Loading...
10-20-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH OCTOBER 20, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 62-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 Area Variance No. 56-2021 Dark Bay Lane, LLC 2. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-37 Area Variance No. 68-2021 Brian Hogan 12. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-37 Area Variance No. 69-2021 Michael & Susan Kajdasz 14. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-49 Area Variance No. 70-2021 Streck’s Inc. 18. Tax Map No. 253.3-1-32.1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH OCTOBER 20, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL CATHERINE HAMLIN JACKSON LA SARSO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRENT MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of th Appeals, October 20, 2021. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is fairly simple. We’ll call each case up, read the case into the record, allow the applicant to present their case, question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised we’ll open the public hearing, seek input from the public, then close the public hearing, poll the Board, see where we stand, and proceed accordingly. Before we get started, though, I’d like to point out that the exits are the doors behind us where you entered, there’s two here to the east on either end of the room, and there’s one to the south on the west side of the room. We have a couple of administrative items to take care of. So could I have a motion concerning the meeting minutes nd of September 22. APPROVAL OF MINUTES nd September 22, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 22, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt th September 29, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 29, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: TABLE AV 62-2021 CIVITELLA TO DECEMBER 15, 2021 MR. MC CABE-So could we have a motion concerning AV 62-2021? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Antonio & Maria Civitella. Applicant proposes demo of existing home to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,924 sq. ft. and a floor area of 5,465 sq. ft. The project includes installation of patio area on the lake side, new driveway area of permeable patio product, new steps to future sun-deck and dock, a permeable patio with outdoor grill area, new fire pit area, new septic, new well, new site plantings and new shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, shoreline planting plan for vegetation removal, stormwater measures steep slopes within 50 ft. of new home, and work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, permeability, and infiltration practice. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Tabled to the December 15, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information due by th November 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So we have a request to extend AV 44-2020. AV 44-2020 (MH IMPERIAL HOMES) REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION NOVEMBER 18, 2021 TO NOVEMBER 18, 2022 Applicant proposes to install a 1,675 sq. ft. home with associated porches. Project work includes installation of a driveway area, a new septic system, and well. The project site has an existing garage to remain (1,056 +/- sq. ft.). Relief requested for dimensional requirements. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved Area Variance 44-2020 on November 18, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR AREA VARIANCE 44-2020, MH IMPERIAL HOMES. Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption; seconded by James Underwood. th Extended to November 18, 2022. Duly adopted this 20th day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So now we can call up AV 56-2021. OLD BUSINESS: 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 (REVISED) 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 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. REVISION INCLUDES 2 NEW SHORELINE BUFFER PLANTED AREAS, STONE TRENCH ADDITION TO PERMEABLE PAVERS, AND DRYWELL NEAR THE GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, RAIN GARDENS WITHIN 100 FT. OF SHORELINE, AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 48- 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 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 MR. MC CABE-We’ve read this into the record. MR. URRICO-I’m going to read the revised section of it. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2021, Dark Bay Lane, LLC, Meeting Date: October 20, 2021 “Project Location: 40 Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) 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. Revision includes 2 new shoreline buffer planted areas, stone trench addition to permeable pavers, and dry well near the garage. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline, and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, stormwater device 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%. Stormwater device 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. 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. The stormwater devices are located less than 100f 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. The project includes new stormwater management. 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, 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 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. The applicant had provided revisions to the site in regards to the shoreline buffer planted areas, stone trench addition to permeable pavers, and dry well near the garage. Also included is the draft stormwater maintenance agreement.” MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson with Environmental Design. Trevor Flynn with Balzar Tuck. The applicant, Mike Chase, is here as well tonight. So it’s been a couple of months since we were last in front of you with this project. So I’ll give you a little review. The project is located on Dark Bay Lane. It’s kind of a densely populated little private road there. The existing conditions. So the zone is a WR. It’s in the 75 foot overlay. The existing house is fully within that 75 foot shoreline setback. The existing property is .441 acres while current zoning requires two acres for any new lot. So it’s a pretty small lot, and it has, right now it has a decent amount of pervious area. There is a private road that runs through it to serve the neighboring parcels on the other side, as well as there’s some neighboring driveways that cut in. He has a large parking area in this spot right here and then there’s his driveway that comes down to the house. So right now the percent permeable is at 57.5. Of that existing, under 1400 square feet is benefitting solely the neighboring properties. His driveway is here. So while there’s a lot of pervious area on the site, not all of it is for his benefit. The existing setbacks from the shoreline we’re at 21.9 feet, from the side yard. We’re at 19.4 and the other side yard is 16.1. So I kind of labeled this existing site issues. I don’t know if that’s the right word. I guess it would be existing site conditions. Right now all the drainage off this pervious area flows right to the lake. There’s no stormwater controls on this site. The house was built in the early 70’s I believe. There haven’t been really any major upgrades, at least to the exterior of the home, since then or really to the site. So all this stormwater comes off these driveways, this large parking area, runs down these steep slopes, around the corner. Also there’s an existing septic system on the lake, on site, that is up on this knoll that does not meet current Town standards. It does appear to be functioning as it was originally designed. There doesn’t appear to be anything leaching out to the bank or anything like that, but we did some test holes out there. There is some shallow bedrock out there, and it definitely doesn’t meet the current Town standards. So getting into our proposed site plan, we’re looking to make some improvements to this site as well as improvements to the house. The last time we were here we talked a lot about permeable pavers. We’re still proposing permeable pavers for this parking area here, and we’re actually taking out some of the wasted space up here with some of this extra pavement to reduce that total area of that parking altogether. We are also doing some permeable pavers down here on the turnaround and down here in front of the new garage. One of the comments