Loading...
Minutes AV 22-2022 (3 Antigua Road LLC) 6.22.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 3 ANTIGUA ROAD LLC AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) 3 ANTIGUA ROAD, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 3 & 5 ANTIGUA ROAD (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,225 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 845 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,979 SQ. FT. THE NEW HOME IS TO BE GREATER THAN 28 FT. IN HEIGHT. THE DRIVEWAY AREA INCLUDED PERMEABLE PAVERS OF 1,170 SQ. FT. AND 7,483 SQ. FT. HARD-SURFACING. THE PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ADJOINS A PARCEL THAT IS IN THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE THAT HAS FRONTAGE ON THE LAKE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW WALKWAY AND A PORTION OF THE NEW OUTDOOR KITCHEN THAT IS LOCATED IN BOTH THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE AND TOWN OF QUEENSBURY. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT, PERMEABILITY, AND STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACK. CROSS REF AV 59-2014, SP 25-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE .74 ACRES AND .04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-2, 239.17-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040, 147 JON LAPPER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 22-2022, 3 Antigua Road LLC, Meeting Date: June 22, 2022 “Project Location 3 & 5 Antigua Road Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a new 1,225 sq. ft. home with an 845 sq. ft. covered porch footprint with a floor area of 3,979 sq. ft. The new home is to be greater than 28 ft. in height. The driveway area included permeable pavers of 1,170 sq. ft. and 7,483 sq. ft. hard-surfacing. The parcel that is located in the Town of Queensbury adjoins a parcel that is in the Town of Lake George that has frontage on the lake. The project includes a new walkway and a portion of the new outdoor kitchen that is located in both the Town of Lake George and Town of Queensbury. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, height, and stormwater device setback. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, height, and stormwater device setback. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 147 Stormwater device The construction of the new home requires relief from height where 29 ft. 5 inches is proposed and 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed; relief of 1 ft. 5 inches. Relief for rear setback is proposed to be 0 ft. setback where 30 ft. is required. Relief is requested for the stormwater devices located less than 100 ft. from the shoreline where 76 ft. is proposed. The covered outdoor kitchen is located 63 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. Permeability is being improved from 58.12 % to 68.55% where 75% is required no variance is necessary as it is an improvement. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the property configuration with a portion being in the Town of Lake George and a portion in the Town of Queensbury. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief is construction of the outdoor kitchen where relief from the shoreline is to be 12 ft., relief from the rear setback is 30 ft., and stormwater device is 24 ft. Height relief of 1 ft. 5 inches. 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: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 2 The project involves constructing a new guest home in a similar location to guest home that was destroyed by fire – the new home is larger than the original. The plans show the work to be completed on the site with the new home and driveway area. In addition, the plans show the work to be done in the Town of Lake George with the existing main home, shoreline work, and the porch area of the guest house.” MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson next to me from Environmental Design Partnership the project engineers. Joe Gross behind us the applicant and Ethan Hall, the project architect. So as Roy just read, it’s an interesting project because the site is bifurcated by the Town line of Queensbury and Lake George. So that means we have to apply to b oth towns for site plan and variances which splits the project up which is kind of arbitrary in terms of where the buildings are, but that’s just where the town line is. Of the three variances that we’re here to ask for tonight, one of them is the setback. We’re asking for a zero line setback which sounds significant from the rear setback, and it’s not a lake setback because the Town doesn’t go to the lake, but it’s on the lakeside of the house and that, of course, is half of the outdoor kitchen area. So even though it sounds, like Laura said, you know, technically it’s a significant variance because we’re asking for zero, but it’s not significant because that’s in the middle of the room because there’s plenty of room on the other side in the Town of Lake George. So that’s just kind of a funny, arbitrary thing because of where the Town line is, but it doesn’t really, it’s not a property setback. It’s just a parcel setback because of the Town line. So that’s one. On the height issue, it’s a one and a half foot request which Brandon will show you on the drawings in a minute, but it’s from 28 to 29 and a half feet, but that’s only a few square feet of the edge of the roof, and the reason for that is so that the base of that part of the guest house and outdoor kitchen lines up with the existing grade of where the existing home next door that didn’t burn down in the fire, just so that’s flat, and on top it needs to match up with the driveway. So it’s just the foot and a half was as close as we could get it, but again it’s only a few square feet at the corner of the roof and that’ll be very apparent when we show you the picture, and then the infiltration device