Loading...
09-21-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 215T 2022 INDEX Area Variance No. 3S-2022 Brett&Pamela West 1. Tax Map No.226.15-1-17 Area Variance No.21-2022 Reds LG,LLC 2. Tax Map No.239.17-1-15 Area Variance No. 39-2022 Gianni Simone 9. Tax Map No. 315.10-1-59 Area Variance No. 35-2022 Rebecca Gearwar 13. Tax Map No. 301.9-1-14 Area Variance No.46-2022 Jeffrey Randles 17. Tax Map No.239.12-2-11 Area Variance No.42-2022 Thomas&Marybeth Babcock 21. Tax Map No.2S9.13-1-12 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 09/21/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 21,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RICHARD CIPPERLY RONALD KUHL MEMBERS ABSENT BRENT MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Wednesday, September 21",2022. If you haven't been here before, our format is pretty simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up,read the case into the record, allow the applicant to present his case, ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we'll open the public hearing,accept input from the public. Then we'll close the public hearing,poll the Board and proceed accordingly. Tonight we have a couple of administrative items. So,John,I wonder if we could get a motion for approval of the meeting of August 24`h APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 24`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 24TK,2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21"day of September,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody here for the 106 Bay Parkway applicant, AV 38-2022? Because that application is going to get tabled. AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 BRETT&z PAMELA WEST AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) BRETT &z PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME PLUS SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2 STORY HOME WITH A 5,436 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREAS AND A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,670 SQ.FT.WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 8,687SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING, SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. AREA VARIANCE GRANTED 3/23/2022 FOR SETBACKS, NUMBER OF GARAGES, AND STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACKS. REVISION TO SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE FRESHWATER WETLANDS WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR WETLAND SETBACK. CROSS REF FWW 10-2022;AV 38-2022;AV 57-2021;SP 51-2021;PZ 210-2016; PZ 95-2016; PZ 89-2016; SP 37-2009; AV 47-2007, SP 39-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 096 AC. TAX MAP NO.226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040;CHAPTER 94;CHAPTER 147 MR. MC CABE-So,John,could I get a motion for that? 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) Applicant requests to be tabled to the October 19,2022 meeting for a Full board. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett&z Pamela West.Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new 2 story home with a 5,436 sq.ft.footprint with a garage.Also included is installation of permeable pavers for patio and driveway areas and a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 sq.ft.where the maximum allowed is 8,687 sq.ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house,septic, and stormwater management. Lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Area variance granted 3/23/2022 for setbacks, number of garages, and stormwater device setbacks. Revision to Site Plan to include Freshwater wetlands work within 100 ft. of a designated wetland. Relief requested for wetland setback. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.38-2022 BRETT&z PAMELA WEST(MAIN HOUSE), Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the October 19,2022 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 21s'day of September 2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 21-2022,Reds LG,LLC,7,9&13 Nutley Lane. TABLED ITEMS: 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 REDUCED TO 330 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 2,053 SQ.FT. WITH FOUR BEDROOMS). TOTAL FLOOR AREA 3,791 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION AREAS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL,AND REDUCTION IN HARD SURFACING. 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, AND HEIGHT FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE. 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: September 21,2022, "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 construction of a bunkroom with no kitchen on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building reduced to 330 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 2,053 sq.ft.with four bedrooms). Total floor area 3,791 sq.ft.Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, construction of a retaining wall, and reduction in hard surfacing.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,and height for 7 Nutley Lane. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) Relief Required: Revised. The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, and height of 7 Nutley Lane. The parcel is 0.53 acres and located in the Waterfront Residential zone—WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Revised —7 Nutley Lane would be reduced with no kitchen,building size reduced, deck size reduced to meet setbacks. 7 Nutley Lane would be 19 ft.in height and would require a height variance for being greater than 16 ft. for an accessory structure. 9 Nutley Lane building work would be 4 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft.setback is required;and 12 ft.to the south property line where a 20 ft.setback is required. Expansion of non-conforming for 7 and 9 Nutley Lane. Permeability existing is 6778010 and improved to 69.60010 proposed where 75010 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. 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 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. 9 Nutley Lane relief—North side setback of 16 ft.,South side setback of 8 feet. 9 and 7 Nutley Lane requires relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The device is also assisting with bank stabilization.Accessory structure size relief for height of 2 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 with the building and deck reduced in size, then 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 with Environmental Design Partnership,here on behalf of the applicants,Reds LG,LLC. Unfortunately the applicants could not make it tonight,but we're back tonight with the Nutley Lane project seeking three variances for,two of the variances are side yard setbacks on the north and south side of 7 Nutley Lane for the deck that was built, and then another variance for 7 Nutley Lane as an accessory structure that was being considered unapproved development. Since the last meeting we have revised the footprint of 7 Nutley to be reduced to fit within those side yard setbacks and we've also moved the two stormwater devices and retaining wall down near the lakeshore another seven feet back away from the lake as far as we could get away from the lake to still catch the runoff from the 13 Nutley existing roof. So those are the changes that we've made to the plan since we were last before this Board. So the 7 Nutley structure now falls in conformance with the side yards and just on the 7 Nutley structure height, we did go out and measure the height of that building, and it is below 16 feet. It's about 15 and three quarters. We just have not been able to get updated architectural drawings reflecting that. The original drawings did not have a height on them so that is the 7 Nutley height variance, and just to re-cap the remainder of the project, we have provided stormwater management for the site where there was no stormwater management before. We are proposing to reduce the overall site impervious to below the existing conditions. We're also adding shoreline plantings along the shoreline and a replacement septic system was installed about a year ago now that was submitted to the Town and reviewed and approved by the Town for all three buildings,seven bedrooms in total. So each of those buildings does have a grinder pump that pumps up to a septic area in the gravel area where the parking is underneath. So that was reviewed by the Town showing all three buildings. So I just wanted to state those other improvements that have been made to the property in the past year or so. So with that I'll turn it back over for any questions. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) MR. MC CABE-So just to be clear,what you're saying is that actual measurements so that you don't need a height variance for 7? MR. ZEGLEN-That's correct. MR. MC CABE-And you don't need any of the setbacks from the boundaries. So the only thing you need in the way of a variance is for a non-conforming structure? MR. ZEGLEN-So for 7, yes, that would be just for the non-conforming structure, but the 9 Nutley, the structure in the middle of the lot,the middle structure,the deck has the two side yards of where the steps are four feet and twelve feet I believe on both sides. So those are the three variances. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-How come this is presented,7 Nutley Lane would be 19 feet in height,and now this applicant is saying,no,that's incorrect? MRS. MOORE-So just to clarify, I don't have those plans yet to confirm that it's less than 19 feet or less than 16 feet,which is fine. I mean if the applicant is stating that there's no height variance,then they need to prove that,and that could be a condition that that information be provided. MR.KUHL-It hasn't been provided. MRS. MOO RE-It hasn't but it could be. The applicant is saying it will be less. MR.HENKEL-So it would be contingent on. MRS. MOORE-On that proof. Right. Right now I don't have that proof,but the applicant is indicating it will be 16 feet or less. If Bruce goes out and says,no,that's actually greater than 16 feet,then they would have to come back before this Board to get that variance relief requested. MR.HENKEL-What did you say it was again? MR. ZEGLEN-It was 15 feet and about I think it was 10 inches. MR.HENKEL-So close. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR.KUHL-How can we make a ruling on something like this? MR. MC CABE Just condition it that the height is 16 feet. MR.HENKEL-That's not the only thing bothering you obviously. There's other things bothering you. MR. KUHL-No,I'm talking about this one item. You talk about what's bothering me. I mean,this was presented in this document,and now the applicant is stating something different. MRS. MOORE-It's going to be less. MR.KUHL-So as far as I'm concerned,I don't think I could make a decision on this. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR.KUHL-Without an actual. MR. ZEGLEN-And I do apologize. I tried to get updated building drawings from the architect. I just did not get them in time for tonight's meeting and we're working on getting those,but I will say we did go out and measure it. We measured from the height of 7 Nutley to the ground,and it was 15 feet 10 inches. MR.KUHL-Yes,but this is not the first time you've been here. Correct? MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR.KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. ZEGLEN-At the last meeting I don't believe that the height of 7 Nutley was presented for a variance. So it was just something that was caught on the plans after the fact and when that was caught and it was notified,that's when we did go out and we measured it,between the last meeting and this evening. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) MRS. MOORE-Right. So that was, it wasn't considered an accessory structure at that point. It was considered a third dwelling unit. Now it's reduced it to an accessory structure and accessory structures need to meet the height requirement. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. CIPPERLY-If everything else is okay,we could make the final height less than 16 feet. MR. MC CABE-We could condition it at 16 feet. MR. URRICO-Are there any other measurements that are not accurate on the application? MR. ZEGLEN-No. MR. URRICO-And you have the paperwork home? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. And I will make sure you get updated paperwork. They're going to have to submit updated paperwork as well because of the change in the footprint of 7 Nutley. That was the other thing that I'm trying to get from the architect is we're not doing the,the building that's there now is going to be reduced. So they're going to have to submit all new architectural drawings anyway in order to do that I would assume. 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 that would like to speak on this particular application. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I appreciate the Board's time on this application as well as the applicant re-visiting. This is kind of a difficult project. You look at,you know, what,if they came in with what is on this drawing now, obviously I don't think that could fly,but that's not the situation. You've got an overdeveloped project on steep slopes,but they have no stormwater management. So they're coming in and proposing that which clearly is a benefit. So, I apologize I'm a bit torn on it. I think it's too much,but if you continue to say it's too much,they may walk away and not do anything with it, or are we better off? So saying that my thought is, on the stormwater,you know,it's too close to the lake. I think they can improve the stormwater project. They're clearly not intending to meet the Town Code on the buffering, and I know that's more of a Planning Board issue. However,raingardens work much more efficiently than grass depressions. Why? Roots of grasses are like that big. The plants,perennials are much deeper. They go in the raingarden. So maybe if they vegetate that entire area down near the lake that will be an improvement. The unapproved development construction on Number Nine, the middle lot,maybe that can be removed. That will reduce some of the impervious covering, and I ask about the number of parking spaces. There seems to be a lot of parking there. Maybe we can reduce the impervious a little bit more,allow them to move this project forward,but with a number of things that will make it better for the lake. So I don't know if I'm helping you or not. I'm just kind of talking out loud,but those are some areas that I think we can get improvement,because if they don't,I mean,technically,Laura,you don't have to answer this,but they can just walk away and not do anything. So can we get stuff that's done better. So thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. HENKEL-Chris,I hear you say that this project is too close to the lake,but 13 and 9 were both there for many years,since the late IS00's. So whatever they do is going to be much more of an improvement. MR. NAVITSKY-That's where I'm torn. I mean I'm saying if they came in with this plan right now, it would be too much. MR.HENKEL-I agree. It wouldn't fly. MR. NAVITSKY-So that's where I'm saying well is it okay, and that's where I'm saying I think to get stormwater in on it is better,but I think the stormwater can be done better because they're not meeting the planting requirements that they're supposed to, and again that's more of a Planning Board issue. Maybe that can be a condition. Raingardens with deeper rooted plants work better than grasses with shallow roots. So maybe that way we can allow that encroachment on the stormwater but get the best stormwater possible. If that helps,John. MR.HENKEL-Thank you. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular application? CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Good evening, Board members. Thank you, Chairman. Claudia Braymer, attorney, representing the neighbors to the project,the O'Briens and we've been in front of you before and I've heard this entire Board express concerns about this project. I've also heard the Planning Board express concerns and provide a recommendation against approving this project. As Mr. Navitsky said,it's too much. This would never fly if it were a newproject. Of course we knowthat's not true. It's definitely overdevelopment on this tiny lot. It's waterfront residential. Single family homes are allowed, one. One single family residence, and here we're talking about three. I know that your staff is telling you it's an accessory structure. We're still considering it to be another residence. It's going to have the same impacts as another residence there. It's going to have a bathroom. It's going to have a bedroom. It's going to have a deck. I mean what else are they going to do but have people living there,other than getting their food maybe from the middle house. So just to summarize what is there, there is the existing residence down by the waterfront that's 13 Nutley that has four bedrooms. Then there's the middle house, 9 Nutley,which was