Loading...
Minutes AV 21-2022 (REDS LG, LLC) 7.20.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II REDS LG, LLC AGENT(S) NICHOLAS ZEGLEN (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) REDS LG, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 7, 9, 13 NUTLEY LANE (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE ALTERATIONS TO TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUNKROOM WITH NO KITCHEN ON THE SITE. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE 7 NUTLEY LANE NEW BUILDING OF 540 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES ONE BEDROOM, 184 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH, AND 24 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRY AREA; ALTERATIONS TO 9 NUTLEY LANE 704 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND KITCHEN (FLOOR AREA OF 1,408 SQ. FT.), NEW OPEN DECK OF 440 SQ. FT. WITH WALKOUT AREA BELOW; ALTERATIONS TO 13 NUTLEY LANE INCLUDE INTERIOR ALTERATIONS (EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 2,134 SQ. FT. WITH FOUR BEDROOMS). PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION AREAS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR 9 NUTLEY LANE, AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING, STORMWATER DEVICES LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORELINE, ADDING A THIRD DWELLING UNIT, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SEP 37-2021, SP 29-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040, 147; 179-13-010 NICK ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2022, Reds LG, LLC, Meeting Date: July 20, 2022, “Project Location: 7, 9, 13 Nutley Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete co nstruction of a bunkroom with no kitchen on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540 sq. ft. which includes one bedroom, 184 sq. ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,408 sq. ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below; alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations (existing floor area of 2,134 sq. ft. with four bedrooms). Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, and construction of a retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from shoreline, an oversized accessory structure, and permeability. Relief Required: Revised. The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from shoreline, completion of a bunk house –no kitchen, and permeability. The parcel is 0.53 acres and located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Chapter 147 Revised – no kitchen in 7 Nutley would be considered a bunk house; reduced size of deck at 7 Nutley to 184 sq. ft. The project work on the buildings includes existing and proposed requires relief: Setbacks for 7 Nutley Lane area 16 ft. to the north property line and for 9 Nutley Lane 4 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required; on the south property line 7 Nutley Lane area 10 ft. to the south property line and for 9 Nutley Lane 12 ft. to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Expansion of non-conforming. Stormwater device of shallow grass depressions at 19 ft. from the shoreline where a 100 ft. setback is required. 7 Nutley Lane converted to a bunk house with no kitchen. In addition the deck on at 7 Nutley has been reduced to meet the setbacks. Relief for an accessory structure of 540 sq. ft. of 7 Nutley Lane greater than 500 sq. ft. maximum size allowed. Permeability existing is 67.78% and improved to 68.77% proposed where 75% is required- noting no relief is required as the site is improving the permeability on site. 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 2 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The third dwelling has removed the kitchen as part of the revision. The setback and permeability variances may be limited due to lot shape and location of the buildings on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is substantial relevant to the code. 7 Nutley Lane relief –North side setback of 4ft, South side setback of 10 ft. 9 Nutley Lane relief –North side setback of 16 ft., South side setback of 8 ft. 9 Nutley Lane requires relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for the stormwater management 81 ft. The device is also assisting with bank stabilization. Accessory structure size relief for 40 sq. ft. No permeability relief is requested. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has received approval for and has installed a new septic system that accommodates each of the dwelling units and the bunk house on the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain after the fact construction of 7 Nutley Lane revised with no kitchen and a smaller deck and 9 Nutley Lane for deck expansion. The plans show the buildings and the work that has been almost completed on each of the buildings. The plans show revision with additional stormwater management on the site and shoreline plantings.” MR. ZEGLEN-Nick Zeglen from Environmental Design Partnership, here on behalf of the applicant, Reds LG. I also have Tom Esslen here with me. He’s one of the Reds LG members as well. The owners of property at 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. We’re here tonight requesting after the fact variances for site improvements made at 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. Variances are requested for side yard setbacks on both sides of 7 and 9 Nutley as well as variance relief for an accessory structure at 7 Nutley that’s being treated as new construction that was built without permits or approvals. Additional variances are a setback of 10 feet for a retaining wall from the shoreline where 50 feet is required. Again the retaining wall is proposed to assist with grading of the stormwater shallow grass protection management areas that will capture runoff coming down the site from the existing pervious, capture it and store it and infiltrate it into the ground. This project was before the Board also in May of this year and was tabled based on concerns from the Town and the public regarding the number of variances. Obviously the construction done without approvals, the permeability on site, which was previously another variance, as well as the secondary structure that was built, the use of that structure, and since then, you know, we’ve worked with the applicant. We have removed the kitchen from 7 Nutley. So now it’s a bedroom with one bath and living open space. We’ve also reduced the size of the proposed deck on 7 Nutley to meet the side yard setback requirements and we went through the whole site and eliminated any asphalt, gravel, impervious area that was not necessary to improve the overall site permeability to be above the existing permeability and remove that variance. We’re here tonight with the applicant to work with the Board and rectify the situation. With that I’ll turn it back over to the Board for comments. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. MOORE-Can I just offer that there’s not a variance to the actual retaining wall. It would be, if this were treated as a major stormwater it would be the stormwater device, but at this point I don’t believe it’s a Major. MR. ZEGLEN-No, it wasn’t actually, based on the disturbance and the reduction in impervious, it wasn’t treated as a minor either, but we did stormwater as a minor. So we improved the site overall. And that’s noted in the Town Engineer comment letter when they reviewed stormwater. We actually got a waiver from the stormwater requirements, but we felt that, you know, in view of the situation, do as stormwater as possible. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-How many parking spaces are there on this property? MR. ZEGLEN-So all the parking is actually up in the upper area. That’s where the septic system is also it’s the gravel area. There’s a decent amount of parking up there. It could probably fit. MR. KUHL-Five? TOM ESSLEN (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 3 MR. ESSLEN-I was going to say eight. MR. KUHL-Really? Next time I’ll bring my tape measure. Really? It blew my mind, when I thought about all the bedrooms you have and I mean I went down between seven and nine, I drove down there, and I took my life in my hands. Anyway. I can’t see how that’s enough to support that property or what you’re doing, but maybe I’m just narrow-minded. I don’t know. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing, see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to provide input on this particular project? Sure. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak. My name is Claudia Braymer from Braymer Law, an attorney representing the adjoining neighbor to the north, Mr. Robert O’Brien, and I wanted to let you know that I brought hard copies of the letters I submitted in May and also I have another letter for you tonight and I brought copies for each of you and I’ll hand those to you in just a moment. The first question I want to ask you, and I know you won’t be answering me, but just rhetorically, why are we here? Originally, this is basically the same variance request that they had asked for in the spring, and 7 Nutley has not been removed. That’s the one that is most uphill from the other two residences. They need a variance for a third dwelling where only two are allowed per two acres, I’m sorry, where only one house is allowed per two acres, and here this property is only 0.53 acres and they’re trying to put on three different principle buildings, two of which are already four bedroom homes, and this one would be, as they mentioned, a single bedroom in that 7 Nutley. Also I want to mention that in the Staff Notes it says something about this being a bunkhouse, but a bunkhouse is not a use allowed anywhere in the Zoning Code. It’s not even a thing. It’s not mentioned. I also want to remind you that the Planning Board, in the spring, unanimously voted to recommend to you that you deny all of the variances that were requested at that time. I also want to mention, as they said earlier, that 7 Nutley is considered new construction and it should be removed. It is not allowed by the Zoning Code, and it will add to the already very intense use of this property. As I mentioned, the building that is closest to the lake has four bedrooms. The one in the middle also has four bedrooms. You will see on that application documents that they attempt to refer to that as a two bedroom house, but per your Building Inspector, he found the four bedrooms and has issued a Notice of Violation and they were required to reduce that and eliminate two of the bedrooms. However, I do not see anywhere in their application documentation documents showing Number Nine down to two bedrooms. In any event, what is happening there is you’re having a dozen to maybe 20 people possible staying on that piece of property, eight to ten cars with families and kids. It’s a lot of activity on a very small site, and what we are asking you primarily, our main ask of you, is that you deny all of the variances related to 7 Nutley and you have them remove that illegal structure that was built without any permitting. I do want to mention that we are asking you, if you go through the criteria for the area variances, that it will create negative impacts to community character because of the number of people that could stay on that piece of property, which would increase the noise and disturbance from that piece of property. The negative impacts to the adjoining property, Mr. O’Brien, becau se specifically Number 7 sits directly in front of his home just across the driveway, the shared driveway and the way that the lot is configured this actually sits basically in their front yard. You would never have two houses where one is sitting in front of the other, normally they are at an even level. That’s what Number 13 is. Number 13 and Mr. O’Brien’s residence are right next to each other in the normal configuration. And then finally there are adverse impacts from Number 7 because of the impervious surface created by Number 7 results in negative stormwater impacts and the applicant has said they are removing some of the impervious surface, but they could be even more close to compliant with the 75% limit, actually maximum is required, if they removed 7 Nutley completely including the deck and all of the impervious surface that goes with Number 7. So I thank you for considering our comments and we ask that you deny it. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular matter? Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We also have concerns about the intensity of development, much of which is unapproved, the amount of impermeable surfaces and the relief for mitigation measures. The requested three dwellings on .53 acres is excessive, especially when the site cannot mitigate the development proposed. Stormwater is too close to the lake to provide adequate treatment. Stormwater is too close to the la ke to provide adequate treatment. This is down to 19 feet, really no treatment there. It should be moved further away from the lake. A previous application we talked, you know, you can actually capture stormwater with gutters and direct them uphill a bit. So that’s how you can actually push stormwater further away than what the setback of the house is. Permeability should be reduce. I echo the previous commenter, by eliminating that requested accessory structure, and I think according to the neighbors that presented at the last, provided testimony at the last (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 4 hearing, this does appear to be detriment to the neighborhood. So I also support denying the variances. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-We had somebody else in the back there. MARTIN FARBER MR. FARBER-My name is Martin Farber. I represent myself and my wife Susan Farber. Thank you for allowing me to speak on this matter. I had sent basically the same letter to the Planning Board at the May meeting. We live at 33 Antigua Road, directly across the small cove from 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. We would like to express our concerns regarding the proposed alterations to those addresses. For the last several years these properties have been used as Short Term rentals. This is attracting people who seem not to appreciate their proximity to other residents or the courtesy one expects from the neighbors and their boisterous activities certainly have affected the character of the neighborhood. We have frequently been subjected to overly boisterous activity which has extended frequently far into the night disturbing our sleep and actually requiring us to call the police about the noise, and this has happened last year and it’s happened on at least one occasion this year as well. Increasing the occupant capacity, which I count as 20 in this small lot, would seem to be excessive and only serve to further foster more of this behavior. We’re also concerned that, as Mr. Navitsky mentioned, that this increase in human activity on such a small plot is going to stress the septic system. The parking area is over the top of the septic system which would serve to compress it and make it less effective. We, as all the other houses in that cove, use that water for the drinking water, and this is not going to be a good situation. Lake George is already facing issues with algae blooms and this is not going to help the matter at all, and I hope that the fact that this construction was already underway before the appropriate permissions were requested is not going to be used as an excuse to approve them and in fact would hope that if the negative feelings at the previous meeting are carried over into this meeting that those alterations that have been made already will be taken down. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? DENISE FREIHOFER MS. FREIHOFER-Thank you. My name’s Denise Freihofer and I live just to the north of this property, and I agree with everything that’s been said so far. So I’ll keep this very short. As Mr. O’Brien’s attorney said, there could be up to 20 people staying between the two houses, if not more, and this bunkhouse is a pretty good size. I think it should be torn down, but there’ll be no control over how many bunk beds go in there, or, you know, they call it one bedroom, but I just think it’s too much for that property as everyone else has said, and all these people funnel down to the dock and this is where all the noise is and it comes across the bay at night and during the day I feel there’s a beach party there every week and I feel like I live next to a hotel on the weekends. I just don’t think they should add anymore bedrooms to the place. So that’s all I have to say. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else? So, Roy, we have written? MR. URRICO-No, the people were here and they’ve expressed themselves. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to, well, first of all I guess I’ll let you provide any comment. MR. ZEGLEN-I mean I’ll kind of just stick to the technical engineering concerns that were raised and I’ll let Tom talk to some of the use and the rentals and what not. We didn’t design the septic system, but just by. MR. MC CABE-The system isn’t of concern. MR. ZEGLEN-Okay. The stormwater, again, was something that we did kind of try to help, offset what was done. We added a bunch more plantings down by the shore and we would certainly try to slide the stormwater back a little bit further. I think this is one of those situations where that existing house is 41 feet from the shore, so it’s just tough to get it up higher, but we’ll take a look at that. We can probably slide it a little bit further, you know, just to help get that further away from the lake. MR. ESSLEN-I’m Tom Esslen. I’m part owner of the property with my nephew who was here in May. I was away that week. MR. MC CABE-They blamed everything on you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 5 MR. ESSLEN-Yes, and I blame them. Anyway, I’d like to address some of the things. The property was called 7-13 when we closed on it and there was always three structures