is on the permeable paver area. So we couldn’t get 100 feet from the lake because the house is barely 100 feet from the lake, but there’s no infiltration, there’s no stormwater devices at all on the lakeside now. So this is a positive thing, and what’s going into the infiltration, it’s above the retaining wall and it’s basically roof water which is clean and that water that’s on the permeable pavers which is clean. It’s not coming from the driveway. There’s no pollutants. So it’s a good thing that it’s getting infiltrated but there’s no room to move it back to 100 feet, but we think that what he’s doing with the project is very positive on the Lake George side. They asked us to come back with a whole bunch of more plantings and that’s what we’re in the process of doing on the front side so you won’t see the retaining wall from the lake and Joe’s in the process, if you’ve been up there, of re-facing what was a kind of ugly mustard colored building with granite, which is just a very nice treatment. So we think this will look pretty special when it’s done, but those three variances couldn’t be avoided. So with that, Brandon, if you could just walk them through it. MR. FERGUSON-So as Jon was saying, it’s a unique parcel that is split by the Town line. So this red mark in here, it’s a little bit hard to see on the screen, that is the existing parcel, and that blue line that cuts through it is the Town line. This is a little more clear. This is existing. The main house is all on the Lake George side. The Town of Queensbury parcel is highlighted in red. This is the area that the guest cottage used to be before it burned down. The total area on the side of Queensbury is .74 acres. This is an aerial image that we found that showed where that guest cottage previously was. So as you can see it was actually within the side yard setback and was right up against the Town line. And here’s a partial survey we found showing where that was as well. So we’re able to locate it on the plan. So the three variances that we’re going for tonight are rear yard setback, as Jon touched on, wh ich is to the Town property line, the infiltration device setback from the lake, that’s 100. We’re proposing it at 76, and then the height of the building which is required at 28 and we’re at 29 and a half. So for the rear yard setback, as Jon said before, here’s the Town line. The guest cottage sits right here, and the outdoor covered patio kitchen area actually is bisected by the Town line. So about 50% of it’s in Queensbury, 50%’s in Lake George. So that lot line, Joe, obviously his main house is right here. It’s just an arbitrary line with the Town that splits that parcel, or splits that building. For stormwater management, the device in question here that’s requiring the variance is the permeable reservoir that’s actually underneath the outdoor kitchen area. That’s all going to be patio area underneath there and stone reservoir is going to extend underneath. It’s going to take water from the roof via roof leaders off that outdoor kitchen as well as it’s attached to the stone reservoir in the Town of Lake George side. So the closest it gets on the Queensbury side is 76 feet. It’s not taking any driveway runoff. That’s all going to stormwater devices further uphill that aren’t needing that much of a setback. And for the building height, so this diagram is a cross section through the house. The red line up here is actually the 28 feet from existing grade, and the blue line is proposed grade. So really what’s happening is because he’s matching the patio area on this side with the finished floor of the existing house, having us walk that area, it pushes that up to 29 and a half feet for just this little section right here. That’s the only area of the house that’s over. Ethan worked really hard to try to get that under 28, but just with the living space and what they were able to fit into the structure, he wasn’t able to do it without having a little bit of a variance. So it’s a very small portion of the structure that’s over that 28 feet. And this is an image of the previous guest cottage. So it’s set in generally the same location as where this guest cottage will sit, and while it didn’t have a walkout on the lakeside, really the height of the building above existing grade is about the same for the height of this building above existing grade, and then quickly just the plans for the house, the guest cottage and the outdoor area. So this is the basement area. It’s (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 3 going to be kind of a rec area, a couple of bedrooms. This is the outdoor patio. On the kind of the middle floor there’s going to be a garage that will be accessed from the roadside, and then some stairs in the bathroom. And then upstairs would be the main guest quarters. So it’s going to have a small kitchen, a couple of bedrooms, and a bath facility, and it’s all really built into the dormers on there in order to keep the height and the massing of that structure minimized. So this is an outdoor elevation view, and really what you’re looking at over that 28 feet it’s just a portion of this dormer right here, not even the full height of it that’s over that 28 feet. Existing site conditions. This is what the site looks like now. Here’s the main structure. Here’s where the guest cottage used to be before it burned down and after Joe cleaned that up, and this is a proposed color rendering of what the site will look like. So, here’s the guest cottage, outdoor kitchen area, driveway access to the guest cottage. This one’s going to follow the existing driveway down into there right now, and then here’s a couple of building renderings from the lake. As you can see that guest cottage area really kind of sits back further from everything else, and there’s the outdoor kitchen area in the front. Here’s a kind of evening view. I know it’s kind of a little hard to see on this screen, but even in the evening it kind of shades more into the shadows behind the existing home. Then from kind of a different angle, a daytime view and that evening view. I’ll turn it back over to you guys if you have any questions. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I do. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MR. HENKEL-The guest house, the garage doors are facing the south. So why is the driveway needed if it’s not going to go to any openings of the garage? MR. FERGUSON-That actually is the guest parking area over on that side. We’re going to make that a permeable gravel driveway down to the base, and he wants to maintain that driveway access so when he has guests staying at the house they have their own kind of area to park that’s not in his way. MR. KUHL-Is this a residential property or is this a new air b-n-b we’re going to see? MR. LAPPER-No, it’s definitely a residential project. Joe’s house. MR. KUHL-I mean with a capital D. JOE GROSS MR. GROSS-Promise. MR. KUHL-Promise. He raised his hand. MR. GROSS-Yes, I promise, it’s for me. Hi, I’m Joe Gross. I’m going to be the resident. I plan on making this my final home and living there. I’d like to make enough room for the kids and fut ure grandchildren. I’m not renting out any bedrooms. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. KUHL-Has this gone through and gotten approved by the other municipality? MR. LAPPER-So we’re in the process in Lake George, we’ve been to the Planning Board. We’ve been to the Zoning Board. The Planning Board was very supportive. The Zoning Board asked us to come back with some more landscaping on the lakeside and we’re on in another week to do that. So we’re going to get through Lake George. MRS. HAMLIN-I had a question. It’s more of a Staff question. I didn’t have a chance to look at the Code. Are secondary dwelling units allowed in this district? MRS. MOORE-It’s not considered a secondary dwelling because, it’s a primary dwelling because it’s on this lot in the Town of Queensbury. MRS. HAMLIN-But the guest house is not considered a secondary dwelling? MRS. MOORE-It’s the primary dwelling in this case because it’s on the Town of Queensbury. The Town of Lake George has its own side. MRS. HAMLIN-Well that’s interesting. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 4 MR. LAPPER-So there was always a guest cottage there that burned down. Joe bought the property a year ago. MRS. HAMLIN-I understood, but I was just wondering how we could address that, but this is actually the Lake George side. So we have two primaries on two separate parcels. Okay. Thank you. MR. MC DEVITT-The waterfront, the roof you described them as roof leaders. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, so it would be a gutter system on the upper patio area, like a gutter and then piped into a header pipe underneath there. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay, and again, to be clear, no driveway runoff in that case, right? MR. FERGUSON-That’s correct. There’s no driveway runoff making it to that leader system. MR. MC DEVITT-That’s it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, can I ask another question? MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Would you explain to me the permeable gravel. MR. FERGUSON-’The permeable gravel for the driveway? It will be a gravel system. It’s built similar to how permeable pavers are as a base. There’s a stone reservoir underneath and then there’s actually a plastic grid system that gets put on top and then the final coat of stone gets put over that to kind of hold it in place and keep it from compacting. MR. KUHL-And what’s your maintenance schedule on that? MR. FERGUSON-That actually requires less maintenance than the paver system because it’s not relying on just the infiltration through the joints. It’s just stone. It’s a clean stone that’s put on top of it that’s held in place with the plastic grid. So it needs to be just kind of raked out and re-graded every once in a while on top. MR. KUHL-That’s your less maintenance is raked out every once in a while? MR. FERGUSON-That doesn’t have to be vacuumed out. MR. KUHL-It doesn’t? MR. FERGUSON-Not on the same basis that a paver system does. MR. KUHL-Okay. Is this something that the Town has approved, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it’s going through engineering and it’s going back before the Planning Board after your review. MR. KUHL-I mean do we know the yield on this gravel? What are we talking about, 65% on pavers? MRS. MOORE-It’s 50% for paver system. It is going before the Town Engineer. The Town Engineer will provide comments back to the applicant. So they correspond and their requirement is to have a Town Engineer signoff. MR. KUHL-But we’re quoting a yield in here, and you’re saying it’s not been. MR. MC CABE-Permeability isn’t an issue for us. MR. LAPPER-We’re not asking for a permeability variance. MR. KUHL-I’m done. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this time I’m going to open the public hearing, see if there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project? Anybody? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARTHA NOORDSY (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 5 MS. NOORDSY-My name is Martha Noordsy. I am a part property owner at 245 Cleverdale Road which is this property is two docks over. My family has lived on the lake since 1840 and my concern is wondering what the legal standard is for them to get an appeal from this Board and the second question is, with 100 feet of shorefront, how many feet of shorefront is it? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Excuse me, I think you’re on the wrong property. MS. NOORDSY-I’m sorry. MR. HENKEL-This is up at 9L. MS. NOORDSY-My mistake. I was confused. I thought we were just talking about this. My mistake. Sorry about that. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to provide input on this particular project? Roy, do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-I have one letter. “The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The coordination with the Town of Lake George is appreciated on this project but there is concern for a cumulative review, especially considering the less restrictive requirements by the Town of Lake George Code for permeability. The level of disturbance is extensive, increases site hardscape and moves all disturbance closer to the lake. The development also appears to create a 200 foot continuous structure when the existing residence, outdoor kitchen structure and guest house are combined. This mass of structure will appear even larger and taller on top of a large retaining wall running the length of the structures, which appears to be permitted through a loophole for a grass strip "separating' the wall from the buildings. The project proposes too much development for a small lot within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George and fails to provide the balance necessary to grant the variances requested. There is also concern about the removal and lack of vegetative surface that will impact water quality. Although mitigation measures are proposed such as the permeable pavers, there are questions about the long -term benefits, which may result in greater impacts to Lake George and its water quality. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-080 Variance Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The proposed variance will result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed outdoor kitchen building attached to new guest house will provide the appearance of the large continuous structure close to the lake that will not be screened by the claimed small ornamental trees, which are not shown on the plans and should be native trees. There is concern on amount of hardscape surface and site permeability and the Waterkeeper encourages the Board to review the cumulative permeability for the entire development. The proposed variances would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. There is a question on how effective stormwater reduction and treatment can be when there is an increase in site hardscape allowed through the permeable paver credit, i.e. there is less vegetative space on the property. There is a question regarding the shoreline setback for the stormwater management devices with the 6" pipe shown in the details on page 7. With this level of disturbance, a substantial shoreline buffer should be required, which cannot be provided by the claimed screening planting, which is not even shown on the drawings. The applicant is requesting numerous variances within the Critical Environmental Area for a project that straddles municipal boundaries. It is recommended that the municipalities review the cumulative effect of the site development and request the applicant to show the site development data for the entire property as a single table, such as site permeability, which is less on the Town of Lake George parcel. It is also recommended that the Town of Queensbury request the applicant further investigate alternatives to reduce the variances requested. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” MR. LAPPER-Okay. So to start responding to that, again we’re not asking for a permeability variance in either Town. We’re not asking for floor area ratio variance. Chris is really concerned about the quality of the lake which he should be. There’s no stormwater infiltration. There’s no stormwater management currently on the lakeside. So the fact that we’re doing this, even though we can’t be 100 feet back, and the Lake George Park Commission of course changed their regulations, which doesn’t affect Queensbury yet, to 35 feet because everyone recognizes that infiltration is a good thing. So we’re at 68 feet for the infiltration which is a good thing to get it into the ground nowhere near the lake. What’s there now is a pretty good slope, and by putting in, or there’s already a retaining wall, but by revising the retaining wall it’s going to have less water running into the lake untreated. The variances, again , that we’re asking here are really minor butting up against the other half of the building in Lake George because of where the line is, and as you saw in the diagram, 28 feet to 29 and a half is just a few square feet of dormer of the roof. That’s not an impact on the lake. This was always kind of a grand home. That’s why Joe bought it. The house that burned down, again, his house that burned down was within the setback right up against the north property line. He had the ability to re-build that and maintain that if he wanted to, but he chose (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 6 not to. So we’re moving it back so it’s conforming from the north property line. This is overall better for the lake. We’re reducing impermeability. We’re infiltrating stormwater. MR. HENKEL-Could I ask a question? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. HENKEL-Do you know what the square footage was at the other guest house that burnt down? ETHAN HALL MR. HALL-Off the top of my head I don’t. MR. FERGUSON-If I can go back, I don’t have the actual square footage, but I believe in one of these you can kind of see. MR. HENKEL-I was wondering how it compared. MR. FERGUSON-So here’s the new one. It sits in the kind of part of the footprint of the old one. The old one actually juts out closer to the property line. Can you zoom in on that, Laura? We added that dashed line on here. So it’s actually a smaller over, the guest cottage portion of it is actually smaller than the original one. MR. HENKEL-Thank you. MR. URRICO-I didn’t read in the Queensbury Planning Board. 