Loading...
11-17-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH NOVEMBER 17, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 67-2021 Steve McDevitt 2. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-58 Area Variance No. 73-2021 Judith Dooley 5. Tax Map No. 239.20-1-8 Sign Variance No. 6-2021 Chris & Jeremy Carte 8. Tax Map No. 296.9-1-3 & 296.9-1-5 Area Variance No. 74-2021 Francis & Erin Steinbach 12. Tax Map No. 226.19-2-18 Area Variance No. 75-2021 William Mason 20. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-44 Sign Variance No. 7-2021 AJ Signs (for Fowler Square) 26. Tax Map No. 289.19-1-27 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 11/17/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH NOVEMBER 17, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN JACKSON LA SARSO, ALTERNATE BRADY STARK, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL 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, Wednesday, November 17, 2021. If you’ve not been here before, our procedure is relatively simple. I’ll call each case up, read the case into the record, allow the applicant to present the case. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we’ll open a public hearing, take input from the public, then we’ll close the public hearing, poll the Board, see how we stand on the application and proceed accordingly. First I’d like to take care of a couple of safety items. Mainly if there’s a problem, there’s exits behind you, the two doors you entered into. There’s exits to the east here on either end of the windows, and there’s an exit to the southwest in the corner over here, and first we have a couple of administrative items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 20, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TH MINUTES OF OCTOBER 20, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt October 27, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING TH MINUTES OF OCTOBER 27, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SCHEDULE OF MEETING DATES FOR THE YEAR 2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) th Duly adopted this 17 day of November 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 67-2021, Steve McDevitt, 32 North Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEVE MC DEVITT AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER (CHRIS KEIL) OWNER(S) STEVE MC DEVITT ZONING WR LOCATION 32 NORTH LANE (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1 ½ STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE FIRST-FLOOR ADDITION IS TO BE A 320 SQ. FT. GREAT ROOM AND A 128 SQ. FT. SCREENED PORCH. THE EXISTING OFFICE SPACE IS TO BE MOVED UPSTAIRS AS 448 SQ. FT. ADDITION WITH 266 SQ. FT. LIVING SPACE. THE FIRST FLOOR WILL HAVE LAUNDRY AREA ADDED. A CRAWL SPACE ALSO TO BE CONSTRUCTED. SITEWORK INCLUDES STORMWATER. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 58-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-58 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-13-010 CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEVE & ELLEN MC DEVITT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2021, Steve McDevitt, Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 “Project Location: 32 North Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes a 1 ½ story addition to an existing home. The first-floor addition is to be a 320 sq. ft. great room and a 128 sq. ft. screen porch. The existing office space is to be moved upstairs as 448 sq. ft. addition with 266 sq. ft. living space. The first floor will have laundry area added. A crawl space also to be constructed. Site work includes stormwater. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and floor area for the construction of additions to an existing home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.26 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 -dimensional The addition is to be 21 ft. from the north side where a 30 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is to be 72% where 75% is required. The floor area is to be 30.5% where 22% is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the additions. Noting the location of the existing home is not compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code as the additions make it further non-compliant. Relief is requested for north side of 9 ft., floor area is 8.5% in excess and permeability is 3 % additional hard-surfacing. 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: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) The existing home is a 2,721 sq. ft. 1 1/2 story home. The addition is 320 sq. ft. great room on the first floor and 128 sq. ft. enclosed screen porch. The second floor is to have 224 sq. ft. addition as an office. The project 428 sq. ft. basement addition is no longer part of the application; the plan is to install a crawl space.” MR. MC DEVITT-My name is Steve McDevitt. I live at 32 North Lane. I just wanted to quickly say I have been coming to Lake George for 33 years. My wife Ellen and I hope to fulfill a lifetime dream and retire in Lake George in 2022. The design of this project is to consolidate as much as possible our living area to one floor. We plan to move the laundry from the cellar to the office space currently on the first floor. We also plan to update the kitchen, bathroom and add food storage with a pantry on the first floor. The proposed great room will replace the existing deck that runs across the rear of the house. This will allow for year round use of the new space. It will also be a wonderful new area for family gatherings when our two sons visit for the holiday. On the second floor we plan to add an office which is being replaced on the first floor by the new laundry area. We believe the proposed project will enhance the character of the existing neighborhood and have received positive feedback from our neighbors on North Lane. They have graciously sent in letters of support to both the Zoning and Planning Boards. Thank you for your time. MRS. WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT-So I’m Ellen Wetherbee-McDevitt of 32 North Lane. I grew up on Lake George. I have great love and respect for the lake and the surroundings. It’s been part of both sides of my family for multiple generations. Assembly Point is not a vacation destination. It’s home. My husband and I have had the good fortune to own this home for the past five years and we’ve lived here year round for the past 20 months. We’re retiring here. We look forward to spending our lives year round on Assembly Point. We have two grown boys who’ve spent the best times of their lives on Lake George. Our goal is simply to create a bit more space for times when we’re all together as a family. We all love being on Assembly Point at all times of the year and we look forward to creating a life of memories in a house that’s just a bit bigger to accommodate another generation who will love and care for the lake as much as our entire family does. MR. KEIL-I’m Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership. So we presented this project back in September and I thought we were pretty close on some of the things. The overwhelming opinion that I recall from the Board members was that we were close to having a project. So we’ve sharpened our pencils a little bit more and kind of went back and modified the volume, the FAR, to address that, you know, converting basement to basement crawl space which dropped that request for relief down four percentage points. So with that we think it’s a pretty modest ask overall. And I’m grateful that the owners/applicants are here today to explain how this is really important. So we’re happy to answer any questions. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing was advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open a public hearing and see if t here’s anybody in the audience who would like to provide input on this particular project. Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-Yes, there’s three letters. The first one is, “I am writing in support of the addition at 32 North Lane that Ellen Wetherbee and Steve McDevitt wish to add to their home. I have been a resident at 15 Forest Road for 46 years and my house is across North Lane from theirs. They are planning to become full time residents and I am happy that is t heir plan. I hope you will grant them the variance so that their house will become a comfortable year round home for them and their family. I have no objection whatsoever to a variance for their construction. Sincerely yours, Patricia Killeen” And then there are two other letters very similar in context. One is from Tim and Kathy Bechard, 3 North Lane, and the second one is from Kim Cavaretta at 28 North Lane. “We are writing in support of the building addition planned for 32 North Lane, Lake George, NY. Steve and Ellen McDevitt are our neighbors and they have shared their plans with us. We would like to let the Planning and Zoning Board know we believe the addition will maintain the character of the neighborhood and be a complement to our adjacent properties. Sincerely, Tim and Kathy Bechard 3 North Lane” “I am writing in support of the building addition planned for 32 North Lane, Lake George, NY. Steve and Ellen McDevitt are our neighbors and they have shared their plans with us and we would like to let the Planning Board and the Zoning Board know we believe the addition will maintain the character of the neighborhood and be a complement to our adjacent properties. We are Kim & Tony Cavaretta and we live at 28 North Lane, Lake George, NY 12845. Thank you for your time and consideration. Kim Cavaretta” MR. MC CABE-So that’s it? MR. URRICO-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. HENKEL-I think they listened to some of our recommendations and I think they did a good job, and they’re not on the lake. So it doesn’t really concern me about the permeability and the setbacks don’t really bother me. It is a small piece of property and listening to the McDevitts trying to make it a year round place, I think you have to definitely expand it to do so. They’re not asking for anything unreasonable. So I’d be in support of it as is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in agreement with John. I would be in favor of the application, now that the changes have been made. MR. MC CABE-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I would be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I do think the reductions are minimal, but I will vote to grant this variance. MR. MC CABE-So you’re saying yes? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes to grant the variance. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-What’s been proposed is very reasonable. I don’t think there’s anything here that’s a land grab for a giant McMansion or anything like that. I think it fits with what you have. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes, I agree with what my fellow Board members have said. I would be in favor of this project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. What’s being requested here is, for the most part, minimal. The big contention would be the floor area ratio, and what you have going against you is such a small lot. I mean the FAR is generally written for a larger lot. So you’re at an extreme disadvantage here. So it looks like you’ve got enough votes here. So, Cathy, I’m going to ask you for a motion here. MRS. HAMLIN-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve McDevitt. (Revised) Applicant proposes a 1 ½ story addition to an existing home. The first-floor addition is to be a 320 sq. ft. great room and a 128 sq. ft. screen porch. The existing office space is to be moved upstairs as 448 sq. ft. addition with 266 sq. ft. living space. The first floor will have laundry area added. A crawl space also to be constructed. Site work includes stormwater. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and floor area for the construction of additions to an existing home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.26 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 -dimensional The addition is to be 21 ft. from the north side where a 30 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is to be 72% where 75% is required. The floor area is to be 30.5% where 22% is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 22, 2021 & November 17, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and they were complied with by the applicant and changes were made by the applicant. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 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. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered self-created but that’s not a determining factor here. 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. 67-2021 STEVE MC DEVITT, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th Day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 73-2021, Judith Dooley, 2964 State Route 9L. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 73-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JUDITH DOOLEY OWNER(S) JUDITH DOOLEY LOT SIZE 0.16 ACRES LOCATION 2964 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW DECK CONFIGURATION FOR THE UPPER, MAIN LEVEL, LANDING AREA FACING THE SHORE. THE PREVIOUS DECK SYSTEM HAS 305 SQ. FT. MAIN FLOOR, 156 SQ. FT. LANDING/DECK, AND 15 SQ. FT. STAIRS TO TOTAL 476 SQ. FT. PROPOSED DECKING WILL HAVE 60 SQ. FT. UPPER DECK, 300 SQ. FT. MAIN FLOOR, 24.5 SQ. FT. LANDING, AND 38 SQ. FT. STEPS TO TOTAL 422.5 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF A NON- CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS (SHORELINE AND SIDE). CROSS REF SP 69-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-8. SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 JUDITH DOOLEY, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 73-2021, Judith Dooley, Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 “Project Location: 2964 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a new deck configuration for the upper, main level, landing area facing the shore. The previous deck system has 305 sq. ft. main floor, 156 sq. ft. landing/deck, and 15 sq. ft. stairs to total 476 sq. ft. Proposed decking will have 60 sq. ft. upper deck, 300 sq. ft. main floor, 24.5 sq. ft. landing, and 38 sq. ft. steps to total 422.5 sq. ft. Site plan for expansion of a non-conforming structure and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks (shoreline and sides) for the construction of new deck areas on the existing home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 7,304 sq. ft. parcel. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) The deck is to be 21.1 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new deck areas is to be 4.1 ft. to the north property line and 10.3 ft. to the south property line where a 20 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 character 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 deck size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for setback is 28.9 ft. to the shoreline, 7.9 ft. to the north and 1.7 ft. to the south property line. 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 applicant proposes construction of a new deck system to the existing home. There is an upper level deck that is to be replaced and a lower level deck to be replaced that is to be the main deck. There is a smaller deck area to be removed and replaced with a landing and new stairs to the ground. The plans show the deck locations and elevations of the deck appearance.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was adopted seven, zero on November 16th, 2021. MR. MC CABE-So if you would identify yourself for the record. MS. DOOLEY-My name is Judith Dooley, and we had just taken ownership in January of this house on Dunham’s Bay, 2964 State Route 9L, and the deck is, I think the deck was built in the 80’s and it is deteriorating and we would like to replace the deck with something safer, you know, according to Code, and better looking than a deck that’s literally falling off the house at this point. MR. MC CABE-It sounds like a good idea. Do we have any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-I like your stormwater plan. So do you think there’s anything more you can do to increase your permeability? I know you’re not asking for that and as a matter of fact you are improving it already, but is there anything else in terms of planting? MS. DOOLEY-Well, as far as plantings and all that, right now our goal was just to get that old deck off, even before the snow flies. We’re really afraid that the weight of the snow is just going to pull it down. In the future, after the deck is up, that’s when we plan to deal with plantings and that sort of thing. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to provide input on this particular project. Seeing nobody, do we have anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. “My name is Joe Didio. I reside year-round at 2966 State Route 9L, Lake George in Dunham Bay. I am writing in regards to the request for area variance – AV 73-2021 – application by Judith Dooley of 2964 State Route 9L, Lake George. I live year-round in the home to the south of the proposed project. We have no objection – in fact endorse the project proposed by Judith Dooley. The deck proposed is actually smaller in size and safer than the existing deck. We believe it will also be more attractive and 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) improve the appearance of their residence from all vantage points. Respectfully, Joseph J. Didio 2966 State Route 9L, Lake George, NY 12845” MR. URRICO-That’s it. MR. HENKEL-That’s Joe Didio in the picture here, isn’t it? MS. DOOLEY-Yes, it is. MR. MC CABE-We’ve seen him several times. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I think this is very modest, very necessary. It’s within the existing footprint and good permeability. So I will be in favor of granting the variances. MR. MC CABE-So is that a yes? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. It would be helpful. MRS. HAMLIN-I will vote to approve the variance, vote positively. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I would vote in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s a simple request. I would vote in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s a tough piece of property. It’s all downhill and the only way to really enjoy the lake is probably with the deck, the deck they’re looking to do over their boathouse. So I would be on board, yes. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think this will improve the safety and the look, the attractiveness of the property, and I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes, I’d also be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. Although it looks like we’re granting a lot, we aren’t because all you’re doing is replacing what’s there and it’s a very reasonable request. So I’m going to ask Jackson, if you’d do a motion for us here. MR. LA SARSO-Absolutely. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Judith Dooley. Applicant proposes a new deck configuration for the upper, main level, landing area facing the shore. The previous deck system has 305 sq. ft. main floor, 156 sq. ft. landing/deck, and 15 sq. ft. stairs to total 476 sq. ft. Proposed decking will have 60 sq. ft. upper deck, 300 sq. ft. main floor, 24.5 sq. ft. landing, and 38 sq. ft. steps to total 422.5 sq. ft. Site plan for expansion of a non-conforming structure and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks (shoreline & sides) for the construction of new deck areas on the existing home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 7,304 sq. ft. parcel. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) The deck is to be 21.1 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new deck area is to be 4.1 ft. to the north property line and 10.3 ft. to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 17, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because it’s a pretty basic modification to the structure, just replacing something that was already there. 2. Feasible alternatives are pretty limited for this project. 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. 5. The alleged difficulty is not 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. 73-2021 JUDITH DOOLEY, Introduced by Jackson LaSarso, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 17th Day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MS. DOOLEY-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 6-2021, Chris & Jeremy Carte, 1063 and 1067 State Route 9. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 6-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED CHRIS & JEREMY CARTE OWNER(S) CHRIS CARTE ZONING CI LOCATION 1063 STATE ROUTE 9 & 1067 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL ONE SIGN STRUCTURE WITH TWO 45 SQ. FT. SIGNS ON THE STRUCTURE. THE SIGN IS BEING PLACED ON ONE PARCEL (1067 STATE ROUTE 9). THE SIGNS WILL BENEFIT EACH EXISTING BUSINESS AT 1063 STATE ROUTE 9 (THE WOOD CARTE) AND 1067 STATE ROUTE 9 (THE WOOD CARTE TOO!). RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND ADVERTISEMENT OF ADJOINING PARCEL. CROSS REF P2007-609; P2005-185; AV 22-2006; SP 14-2006; AV 41-1998; SP 41-1998 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2021 LOT SIZE 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.9-1-3 & 296.9-1-5 SECTION 140 CHRIS & JEREMY CARTE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 6-2021, Chris & Jeremy Carte, Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 “Project Location: 1063 State Route 9 & 1067 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) proposes to install one sign structure with two 45 sq. ft. signs on the structure. The sign is being placed on one parcel (1067 State Route 9). The signs will benefit each existing business at 1063 State Route 9 (The Wood Carte) and 1067 State Route 9 (The Wood Carte Too!). Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and advertisement of adjoining parcel for a new sign. The site is located in the Commercial Intensive zone on a 0.66 acre parcel. Section 140 signs The sign is to be located 11.1 ft. to the front property line and 4 ft. to the side property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested to advertise 1063 State Route 9 on the site of 1067 State Route 9. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 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 sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to locate the sign further from the property lines. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for setbacks: 3.9 ft. to the front setback and 11 ft. to the south side setback. Relief requested for advertising on the adjacent parcel; the applicant has indicated only one sign structure is proposed. 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 have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing sign structure and sign at 1063 State Route 9 to construct a new sign structure with two 45 sq. ft. signs. The signs would advertise the following: The Wood Carte and The Wood Carte Too! The plans show the location of the sign structure and the signs.” MR. CARTE-My name is Chris Carte. This is my son, Jeremy Carte. We are the owners of The Wood Carte, and The Wood Carte, Too. So this is our plan. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I think, didn’t we talk to you a couple of years ago about. MR. CARTE-About putting a new façade on that second building. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. CARTE-Yes, we never went through with that because we’re toying with the idea of maybe someday doing something different with that building, but our signs are definitely in need of replacement at this point. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-Chris, the building is already close to the road because of the setback. The setbacks have been there for years. Right? MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. URRICO-It’s not something that’s being created by the sign, but where the position of the buildings already exist. MR. CARTE-I guess I’m not sure exactly what the setbacks are for the building itself, but it could very well be. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. URRICO-It’s consistent with the signs up and down that road. MR. CARTE-Yes. MR. URRICO-And what will happen to the moose? MR. CARTE-He hibernates for the winter. MRS. HAMLIN-I just want to make sure I completely understand. So the one side setback that is actually going down to four, that’s basically moving it closer to the other building? MR. CARTE-Well it’s actually an entirely new location . MRS. HAMLIN-But you’re kind of centering the sign. MR. CARTE-Yes, that’s right. That’s it exactly. 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 particular project? Seeing nobody, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is not. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with. MR. HENKEL-We’ve got to do SEQR first. MR. MC CABE-That’s right. Excuse me. We’ve got to do SEQR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 6-2021. APPLICANT NAME: CHRIS & JEREMY CARTE (THE WOOD CARTE), BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th Day of November 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So now I’ll start with Roy and see how you feel on the project. MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the sign project. As we’ve stated before, this seems to be a common problem up and down that road there because the setbacks have been probably closer to the road due to the expansion of that road from the past, and we’re losing one sign in the process. So I think this is a win/win for everybody. MR. MC CABE-Brady. MR. STARK-Yes, I definitely agree with what Roy said. I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members and would be in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-Combining these signs makes perfect sense. There’s no really negative reasons why we shouldn’t allow this to happen. I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. It’s an improvement. So I would vote in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-So it looks like you’re in pretty good shape here. So, Jim, I’m going to ask for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Chris & Jeremy Carte (for The Wood Carte). Applicant proposes to install one sign structure with two 45 sq. ft. signs on the structure. The sign is being placed on one parcel (1067 State Route 9). The signs will benefit each existing business at 1063 State Route 9 (The Wood Carte) and 1067 State Route 9 (The Wood Carte Too!). Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and advertisement of adjoining parcel for a new sign. The site is located in the Commercial Intensive zone on a 0.66 acre parcel. Section 140 signs The sign is to be located 11.1 ft. to the front property line and 4 ft. to the side property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested to advertise 1063 State Route 9 on the site of 1067 State Route 9. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 6-2021. Applicant Name: Chris & Jeremy Carte (The Wood Carte), based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th Day of November 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 17, 2021; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? There will be no detriment to the properties located on either of these two parcels. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We determined that this is the most reasonable request. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No. It’s actually removing one sign. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is considered to be 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; 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 6- 2021, CHRIS & JEREMY CARTE, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. An As-Built survey be provided, a condition of the Survey Waiver Request. B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. th Duly adopted this 17 Day of November 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. MR. CARTE-Thank you, everybody. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 74-2021, Francis & Erin Steinbach, 211 Assembly Point Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH JR. OWNER(S) FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH, JR. ZONING WR LOCATION 211 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE AN EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME TO INSTALL A FULL BASEMENT WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,550 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING REAR DECK OF 444 SQ. FT. TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A 356 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FRONT DECK OF 220 SQ. FT. TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A 458 SQ. FT. DECK. THE SITE HAS APPROVAL FOR 154 SQ. FT. ADDITION. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 1,949 SQ. FT. IS INCREASED TO 2,786 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 70-2021; SP 15-2020; SP 38-1995 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO 226.19-2-18 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-13-010 FRANCIS STEINBACH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-2021, Francis & Erin Steinbach, Jr., Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 “Project Location: 211 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. (footprint) home to install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq. ft. The existing rear deck of 444 sq. ft.to be removed and replaced with a 356 sq. ft. deck. The existing front deck of 220 sq. ft. to be removed and replaced with a 458 sq. ft. deck. The site has approval for 154 sq. ft. addition. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. is increased to 2,786 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure for construction of a basement area and deck areas. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 9,138 sq. ft. parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The front deck is to be 7 ft. 10 inches where a 30 ft. setback is required, 3.2 ft. to the south property line and 2.4 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The proposed permeability is to be 67% where 75% is required. The floor area is to be 30.5% (2,786 sq. ft.) where 22% is maximum allowed (2010.36 sq. ft.) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the relief requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief for the front deck 22 ft. 2 inches, south side is 16.8 ft. and the north side is 17.6 ft. Permeability is 8% more hard surfacing than allowed. Floor area is 8.5% more than allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home where the home is to be lifted to install garage/storage area underneath the home to convert a crawl space to a basement. Relief is requested for three sides of the home as there are new foundation walls. The decks proposed to the rear and the front of the home will also need setback relief. The plans show the location the decks and the new basement area. The project includes new entry steps that are to have stormwater infiltration as part of the design.