converted from one bedroom to four bedrooms without approval,and now they're being required to reduce it down to two bedrooms. They also want to expand that non-conforming structure to have a deck on the outside, and then you have the structure up on top of the hill which is referred to as 7 Nutley, which is brand new construction. Maybe there was a shed there,but they have moved it. There's nothing in the same footprint that was there before. It's brand new construction, and we're asking that you completely deny any variances and require removal of 7 Nutley. They have already removed the kitchen in their application to you in July when this Board expressed concerns about 7 Nutley and said you didn't want it there,when it was being referred to as a bunkhouse. So I'm asking the Board to stay consistent with your positon in July on the application and not allow 7 Nutley at all. In addition we are asking the Board that you deny any of the variances for the expansion of 9 Nutley. When you look at this property,they're going to have anywhere from 15 to 20 people staying on the property,and they have rented it out in the past. It's not like it's just the three families who own it right now. It could be complete strangers,more than three families,you know, five families staying on that piece of property. So the more outside space and decks that you allow them to have, the more people are going to be spending time outside making noise and disturbing the neighbors. We are completely opposed to any of those expansions to the non-conforming structures that are being proposed. Thank you for your consideration. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. MR. URRICO-I still have letters,Mike. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. MR.URRICO-We live at 33 Antigua Road,directly across a small cove from 7,9 and 13 Nutley Lane. We would like to express our concerns regarding the proposed alterations at those addresses. The applicants are hoping to be able to provide 7 bedrooms on this site of just 0.53 acres. This would allow a rental occupancy of 16 people. For the last several years these properties have been used as short term rentals. This has attracted people who seem not to appreciate their proximity to other residents or the courtesy one generally expects from neighbors. We have frequently been subjected to overly boisterous activity which has extended far into the night disturbing our sleep and requiring us to call the Warren County Sheriff to quell the noise. Increasing the occupant capacity of these properties by allowing additional bedrooms and living space will only serve to further foster more of this behavior. Even if the current owners never rented the property again, the occupancy would still be increased so that future owners could take advantage of a larger occupancy rate. In either case,the occupancy density of the area would be significantly increased altering the character of the neighborhood. The zoning board has not responded favorably to previous requests for vas for this project and it is not apparent to us how the changes in the current proposal address any of the concerns regarding the high occupancy for this property that constructing additional bedrooms will allow. We hope that the fact that this construction was already well underway before the appropriate permissions were requested will not be used as an excuse to approve them. Thank you for your consideration, Susan and Martin Farber" Second letter. "Although I plan to attend the meeting in person I would like to again voice my objections for the record and to show you some pictures of what I have had to look at during the night, this past summer. When choosing anything for my property I have always tried to keep in mind how it will affect my neighbors especially with something as important as outdoor lighting. There is NO consideration to the surrounding neighbors from the owners of the Nutley Lane buildings,Number 9 and 13,when it comes to outdoor lighting. It also shows they have no concern for the wildlife in the area with lighting so bright it looks like daylight over there all night long. Poor Bob O'Brien, who lives right next door to this property has told me he can no longer see the lake at night because of their bright lights. I can't sit out on my porch at night because the bright LED lights are emitting such a bright light onto it. Enclosed are some photos at the bottom of this letter. This summer 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) #13 Nutley has been unoccupied because it still has not passed Zoning Board approval. Because of this our neighborhood has been much quieter,the way it should be and the way it used to be. As a neighborhood we have had to endure too much noise and commotion these past few years, I sincerely hope that you do not allow more than one house to be rented at a time in the future. It would be too many people in too small of an area to have both properties rented at the same time. Even though the third building,3 Nutley Lane,which is being called a"bunkhouse"has now been reduced to 330 sq.ft.I still think it should go back to being the small shed that it was before they erected a small house there without a permit. Can you imagine how Bob O'Brien felt when he drove to his summer home in the spring two years ago and saw an entire new house standing up next to his property without any warning? Again, NO consideration for their neighbor who they share a driveway and path to the lake with. How inconsiderate. I am sure there will be more LED outdoor lights installed on the IS4 sq.ft.porch if this"bunkhouse"were to be approved. The first three photos show how the back of house is lit up and shining on the bedroom windows,the last two are the view from the front porch. It looks like daylight over there at night. It is blinding to look at. Thank you, Denise Freihofer (Home to the north of Nutley Lane)" MR. MC CABE-Is that it? MR. URRICO-Yes,that's it. MR. MC CABE-So now I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.HENKEL-Can I ask a question first? So if we don't approve this and they withdraw the application, they can use this property as how? MRS. MOO RE-They're still in violation on it. They would still have to go through some review process, or remove the violation. So they're not done. They'd have to do something. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-First of all I guess I'll give you an opportunity to respond. MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you. So I know there was some discussion regarding what was there,what was not there, and we do have on file with the Town a survey from 1996 that has the 13 Nutley structure, the 9 Nutley structure, and then another framed structure in a different location that's actually further to the southern property line that would be completely within the setback. So that is the structure that is now believed to be 7 Nutley. So that's just one thing about what was there and what was not there. As far as the bedroom count, it is a seven bedroom count. Like I said, it was submitted to the Town as a seven bedroom count. The septic was designed for seven bedrooms. It was approved and installed for seven bedrooms. We do have planting proposed along the shoreline. If the Town would like more plantings we can certainly look at that. As far as the impervious area we have gone through and eliminated all the impervious that we didn't believe was necessary. Like I said,the septic area is also doubling as the parking area. So we can't remove anymore of the impervious for that. The driveway that comes down is used by other properties. So it wouldn't make sense to remove that impervious. So anything else that we have been able to improve we have gone through to try to remove and help with the runoff on the property and to help improve the quality of the lake, and as far as the lights go, I apologize that the applicants aren't there to speak to the bright lights at night. I mean if we want to put something in the conditions of approval. I know up to Code now is downcast. MR. MC CABE-Lighting is not our deal. MR. ZEGLEN-Okay. Well,this,I know it's supposed to be downward facing,dark sky compliant. MR. MC CABE-So just,the Waterkeeper made a couple of suggestions. One, sounds real good. Would you agree to putting in raingardens? MR. ZEGLEN-Raingardens in lieu of the shallow grass depressions. MR. MC CABE-And then the raingardens would be at,you know, the discretion of our Planning Board who control vegetation. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,that's acceptable. MR.MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I'm going to poll the Board. I'm going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-I mean there's no doubt this project could be all torn down and built a much larger house here. You're 1200 feet below the FAR variance. So it could be a worse project. I think with the recommendations that Chris made with the deep plantings,it's a good idea. I am still struggling a little bit S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) with Number Seven. It's hard to say what that was previously without any record. At this point I'd probably like to see that turned back into not a cabin and be an accessory building. I don't have any problem with any of the other setbacks or the other two buildings, 13 and 9, I have no problem with. I'd like to see,I'd probably not approve it as it is. I'd like to see Number Seven become a shed. MR. MC CABE-Well in essence that's what it is. MR.HENKEL-But it's not. It's a bedroom and a bathroom. MR. MC CABE-Well an accessory building is an accessory building. Right? MR. HENKEL-I don't want it to be a living quarters. I'd like to see it back to,because we don't have any proof of what it was. MR. MC CABE-Why did it have an address? MR. URRICO-Are you arguing for them? MR. MC CABE-I'm just inviting questions. MR. HENKEL-Okay. In that case,you're probably right, Mike. Yes, I'm going to listen to the rest of the Board before I give my decision. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it would be a big mistake on our part to give any approvals here with this project without the removal of Number Seven. Number Seven was illegally constructed. It should be remanded to the Town Board for a court order to remove it at this point. I think that the suggestions from the Waterkeeper are very applicable as far as putting raingardens in down in the front. I think we could probably approve the improvements on the two houses down below,but I don't think the one in the middle deserves to have as much of a build out as has been done illegally again. So at this point in time I'm not going to be in favor of this project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Very much the same. I think when they bought the property it didn't have a bedroom in Number Seven,and there's no reason to figure that they ought to have a bedroom now if it wasn't supposed to be there and shouldn't be there. I also have some issue with the deck on Number Nine. It creates a lot more outdoor space, whether there's lighting or not,with a deck you're going to have much more lights, and I have an issue with that big a deck on Number Nine. I could not approve it as it is. I think the raingarden idea is great and I think there's some positives,but Number Seven isn't one of them. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-I think even though the Zoning Board is here not to put up stop signs every time somebody comes in for a new project, I don't think we're here either to say because a project would be better than nothing we should let them get away with what this is, and I think this project still has too many unanswered questions and probably some structures that should not be there,including Number Seven. I think even adding the Waterkeeper's raingarden,his idea is a good one,because there really in essence is no stormwater management there right now, so that would be an improvement with the addition of the raingarden,I still think this project is way too big for that property. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I'm abstaining from this. I'm not in favor,but I will abstain from the vote. MR.HENKEL-Do I have to give a decision at this time? MR. MC CABE-You can abstain. MR.HENKEL-I'll stick with Ron. MR. MC CABE-So I believe that the applicant has done a good job here reducing the size of this project, but unfortunately it's not enough. So you've got a couple of choices here. A couple of people would look at it a little bit more favorably if Number Seven was not a bedroom. MR. ZEGLEN-We'll table and take another look at it. I think that the applicants are having a tough time because that structure was proposed as a bedroom. A private pump was installed to hook up the septic 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) for that structure to be used as a one bedroom. So that's kind of what they're struggling with with the 7 Nutley. MR.HENKEL-When do we want to table until? MRS. MOORE-That would be the first meeting in November. MR.HENKEL-Okay. So we're looking at the 16`h MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR.HENKEL-Okay. 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, 2SS 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 1,40E 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. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 21-2022 REDS LG, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly: Tabled to the November 16`h, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by October 17`h,2022. Duly adopted this 21"day of September,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSTAINED: Mr.Kuhl ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-All right. So our next application is AV 39-2022. AREA VARIANCE NO.39-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 GIANNI SIMONE AGENT(S) DANIEL W.RYAN P.E. OWNER(S) GIANNI SIMONE ZONING MDR LOCATION 20 ACRES CIRCLE (REVISED-ADDITIONAL GARAGE DETAILS)APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 702 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE ON A SITE THAT HAS AN EXISTING HOME WITH A GARAGE. THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT IS 2,182 SQ. FT. WITH THE ATTACHED GARAGE FOOTPRINT OF 600 SQ. FT. NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF SUB 12-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 LOT SIZE 1.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.10-1-59 SECTION 179-5-020 DAN RYAN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; GIANNI SIMONE,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 39-2022,Gianni Simone,Meeting Date: September 21,2022 "Project Location: 20 Apres Circle Description of Proposed Project: (Revised — additional garage details) Applicant proposes to construct a 702 sq. ft. detached garage on a site that has an existing home with a garage. The house footprint is 2,IS2 sq.,ft.,with the attached garage footprint of 600 sq.ft. No changes to the existing home. Relief requested for second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for second garage. The parcel is in the MDR zone in an approved subdivision of SR-IA. The lot is 1.16 ac. Section 179-5-020 garage 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) The new garage is to be 702 sq.ft.with space for two cars and an attic storage area above with a height of 27 ft.4 inches. The site has an existing attached garage of approximately 600 sq.ft.where only one garage 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 may be limited due to the location of the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code as only one garage is 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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a second garage on a parcel with an existing home and attached garage. The plans show the location of the garage and photos of the area on the property, the garage has been reduced from 930 sq.ft.to 702 sq.ft. In addition,the applicant has provided elevation and floor plans of the garage and is designed to match the existing home." MR.RYAN-Dan Ryan for the record. I'm herewith the applicant,Gianni Simone. We were here a couple of months ago and we did get some mixed comments back. So we wanted to take the opportunity to table and amend the application. So before you today is the slightly amended application from the previous. So I'll review those changes quickly and then perhaps we can poll the Board and answer any questions and see where we stand with the revisions. This is a 1.2 acre parcel over by West Mountain. The development consists of nine parcels altogether. So it's basically a dead end cul de sac road. Most of the parcels in the development are fairly large,anywhere from six to forty acres,and this is one of the smaller parcels because it's kind of like a weird configuration. It does have a single family dwelling with an attached garage on it currently, and so what's being proposed and requested is a variance for a second two car garage. One of the comments we received last time was an attempt to challenge the minimum necessary variance. We did have a 930 square foot