there. MR. MC CABE-I think we established that. MR. ESSLEN-Okay, but we did not build a brand new, what they’re calling that a bunkhouse. MR. MC CABE-Well, you added a kitchen to it. That was the argument. MR. ESSLEN-Right. It’s not even in, but, yes, it was going to be. So that we can take out. And Mr. O’Brien’s a great guy, and his family from New Jersey, and they, you know, it was Kerry’s cabins back in the 40’s. That’s what we learned. So all these little cabins were all over the place. So O’Brien’s, his property, and even the Sullivans who now sold next door. So that’s why there’s so many different numbers all over the place. Even Mr. O’Brien has, if you want to call it that way, two cabins right in front of his, and he doesn’t, you know, he has some sons and they have kids and when there’s overflow, and they’re great people, they’ve slept in that one, if you want to call it bunk bed. I think there’s a small bathroom in there, whatever. So this is just the character of the property. So we didn’t change the structure at Number 13 which is closer to the lake, other than doing interior renovations. We didn’t change the footprint, I meant to say the footprint, of Number 9, but other than we tried to put two other bedrooms in, but now we’re going to reduce those and not use those as bedrooms. So there’ll just be a two bedroom. So it would be a four bedroom at Number 13, a two bedroom at Number 9 and then a one bedroom at Number 7, which we’re referring to the bunkhouse, and that’s what our septic system was designed for and approved and now instead of having old septic systems that were like just totally falling apart, got so old, and much, much closer to the lake, probably within 50 or 60 feet of the lake, really bad condition, now we have all these grinder, three different grinder pumps for each structure going out over 200 feet away from the lake, maybe even 250 because the lot’s 300 feet high, and it’s designed to be driven on. So it’s not going to degrade. It better not. I paid a lot of money for it. So that I think is all a very positive thing, and I was there earlier today, and you know it rained last night and it’s like a chute. The water comes down obviously from the road, beyond the road and, you know, having all these places for stormwater to catch and the retaining wall would only be like three feet high. It’s just a matter to have a slightly more level area there and also a place to put another area to catch the stormwater. I mean I was taking pictures today. You can see everything that comes down and then with proper gutters on the house I think it would be much better, but between moving the septic way back and proper stormwater , to me that’s all, everything about water quality. Not anything negative at all. So the last thing I’ll say is about activity, and by the way. MR. MC CABE-So let me just ask the question, will you fall under the new Queensbury rules for air b and b’s January 1st? MR. ESSLEN-Well, I don’t think it’s going to matter too much. I don’t know how you guys are, but I just retired, just like five months ago. I didn’t want to do an air b and b. We got this situation with COVID hitting in March of 2020, and then when you guys, when we stopped working on this, which was like May of 2020, that’s when we like, geez, what are we going to do, and we had a house that’s totally unlivable, the closest one, the original four bedroom. So that’s when we started doing the rental. I don’t even want, you look, we owned the property almost three years prior to that, we didn’t rent once because that’s not what I bought it for, you know. So I mean my whole thing, and I know Mr. O’Brien, the one that we rent is actually Number 9, which is close to him. His lawyer accidently said Number 13 or somebody did. Thirteen is the one closest to the lake, only 40 something feet from the lake, the original old house built in the 1800’s. So my goal is to not rent, or rent very few weeks with the one closer which we can’t rent because it’s totally, you know, it’s not finished at all. We tore out some old sheet rock and everything else. It’s not done yet because we’ve had a Stop Work Order and then there would be no other big activity. So, I mean, I’m coming from a family of five sisters and two brothers. So as far as 20 people there, that doesn’t happen too often, but only if there was like a family party. This isn’t about a money making thing and have all these people there. It’s not what I, you know, and I will say, yes, there were some rentals last year that got out and were in the cove with the Antigua and there’s people on their boats that dock across and the one neighbor who was very nice, and it’s a great area and, yes, I tell every single renter now, you know, after 9:30, 10 o’clock you have to be really quiet or get off the dock, but my goal is to not really do it anymore, and that’s the honest truth. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’m going to close the public hearing. At this particular time I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Dick. MR. CIPPERLY-I have a question. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. CIPPERLY-Supposedly our Building Inspector issued a, what did the Building Inspector do? MR. MC CABE-Issued a Stop Work Order. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 6 MR. CIPPERLY-Stop work because? MRS. MOORE-They were doing work without approvals. MR. MC CABE-Without the variances required to do anything. They were nonconforming. So anything they had to do needed the variances. MR. CIPPERLY-So you’re talking about a two bedroom which would be allowed, and they’re going to a four bedroom. Is that part of it? MRS. MOORE-So at this point they received a septic variance back in 2019. So 2019 they actually supplied a plan, went before the local Board of Health, received a septic variance, for a seven bedroom cottage. So as described. MR. HENKEL-All three units. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So as described, understanding that, apparently no one else did any further digging into that and so when we learned at Planning and Zoning as well as Building and Codes that there was work being done on the site without approvals, we went out, we visited the site We talked to the owners as well as the other individuals that were working on the site and explained that they had to go through this review process. MR. CIPPERLY-Thank you. MR. ESSLEN-Just to reiterate, there was already set up, the main house. MR. MC CABE-Yes, we understand that. MR. ESSLEN-Okay. It wasn’t like we added, other than the basement of Number 9 is not going to be a bedroom anymore. So that’s just two, four and then the bunkhouse which that was already there. MR. MC CABE-So go ahead. MR. CIPPERLY-That’s fine. MR. MC CABE-So basically what we’re doing is we’re considering relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming. So anything that they do needs a variance because the structures are in nonconformance and then the stormwater device being less than 100 feet from the shore. MR. CIPPERLY-If anything I have an issue with, that’s the one I have an issue with, the stormwater device. That site is, if I use the word scary. MR. MC CABE-It’s very steep, no question. MR. ZEGLEN-So just to add, the stormwater device. MR. URRICO-I think you’re going to have to let us deliberate now. MR. MC CABE-Yes, we’re all done with the discussion. So you don’t approve this project as is. MR. CIPPERLY-I have some reservations. I’ll just say that. MRS. MOORE-So in regards to the stormwater, there’s no relief being requested for the device itself. So the primary relief being requested is for setbacks, not for the stormwater device, but for the setbacks for the work that’s been done on the structures. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So this says stormwater less than 100 feet. MRS. MOORE-I understand. Because it’s a minor application it is not, there’s no setback. MR. MC CABE-So all we’re doing is the setbacks. MRS. MOORE-Correct. So the bunkhouse and so for my understanding, in my visitation to the site and my review of the application materials, that bunkhouse, there has always been a third building. It’s never been the size that’s been presented at this point. MR. CIPPERLY-In the notes you describe it as a new building of 540 square feet. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 7 MRS. MOORE-And when we went out to the site and visited it, you can tell that there’s elements inside the building, you can clearly see that part of it is an old structure and part of it is a new structure. MR. CIPPERLY-So they’ve expanded it by some amount. MRS. MOORE-Some amount. MR. URRICO-So, Laura, Item Number Three says relief requested for the stormwater management, 81 feet. That’s no longer? MRS. MOORE-No longer, correct. MR. MC CABE-So it’s just setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming. So you have reservations? MR. CIPPERLY-I guess I share the same reservations about the expansion of the nonconforming. It’s a small site to put that many units on. MR. MC CABE-Okay. That’s fine. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a Waterfront Residential district. I don’t think that a .53 acre lot anywhere in the community of Queensbury on the waterfront that we would allow anybody to have seven bedrooms. Even though you’ve upgraded the septic, I think that the two lower units could be modified. That’s six bedrooms down there total. I’m not in favor of the bunkhouse whatsoever. I think it should be completely removed and I don’t think we should act until it’s been removed. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’ll also agree with Jim. If you look at the old survey, there was definitely a building there for Number 7, but was it a shed? What was it? Definitely you could tell, like Laura said, it was added on. It’s just too much for that .53 acres, too much there, not good. Not good for the lake. I would not be on board at all. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with everything that’s been said. I’m not in favor of the project It’s overbuilt and that’s all I have to say. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, even with the stormwater device removed from here, I think this is an overwhelming number of variances being asked for. I would not support the project. MR. MC CABE-Once again you don’t have too many friends here. So you have a couple of choices. You can call for a vote or you can ask to table and take another look at the project and come back. MR. ZEGLEN-I think we’ll table and reassess with Tom and Mike and John and go from there. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. HENKEL-How much time will you need? MRS. MOORE-So the next tabling would be until September’s agenda. Would that work for updating information by August 15th? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, we can make that work. MR. HENKEL-So you want the 21st or the 28th? MRS. MOORE-I would do the first meeting again, yes. MR. HENKEL-Okay. That’s getting pretty full. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reds LG, LLC. Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete construction of a third dwelling unit on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540 sq. ft. which includes one bedroom and kitchen, 288 sq. ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,408 sq. ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below; alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations (existing floor area of 2,134 sq. ft. with four bedrooms). Project includes grass depression areas (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/20/2022) 8 for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, and construction of a retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from shoreline, adding a third dwelling unit, and permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 21-2022 REDS LG, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the September 21st, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by August 15th, 2022. Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you.