-I thought raingardens were good things. MRS. MOORE-They are good things. It’s just the way the Code is written in terminology. MRS. HAMLIN-Well I agree with what’s been said so far. I mean I do see they’re doing their best to work within the existing footprint, and I agree there’s an environmental cost we have of doing that home. So an existing home, and you’re doing what you can, but I’d like to wait, as it is presented here, I would not be in favor. I would like to table and see if they can come back with some more mitigation practices and perhaps different pavers. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I guess the bigger ones sometimes, you know, there’s two sides to everything and it can get a little bit complicated or whatever you want to call it. I am concerned about how do we maintain permeable pavers? We don’t. That’s the answer, and we have to have faith that an applicant, a homeowner long term that loves the lake is going to do the right thing and I have to have faith that people will do their best to that end. I have some concerns, but those concerns are not outweighed enough to where I would not be in favor. So I am in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have concerns. I think you’re the ones that are caught between a rock and a hard place with the rocky substrate you’re dealing with on the site there, and even though you’re going to put a state of the art septic system in there, you’re located relatively close to the lake, the impermeable ground underneath that, even if it functions perfectly well as designed. At the same time I think, you know, like your depictions of the structure from the lakeside it does kind of loom over the lake. It’s larger than what’s’ there now presently. I think the roofline that you have on the present house fits a lot better. I think something could be re-designed to better reflect the fact that even though the APA says you can have a building 40 feet high, you know, our Code is 28 feet here in Queensbury which is reasonable and keeps the height of buildings down, but I still think it’s much too much on such a small lot. So I wouldn’t be in favor of it at this time. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with all of my Board members so far really. I think they’ve done a nice job of re- designing this structure and keeping it somewhat within the footprint. I agree that you need a garage, especially if you’re going to make it a year round residence, but I do have a little bit of a problem with the driveway with it being so deep. You’re going to have some runoff that goes into the lake during the winter. If you do use salt, heating the driveway would probably be a good idea if you could do something like that, but I do have a problem with the raingarden there. I realize you need to drain the roof and it’s too bad you can’t get that away from the lake. I mean obviously it’s on a hill so it would be hard to do that, but I have more problems with, even though you’re kind of reducing the front by the lake, I’d like to see that reduced even more if possible, that decking. So there’s pros and cons. I’m not totally in favor of it as is right now. MR. MC CABE-So you do not support the project? MR. HENKEL-No, not as is. MR. MC CABE-So the way I look at this, if we okay this particular application, we’re much better off. The alternative is to just leave it the way it is, and it’s a problem the way it is, and it doesn’t get any better by just leaving it go. So I do support the project. I think you guys have done a really good job of keeping the 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) floor area ratio down and the problem is you just don’t have much area to work with, but the floor area ratio standards were developed generally for bigger lots and you’re working with a lot that’s less than a half-acre. So you really are going to have a small structure on a lot that size, but my vote isn’t enough here. So I’m going to need some guidance from you guys here to either call the vote, and it looks like you’re going to lose, or table this, come back and try to make some adjustments. It sounds like there’s a lot of problems with runoff. Maybe there can be something done in that particular area, but, you know, that’s kind of up to you guys. MR. FLYNN-Just to kind of get a better summary of the Board’s concerns, it seems like for the most part you guys are happy with side yard setbacks. There was a little bit of concern with the shoreline setbacks. We can increase that, and then a lot of it had to do with the permeable pavers as the stormwater control and for reducing the permeable area on the site. I guess that’s kind of the gist of it, right? I mean there didn’t seem to be, the side yard setbacks, I think we’re really restricted by that existing structure with those as well. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, I think it was mostly the permeable pavers in the front, the maintenance of it. Just reiterating that we’re planning to use radiant heat in the driveway. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I think we shouldn’t be re-litigating it again. MR. MC CABE-Well, I think we owe it to these guys to let them know exactly what our problem is. MR. URRICO-We gave them almost 45 minutes already. MR. FERGUSON-Understood and I appreciate your time, Roy, but it’s at a cost to the owner of understanding do they have to go back to Square One and re-design the entire house. What I’m hearing tonight is I don’t think that’s what you guys are concerned with is the FAR. We did the one concern about the height, but I think we’ve done to the best of our capabilities to keep it as low as possible within those rooflines. So I’m just hearing from you guys it’s not as much the building but it’s more site mitigation is what we would need to come back to you with and re-vamp then we might get a more favorable. MR. MC CABE-So we can table this, then? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, we would table it. MR. MC CABE-So how much time do you need? MRS. MOORE-So this would be moved to an October meeting. So it would be the first meeting in October. MR. MC CABE-Is that enough time? th MR. HENKEL-So we’re looking at October 20. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, that’s well more than enough. We’d like it sooner, obviously. MRS. MOORE-I don’t have that ability. I just don’t. MR. MC CABE-John, can I have a motion then? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dark Bay Lane, LLC. Applicant proposes several renovations to an existing home and to construct an attached garage. The existing home is 2,067 sq. ft. including a deck. The new footprint is to be 2,658 sq. ft. which 653 sq. ft. is the new garage footprint. Existing floor area is 2,650 sq. ft. and new floor area is 4,378 sq. ft. The project includes replacement of existing hard surfacing area for a total of 4,842 sq. ft. The project includes placement of rock retaining walls, a new well, and a new septic system. The project also includes a new screen porch area, deck replacement, new raised roof area and new upper level. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline, and expansion of a non-conforming structure. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2021 DARK BAY LANE, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Tabled to the October 20, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information by September th 15. th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-And just so, you closed the public hearing and I would recommend that you re-open it. MR. MC CABE-So I’ll re-open the public hearing for AV 56-2021. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. FERGUSON-All right. Thank you. MR. FLYNN-Yes, thank you for your time and patience. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 53-2021, 11 Tuthill Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MIKE LEWIS AGENT(S) MIKE LEWIS OWNER(S) AMANDA BERNARD ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 11 TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 720 SQ. FT. OPEN PAVILION WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE EXISTING 2,181 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME IS TO REMAIN; THE EXISTING 1,440 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT DETACHED GARAGE IS ALSO TO REMAIN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF AST 334-2021; PZ 253- 2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 5.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-8 SECTION 179-3-040; 179=5-020 MIKE LEWIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2021, Mike Lewis, Meeting Date: August 18, 2021, “Project Location: 11 Tuthill Road Description of Proposed: Applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. open pavilion with associated site work. The existing 2,181 sq. ft. (footprint) home is to remain; the existing 1,440 sq. ft. footprint detached garage is also to remain. Relief requested for setbacks and a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a proposed pavilion setbacks and as a second garage in the Rural Residential zone RR-5A. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-5-020 –garage The applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. open side pavilion to be located 34.8 ft. from the south property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. The relief is also requested to have two garages on the site –as the open pavilion by definition is considered a garage. 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 pavilion project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character. 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 considered to locate the pavilion to a more compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for second garage where only one garage is allowed. The relief for the setback is 40.2 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no 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: 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) The applicant requests to construct a 720 sq. ft. pavilion. The applicant intends to have a pool constructed to be associated with the pavilion. The plans show the location and the architect of the pavilion.” MR. LEWIS-Mike Lewis. I’m proposing a pavilion. There is a proposed pool, just to the end of it, and it’s in close proximity to the existing house where we would like to keep it. It’s classified as a garage because of spacing between the posts. It’s a conventional type pavilion, but it’s intended to be used as a place to entertain and such by the pool. MR. MC CABE-So it’s pretty straightforward. Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-It looked like there was a pool there. Isn’t there something there? I didn’t go way out there, but it looked like there were some like railings that. MR. LEWIS-Not to my knowledge. MR. KUHL-Will you have electric and water, refrigerator? MR. LEWIS-In the pavilion? I know there’ll be lights. There’ll be electric. There’ll have to be lights. They may put a fridge out there. We’re just building the pavilion. MR. HENKEL-You haven’t been up there yet. There’s definitely something there that looks like there’s a pool there now. MR. LEWIS-They’ve had all summer. MRS. MOORE-They may have a pool permit in. I don’t know. MR. HENKEL-Because I was there and it looks like there’s railings like a pool railing. MRS. MOORE-There may be a pool permit that’s been done. MR. LEWIS-That’s separate from me. Maybe they’re putting a pool in. Maybe they did over the course of the summer, when it stopped raining. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 comment on this. Is there anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So 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-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s pretty straightforward. I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It’s a pavilion. It’s not a second garage. So I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I’d like to see a little bit smaller pavilion. I think also you could, the setback, you could probably do a little better on that setback. So I would not be in favor as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I’d be in favor of it the way it’s proposed. I’m sorry, John, but I would be in favor of it the way it’s proposed. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of it as it is proposed. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. As I view it, this is a five acre lot, certainly large enough to justify a second garage which is basically what we’re okaying here, and there’s pretty good pitch to the property. So it’s not like putting it on a slant or anything like that. So I can understand where some relief would be required. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion, and I’m going to ask Brent to make said motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mike Lewis. Applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. open pavilion with associated site work. The existing 2,181 sq. ft. (footprint) home is to remain; the existing 1,440 sq. ft. footprint detached garage is also to remain. Relief requested for setbacks and a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a proposed pavilion setbacks and as a second garage in the Rural Residential zone RR-5A. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-5-020 –garage The applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. open side pavilion to be located 34.8 ft. from the south property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. The relief is also requested to have two garages on the site –as the open pavilion by definition is considered a garage. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 18, 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. The proposed pavilion will be visually appealing. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They could move it to a more compliant area, but it’s a five acre lot and we don’t believe that’s a problem. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s 720 square feet and it is a five acre lot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, it appears to be visually appealing. Good pitch to the property. 5. The alleged difficulty certainly could be argued to be self-created, but for the aforementioned points that have been already made we don’t believe it’s a problem. 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. 53-2021 MIKE LEWIS, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th Day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Henkel MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MR. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 60-2021, 19 Fitzgerald Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MICHAEL & ALICE CROTTY OWNER(S) ALICE N CROTTY REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 19 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO A 576 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A 2-STORY ADDITION WITH A 3-CAR 928 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND BEDROOM/STORAGE ABOVE. THE ADDITION INCLUDES COVERED WALKWAYS AND BREEZEWAY AREA. THE MAIN HOME IS ALSO TO BE ALTERED WITH A MASTER BEDROOM ADDITION, INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS FOR THE MAIN FLOOR, AND BASEMENT AREAS. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 3,405 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 5,302 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 53-2021; AV 91-1990; SP 10-1991 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.51 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040; 179- 5-020; 179=6-065 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2021, Michael & Alice Crotty, Meeting Date: August 18, 2021 “Project Location: 19 Fitzgerald Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demo a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to construct a 2-story addition with a 3-car 928 sq. ft. garage and bedroom/storage above. The addition includes covered walkways and breezeway area. The main home is also to be altered with a master bedroom addition, interior and exterior alterations for the main floor, and basement areas. The existing floor area is 3,405 sq. ft. and the new floor area is to be 5,302 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Relief requested for shoreline setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the renovations of the home specific to the porch and foundation area where shoreline setbacks relief is requested in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The porch area and foundation are to be 22 ft. 1 inch from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. There are two parcels that are to be combined as part of the project. 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 as the home is in a similar location. 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. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the deck setback is 27 ft. 11 inches. 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 project includes removal of the existing garage and breezeway area of 742 sq. ft. The footprint of the new attached garage is 928 sq. ft.,. the breezeway footprint is 341 sq. ft., and the walk in closet for the 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) master bedroom is 132 sq. ft. The new. garage is to be 3 car and will have living space above. The new living space is to have three rooms and a bathroom. The master-bedroom on the first floor is to be expanded to all for a walk-in-closet. In addition, the interior basement area is to be renovated.“ MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse th impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was adopted on August 17, 2021 by a unanimous vote. MR. HALL-For your records, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture, and with me tonight is Mike Crotty the owner of the property and his wife Alice is here with us as well. Pretty straightforward addition that we’re looking for. The Area Variance is for expansion of the deck that’s in front of the master bedroom. The deck is going to come in line with the front of the existing building which is already 22 feet 1 inch from the lake where 50 feet is required. The deck’s going to be built above what is currently a concrete patio on the basement floor and the deck’s just going to attach to the master bedroom. MR. MC CABE-So you’re no closer than you are right now. MR. HALL-Right. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HALL-The front portion of the building is set right now at 22 feet 1 inch and we looked at, you know, could we try and wrap around the front? We could but it doesn’t make sense. The connection is really to the deck on the master, and currently the only way to really get to the lake is to either go through the master bedroom and down or go out the back of the house and all the way around. This at least gives them an opportunity to get from the kitchen area and the main living room out onto the deck and from the deck down without having to go all the way around and through the master bedroom. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to comment on this particular project. Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Nothing. 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 Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I live just a few houses down and I was wondering how long it would be before you would do the upgrade on it. I think it’s a good project. I don’t think there’s going to be any detrimental effect of the lake. I think it would be a positive for you. The slight increase in the width of the deck going towards the lake isn’t going to change anything. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-All a positive. I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-It seems minimal and the deck is in a good site. I would be in favor of granting the variance. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project. MR. KUHL-I’d be in favor of this project. I think it’s a good addition. Good for you. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-They’re only asking for one variance and it’s already pre-existing. Go for it. MR. MC CABE-So I, too, support the project. Their request is minimal. It’s certainly no worse than what we have now. Given that, I’m going to ask Ron if he’d make a motion here. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael & Alice Crotty. Applicant proposes to demo a 576 sq. ft. attached garage to construct a 2-story addition with a 3-car 928 sq. ft. garage and bedroom/storage above. The addition includes covered walkways and breezeway area. The main home is also to be altered with a master bedroom addition, interior and exterior alterations for the main floor, and basement areas. The existing floor area is 3,405 sq. ft. and the new floor area is to be 5,302 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a non-conforming structure in a CEA. Relief requested for shoreline setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the renovations of the home specific to the porch and foundation area where shoreline setbacks relief is requested in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The porch area and foundation are to be 22 ft. 1 inch from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. There are two parcels that are to be combined as part of the project. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 18, 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 this is tearing down an old garage and putting up a new one. It kind of blends right in. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered, and really there aren’t that many for this. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as the applicant is taking down a garage and putting up a garage. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created, but as it is, it blends in very well. 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. 60-2021 MICHAEL & ALICE CROTTY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 18th Day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. HALL-Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-If there’s no other business, I make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TH AUGUST 18, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 18 day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 30