from you guys last time was about the long term functionality of those permeable pavers, about the maintenance of them and if they start to fail they would lose their permeability So one of the things we did was we actually, we show a stone trench around the outside of those pavers now, on the down slope side, and that stone is actually connected to the stone that’s under the pavers. So if for some reason over time they did start to fail, as far as your permeability, that water would runoff into that stone trench and then get into that stone underneath the pavers. So it’s kind of a secondary conveyance system into that. In front of the garage, it’s not really shown on this plan but you’ll see it on the next one, there’s a drywell that kind of does the same thing. If it fails it would go into that drywell, and that drywell stone would be connected to the stone underneath the pavers for additional volume, additional infiltration area. As far as other improvements to the site, he’s proposing a two car garage. The idea is that they want to have this house as their year round residence. So they’d like a two car garage to be able to park in, in the winter time, and they’re also making some other modifications to the house including adding some living space upstairs and renovating the first floor and some minor renovations to the basement as well. With these renovations to the building, the shoreline setback is actually going to increase a little bit. We’re at 21.9 now. We’ll be at 22.8 after construction. The shoreline, or the side yard setback, we’ll call this the southern side of the property, is 16.1 now. It’ll be 16.5 proposed, and then on the northern side we’re actually holding that setback at 19.4. So this kind of shows those improvements I was talking about with the stormwater. The previous site everything just drained right to the lake. The stormwater from this common driveway and this area here would go into these permeable pavers. This water that runs down the driveway, and right now if you can see when you go off that site, it just comes off and goes right down the slope to the lake. It would at least get slowed down and some of it would get infiltrated in this permeable paver here. This is that drywell I was talking about, and those permeable pavers are part of the garage and we’d take the remaining portion of this driveway. The garage itself is going to be kind of following around the back to a small shallow depression on this side, and then on the lakeside the little patio that’s there now is going to be permeable and we’re going to do a little shallow depression on the lakeside as well, take some of that roof runoff. So I think while everything went unfiltered into the lake before, there’s going to be a lot more stormwater on the site now. Actually with the improvements we figured it’s, with what’s really required per Code, versus what we’re actually doing, we’re doing like 14 and a half times the volume that’s required. Also as part of this the septic system’s getting replaced. The septic system now as I said is not up to current Town standards. It’s within 100 feet of the lake. Their existing well is just down slope of it. The neighboring well is within 100 feet. So we’re actually, we got a Board of Health variance to put in an enhanced treatment unit with a UV filter and Elgin trenches. So it’s going to be a much better situation as far as the 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) septic goes. So with the permeable paver, this is that trench I was talking about. So this is our permeable paver detail. You have these stone layers underneath it. Typically water lands on top of the stone and goes in between the cracks and pavers. It’s filtered through the layers and then infiltrates into the ground. This is our secondary conveyance. So any water that doesn’t make it into there would go into this crushed stone trench around the edge and that would be connected to the stone underneath as that second conveyance. Also on the site, you bring up buffering. Right now this area you’re showing in green is all t treed and wooded. That’s going to remain. This area as well to the south, there is a little buffer here. That’s going to remain. And then in the shallow depression we’re proposing some plantings as well as additional shoreline plantings here as well. So this is kind of looking at it from the lower side of the dock. This is looking at that existing buffer. So we’re kind of standing right at the very corner of the dock looking up at the house. You can see the house a little bit in the background. This buffer, all that’s remaining. That’s just another picture of that buffer. This is a kind of a picture of that same buffer from the upper deck. Now I’m standing kind of opposite the corner of the dock looking back at the house. So there is a pretty substantial buffer on that side of the house. On the other side we do have these large trees here as a buffer. That’s also going to remain. This is the area here where I’m talking about doing that little shallow depression and some additional plantings. This is just another picture of that photo. This is our existing floor plan. I’ll let Trevor kind of talk about that a little bit. MR. FLYNN-Trevor Flynn with Balzar & Tuck Architecture. The existing house is a lakefront home. I’ll try to be brief. I think you guys are aware of the project from previous times. It’s an existing house. They’re turning it from a seasonal house into a year round home, and to do that they’re renovating the house. So what you’re seeing here currently is the first floor. There is a living room, dining room, a deck, existing screened porch and three bedrooms and a bathroom. So once we get into the renovations, adding a garage and mud room, we’re losing some of this functionality on this floor for bedrooms, and those start to get displaced up to the second floor. If you could go to the next sheets, thank you, Laura, and the lower level what you’ll start to see is a hint at some of the bedrock. So this current foundation that exists there’s bedrock all within the lower level in the basement, and what we’ve done, we’ve looked at that. A lot of that is two feet and three feet in areas that are just unusable space. We can’t get in there to blast because we’re keeping the foundation intact. Our overall goal is to not tear the house down and re-build both from an environmental standpoint and also a cost standpoint. We’re planning to keep the foundation as intact, the subfloor and those first floor walls, and we’re essentially building up from there, adding on the garage and doing some renovations to the screened porch. If you could go to the next sheet, please. So as I mentioned, this is the existing footprint of the house. From this point back we’re adding a garage and we’re also staying within the limits of the APA requirements for less than 250 square feet and we’re adding on away from the lake as well. So you have the garage and front entry that’s being added on and then the mudroom/pantry/kitchen, kind of a reconfiguration of the space. I do want to point out, you know, one of the variances for FAR, we’ve done a great deal of study on how to reduce that and without tearing down the house and re-building the footprint, there is wasted space within the dining room and living room and it’s a grander space than what they’re looking for. However it’s the existing walls. We did look at, could we remove four to five feet in the center to reduce the overall square footage in that area, and it’s just not feasible as we’re working within that existing foundation constraints. To the north we’re really just renovating the screened porch and to just touch on each of those variances as they relate to the building, since we’re modifying the building, we’re a pre-existing, non-conforming building, that is one of our variances. The variance to the lake, we’re actually doing a reduction in the deck in both directions to pull the deck further away from the house. That’s the second variance is the lake setback. The setback to the south side yard, we’re also, we’re reducing and pulling back the footprint from the property line, and then the screened porch itself is that forth variance of a setback requirement, just like we’re modifying that structure in place. We jump up to the lower level. So the lower level, this hatch indicates all the unusable space in the basement. It’s less than five feet in height so it doesn’t count towards the FAR after discussions with the Town. So this ledge rock actually comes down into the basement and leaves