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 on June 21st, 2022 by a unanimous vote. MR. FERGUSON-The only other thing I would like to add is that we are going through a coordinated review with LaBella Engineers who is the Town Engineer for both Towns. So they are reviewing it for both Towns, the stormwater management. So we’ve already addressed their first comment and sent that stuff back over to them. So we are in the process of that, and they are looking at this site as a whole for stormwater. MR. MC CABE-So anybody else? So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think, you know, as far as our end of it goes, you know, you’re well set back from the lake. I think what you’re asking for is minimal. Zero setback is identified because of the Town line. That’s the only issue with that one. I think if we were reviewing the entire project from the waterfront, I would think that it would be incumbent upon the applicants with the Lake George and the APA and stuff like that, I think they’re going to probably require you to have more vegetation, mature trees in front of that place. It appears to look very commercial, you know, the main part of the building, but as far as our part of the building goes in the back, I think it’s a minimal request and I think we should grant the request. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree. This is very minimal. They’re actually only asking for really kind of two variances. The other one is because of that property line, the way it goes, and I think it is minimal like you said. They’re asking for a foot and five inches for height, and that’s really not too big of a deal. It’s only a very small portion of the house, and knowing Mr. Gross, he’s going to be a good steward and I’m sure he’s going to definitely do all he can to keep that lake in good shape for the future. So I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I kind of, you know, I kind of agree that it’s small. I mean we’ve got two municipalities, hopefully they’re not playing one against the other and saying, oh, well, Queensbury said yes so you should say, you know. I’m still into the new term now of permeable gravel. So new things. Thank you. I’ll be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m also in favor of the project. I’m not thrilled about the height relief, but all things considered I’ll be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 7 MRS. HAMLIN-I have comments going forward in working with both municipalities and an engineer that anything I see as an issue it doesn’t affect what we’re looking at. So I would be in favor of that, and if I could mention quickly the question previous as to the footprint, if you look at the engineering report, it’s there. It was 1,832 and it will not be 1,225. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor, Mr. Chairman. It’s been well set back from the lake. Infiltration is a good thing. It’s an interesting one being two municipalities. When I first read the thing I’m like oh my gosh what is this, but overall I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project, considering that there’s only three variances required here, the setback which is technical, the height which is a very small square footage com pared to the overall project, and the stormwater device setback which again is impossible to meet the Code. So I think that they’ve done a good job with this given what they have. So with that, I’m going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 3 Antigua Road LLC. (Revised) Applicant proposes to construct a new 1,225 sq. ft. home with an 845 sq. ft. covered porch footprint with a floor area of 3,979 sq. ft. The new home is to be greater than 28 ft. in height. The driveway area included permeable pavers of 1,170 sq. ft. and 7,483 sq. ft. hard -surfacing. The parcel that is located in the Town of Queensbury adjoins a parcel that is in the Town of Lake George that has frontage on the lake. The project includes a new walkway and a portion of the new outdoor kitchen that is located in both the Town of Lake George and Town of Queensbury. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, height, and stormwater device setback. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, height, and stormwater device setback. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 147 Stormwater device The construction of the new home requires relief from height where 29 ft. 5 inches is proposed and 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed; relief of 1 ft. 5 inches. Relief for rear setback is proposed to be 0 ft. setback where 30 ft. is required. Relief is requested for the stormwater devices located less than 100 ft. from the shoreline where 76 ft. is proposed. The covered outdoor kitchen is located 63 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. Permeability is being improved from 58.12 % to 68.55% where 75% is required no variance is necessary as it is an improvement. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 18, 2022 & Wednesday, June 22, 2022. 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 overall there’s going to be a considerable improvement of the appearance of this particular property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but generally are not reasonable, again, because of the fact that this property spans two different municipalities. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s actually minimal. The most substantial of the three variances required is the stormwater device setback and again it’s been explained that that’s just because of the physical arrangement of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we’re improving the environmental conditions because we’re adding the stormwater devices. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 8 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. 22-2022 3 ANTIGUA ROAD LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 22nd Day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.