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted seven, zero on th November 16, 2021. MR. MC CABE-Please identify yourself. MR. STEINBACH-My name is Francis Steinbach and my wife and I own 211 Assembly Point Road. Now you want a description of the project? MR. MC CABE-Well, I guess probably the most pertinent thing would be there are quite a few variances asked for here. How many of these are new because of what you plan to do? MR. STEINBACH-They’re all just modifications to what was pre-existing with the home. Primarily what has happened is the foundation on the home has failed and there’s water infiltration. The back wall to the house collapsed and the previous owner built a wall inside the wall. The back of the house does not have foundation under the sill plate. It’s actually floating, and the water is coming in to the basement through there. So that’s one of the reasons why we’re requesting this to lift the house and get a foundation under it because my wife and I plan on retiring there and we’re not getting any younger, and of course as I explained to her, you know, I can’t continue on maintaining a structure as is. There’s other variables that have come into play. The parking situation. There’s not a lot of parking on Assembly Point Road. The house, with the proximity to Assembly Point, there’s really only two parking spots. So that’s why we’re requesting the full basement so we can have parking underneath the house. There’s also no real storage in the house. That’s why we’re requesting a full basement, so we can have storage. We are not making an entryway from the first floor to the basement area. I know that’s one of the concerns, that it would be converted into living area. It will not. It’s for storage only. And also, Sunset Lane only has parking six months out of the year because of snow removal, and when we have friends and family over, of course that’s 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) why we’re looking for additional parking so we can pull our vehicles in under the house and then we would have that parked in front of the house. Other than that, if there’s any questions. MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a few questions. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, John. MR. HENKEL-I know this is a very difficult piece of property because you’re so close to the lake and it’s right on the road there, but this permeability is getting to be quite a problem on Assembly Point because you’ve got a lot of problems with algae blooms and that and permeability is a big problem. I see you’re going to pave the apron in front of your garage. You probably should go to permeable pavers, although that’s not going to help a lot with relief there, but it still would help. I know there’s not a lot you can do. Like you said, there’s no way of accessing that property back or the sides. So you’re in trouble there. MR. STEINBACH-Especially, if I can interrupt you for one second, if that’s okay. MR. HENKEL-Yes, go for it. MR. STEINBACH-We can’t really access it from the rear any longer. One of the problems that we faced when we first purchased the house is we had to get the septic re-done and we went for an enhanced system. We went for the Claris system, with the septic. That being said, we have the Claris tank, we have the septic tank, and the leach field and with this excavation, Larman Builders is going to do the lifting of the house. Chris Crandall’s going to do the excavation. So we have to go in from the front now because we can’t disturb what has already been built in the back. MR. HENKEL-You definitely have a good guy there. That Crandall does a nice job. MR. STEINBACH-Yes, he does. MR. HENKEL-But like I said the main problem is definitely try and get some more permeability there if you can possibly. I don’t know who you’ve talked to about that or not. Definitely the permeable pavers would help. It’s not going to help a lot, but it would help a little bit. MR. STEINBACH-And we’re not opposed to that. And we actually discussed that. MR. HENKEL-The FAR variance is a little bit sketchy, but the permeability probably is more of a concern because like I said Assembly Point has been having a lot of problems with the algae. If there’s any way you can reduce that deck a little bit, coming out of the front of the house, too. That’s my concern. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question on the garage. Are you going to come in at grade level or are you going to drop down? MR. STEINBACH-No, we plan on coming in at grade level. If we go down, we’re going to end up with flooding of the basement area and then we’re back to the same situation that we were in, or that we’re currently in. It’s going to come off the road. MRS. HAMLIN-When it was read in, there was mention of the various stormwater provisions. What do you know about those, and can you expand on that? MR. STEINBACH-Well, in speaking with Chris Crandall, he’ll do, when he excavates around the house, before putting the foundation in, we will put in drainage around the house. We’re also going to have gutters put on the house and any type of, you know, pavers we can put down that will allow or provide additional permeability, we’ll make sure to do that as well. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, that is also my concern and I think there’s opportunities for some sort of provisions on this, because you’re so close to the road and pitch all the way down to the lake. MR. STEINBACH-Right. And when we purchased that house, the driveway was paved as it is now. We didn’t pave that after we took possession of the house. MRS. HAMLIN-But you are dropping the permeability further down from what it was and that’s a concern. MR. URRICO-Is there any way to reduce the size of the front deck? You’re more than doubling the size. MR. STEINBACH-I mean we’d like to keep it as is if possible. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. URRICO-It says it’s going to be removed and replaced with a deck. MR. STEINBACH-Correct. Yes. MR. URRICO-Is there any way to reduce the size of the replacement deck? MR. STEINBACH-What size are you looking for us to bring it back? MR. URRICO-I’m just saying it’s more than double the size of what’s there now. That’s a problem for me. MR. STEINBACH-Is that something that the? MR. URRICO-That’s just me. MR. STEINBACH-That the Board could make recommendations on? MR. MC CABE-We look to you to say what you need. MR. STEINBACH-Okay. Well, I mean it’s something that my wife and I discussed it. I mean that’s the focal point of the house. The house isn’t a large house. It’s only the two of us. It’s a retirement home for us. We’re hoping to have family come and visit us, and when they come and visit us it would primarily be in the summer months, I would think, and that’s where, you know, most of the gatherings are going to be held, and that’s the reason that we had the deck at the size that it was. MR. URRICO-See when we consider a variance, we’re not trying to put a noose around your neck and say this is what it has to be, but we’re also supposed to provide you only with minimal relief, not the most you can get out of us. We’re trying to give it a fair balance. MR. STEINBACH-Right. I understand that. MR. MC CABE-Brady, go ahead. MR. STARK-Well my question’s regarding the primary residence have kind of been answered, but, Frank, are you a home inspector? MR. STEINBACH-I am. MR. STARK-Did you inspect the home that I sold a few months back? MR. STEINBACH-Yes, I did. MR. STARK-I knew you looked familiar. That’s all the questions I had. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised and 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 speak with regards to this particular project. So I see somebody. So if you would give up your seat. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS CARTE MR. CARTE-Chris Carte again, and I did provide written comments. I’m not sure if the Board received them. MR. URRICO-I have it. Would you rather me read it, or would you rather speak in person? MR. CARTE-I can read it. That’s fine. My name is Chris Carte and I’m representing the Carte family, neighbors of the Steinbach’s. We’re at 213 Assembly Point Road, and our comments are as follows.. While increasing the size of the existing nonconforming structure, in any way, on such a small parcel of land, seems somewhat inappropriate, we have no strong objection to the proposed plans for the back of the house, provided that, if possible, a stipulation is recorded that there will be no cutting or trimming of the natural tree/hedge buffer that exists between our properties. Nor do we have any objections regarding the raising of the house for the installation of the basement. I have no problem with that. The proposal to more than double the size of the deck on the front of the house, however, is very concerning. To take an already nonconforming structure, with respect to the 30 foot setback from the front property line, and greatly reduce that setback even further, seems somewhat inappropriate, especially given the lakefront setting. I believe some of the criteria for considering variance include matters such as negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, adverse impact on neighboring properties and whether or not the relief sought is substantial. As much as we wish to remain good neighbors with the Steinbachs, this request to 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) enlarge the front deck checks all of those boxes, and we request that the Board consider denying that portion of the plans. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Is there additional written comment? MR. URRICO-Is Chris done? MR. MC CABE-He’s all done. MR. CARTE-All set? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. URRICO-“I am a homeowner on Assembly Point, and I have reviewed the plans for the Steinbach property. It is my understanding that a variance(s) is required for this project. As a previous adjacent landowner and still a neighbor, I support the project. It is an existing building and appears to request minimal modifications/additions but needs the replacement of a compromised foundation. Based on the plans and discussion, I support the variance (s) requested by Frank and Erin Steinbach. Thank you and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. John Graziano 195 Assembly Point Rd. Formerly of 2 Sunset” “My name is John Owen. I live at 202 Lake Parkway Lake George NY 12845. I have lived on Assembly Point, where the subject property is located, for over 50 years. I have seen camps torn down with mega mansions appearing. It’s nice to see someone taking an older camp, updating it, and giving it a fresh start in life, with a few modifications. This will be a great example for the rest of Assembly Point. John H. Owen” “I live seasonally at our home on Assembly Point, Lake George, just a few houses from Frank and Erin Steinbach who reside at 211 Assembly Point Road. They have been good neighbors. They have shared with me their 8/21/21 site plan application submitted to the Town to make additions to their home. I understand this matter may be heard by Queensbury next week. I have no objection to the plan or the Town approving a variance to allow them to improve their home as provided in the plans. Sincerely Yours, Scott B. Dubin” It says his seasonal address is 11 Sunset Lane. And his winter address is 341 Glen Avenue, Lawrenceville, New Jersey. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing, well, actually, Frank, I’ll let you make comment to the public input there if you have any. MR. STEINBACH-The only input that I would have is that, you know, we continue, or will continue to be good neighbors. It’s just my wife and I living in the house. The house will not be turned into a party capital, as some people refer to it. It’s our residence. The people that will come and visit will be our sons. We have two adult sons, mother and father in law and our own family, sisters and brothers. Basically that’s it. 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 Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t really have a problem with what you’re requesting to do as far as raising the house and putting a garage underneath it. I think, you know, as far as the floor area ratio goes, we wouldn’t really consider garage space to be living space. So I think I can allow the excess that’s been proposed here as far as that goes, but I would be in agreement with John and some of the other members of the Board as far as the deck on the front of the house. It’s a busy street there. I see no reason why you need to have such a large deck. You could build a deck half the size of that and it would be reasonable and it would give you enough room to allow you to use the outdoor facilities. So at this time I’m not going to approve it unless you change the deck. MR. MC CABE-So I’ll put a yes with condition? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-As far as the deck is concerned, I appreciate the fact that you have a beautiful piece of property and you want to be able to enjoy it. If there was a way to scale it back and still get more than what you have now but without going maybe quite so far, but I also think that that married with some more stormwater. I notice you have lawn behind the wall. There may be something that could be put in there that could help mitigate some of the permeability issues. I would like to see, I personally wouldn’t vote tonight to approve it. I think you need to go back. MR. STEINBACH-Just so I understand, you’re saying lawn behind the wall? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MRS. HAMLIN-You have lawn behind this new wall you’re putting in. Right? The retaining wall, there’ll be lawn there? MR. STEINBACH-No. MR. HENKEL-What wall are you talking about? MRS. HAMLIN-I thought you were putting a retaining wall. MR. STEINBACH-No. MRS. HAMLIN-I see a picture of a retaining wall. MR. STEINBACH-On the font of the house? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. STEINBACH-That’s like a planter box. MRS. HAMLIN-So behind it, I’m thinking that some sort of stormwater mitigation could be put in there that would take some of the. MR. STEINBACH-Well that will be taken out when they put in the new foundation, and that’s where the second garage door would go is in, you’ll enter underneath the house. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I think that more stormwater mitigation needs to be added. MR. MC CABE-So you’re a no? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m a no at this point. MR. MC CABE-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-I’m kind of with the fellow Board members at this point. I’d like to see that hard surfacing brought down a little bit. You’re at 30% right now. I think you can bring that down pretty reasonably. I don’t think that would be too hard for you. I think obviously if you brought that deck back closer to what it was, that 220 square feet number, you’ll probably get closer to the 75% there. At this point without those I’m a no until this changes. MR. MC CABE-Or are you a yes with conditions? MR. LA SARSO-If those could get changed tonight, then I would be in favor. If not, then I’m a no. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John? MR. HENKEL-There’s definitely a project to be had here, and I understand there’s not much you can do, especially with that caving wall there. So it definitely makes it a good idea to put a new foundation under there an raise the house, but with the information we have here right now, I think you have to come back to us with a better project that shows the permeability and also the deck change in the front needs to be changed a little bit, and the permeability of the pavers in the front. So I don’t think you have a project tonight that we can really work with. So I’m not on board with it as is. I think there’s a project to be had here. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m basically in agreement with everybody else. The only stop for me is the size of the deck really changes the complexity of the project and the amount of, the size of the variances that we have to provide as a result. So I think if we can scale that back everything else would look much better, too. I would be in favor of that, at that point. MR. MC CABE-So, Brady? MR. STARK-Like my other Board members said, I don’t have an issue with any of the other elements of the project. It looks like everybody has an issue with the size of the deck. The other parts of the project seem pretty straightforward. Would there be like an option to table this and then have them come back but with a reduced deck? MR. MC CABE-That’s up to him. So are you a no, or are you a yes with a condition? 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. STARK-Yes with a condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-How wide is your deck you have right now? MR. STEINBACH-Because of the way that house is shaped, it comes out seven foot and eight foot. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you are proposing 14 feet? MR. STEINBACH-I believe 15 foot out from the house. MR. MC CABE-So I think that, you know, I’m definitely for raising the house and replacing the foundation, but you’re kind of asking for a lot here in terms of variances. So if we could half the deck and replace the, and put in permeable pavers, then I would be in favor of the project. So the permeable pavers would be. MR. STEINBACH-Put down where the pavement is presently. MR. MC CABE-Right. MR. STEINBACH-I’m not opposed to that. MR. MC CABE-So if we conditioned half the deck. MR. STEINBACH-Half the deck size. MR. MC CABE-And add permeable pavers where the. MR. STEINBACH-The asphalt is. MR. MC CABE-Right. MR. STEINBACH-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Then would that be acceptable to you? MR. STEINBACH-Yes. MR. HENKEL-But don’t we need to have the numbers. He would have to come back to us with the exact numbers. We don’t know what the permeability is going to be. MR. MC CABE-But he only has so many options here in terms of improving permeability. I mean unless he wants to take the whole, or else your other option here would be to table this, go back and study a little bit, and so you know what several of the Board members are looking for, come back with a more positive proposal. MR. HENKEL-We really don’t know what the setbacks are and everything unless you get exact. MR. UNDERWOOD-Plus you’re going to have to let the public comment on it again, too. MR. HENKEL-So I think it’s got to be tabled. Well, that’s his choice. MR. MC CABE-That’s his choice. So you don’t have enough yes votes here. It sounds like a number of votes will turn yes if we improve permeability and cut back on the deck size. So what we can do is we can table your request until you get a chance to take a look at those things and make some changes. MR. STEINBACH-Sure, yes, we’ll do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d make the recommendation that we have seven and a half feet now, that we go to ten feet or eleven feet on the deck, as opposed to fifteen. MR. MC CABE-Yes, well we’ll let him come up with that. As John said, without hard numbers here we’re really just shooting in the air. So could we get a proposal here for a tabling. MR. STEINBACH-Well, can I ask the Board, would it be acceptable if we were to cut it back to around 11 feet? MR. HENKEL-I’d like to know the exact numbers. MR. MC CABE-Yes, and I think John’s right. We really need to see the numbers. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. HENKEL-As Jim was saying you’re going to have to have it open to the public again for those changes. MRS. MOORE-So I’m just going to jump in reference to tabling and the date to table it to. At this time I have very limited room in the December agenda. It would most likely be tabled to the January timeframe. My concern is that I know you have people on retainer for lifting the house, and granted we’re not supposed to take that into account, but I’d rather, if you can tell me, is it imminent that you’re in the process of raising that house? MR. STEINBACH-Yes, I mean I have contractors that are lined up and ready to go, and we were hoping to start in September, but that was held up with getting all the paperwork in, but, yes, I mean, that’s where we’re at. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think there was any outcry from the public as far as raising the house goes. Is there any reason why we couldn’t approve the house without the deck and the deck would come back later? MR. HENKEL-Is that possible? MRS. MOORE-If the applicant wants to remove that portion of the project from the agenda, or from your application, you could do that. I mean it does not change the permeability at this time because again, that deck is over the existing pavement. So the permeability would remain, or the relief requested for the permeability would remain the same at this point, but the applicant would come back with a new proposal talking about the deck and my guess is that at that time they could offer the information about the permeability, but that would mean this Board would be granting the permeability relief. MR. HENKEL-I’m not really comfortable doing that. I can understand his problem with wanting to get that raised. MRS. HAMLIN-Can I ask Laura a question? MRS. MOORE-Sure. MRS. HAMLIN-Is there any type of, because it does seem to me like the raising of the house and fixing the basement is imminent. I mean it has to be taken care of obviously. Is there any type of emergency authorization for him to do that part and still table this? MR. MC CABE-It’s not just us. I assume that after this he’s got to go to the Planning Board. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes. So if the applicant, if you remove the deck situation, that would be off the table for both projects in that sense. So you wouldn’t be, the Board could do that. The applicant could say I’m removing the deck from this project and if I come back and the deck is still an issue, then I have to come back before the Board. MR. URRICO-Well, what part of raising the house really triggers these variances? I mean he’s not going to be installing the basement with the FAR ratio. MR. MC CABE-Well it’s a non-conforming. MR. URRICO-He’s not installing anything yet. He’s just raising the basement. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it’s not only raising the basement. It’s the actual new foundation wall. So that new construction is what’s triggering all those variances. MR. URRICO-A wall, though, is not a basement. Right? MRS. MOORE-As soon as he put the two new bricks on it, then it triggers that variance. So, yes, it’s a technicality, but that’s the way it’s worded for being compliant with the Code. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see any reason why at this late time of the year that we need to be concerned with doing construction. It’s going to be December in a couple of weeks and I think that with the way you have a full project completed, you know, even though we were trying to give you some tentative approvals, we know where the Board is at right now at the present time. So if you come back I think at a later time. MR. STEINBACH-So basically I’m telling my contractors no go until January. MR. MC CABE-Right. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. URRICO-If they can get into the ground in January, hopefully we won’t have a freeze before then. MR. STEINBACH-So there’s no way that this can be approved for the foundation part of it if I were to pull back on the deck part of it? MR. MC CABE-No, because you’re still over on the permeability and the floor area ratio, right? MR. URRICO-You want to get it done right. MR. HENKEL-If the basement has gone this long like that, what’s going to be one more winter? MR. STEINBACH-Okay. MR. HENKEL-It’s better to have a good project. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I wanted to provide those opportunities. So the other option is re-evaluating your December agenda. Right now you’re up to six items. If you tabled it and gave the applicant a little bit of opportunity to turn the information in, because we’re past our deadline for December, that’s seven items. That’s a lot of items for your agenda. MR. MC CABE-Well it would be easy for me to say yes because I’m not here. I think it’s fair to put it off until January. MRS. MOORE-Okay. thth MR. HENKEL-So you want to go January the first meeting or the second? The 19 or the 26? th MRS. MOORE-So you’re going to table it to the January 19 meeting with information due by December th 15. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Do you want to table it? Is that your decision? MR. STEINBACH-I don’t have a choice at this point. MR. HENKEL-Well, you do. MR. MC CABE-You can ask for a vote, but you’re not going to make out well. MR. STEINBACH-Right. I have no choice. I have to table it. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Francis & Erin Steinbach, Jr. Applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. (footprint) home to install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq. ft. The existing rear deck of 444 sq. ft.to be removed and replaced with a 356 sq. ft. deck. The existing front deck of 220 sq. ft. to be removed and replaced with a 458 sq. ft. deck. The site has approval for 154 sq. ft. addition. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. is increased to 2,786 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH, JR., Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: thth Tabled to the January 19, 2022 meeting with any new information by December 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 75-2021, 15 Tuscarora Drive. AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II WILLIAM MASON AGENT(S) WILLIAM MASON OWNER(S) LISA PAPLANUS ZONING WR LOCATION 15 TUSCARORA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 768 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 16 SQ. FT. NEW PORCH LANDING ENTRY AND A SMALLER ACCESS LANDING TO THE EXISTING PORCH. THE HOME HAS AN EXISTING ONE BEDROOM AND THE SECOND FLOOR WILL ADD 3 MORE BEDROOMS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONNECTION TO THE TAKUNDEWIDE COMMUNITY SEPTIC AND WATER 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) SUPPLY FROM THE LAKE. SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING IN A CEA AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 73- 2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-44 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010 WILLIAM MASON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 75-2021, William Mason, Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 “Project Location: 15 Tuscarora Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 768 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 768 sq. ft. home. The project includes a 16 sq. ft. new porch landing entry and a smaller access landing to the existing porch. The home has an existing one bedroom and the second floor will add 3 more bedrooms. The project includes connection to the Takundewide community septic and water supply from the lake. Site plan for expansion of non-conforming in a CEA and new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure for constructing a second floor. The site is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 2,288 sq. ft. parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement The addition is to be 10 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. The entry deck is to be 6 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. In addition, relief is requested for permeability where 66 % is proposed and 75% is required. Floor area is proposed to be 67% based on the lot size where 22% is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the existing lot size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the entryway is 9 ft. the remaining property lines are 10 ft. The permeability relief is in excess 9 % and the floor area is in excess of 45%. In regard to the Floor area, the applicant has explained that the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the 18.7 acres are common area for the association members. In addition, the master plan indicates the 18.7 acres are to be considered during the request for a house expansion with the HOA. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: nd The applicant proposes a 2 story addition of 768 sq. ft. and two entry landings. The project occurs in the Takundewide cottage development off of Cleverdale Rd. In 2003 the Planning Board adopted an MOU with Takundewide HOA outlining activities for future development. The project is similar to other nd cottages on the site where the increase floor area is the proposed 2 floor mirroring the style of the other housing. The submission includes renditions of the proposed home with the existing roofline shown on the plans. The floor plans of the existing interior arrangement are provided.” MR. MC CABE-So for the new people here this is a pretty common request, the fourth one that I think I’ve been involved with and I don’t know how many, Bill? th MR. MASON-This is about my 10 I think. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. MC CABE-So it’s a pretty common request, and so what they had were a whole series of these single story cottages and they blew them up to two story. So this is a continuing saga. It doesn’t look like there’s that many left. MR. MASON-I was just sitting here counting them because the Planning Board asked me that last night. We’re about halfway there. There’s 16, there are 16 of them that have this type of a second floor. There are a number of them and I don’t know that they’ve come in front of you, that have gone up in the attic and gotten a little. I didn’t say that. MR. MC CABE-So anyway, so you people understand that this isn’t a new, we’ve seen it before. So I need to have you identify yourself. MR. MASON-I’m sorry. I’m William Mason. I was here in 1986 when this Association was first born. My family built it. Anyway, that’s a long time ago, isn’t it? 1986. MR. MC CABE-Well, for some people it is. MR. MASON-I think the most important thing to keep in mind on this, and the thing that we talked about when we agreed on the MOU, was that there’s 18.7 acres of common property. It’s a 21 acre parcel. When you add the whole thing together, 21 acres divided up into the 32 homes, it’s about two-thirds of an acre per home. So it’s not as crowded. The numbers sound like we’re asking for loads and loads of relief every time, but when you consider the 18.7 acres, it actually is not that much relief being asked for. In terms of that, the setback is the same thing. Those are just little lots that we’re drawing 10 feet around each building and we could have drawn them 15 feet or 25 feet, but we didn’t do that back at that time. Probably a mistake because it caused this problem. If there’s any other questions. MR. MC CABE-So I think the other thing is that some of these didn’t tie into the common septic, right? This one does. MR. MASON-This one will. This is one of the real positives here. It’s already, all the homes in Takundewide are in the community water system. So there’s no problem with setbacks from wells or anything like that on the property, and this one has a very old, 1960 septic system. I was able to discover that it’s an old metal tank. It’s still functioning. There’s no problem with it, but I had no idea where the distribution box and the drain field are and it’s time for it to be replaced or upgraded and what they’re going to do is join the community system as part of this project. So they’ll be putting in probably a 1250 gallon concrete tank, replacing the metal one, and running a line over so that now it will be pumped into our community system 1,000 feet away from Lake George. MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-I don’t know if it’s of the applicant or you who brought this up. When I went there, because I’m not familiar with this at all, yes, there was a mixture of the smaller homes. So they were all that size. MR. MC CABE-At one time they were all that small. MRS. HAMLIN-They were all granted variances to do this. MR. MC CABE-The Town granted them the opportunity to do this, and so that’s what he’s doing. MRS. HAMLIN-That’s what the MOU is. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Because I didn’t see the MOU. It wasn’t included, was it? MR. MASON-The MOU is in your files, and I can get you copies if you want it. MR. MC CABE-Jim used to be able to recite it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy and I were on the Board when the Memorandum of Understanding was created, and that was our suggestion to have them do the leach field to hook up. MRS. HAMLIN-But, unlike a normal conservation subdivision, we’re allowing that, the land that’s in. MRS. MOORE-So this project is based, or this Homeowner’s Association is based on that Memorandum of Understanding that was developed so that the Town agreed and the applicant agreed to every time a 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) house is evaluated it would actually come before this Board for that evaluation, as well as identifying the items within the MOU, whether they be required or identified as common area and things like that. MRS. HAMLIN-So that extra 18 acres basically factors into the density. MRS. MOORE-Right. So that’s an evaluation by this Board. Each time you evaluate it, you can conclude that that 18 acres is part of the common land as described by the applicant. That’s part of your consideration each time. It’s not guaranteed. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. HENKEL-I’ve got one question. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MR. HENKEL-I see you have, there’s going to be at least, you’ll be able to tie in at least five more homes to this septic system eventually? What happens when that’s at capacity? MR. MASON-It was sized originally for 11 homes. We have eight in there right now. So there’s only three more, according to the original numbers, but the engineer, Tom Hutchins, worked with me at the time. He sized it using the number of gallons per bedroom, and we based it on eight homes with three bedrooms per home. So that’s 24 total bedrooms. Now we’ve been adding homes. We still have only eight, but we have more than, some of them have more than three bedrooms. Some of them have two bedrooms. So what Tom, I’m sorry, I’m getting confused. What Tom and I are working on right now, because he said since I have now 10 years of data, we’ve been keeping track every day, of the number of times the pumps kick on and off, he said we can now determine very accurately the actual usage that we’re putting into the septic system and he can come up with a better idea of exactly what the capacity is. He’s comfortable with the original because he said to me, has said many times, that the gallons that you get per bedroom are always, they’re high, and that when you actually use the actual numbers it’s going to actually give us a little bit more, and then we’re also talking right now about adding other treatments to that system because with the Transfer Law coming in, we know, we’ve already had a number of owners that have had to go in front of the Town to do that, the inspection, and we will have people doing this, we know that, in the coming years. MR. HENKEL-So obviously these were built around the same time, so they probably all have old, rusty metal. MR. MASON-Actually, no. Starting at Cottage Number 18, and they were built in order, this is 15, they were all concrete tanks, starting at that point that started to come in, and PVC pipe. So some of the systems actually are pretty good systems and they’re small cottages and they’re back further from the lake, and this one is quite far from the lake. The only problem with this one, the only reason that I would want this one to join the community system and not even look at putting in a little system outside right in that area is because now with the separation distance it would probably be a raised bed of some sort and we don’t want a whole bunch of pumps around that beautiful common property. So we got all these different things that we’re thinking about as an Association and the ones that are in that kind of a situation we want to get them to join the community system. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. URRICO-At some point, it’s probably not going to affect this one here, but at some point you’re going to have 20 years of, when did you actually put in the septic? MR. MASON-The community septic is about 10 years old right now. MR. URRICO-It’s about 10 years old. So when do you anticipate coming back and trying to update the MOU to re-establish the goals and everything? MR. MASON-Well, that wouldn’t be tied, I don’t think, to the community system. We do have a large escrow fund. The Town has a bunch of money that they’re keeping for us, in case of a problem with the community system, and we’re putting aside money all the time. MR. URRICO-I don’t mean updating the system, but updating the projections that the MOU had? MR. MASON-The MOU dealt with all of the issues and it did talk about the community system, and that was part of it. MR. URRICO-So it didn’t establish any goals or any specific number? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. MASON-I don’t think that would be required unless we sat down and had a discussion with one of these Boards. MR. URRICO-I just don’t remember what we said back then. MR. MASON-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think originally, though, we were set up for three bedrooms maximum. MR. MASON-It was figured on three bedrooms because that’s what people, and the first ones, and they look very much like this on the exterior, but they were building, taking down the two bedroom and building three bedrooms, but now people have figured out a way to keep a bedroom on the first floor and add the three bedrooms upstairs. So they’ve got four bedrooms. MR. UNDERWOOD-So that’s the deviation, four bedrooms instead of three. That’s the only change. MR. MASON-Yes, but I don’t think the MOU had a thing in it on three bedrooms or four bedrooms. That was just a discussion. They talked more about the square footage. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the MOU was arranged so that they would all be the same square footage, but three bedrooms is what I recall, not four. MR. MASON-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised, and 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 project? Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, but the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted seven, zero on November 16, 2021. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jackson. MR. LA SARSO-I’d be in favor of this. It’s pretty basic. It makes sense. I have no problems with it. So I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Considering the precedent for this, I would have to be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have to come down against this because I think we have to keep in mind this is a 768 square foot second story addition that we’re adding on and we’re going to have three bedrooms in there and I think the recommendations of the Board initially when we approved the MOU was three bedrooms only, not four. So unless you go one bedroom less, I’m not in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I definitely agree with Jim. I think it’s going to be too crowded in there without adding these homes with four bedrooms. So I would not be on board with it, either. I think the three bedroom idea is a good idea. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to come down in favor of it. I think these have long been established in terms of what they would do to the lake and the septic system and the mere fact that Chris Navitsky is not here complaining about it shows that it’s meeting the standards that were required. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Brady? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. STARK-I’d be in favor of the project also. MR. MC CABE-And so I thought about this a little bit, and, you know, toilets flushed a lot more back in ’86. You didn’t have five gallon per minute shower heads. So I believe that your system is indeed way overdesigned. The fourth bedroom doesn’t really bother me. So I’ll support the project, and so, Cathy, I’m going to ask for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William Mason. Applicant proposes a 768 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 768 sq. ft. home. The project includes a 16 sq. ft. new porch landing entry and a smaller access landing to the existing porch. The home has an existing one bedroom and the second floor will add 3 more bedrooms. The project includes connection to the Takundewide community septic and water supply from the lake. Site plan for expansion of non-conforming in a CEA and new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure for constructing a second floor. The site is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 2,288 sq. ft. parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement The addition is to be 10 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. The entry deck is to be 6 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. In addition, relief is requested for permeability where 66 % is proposed and 75% is required. Floor area is proposed to be 67% based on the lot size where 22% is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 17, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. 2. Feasible alternatives were not really considered by the Board as this is considered to be reasonable. 3. The requested variance is somewhat substantial, but given certain conditions of the MOU I guess we are factoring in other things that make it less substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 75-2021 WILLIAM MASON, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th Day of November 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. MASON-Thank you very much. You have a nice night. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 7-2021, AJ signs (for Fowler Square). SIGN VARIANCE NO. 7-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AJ SIGNS (FOR FOWLER SQUARE) AGENT(S): AJ SIGNS OWNER(S) BAY ROAD DEVELOPMENT LLC ZONING PUD LOCATION 719 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 100 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN ON A LANDSCAPE BLOCK WALL FEATURE. THE BLOCK WALL IS CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION APPROVED DURING THE PUD PROJECT REVIEW. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES 2 ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGNS AT THE ENTRANCE AREAS FROM BLIND ROCK ROAD AND BAY ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE AND TO HAVE MORE THAN TWO FREESTANDING SIGNS FOR A CORNER LOT. CROSS REF SIGN 606-2021; SIGN 607-2021; SIGN 608-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2021 LOT SIZE 34.05 TAX MAP NO. 289.19-1-27 SECTION 140 TOM WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 7-2021, AJ Signs (for Fowler Square), Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 “Project Location: 719 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 100 sq. ft. freestanding sign on a landscape block wall feature. The block wall is currently under construction approved during the PUD project review. Project also includes 2 additional freestanding signs at the entrance areas from Blind Rock Road and Bay Road. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size and to have more than two freestanding signs for a corner lot. The site is located in a Planned Unit Development for Fowler Square on a 34.05 +/- acres. Section 140 Signs The sign is to be 100 sq. ft. where a 45 sq. ft. sign is the maximum. Relief is also requested to have three freestanding signage where only two are allowed for a corner lot. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 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 sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of signs and size requested. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested to have 1 additional free standing sign. Also, requested to have a sign 55 sq. ft. in excess of maximum allowed. The applicant has indicated the sign is built into the approved landscaping feature – stone wall. 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 have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 100 sq. ft. sign on the landscape stonewall. The stonewall is to be lit under the wall cap for the entire length. The sign placement is on the Blind Rock Road side of the property. The plans show the location of the sign and the detail of the sign.” MR. WHEELER-I’m Tom Wheeler with AJ Sign company. So basically over at Fowler Square we have the two entrances which there’s masonry bases in place now waiting for signs. Those signs mark the 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) entrances. This wall is on the corner. So if you’re coming from the north you won’t really see those first two signs I mentioned but you would see this wall. The wall is constructed. I had a meeting with the architect today and one of the functions of the wall is actually to screen that patio from traffic which it effectively does and then on the wall we want to affix this steel panel so it’s basically a weather steel panel. On the steel panel will be the letters. The measurement of the sign area is actually the entire steel panel. That’s how we get the 100 square foot, where the letters are a small element on the steel panel. They do want to do reverse channel letters. So they’ll be stood off the wall about an inch and a half, LED’s inside, and then have a soft glow around the letters. It’s a little more night sky compliant than a flood light. It’s a little softer. So at night you just have a soft glow with these letters on the steel panel. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? Pretty straightforward. So a public hearing has been advertised for this evening. 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 particular project. It doesn’t look like it. Roy, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board. MR. HENKEL-We need a SEQR motion. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 7-2021. APPLICANT NAME: AJ SIGNS (FOR FOWLER SQUARE), BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th Day of November 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Stark, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So now I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-This is a large piece of property, 34 acres. I think it needs a sign there to identify it when you’re coming from, like he was saying, coming from the north. It’s only going to have two entrances. So I agree that the sign is warranted for that corner. So I’d be on board with this. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m not in favor of the application. I think if we did allow a sign it should be compliant with what’s on the books and I think this is double the size. So I’m not in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree with Jim. MR. MC CABE-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I’d be in favor of this as it stands. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I also think it’s far too big and I’m wondering if the placement should be on the corner rather than off to the side, but I think it’s far too big for the property, for this application. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-I’d be in favor of the project. I think a sign is definitely needed there. So I’d be in favor. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) MR. MC CABE-So we’ve had quite a bit of discussion about the size of signs and as a Board we petitioned to have, you know, to increase that a little bit, and we were given the guidelines that, or used the excuse that a bigger property should have the option of a bigger sign, and I think that in this particular case this property is very large compared to those that we’re generally looking at. So I believe that it warrants a larger sign, and so I’m going to be in favor of this particular project. So, Brady, how would you like to take a shot at making a motion here. MR. STARK-Yes, sure. I can do that. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from AJ Signs (for Fowler Square). Applicant proposes to install a 100 sq. ft. freestanding sign on a landscape block wall feature. The block wall is currently under construction approved during the PUD project review. Project also includes 2 additional freestanding signs at the entrance areas from Blind Rock Road and Bay Road. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size and to have more than two freestanding signs for a corner lot. The site is located in a Planned Unit Development for Fowler Square on a 34.05 +/- acres. Section 140 Signs The sign is to be 100 sq. ft. where a 45 sq. ft. sign is the maximum. Relief is also requested to have three free standing signage where only two are allowed for a corner lot. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 7-2021. Applicant Name: AJ Signs (for Fowler Square), based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17th Day of November 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Stark, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, November 17, 2021; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No, not necessarily. They are seeking a variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? No. We do need a sign variance but we did discuss reducing the sign but it looks like the Board is in favor of keeping it as is. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I consider it moderate, but the Board voted to keep it as is. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty could be considered self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 7- 2021 AJ SIGNS (FOR FOWLER SQUARE), Introduced by Brady Stark, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) G. An As-Built survey be provided, a condition of the Survey Waiver Request. H. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; I. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; J. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ K. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; L. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. th Duly adopted this 17 Day of November 2021, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Prior to you making the vote, there is a condition that, as part of the survey waiver request, that should be a condition. Right now it’s stated below the motion to approve. It says per resolution as prepared by Staff with the following: An as built survey be provided, and I did discuss this with BBL and they understood what the deal was and this is something I explained to Mike when we were discussing the survey waivers. I would suggest that you include that as a condition. MR. MC CABE-All right. So we’re going to condition this, because we did this without a formal survey. So we’re going to condition our approval here on an as built survey. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Stark, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations you have a project. MR. WHEELER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So we have a couple of items that we need to take care of. Normally the last meeting of the year we approve the officers for the next year, but I’m not going to be here the next meeting, and so I’m going to make a motion. MOTION TO APPOINT JIM UNDERWOOD FOR VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2022, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, are you willing to continue as Secretary? MR. URRICO-Yes. MOTION TO APPOINT ROY URRICO FOR SECRETARY OF THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE YEAR 2022, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) th Duly adopted this 17 day of November 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stark, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. HENKEL-You’re not going to do the Chairman, right? MR. MC CABE-No, the Chairman is appointed by the Town Board. So I’ve got to wait and see. I can’t recommend myself. So for me this is the end of the year. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 17, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 17 day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 31