a lot of the square footage unusable in this area. We were targeting to add another bedroom down in this space, but the ledge rock is constraining us to add that, and then as we go up to the next sheet. Upper level, what we really did is we really studied this roof envelope and overall volume. We wanted to work with the regulations, keeping the entire roof footprint under the 28 feet. So what we did is we kind of copied up the topography, worked within that zoning envelope, under the 28 feet, tried to pull back any of the larger volumes as we are increasing the ridge height, but we wanted to pull those larger volumes towards the rear of the site. You’ll see it in a rendering from the lake and also a section. To touch base on some of the program up on the second floor, we have the master bedroom, a bedroom and a kind of a bonus exercise room really for storage. I think one of the questions that always comes up is, you know, why not just remove the square footage or that bonus exercise room on that second floor and turn it into an attic. We could do that, however it would still count towards the FAR because it’s over the five feet in height. So we’ve done a great deal to study that. It’s all volume of space that we do need for one of the bedrooms and it’s leftover result of building that larger roof over the garage and also directing the rainwater. So if we go to the next sheet, what you’ll start to see is these roofs were quite complicated as we tried to squeeze the garage in next to the house and next to the septic. It was a very restrictive site from a footprint standpoint. If we could have we would have pulled it further away. It would have given us more freedom with the roofs to lower them and lower the FAR ask, but by the time we tied some of the ridges together and structurally made it sound, that ended up with a larger roof footprint than what we would want. This is that section study and you can see a hint up on the upper right hand corner of the existing roof and really 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) what we’re doing is taking that existing roof off and re-building in place, and from a sectional standpoint you can see we’ve worked at tremendous lengths to keep the entire volume within that 28 feet, and also pull back the volume towards, away from the lake so it doesn’t have an impact on the lake itself. Next sheet, please. This is just the view from the driveway. It’s a good depiction of as you’re coming down this steeply sloped driveway, wedging the garage in between the existing ledge rock to your right and retaining walls and then squeezing in an entry. So it’s a really tight site that we’re trying to work with. You can also see the volumes at the rear. So our rendition and trying to show two things here. This is in the winter. I think Brandon’s images of the foliage that we saw previously do better justice as to how much vegetative buffer there is, and then buffer, visual buffer of the house itself. So what we did is we superimposed the new proposed house, this is the top of the ridge, and compared it to the existing ridge, and just wanted to show you the height impact from the lake. We think we did a good job aesthetically keeping the overall volume of the structure down, and then we do want to remind you that the areas that are closer to the lake will be buffered by that vegetative buffer. From the lake it’s not very visual. You won’t see the entire home. MR. FERGUSON-So this is kind of just a quick summary of the variances. Shoreline setback, required 75, existing 21.9. We’ll be at 22.8. So we’re actually improving what’s there now. Side yard setback 20 required. We have 19.4 now we’re holding at 19.4. The other one, is 16.1 now and we’re actually improving that to 16.5. The floor area ratio it’s required .22 and we’re going up to .2275 which feels like a pretty minor variance for FAR especially on a site of this size, pretty small, and then infiltration to the lake, 100 feet required, we have 73, but there is no existing stormwater on this site. And also the Park Commission has recently updated their regs to remove that 100 foot requirement for the Minor Projects. The Town I don’t think has adopted those regulations yet. So the site is small, .44 acres. It contains a decent amount of existing impervious area. There’s no stormwater on the site right now. We’re doing 14 and half times what’s actually required by Code. New septic system’s going to be added to the site. It’s going to be a much better situation than it is now. Out of six variances that we’re requesting, one of them is a modification to the existing structure. Two are an improvement over the existing condition. One is maintaining the existing condition, although a slight increase to the FAR, and one could be considered an improvement as we’re adding protection to the lake with stormwater. So I’ll turn it over to you guys, if you guys have any questions. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-So what is the estimate on the permeability now? MR. FERGUSON-What’s proposed? MRS. HAMLIN-The newer numbers, with the pavers. You had 60.1 MR. HENKEL-That hasn’t changed. MRS. HAMLIN-That hasn’t changed. MR. FERGUSON-No, we have not changed the permeability. We’ve added improvements to those permeable pavers in order to make them function better. Especially if they weren’t maintained properly. We added that secondary way of getting in on the ground. The existing is 57.5 and we’re going to 60.1 MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. KUHL-You talk about adding the stone to the permeable pavers. What’s the volume of that stone? MR. FERGUSON-It’s a one foot by one foot trench around the ends. We didn’t add that in to our total volume of stormwater devices, but we’ve used that in the past with the Park Commission recently. MR. KUHL-You have? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, in order to have that secondary way in. MR. KUHL-One by one. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. KUHL-And that criteria came from the Park Commission? MR. FERGUSON-We recently did that one over on, we had similar permeable pavers running off the one edge. They asked for a stone trench along that edge. MR. KUHL-Did you increase that volume on the one where the driveway comes down or did you do the one by one also> 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) MR. FERGUSON-Which one is that> MR. KUHL-You said the driveway comes down to the house, correct, off the road, and you put a stone trench on the end of the pavers. MR. FERGUSON-This one right here? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-That one’s one by one also. If you would like us to increase it. MR. KUHL-Yes, you know, you’d be willing to do a lot of things, but what’s the right thing to do? That’s my question. What kind of volume’s going to come down the driveway. What kind of volume’s is the stone. I’m not asking you to do more work. I’m just asking you the criteria for how you chose this one by one. MR. FERGUSON-We chose the one by one based on what we’ve done in the past where we’ve had projects with the Park Commission. That’s where that one by one came from, and they were good with it. That’s kind of where came up with it. There is that volume coming down the driveway here, but we’re not actually increasing that. All that impervious area there is now. We’re not adding more pervious area. MR. KUHL-I mean we continue to go with the pavers as far as maintenance on the thing, and what’s the, you know, what are we gaining out of the pavers? Are we going to lose their value every year as more sand gets in there, or are these people going to do maintenance? Everybody’s going to tell us they’re going to do maintenance on their pavers. Does anybody have the criteria for the maintenance or the specifications for the maintenance? I wish I would have a vacuum because I’d go into business. All right. Because that’s what I’m looking at. If we have, once you go from here, we have no way as a Town to know whether they’re being maintained. Correct? MR. FERGUSON-So we submitted the stormwater maintenance agreement. So the applicant would enter a stormwater maintenance agreement, MR. KUHL-Okay. That’s it. That’s in there, and you present that to the Planning Board? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. FERGUSON-And this is also being reviewed by Chazen as well. They are involved in the review of the stormwater . We’ve gotten one comment letter from them. We addressed that one. We haven’t seen any more comments. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-I’ve got more of a Staff question. MR. HENKEL-We’ve dealt with quite a few of these properties where they’ve got easements going through and this is creating permeability problem on this property which isn’t really their fault. The paved road that goes through there. The paved road that goes through, in the future, how come they haven’t really addressed that with making them go to like permeable pavers or something like that, instead of getting it re-paved. In the future if they have to re-pave, wouldn’t that be a better way of attacking the problem with the permeability? MRS. MOORE-Possible. We don’t necessarily see every one that comes through with easements and saying we’re going to re-pave this year. That’s difficult. MR. HENKEL-I understand that would be something that would be hard to control, but I’m just saying that would take care of some of this problem of permeability around the lake. MR. MC CABE-This is a little bit unusual. They probably have more problems than the average. MR. HENKEL-I’m just saying that for the future you’d think that maybe the Town would start looking at that when there’s a road going through that they could put permeable pavers. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised this evening. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing, see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this matter. Chris? Okay. And so, Chris, you’re first. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I did send in a letter. A lot of it is the same as last month because, or last meeting, I didn’t see a lot of changes to the site, and I did want to recognize some of their comments. Improvements to the site, they did provide stormwater. We recognize that, but they’re also doing a lot more to the site, and really we just feel it’s too much for this small site and still remains that way, and I think there was little to address the concerns that the Board h had last time. Some of the quotes from last meeting was it’s best to work within the existing footprint. Another quote was that this looms over the lake. Another one was there should be more reductions. I just don’t think that was saw that. With their information that they provided on the permeability, and that’s a big concern with everything going on, on the site, in their drainage map that they submitted, which was S-6, they’re actually going to have less vegetative cover on this site. Permeability goes down because of the permeable pavers and the credit they get, but when you add their impervious, there’s going to be less vegetative cover on the site, which is a concern. Our previous concerns were, you know, the expansion within the shoreline setback. We do feel that it will seem like more volume, although the work that they put in on the roof and the architecture, but it’s still increasing that volume there. You’ve discussed about the effectiveness of the permeability and how it will remain. The expansion of that garage into that driveway area is lowering that by two feet. They made a statement that the bedrock is within two feet of the surface. So if they’re lowering it two feet, where are they going to put that drywell. It’s really going to be in bedrock. So how effective will that be? And we just feel that, again, it’s a little much for this site. Already required four variances on the septic system. We support the new septic system, but again the variances add up here. A few of the quotes that I heard, a decent amount of pervious area was on the site, and actually it’s not compliant. So it really isn’t a decent amount. The amount of impervious, the 1400 square feet to benefit the neighbor, well that actually is part of their driveway, too. If you look, they use that as well. Everything drains to the lake. I’m really concerned about the overflow that is going to be on the steep hill that goes down to the lake, and I think that was a question from Chazen, and the response was further investigation will be performed. So that answer is not done yet. They talk about the two feet trench, or one by one stone trench, is actually along a retaining wall. So that stone trench will be above a lake stone retaining wall. So how much will that hold the runoff in. And I really think, they said they’re actually, they weren’t adding more, they’re actually taking vegetative area away from the driveway going down. You can play with that permeability and the credit, but there’s going to be less vegetation in that driveway area. So I just think, you know, this still should be reduced. I don’t think it was reduced. I think it should be reduced to find that balance. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sir? JIM TOBIN MR. TOBIN-Good evening. My name is Jim Tobin. I live at 15 Dark Bay Lane in Queensbury, and I’ve lived there for the last almost 40 years now, and I’m very familiar with this site. I’m a neighbor, and I also am the President of what’s called the Dark Bay Association, which is an association of nine members that live along Dark Bay Lane. I have reviewed what’s been presented here, and other neighbors have. I get did a poll from the neighbors, at least the ones that are here now, and no one seems to have an objection to what the Chases are doing. They’ve been good neighbors for the last eight or ten years they’ve lived here, and we feel this is a benefit to the neighborhood. We feel the exterior design would be greatly improved especially for the lake, and what they’re doing is very beneficial. The septic system, I have lived through a couple of septic systems where I live, and it’s an improvement because when those houses were built in the 1970’s they were done very quickly and on weekends and the systems that are in there are way, way below standards that we would put in today. So any improvement to the septic system is a great benefit to the lake and the neighbors. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So would you guys like to come back? And I guess maybe the first question to address is under the driveway. You talk about have. MR. URRICO-Excuse me, Mike. Did you want me to read any of these letters in? MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. But I think Chris said. MR. URRICO-There’s two other letters. MR. MC CABE-All right. MR. URRICO-“We are writing on behalf of Mike and Jen Chase and their request for renovations to 40 Dark Bay Lane. The Chase’s have always gone above and beyond to enhance our neighborhood association. They have demonstrated a strong desire to protect the wellbeing of our lake. We have no doubt that the Chase’s will continue to maintain their property to not only their high standards but those of the community as well. We encourage the Zoning Board of Appeals to vote in favor of the Chase’s renovation 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) plans. Sincerely, Michael and Laura Nigro (37 Dark Bay Lane) John Behrens (42 Dark Bay Lane)” “My wife and I reside at 17 Cliff Hollow. We are neighbors of the Chase’s, two properties to our east. We have reviewed with them their proposed building plans and changes to their property. We understand that the Chase’s are seeking several variances needed to accomplish their goals. We have reviewed the minutes from their August 18 presentation to the Zoning Board as well as the staff and public comments from that meeting. We are writing to express our full support of this project. The Chase’s have made every effort to minimize the property setbacks and seek minimal expansion of allowable FAR. They have demonstrated their commitment to significant improvements to the site with new septic system and much improved stormwater mitigation which will also benefit their neighbors. We know Mike and Jen Chase to be very conscientious neighbors and strong supporters of maintaining the water quality of Lake George. Their property is always well cared for and we have no doubt that they will service and maintain the designed stormwater mitigation measures. In summary, we enthusiastically endorse their proposed plans and property upgrades. We see only positive impacts on the property and neighborhood and have no objections to their requested zoning variances. Thank you…..Sally and David Kelly” That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So maybe you guys could address the collection underneath the driveway. MR. FERGUSON-You mean in front of the garage? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-So what we’re proposing, and there might be a little bit of confusion with the two foot separation to bedrock. I believe we were talking about the, up at the septic area. We did do some additional test pits out there recently, the plans that are going to go back to Chazen here, and we had three feet then we hit some large boulders actually on that side. They were loose. I wouldn’t call them bedrock at that point, but either way, I mean we think adding that permeable pavers in that area, you might not get as much infiltration but you’re still going to get infiltration. There’s no infiltration at all there right now. And as far as that, if you go to the next slide, it shows that drywell here, and I know on our last submission this got revised a little bit, there’s this pipe that goes down in order to help that drywell. It’s raised up off the bottom of the bedrock. We did a Hydro Cad analysis of this drainage area going to this drywell and we were able to reduce that pipe size to just six inches and the velocity coming out of that pipe was 102 feet per second which was generally considered to be roughly velocity, and that was looking at a 100 year storm event modeled after what we’re actuall8 proposing here. So we took a closer look at that because of what Chazen’s comment was to try to mitigate that area as well. And then as far just to kind of talk about one of the comments about the reduction in vegetation. On this whole site, if you didn’t account for the permeable pavers, if you assumed that they were impervious, we would be adding 255 square feet of impervious on site, and that all really comes out of this garage in this area here, because that’s the spot where it’s over an existing vegetative area. On the driveway, on the paved areas on the site, we’re actually reducing them by about 400 square feet. Between taking out some of this impervious area up here and down here, as well as there was actually some reduction in the entrance to this site, but it’s actually reduction in the total paved area on the site, and that’s without the permeable pavers. That’s if you weren’t counting. The increase comes from the garage itself, the roof. MR. MC CABE-And permeability’s not an issue. That’s not one of the variances you’re looking for. MR. FERGUSON-We’re not looking for permeability, and I think the question is we’re using permeable pavers to get out of that, but we think that overall this is an improvement to what’s there now. MR. MC CABE-So is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular application? So, seeing nobody, I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-At this particular time I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I guess overall I’m still bothered by the number of variances that are being sought, but I appreciate what they’ve done so far and even though it doesn’t necessarily show as much as we’d like, there is an improvement between this application and the last one, and so overall I would say that I would be in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I kind of agree with, I agree with Roy and what he said. I mean the variances they’re looking at, it’s pre-existing, non-conforming already. The addition they’re putting on to the dwelling is away from, is not really causing any variance. I do appreciate Mr. Navitsky and his comments, and I don’t blow by them. I take them seriously. The fact that the neighbors are in favor of this and support what the Chase’s are doing, I don’t know if they could accomplish very much by reducing the size of this project, being it’s out, really the increase in the project is really the garage, and what’s on top of it. So with that said, I would be in favor of the project. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with my Board members here. The only think I can see that they could possibly do is take off that side screened in porch. That would eliminate that FAR variance pretty much. They do need a garage to make it a year round residence. They definitely need a garage, and I understand what Chris Navitsky’s saying, but like Ron said, you’re really not changing the project much that’s pre-existing. Like I said, the only thing I can see is maybe taking off that porch. So I’m kind of either way. I guess I would be for it as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-If we did nothing on this site and we let it stay as it, let it remain as it’s currently illustrated, I think you would see no improvement to it whatsoever, but I think they’ve made an honest attempt here to improve the situation. I don’t think any of us will ever be happy on these steep slope areas, but, I think, you know, you’re kind of caught between a rock and a hard place with the fact that your subsurface rock is so close to the ground. So I mean, for all intents and purposes I think you’re adding a garage on the back of the house, it’s not going to be a negative impact to the lake. I think if you’re going to go to year round living on the lake, everybody has a garage. I don’t think that’s an extraordinary request for that. At the same time I think you’re going to have an improved septic system. You’ve made an attempt to collect the rainwater and the runoff, surface runoff, and I think it’ll be an improved situation. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I mean it’s improvements definitely. I’m personally not overwhelmed by them, but unfortunately our hands are tied. The one I have the most objection to is the permeability and the way our law is, you have to ask for relief from that. Everything else I’m kind of okay with. So I will vote in favor of the variances because I kind of think we’re at an impasse. I mean the only thing I could possibly suggest is it looks like there’s room for more vegetation in places, but m maybe the Planning Board in site plan review will take care of that, that can be take care of, but as far as variances are concerned, I think you’ve met the test. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. LA SARSO-Yes. I think everyone has pretty much said everything there is to say about it. So, yes, I would vote in favor of this also. MR. MC CABE-So I think the applicant has done a really nice job here with a really tough situation, and I think definitely we’re going to get more back than what we’re going to give h ere. Most of these setbacks are pretty benign. They’re better than what they are existing. The biggest thing that we’re giving up is the FAR, and the percent that we’re giving up here is very small. So I support this project also. So, given that, Ron, could I get a motion? MR. KUHL-Can do that, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-You certainly may. MR. KUHL-Thank you, sir. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dark Bay Lane, LLC. (Revised) 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. Revision includes 2 new shoreline buffer planted areas, stone trench addition to permeable pavers, and dry well near the garage. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, rain gardens an infiltration device 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 infiltration device 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 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 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. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 18, 2021 & Wednesday, October 20, 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 addition to the dwelling really does not cause any other variances, rather it reduces one. 2. Feasible alternatives would be limited due to the bedrock on the property. They have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as this dwelling was a pre-existing, non-conforming, and again, the physical addition to the structure is not causing any other variances. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really is self-created, but again, they’re adding to a pre-existing, non- conforming building. 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. 56-2021 DARK BAY, LLC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 20 day of October 2021 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Prior to you voting on the motion, I’m just going to add, there’s some amendments there were addressed, and one of them is that there is no height relief, and at the moment the draft says there’s height. So that should be removed, and then in reference to raingarden, it’s really an infiltration device, it’s not just raingardens. So that should be revised. MR. MC CABE-So that’s per Staff? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. FERGUSON-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 68-2021, Brian Hogan,. 33 Holly Lane. NEW BUSINESS: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) AREA VARIANCE NO. 68-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRIAN HOGAN OWNER(S) BRIAN HOGAN ZONING WR LOCATION 33 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO USE A 530 SQ. FT. PORTION OF EXISTING 1,440 SQ. FT. GARAGE FOR A DWELLING UNIT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ONE BEDROOM BATHROOM, LIVING ROOM AREA, AND KITCHEN AREA. THE GARAGE PORTION OF THE BUILDING IS TO REMAIN. THE PROJECT INCLUDES DEMOLITION OF A 634 SQ. FT. EXISTING HOME. THERE ARE NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE OR BUILDINGS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A DWELLING UNIT LESS THAN 800 SQ. FT. CROSS REF DEMO 669-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.79 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2- 37 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-090 BRIAN HOGAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 68-2021, Brian Hogan, Meeting Date: October 20, 2021 “Project Location: 33 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to use a 530 sq. ft. portion of existing 1,440 sq. ft. garage for a dwelling unit. The project includes one bedroom, bathroom, living room area, and kitchen area. The garage portion of the building is to remain. The project includes demolition of a 634 sq. ft. existing home. There are no other changes to the site or buildings. Relief requested for a dwelling unit less than 800 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a dwelling unit less than 800 sq. ft. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR and the parcel is 0.76 acres. 179-5-090- Minimum Floor area for a dwelling unit The proposed dwelling unit is to be 530 sq. ft. where 800 ft. is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the project includes using a portion of an existing garage. 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 increase the existing square footage of the unit to include some of the existing garage space. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief for unit size is 270 sq. 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: The applicant proposes to utilize 530 sq. ft. of the existing 1,440 sq. ft. garage as a living unit. The plans show the floor plan with the living unit area with one bedroom, kitchen, living room area and bathroom; the remainder of the building is the existing garage.” MR. MC CABE-Identify yourself for the record. MR. HOGAN-My name is Brian Hogan. My wife and I live at 34 Holly Lane which is directly across from the property. 33 Holly Lane is our garage which we have owned for about 20 some years now. The main reason we’re asking to do this is because over the years the camp that we have has been severely underutilized. It’s used about two weeks a year, and both of our parents now are getting older and one of them’s in a walker. The existing camp as well as our main house which is on 34 Holly Lane has no downstairs bedrooms. So my wife and I retired a couple of years ago and what we want to do is to utilize 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) that what was our office area or home office area and convert that into living space. In order for us to do that we would have to apply for one of two variances, once for having two houses on one piece of property or to remove one house and based on the disuse of the other camp and the fact that it’s becoming more to maintain over the years, we opted to go that route. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Either the applicant or maybe Laura. So as far as you know, everything you’re building is compliant with the New York State Uniform Code, with the fire building code? MR. HOGAN-Absolutely. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised for this particular project. 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? Seeing nobody, Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no comment. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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-I don’t really have any concerns at this time with the project. I think as far as it being undersized I think the applicant understands the fact that it’s going to be undersized. You probably could add on to the floor area if you wanted to in the future, or build another house on that site at some point and this garage would be subject to review at that point in the future. So I’d be in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt he’s eliminating 621 square feet and, yes, there’s nothing wrong with the project. I’m on board. No problem. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this. I mean the fact that this gentleman has to come because he’s building an undersized house isn’t very interesting, but what I will say is when that gentleman down at the end of the block wanted to cut through on Holly, everybody came toting forward here about how it was going to ruin the neighborhood or ruin the street or ruin Holly Lane, and what that gentleman has done at the end of Holly is commendable. Do you see that? I mean that’s a homerun. Really, and I mean you’re going to benefit because you’re not going to have a big turnaround. Of course they might push the snow there. It’s kind of a shame that Mr. Hogan had to come through this whole expense. So I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project as well. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. LA SARSO-I’m in favor. I think it’s a shame that he had to come here in the first place. I agree with my Board members. Yes, I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m in total agreement. He knows how I feel . I was up there today. I think it’s the cutest little thing, but the undersize is not a problem for me. MR. MC CABE-So, yes, I’ll approve the project. It’s not often that the applicant comes before us to build a smaller structure. So I guess I’m going to have to go with this. I’m good to ask Jim to make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brian Hogan. Applicant proposes to use a 530 sq. ft. portion of existing 1,440 sq. ft. garage for a dwelling unit. The project 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) includes one bedroom, bathroom, living room area, and kitchen area. The garage portion of the building is to remain. The project includes demolition of a 634 sq. ft. existing home. There are no other changes to the site or buildings. Relief requested for a dwelling unit less than 800 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a dwelling unit less than 800 sq. ft. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR and the parcel is 0.76 acres. Section 179-5-090- Minimum Floor area for a dwelling unit The proposed dwelling unit is to be 530 sq. ft. where 800 ft. is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 20, 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. Even though it will be an undersized home, I think the applicant understands that it will be smaller in nature and he has a dedicated purpose for his request. 2. There don’t seem to be any feasible alternatives at this time. So we feel the request is reasonable, having reviewed it. 3. The requested variance is substantial because it’s undersized, but it’s also going to be a seasonal use, maybe year round use. The applicant understands the fact that it will be smaller than normal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because of the size of the current building which will be changed over to have partial living, dwelling unit with the garage that currently exists. 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; it’s less than normal, but we find it to be a reasonable request. 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. 68-2021 BRIAN HOGAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. HOGAN-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 69-2021, 113 Seelye Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC & CURT DYBAS, R.A. OWNER(S) MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ ZONING WR LOCATION 113 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 700 SQ. FT. 2-CRAR ADDITION AND TO CONVERT THE EXISTING 2-BAY GARAGE TO ONE BAY AND OTHER BAY TO BE A LAUNDRY/BATHROOM. THE GARAGE IS TO BE A TOTAL OF 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 1,050 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 5,715 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 6,765 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 61- 2021; AV 5-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-49 SECTION 179-3-040; 179- 5-020; 179-13-010 CURT DOBIE & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2021, Michael & Susan Kajdasz, Meeting Date: October 20, 2021 “Project Location: 113 Seelye Road. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 700 sq. ft. 2-car addition and to convert the existing 2-bay garage to one bay and other bay to be a laundry/bathroom. The garage is to be a total of 1,050 sq. ft. The existing floor area is 5,715 sq. ft. and the new floor area is 6,765 sq. ft. Site plan review for construction of new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests for construction of an addition needing relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR and the parcel is 0.96 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The addition is to be located 15.1 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant has noted the existing home was considered compliant when constructed in 1979 and the zoning has since changed. 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 locate the addition in a more compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 4.9 ft. to the side setback. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The proposed addition is for the two bay garage to the existing home. The existing attached garage would be converted from 2 bays to one bay where the other bay is to become a bathroom and laundry area.” MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that th motion passed seven, zero on October 19, 2021. MR. MC CABE-So I didn’t attempt your last name. MR. DYBAS-I’m not going to attempt the last name, either. I have known Michael and Susan for 50 years and I remember when they built this house with their own sweat equity and at the time it was constructed in ’79, it was compliant to the current zoning setbacks, but as you move on in years, Michael and Susan want to set this house up for aging in place. They have an office on the main floor and they have the bathroom. The idea is to eventually they’ll use that office as a bedroom, but they need a full bathroom and a the laundry room and the walkout basement up to the main floor. So the logical approach, we looked at 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) it and we said we’ll take the second bay of the garage and we’ll put a full bathroom in there and the laundry room and we’ll add on a two bay garage. By doing so, they are now in the current zoning of a 20 foot setback. So we’re before you tonight to ask for a 4.9 foot relief for the zoning. And basically that is the scope of the project. Any questions? MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Well you said nine feet relief? You said that for a total relief, nine feet of relief? MR. DYBAS-No, 4.9 feet of relief. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised for this particular project, and so at this 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 particular project. Roy, do we have any written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. “We are adjacent property owners at 111 Seelye Road, Queensbury. I have reviewed the application of Mr./Mrs. Kajdasz regarding the proposed addition to existing garage space. The proposed addition does not meet the setback requirements on the north side of the property. The proposed addition has a setback of 15 feet versus the requirement of 20 feet. We would ask the Planning Board to consider the following conditions of our/their approval: 1. Construction be completed in a timely basis. 2. All construction equipment/material/debris be removed from the site and landscaping complete before a certificate of occupancy is issued. 3. A wooden fence of approximately 6-8 feet in height be constructed, at the cost of Mr. Kajdasz, between his property and the property of John and Bette Madej to the north. This fence would take the place of an existing fence that is in disrepair. The fence would run along property to Seelye Road. The construction would include the appropriate trimming of various bushes/shrubs and removal lf fallen/intrusive limbs on existing fence and removal and disposal of existing fence. This should be completed at the beginning of the construction process of the addition so as to limit the intrusion of the project. 4. The approval is also conditional on the pre-approval of/by the Kajdasz family on any similar additions/projects that may be considered by the Madej family where the future setbacks may not meet the current setback limits. Similar to this project, any future setbacks would not be closer than setbacks of the existing structures on the Madej property. We are gone for the winter returning in early May, or we would appear at the hearing. If you have any questions we can be reached. Thank you. Sincerely, John and Bette Madej” They don’t give an address and I don’t see them on the distribution list. MR. MC CABE-Didn’t they say 111? MR. URRICO-Yes, that’s right. MR. MC CABE-So that’s a pretty big project in its own right, but we don’t do that. So that’s up to you. 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 Brady. MR. LA SARSO-I’d be in favor. It seems pretty simple. Nothing major. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I think the relief is minimal. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the Kajdaszs have lived there for a long period of time. I think they’ve always done a good job as far as getting along with the neighbors. I’d be in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-They’re not asking really for anything more other than what’s pre-existing for setbacks. So I’d be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) MR. KUHL-I agree with my other Board members talking about it. It is the same offset as it was before the request for this variance. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m also in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. The relief that is being requested here, non-conforming structure. You can’t do anything about that, and 4.9 feet is pretty minimal compared to a lot of the requests that we have. So I’ll support this project. So, I wonder, Cathy, could you give us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael & Susan Kajdasz. Applicant proposes a 700 sq. ft. 2-car addition and to convert the existing 2-bay garage to one bay and other bay to be a laundry/bathroom. The garage is to be a total of 1,050 sq. ft. The existing floor area is 5,715 sq. ft. and the new floor area is 6,765 sq. ft. Site plan review for construction of new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests for construction of an addition needing relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR and the parcel is 0.96 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The addition is to be located 15.1 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant has noted the existing home was considered compliant when constructed in 1979 and the zoning has since changed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 20, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives were not considered by the Board. We didn’t think they were necessary in this particular case. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Being that it’s added to the non-lake shore side. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created somewhat although they owned the home prior to the zoning change. That’s a little mitigation. 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. 69-2021 MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations you have a project. MR. MC CABE-So next application is AV 70-2021, 1903 Ridge Road, Streck’s Inc. AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STRECK’S INC. AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STRECK’S INC. ZONING SPLIT LOCATION 1903 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.36-ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AS THE PARCEL IS NATURALLY DIVIDED BY RIDGE ROAD. THE WEST LOT IS TO BE 1.59 ACRES AND TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME AND OUT-BUILDINGS; THE EAST LOT IS TO BE 17.77 ACRES AND TO MAINTAIN THE BARN BUILDINGS. LOT 1 IS IN RR-3A ZONE WHERE LOT CONDITIONS, (I.E. SETBACKS) ARE PRE-EXISTING. LOT 2 IS IN RR-5A ZONE WHERE LOT CONDITIONS ARE EXISTING. NO CHANGES TO THE LOTS OR BUILDINGS. SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR CREATING TWO LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH, SETBACKS, AND RENOVATING THE EXISTING HOME WITH NO EXPANSION. CROSS REF SUB 9-2021; SUB 10-2021; PZ 245-2016 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-2021, Streck’s Inc., Meeting Date: October 20, 2021 “Project Location: 1903 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36- acre parcel into two lots as the parcel is naturally divided by Ridge Road. The west lot is to be 1.59 acres and to maintain the existing home and out-buildings; the east lot is to be 17.77 acres and to maintain the barn buildings. Lot 1 is in RR-3A zone where lot conditions, (i.e. setbacks) are preexisting. Lot 2 is in RR- 5A zone where lot conditions are existing. No changes to the lots or buildings. Subdivision review for creating two lots. Relief requested for lot size and lot width, setbacks, and renovating the existing home with no expansion. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a 2 lot subdivision needing relief for lot size and lot width, setbacks, and renovating the existing home with no expansion. The parcel is in a split zone with a portion in Rural Residential 3 acres and the other is Rural Residential 5 acres. The parcel is 19.36 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The west lot is Lot 1 at 1.59 acres and is located in the RR3A zone. The project proposes some work on the existing home but will maintain the existing home footprint and out buildings. Relief is for lot size where 5 ac. is required; lot width where 400 ft. is required and 234 ft. is proposed; setbacks front is 26.5 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required; east side is 50 ft. where 75 ft. is required. The east lot is Lot 2 at 17.77 acres and is located in the RR5A zone. The project will maintain the barn buildings on Lot 2. 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 to include some of the land from lot 2 to be compliant with the 3 acre requirement. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for Lot 1 is 1.41 ac. The improvements to the existing home are within the footprint where the front setback relief is 73.5 ft., the east side is 25 ft. and lot width is 166 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. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide 19.36 acres into two lots. The plans show each lot and the existing buildings to remain on each parcel.” MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on their limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that th motion was passed seven, zero on October 19, 2021. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board. Thank you for having us. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, PLLC representing Streck’s Inc. which is the landowner who purchased the, I would call it the farm homestead and the barns which the homestead’s been there for I believe since 1860. We also represent the Cleveland family which is the westerly landowners who have negotiated a deal with the Streck’s group to purchase the lands on the westerly portion of this parcel, west of Ridge Road, the 1.59 acres which contains the farmhouse and with the goal of restoring the interior of the farmhouse, no changes to the exterior footprint, and then eventually convey it to their daughter Katie and her husband to be who is with us, Jason Simms, who works for me. So we’re all in the family, all in the house tonight if you will, and again, there’s no proposed changes to the site, other than minimal landscaping if you will for the farmhouse side and it’s a pretty unique project in that it looks like it should be two lots now. As the farm, parent parcels, were sold off over the years it never got subdivided out and here we are. We believe we have a very nice project to re-do that home, maintain it. It’s a nice part of the neighborhood up there just north of Stevenson Road, and so again we’re asking for relief from the three acre minimum lot size for Lot One, because that is the RR-3 zone west of Ridge Road. So that acreage is 1.59 acres, and then as that lot is pie-shaped, while we meet our 400 feet of road frontage, actually quite a bit beyond that, 475, as there’s no width in the rear, we have deficient average lot width on it due to that geometry, and then the third variance is to re-construct the home, to renovate a non-conforming structure with no change in footprint. It’s a pretty simple project we believe versus some of the stuff you’re used to seeing us with, and again we’re not really doing any significant earthwork or changing any of the buildings on either side of the road. So we’d appreciate any questions the Board may have and we’re here to ask for your approval so we can continue next week with our subdivision approval project. Thank you, Board. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-It seems pretty straightforward. MR. MC CABE-It is. 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 would like to comment on this particular project? And, seeing nobody, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’ll poll the Board, and I’ll start with Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-In my opinion this is a subdivision so I will vote in favor of this variance. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I would vote in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m I favor of the project. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-It seems straightforward. I’m in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it’s already been subdivided by 9L there. So it makes sense. Yes. I’m on board with it. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-And, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a simple request. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, approve the project. Again, it’s pretty straightforward. It makes sense, and so I’m going to, Brady, I’m going to ask for a motion here. MRS. MOORE-I’m just going to give you a heads up that that’s not Brady. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. That’s Jackson. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Streck’s Inc. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36-acre parcel into two lots as the parcel is naturally divided by Ridge Road. The west lot is to be 1.59 acres and to maintain the existing home and out-buildings; the east lot is to be 17.77 acres and to maintain the barn buildings. Lot 1 is in RR-3A zone where lot conditions, (i.e. setbacks) are preexisting. Lot 2 is in RR-5A zone where lot conditions are existing. No changes to the lots or buildings. Subdivision review for creating two lots. Relief requested for lot size and lot width, setbacks, and renovating the existing home with no expansion. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a 2 lot subdivision needing relief for lot size and lot width, setbacks, and renovating the existing home with no expansion. The parcel is in a split zone with a portion in Rural Residential 3 acres and the other is Rural Residential 5 acres. The parcel is 19.36 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The west lot is Lot 1 at 1.59 acres and is located in the RR3A zone. The project proposes some work on the existing home but will maintain the existing home footprint and out buildings. Relief is for lot size where 5 ac. is required; lot width where 400 ft. is required and 234 ft. is proposed; setbacks front is 26.5 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required; east side is 50 ft. where 75 ft. is required. The east lot is Lot 2 at 17.77 acres and is located in the RR5A zone. The project will maintain the barn buildings on Lot 2. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 20, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because it’s pretty much already subdivided. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not necessary. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because again it is pretty much already subdivided by 9L. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty can be considered self-created, but again 9L is there. It’s not really 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. 70-2021 STRECK’S INC., Introduced by Jackson LaSarso, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. McCabe 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Board, very much. MR. MC CABE-So, Jackson, I’m sorry about that. MR. LA SARSO-Don’t worry. MR. MC CABE-So next week you’re going to sit no matter what for the first two. MR. LA SARSO-Sounds good. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to adjourn our meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING FOR TH OCTOBER 20, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 20 day of October, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt 22