garage originally proposed. We actually measured his vehicles,and reduced the size of the proposal to 702, about 250/o reduction. So the minimum size building that would be adequate to store the two vehicles that are proposed for that garage is basically what's proposed. So we have reduced that to the smallest size possible. So that was one of the significant changes since the last review. The second item I'd like to discuss is we did submit additional letters from the neighbors. I think in the last meeting we had two neighbors that had submitted letters requesting that the variance be approved. We did submit six additional letters from neighbors. So basically eight out of nine neighbors in this property development have provided letters in favor of the applicant proposing that the project be approved. So in regards to any type of detriment that might be sought by this type of variance request, where it might change or modify the character of the neighborhood, certainly none of the neighbors feel it's a detriment and all of them are amendable to this garage being constructed. One of the things that's important about the placement of the garage,you'll see here on the site plan,it's basically the south end of the property,we do have all this vegetation along the building, or along the road to remain. So one of the favorable parts of this design concept is that that garage would be concealed from view from most people. Certainly this type of neighborhood with a cul de sac will have through traffic. Very few people, other than neighbors,would actually ever visibly see this second garage,but I'd also like to point out that if you drive up Apres Circle you're not going to see much of the garage at all with this vegetation here. You also can't see it from the north. It's screened by the existing. So there's only about a 200 foot stretch of road where this garage is actually visible. So there's very limited visibility within the development,let alone any other residents of the community would barely see it at all. So I guess from that perspective this development is a little unique and this application is somewhat unique in that the detriments caused by this proposal are minimal. As well as the fact that all the neighbors are accepting of it. I think the only other thing I wanted to point out was that one of the comments that the Board had made previously was that oftentimes when you approve a second garage it's for larger parcels. This is 1.2 acres. It's not a seven and a half acre parcel. Certainly this garage is suitable in size and in position for this parcel itself. It's a unique location. It's a unique parcel and being that all the other properties in the development are fairly 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) substantial,you know,up to 40 acres,it wouldn't be out of character for this neighborhood to have other residences with multiple garages. I guess with that I'd like to open it up to any questions. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-Yes,I do. I admit,there's no doubt. There's never enough garage space. Three car garages, four car garages are really needed to be on houses,there's no doubt,but I think you could have a drop down stairway which would eliminate the need. I have a drop down stairway for mine. It works out great. It doesn't utilize a lot of space inside the garage. You could reduce the garage and still get a nice two car garage out of that,but then you have a bump out here on the side here for the side door, and that could be straight across,too. What's the reason for that bump out there? MR. RYAN-That's actually in the front of the building. So it's really just an architectural element. MR.HENKEL-I mean it's a very nice project,but there again I don't understand why the staircase is really needed there. You've got a four foot wide staircase. MR. RYAN-It's primarily, he's got an in ground pool. Obviously limited in size for other accessory structures, sheds. So there's never enough space for patio furniture and lawn furniture. So getting that out of the yard for the winter,you've got to, with a switchback or a returning stair,you do have to have enough width to carry a decent size piece of chair or furniture up into that storage area. So primarily that's the extra width is due to that. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.KUHL-Daniel,why 12 foot on the first floor? MR.RYAN-His pickup truck is basically hoping to get at least a nine foot door and so with a 14 inch header and framing for that, you know, 12 foot is a little bit better in terms of getting the adequate height. He does also want to use some of the upper levels in the back wall for storage as well, and so that extra width provides him a benefit there. MR.KUHL-If height got to be the issue,could you lower it,would you lower it? MR. RYAN-I'm assuming that wouldn't be a problem. I mean we're talking like an extra foot lower? MR.KUHL-No. I'm talking about five foot,six foot. I mean 16 foot's are rare,okay,and you're asking for 27. I mean why 12 foot on the first floor? The first level. You're going to put a lift in it and put two cars in? MRS. MOORE-There's no height in this zone. MR.KUHL-I'm sorry. MR. RYAN-It's an MDR. MR.KUHL-I'm sorry. I'll keep quiet then. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing is still open on this project I assume. So is there anybody in the audience who would like to present some information to us on this particular project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. MC CABE-Let me ask you, rather than having Roy read all nine letters, can we just say that the neighbors are all in favor? MR. RYAN-Yes. In the submission I did include all the addresses. So it is in the cover letter. So they're all listed as the ones that have submitted letters. MR. MC CABE-Are the letters significantly different? MR. RYAN-No. They're all the same. MR. URRICO-They're all the same. I only count,six,though. MR. RYAN-Yes,six and then two from the previous meeting,but we didn't re-submit those. You should have eight total. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) MR. URRICO-Should I read the main letter? I'll read one in and then I'll read the names. "We have become aware of the above variance application submitted to the Town for consideration and would like to provide written comment for the record and for the Board's consideration during its review. The Simone's are our neighbors and were thoughtful enough to personally show us details of the planned project prior to the submission and/or scheduled hearing date. After reviewing project plans and discussing our comments/opinions with the Applicant regarding the detached garage,we feel the project, as currently proposed,would not be detrimental to the neighborhood,would not create any adverse impact or effect on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, nor would it create any undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. Furthermore, the size and placement of the garage seem appropriate and reasonable considering the existing home and lot configuration, which also minimizes visibility of the proposed garage due to existing vegetation to remain. It is our opinion that the Applicant has adequately contemplated alternatives and taken time to consider their neighbors during project planning,and we would recommend the Zoning Board of Appeals approve/grant the requested area variance." The names I have, I don't know if I can read them all, Andrew and Amber Frenyea, 3S Apres Circle; Mark and Karen Corrao, 31 Apres Circle; and somebody at 25 Apres Circle,but I'm not sure of the names. MR. SIMONE-I believe that's Mark and Erin Lefebre. MR. URRICO-Okay, and Michael and Kristine Springer at 4 Apres Circle; Timothy Kissane, 5 Apres Circle; and Thomas Powell, 37 Apres Circle. 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 Dick. MR.CIPPERLY-I do not see any adverse impact from siting the garage,the 27 foot high garage. So I would approve it. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Last time when they came in with the application they wanted a 930 square foot garage and 29 foot 2 inches. Now they're requesting one 702 square feet at 27 feet. I think that's a reasonable compromise. I'd be all in favor of it. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I'd like to see a little bit smaller garage for that lot,but I would be on board with it as it is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-It appears the neighbors are all in favor of you improving your property and doing it,you know, and I think the lot can afford that. My greatest fear is the minimum and okay so we can go more than 16 feet. I just hope the people in the other neighborhoods don't come in and say, okay,look,you did 27 feet. I'm in favor of the way it's presented. I've got nothing against it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I guess I'm going to be in favor of it. I'm not totally 1000/o on it,but I will go along with it. I'm just concerned that this could change the character of the neighborhood if others see a second garage for the size lot,for any size lot. We really don't have a specification in the Code about size in terms of how many garages you should have on a specific property,but I'll be in favor of this. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,am generally averse to a second garage on a smaller property,but I took a second look here, and there are some big properties in the neighborhood and it certainly is isolated so it's not like a beacon on the hill. So I'll approve this project also. So with that in mind,Jim, I wonder if you could make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gianni Simone. (Revised— additional garage details) Applicant proposes to construct a 702 sq. ft. detached garage on a site that has an existing home with a garage. The house footprint is 2,IS2 sq.,ft.,with the attached garage footprint of 600 sq.ft.No changes to the existing home. Relief requested for second garage. Relief Required: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) The applicant requests relief for second garage. The parcel is in the MDR zone in an approved subdivision of SR-IA. The lot is 1.16 ac. Section 179-5-020 garage The new garage is to be 702 sq.ft.with space for two cars and an attic storage area above with a height of 27 ft.4 inches. The site has an existing attached garage of approximately 600 sq.ft.where only one garage is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on July 27,2022,August 24,2022,and September 21,2022. 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. It's an isolated parcel. No one will see it. 2. Feasible alternatives are available. The Board has considered the fact of a standalone and it's not going to be seen from the road except for a short stretch on the dead end road. 3. The requested variance is substantial because it's a second garage,but it's considered a reasonable request. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they do need a second garage for storage as well as the vehicles. 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,- S. 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. 39-2022 GIANNI SIMONE, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21st Day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. SIMONE-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 35-2022 Rebecca Gearwar. AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11. REBECCA GEARWAR OWNER(S) REBECCA GEARWAR ZONING MDR LOCATION 10 APPLEHOUSE LANE (REVISED - ADDITIONAL FENCE DETAILS)APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL AN EIGHT-FOOT-HIGH FENCE ON THE NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE OF SLOPE OF PROPERTY. FENCE IS TO BE A PRIVACY FENCE. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,867 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES GARAGE AND PORCH WILL REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT OF FENCE TYPE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 LOT SIZE 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 3019-1-14 SECTION 179-5-020 REBECCA GEARWAR,PRESENT 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2022, Rebecca Gearwar, Meeting Date: September 21, 2022 "Project Location: 10 Applehouse Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised— additional fence site details) Applicant proposes to install an eight-foot-high fence on the northwest side of the property because of slope of property. Fence to be a privacy fence. The existing home of 1,S67 sq.ft. which includes garage and porch will remain with no changes. Relief requested for height of fence type. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height of fence type. The lot is 16,9SS sq.ft. and located in the MDR zone. 179-5-070 Fence The fence to be installed is 6S ft. in length and to be placed on the west property line; it will be S ft. in height and a 24 ft. south section connected to the house also at S ft.in height as a privacy fence. 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 available to reduce the height. The applicant has explained the property to be fenced is lower than the adjoining property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor relevant to the code. The relief requested is for height and is 2 feet. 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 maybe considered to have minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered to be self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a fence on the west property line that exceeds the height of fence allowed. The information submitted shows the location of the fence and type of fence to be installed. The applicant has indicated it is needed for privacy and security. The applicant has included photos and has a video of the site indicating the slope difference between the two properties- as part of the update for the application." MS. GEARWAR-Good evening. Rebecca Gearwar. I am returning some additional photos to hopefully demonstrate the elevation land and the porch and I'm requesting to go two feet higher with my fence to provide some privacy and I think worth mentioning as well is a little security. The neighbor has two large dogs that often are in the backyard and they charge the fence and sometimes they bark incessantly. So my hope is if I put a fence in that it'll be privacy and beneficial to both of us and so that's what I'm respectfully requesting. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? John? MR. HENKEL-The neighbors were there before you bought the house,right? The pool was there before you bought the house,right? MS. GEARWAR-Correct. MR.HENKEL-You bought the house in,what,2016,'17? MS. GEARWAR-Yes. It's been about five years. MR. HENKEL-So you knew that there was going to be a pool there and the property was a little bit elevated before you bought the house. Right? 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) MS. GEARWAR-Correct,but what I did not know was that honestly the dogs were going to be an issue for me, and it has been for five years, and, you know, I've done the neighborly thing and I've had conversations and it's improved. However, I think it would benefit both of us to have some privacy and then they can swim freely and my cat can roam the backyard. MR. HENKEL-You don't think that a regular six foot stockade fence that you can't see through would do the trick? MS. GEARWAR-It would certainly help. MR.HENKEL-Some shrubs that grow pretty quick. MS. GEARWAR-Yes. I'd like trees and some fruit trees and it'll blend in very nicely. The issue is,if you can see in the picture,the porch up above. So the dogs sit there and when you measure it,you look at it, it's still visible with six feet. Two feet higher would allow that privacy for both of us. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. KUHL-Your intentions are just to put the fence on the one side of the property,not the back or not the other side? MS. GEARWAR-No,the back is all woods,and the other side of the property has very mature arborvitaes that provide natural fence. MR.KUHL-So you're just doing it from the house to the property line,from the property line back on the west side. MS. GEARWAR-Correct. MR. KUHL-And if you couldn't get approval for eight foot, would you take approval for less than eight feet? MS. GEARWAR-Well,yes,but I mean again I feel like. MR.KUHL-I understand. I understand your position. MS. GEARWAR-Okay. MR.KUHL-No problem. MS. GEARWAR-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.CIPPERLY-More of a comment. If you look at the houses down the line,I think when this subdivision was laid out they didn't do a real good job of grading,because if you'll notice about two houses down the line they have a six foot fence that ends at about nine feet above the property next to it. So I think it would appear you sort of got stuck in a hole and that's what it is. The only way out of it is to either bring in two feet of fill and then put up a six foot fence or build an eight foot fence,which doesn't seem an unreasonable thing to do. MS. GEARWAR-Would that be okay to do something like that,to put in fill and then build around that? With the gradient of the land. MR. MC CABE-Well how do they measure the height of the fence? MR. UNDERWOOD-You've got to measure from the natural grade. MR. CIPPERLY-But further down the line, I think it's about the third house down, I looked at the fence, and the fences here and the neighbor's lot is quite a bit lower. So whether they took the fill out of the hole when they built the house and put it in the backyard,I don't know,but. MR.HENKEL-So if someone lives on a hill behind you,you're going to put up a 30 foot fence? MR. CIPPERLY-No,but it's just the way they laid it out I think. MS. GEARWAR-Yes,I think you're right. It's a combination of the layout,the structure,the land itself. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) MR.KUHL-Well how high is the fence that's there now? MS. GEARWAR-I think it's four feet. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So we have a public hearing that's still open. So is there anybody here who would like to make comment on this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-No new comments. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-As has been stated earlier, some of the properties that we have to deal with are unusual. Every case is unique,and I think in this case the contour of the land warrants a higher fence and I'm willing to go along with the eight foot fence. I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I would be in favor of six foot. I'm not in favor of eight foot. I don't think it blends in with the neighborhood. I don't think it's in line with our charge of giving minimal relief. So I would not be in favor as it's presented. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-Yes,I also think it's not a good idea to start allowing this. I know it's a small neighborhood. I understand you want privacy and there's nothing like privacy, but I think we're opening up a can of worms that we don't want to do and obviously she doesn't need approval for a six foot fence,but I would not be able to approve it for eight. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in this instance here I would agree with Roy. It's geographically challenged and I think your reasonable explanation as to why you need the eight foot fence is reasonable to me. I think that if I lived there and I was looking for privacy I would want it higher than a six foot high fence. So I would be in favor of your project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Much the same. In looking at it,topography wise, I would be in favor of the eight foot fence. MR.MC CABE-So I guess it's down to me,isn't it? So I guess I'm generally against an eight foot fence,but I do agree that just that depression that you have kind of puts you at a disadvantage and so in this particular case I'm going to okay the variance. So,given that,Dick,I'm going to ask for a motion from you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Rebecca Gearwar. (Revised—additional fence site details) Applicant proposes to install an eight-foot-high fence on the northwest side of the property because of slope of property.Fence to be a privacy fence.The existing home of 1,567 sq. ft. which includes garage and porch will remain with no changes. Relief requested for height of fence type. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height of fence type. The lot is 16,9SS sq.ft. and located in the MDR zone. 179-5-070 Fence The fence to be installed is 6S ft. in length and to be placed on the west property line; it will be S ft. in height and a 24 ft. south section connected to the house also at S ft.in height as a privacy fence. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on July 27,2022,August 24,2022,and September 21,2022. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 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. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and I think this is a reasonable choice. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because of the topography and privacy from the neighbors. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because you go on the lot and there it is. 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,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2022 REBECCA GEARWAR,Introduced by Richard Cipperly,who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 21st Day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MS. GEARWAR-Thank you so much. I appreciate all your hard work in going through this process. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 46-2022,Jeffrey Randles. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JEFFREY RANDLES AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) JEFFREY RANDLES ZONING WR LOCATION 42 OLD ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH REMOVING THE FIRST STORY DOWN TO THE FIRST FLOOR AND TO RECONSTRUCT THE FIRST FLOOR WITH A SECOND STORY, ADDITIONAL BASEMENT AREA AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE USING THE EXISTING FOUNDATION. NEW FLOOR AREA TO BE 6,968 SQ. FT. AND THE TOTAL FOOTPRINT OF THE NEW HOUSE TO BE 3,348 SQ.FT. THE MAIN FLOOR WOULD ALTER THE NORTH SIDE WITH A NEW DINING AREA AND A NEW GARAGE. THE SOUTH SIDE BEDROOM AREAS TO BE ADDED TO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE STRUCTURE. THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE AND STORAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN REVIE FOR A NEW FLOOR AREA AND ALTERATIONS TO THE EXISTING HOME SHALL BE SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 36-2022; SP 51-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-11 SECTION 179-3-040 NICK ZEGLEN&CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.46-2022,Jeffrey Randles,Meeting Date: September 21,2022"Project Location: 42 Old Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing single family home with removing the first story down to the first floor and to reconstruct the first floor with a second story, additional basement area and an attached garage using the existing foundation.Newfloor area to be 6,96E sq.ft.and the total footprint of the new house to be 3,34E sq.ft.The main floor would alter the north side with a new dining area and a new garage. The south side bedroom areas to be added to the footprint of the structure. The second floor would include additional living space and storage. The project includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings. Site plan review for a new floor area and alterations to the existing home shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks from the shoreline to the new construction. Parcel is O.S3 acres and in the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,147 stormwater The applicant proposes the new home on the existing foundation. The home on the west side would be 46 ft.from the shoreline where 53.75 ft.is required due to the adjoining home setback. Relief already granted for the home is to be S ft.where 20 ft.is required to the north side.Also already granted was the stormwater devices setback for 4S ft. and SS ft.where 100 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to locate the home in a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code where the relief is 4 ft.to the home. 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 maybe considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The project includes adding stormwater management to the site. The project has been provided to the Town Designated Engineer and engineering sign-off has been provided. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes project work to remove a portion of the existing home for the construction of the first and second floor. The plans show the elevations and floor plans. The previous plan had shown a shoreline setback to a different mark where an updated survey shows the setback distance to the mean high water mark." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board made a recommendation that based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was adopted September 20`h,2022 by a unanimous vote. MR. DYBAS-For the record,Curt Dybas. MR. ZEGLEN-I'm Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership. So we are back here tonight seeking a shoreline setback variance of 46 feet versus the 53.75 feet that is required. As was stated this project was before the Board last month where we received three variances,side yard setback of eight feet; stormwater device to the lakeshore of SS feet; and a shoreline setback of 51 feet where 56.71 was required. So after the meeting it was discovered that the shoreline that was used by the surveyor to calculate the setbacks was the shoreline that was taken on the day of the survey,which was February of this year. What was not used was the Lake George mean high water elevation of 320.2. So unfortunately when you look at 320.2 elevation and where that falls on the site,it's essentially a shift of five feet further back into the 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) site which resulted in a shoreline setback of 46 feet. Unfortunately again since this is not new construction, normally we could shift the house back, but since we are re-using the existing foundation and first floor,we were stuck with that footprint and it meant an additional variance. All other aspects of the site, stormwater management, is the same. It has been signed off by the Town Engineer, plantings, etc., all the site improvements. Curt,if you have anything to add. MR. DYBAS-It's better off that we found it now. I thank Chris for pointing that out. MR. MC CABE-Questions of the applicant? MR. CIPPERLY-You used to access by Old Assembly Point Road,isn't that correct? MR. DYBAS-The current access to the site is Old Assembly Point Road. MR. CIPPERLY-How does Clermont access her property? MR. DYBAS-I don't know. MR.KUHL-You've got to go on Assembly Point Road. MR. DYBAS-I think that's Assembly Point Road. MR. CIPPERLY-Clermont owns the tiniest little thing,the dock next to your property. MR. DYBAS-There's a driveway, there's a small driveway just to the left. There's a driveway right there for this house. MR. CIPPERLY-I'm talking about Clermont's. No,go down. Yes. MR. DYBAS-They can walk across the front yard. MR.KUHL-It's kind of grass isn't it? There's not a real driveway is there,off of Old Assembly Point Road? I mean I drove right down there. MR. DYBAS-Yes,right here,but that little parcel,they walk across the front lot. MR.KUHL-Okay. MR. CIPPE RLY-They have a prescriptive right of way? I didn't seethe deed so I don't know. MR. DYBAS-I don't know. MR. ZEGLEN-It's not on the survey map. MR. DYBAS-There's nothing showing it on the survey map. MR. CIPPERLY-I guess my question is if they currently walk across the front yard,you're talking about planting some hedges, and can they still get,can they still get to their property? MR. DYBAS-Yes. Even during construction we've made arrangements. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. Thank you. Even if it isn't in the deed by now it's probably a prescriptive right. MR. DYBAS-I don't even know how big this thing is,but I don't think it's 10 feet wide. MR. CIPPERLY-You're correct. MR. DYBAS-We've never had a dock on it today. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there that would like to make comment on this particular project. Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes,there are two letters. They're identical. "We have reviewed the planned renovations of our neighbors,Jeff&Nancy Randles,located at 42 Old Assembly Point Road in Lake George,New York. We understand that they are wanting to increase the size of their front porch and are seeking approval for a variance for the lake front setback. The new porch will not impede any part of our view of the lake and 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) we have no objections to this request. Respectfully,John and Cathy Hodgkins 41 Old Assembly Point Road, Lake George, NY 12545" And there are two letters that are the same. The second one is Nancy Farry,45 Assembly Point Road. 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 Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with the request. I think if we had had the correct numbers last week we would have approved it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Pretty much the same. I have no problem, especially using the same footprint for the house. We're going to get some additional stormwater. So it's a plus. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project also. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-We approved it once already. I'm in favor of the way it is. It's a shame that they had to come back because of a mismeasurement,but I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-It's a large piece of property. The permeability's great. They're asking for very minimal setbacks there and I guess I'd be on board. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. I think what's being asked for here is minimal,particularly since the house has existed at that setback for a period of time. So given that information,Ron,I wonder if you could make a motion for us. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey Randles. Applicant proposes alterations to existing single family home with removing the first story down to the first floor and to reconstruct the first floor with a second story, additional basement area and an attached garage using the existing foundation. New floor area to be 6,96E sq. ft. and the total footprint of the new house to be 3,34 S sq.ft.The main floor would alter the north side with a new dining area and a new garage. The south side bedroom areas to be added to the footprint of the structure.The second floor would include additional living space and storage. The project includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings. Site plan review for a new floor area and alterations to the existing home shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks from the shoreline to the new construction. Parcel is O.S3 acres and in the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,147 stormwater The applicant proposes the new home on the existing foundation. The home on the west side would be 46 ft.from the shoreline where 53.75 ft.is required due to the adjoining home setback. Relief already granted for the home is to be S ft.where 20 ft.is required to the north side.Also already granted was the stormwater devices setback for 4S ft. and SS ft.where 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 21,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as this is a re-build on the existing foundation and it's a large piece of property. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 2. Feasible alternatives really are very limited due to the fact that they're going to re-build on the foundation,but they're reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest is self-created,but again it's because they're re-building on an existing foundation. If it were new construction they could move it back. 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,- S. 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. 46-2022 JEFFREY RANDLES, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21"Day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR.MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 42-2022,Thomas and Marybeth Babcock. AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II THOMAS &z MARYBETH BABCOCK AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) THOMAS&z MARYBETH BABCOCK ZONING WR LOCATION 15 CHESTNUT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 2-STORY ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,079.2 SQ. FT. WITH 357 SQ. FT. PORCH AREA (FOOTPRINT); THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,230 SQ. FT. THE NEW GARAGE TO BE 554 SQ. FT.; TOTAL NEW FLOOR AREA IS 2,569 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND HEIGHT. CROSS REF SP 57-2022; AV 45-2012; AV 46-2012; SP 55-2012; AV 73-1990; AV 1415; SP 35-88A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-12 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5- 020;179-13-010 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.42-2022,Thomas&Marybeth Babcock,Meeting Date: September 21, 2022 "Project Location: 15 Chestnut Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 2-story addition to the south side of the existing home. The existing home is 1,079.2 sq.ft.with 357 sq. ft. porch area (footprint);the existing floor area is 2,230 sq. ft. The new garage to be 554 sq. ft.- total new floor area is 2,569 sq.ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for setbacks,floor area, and height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,floor area, and height for the construction of a new garage and a two-story addition to the existing home. Section 179-3-040 WR,179-6-065 new floor area,179-13-010 expansion The existing garage to be demolished where the new garage is proposed to be 5 ft.to the side property line where 12 ft. is required,proposed 16.2 ft.to the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The 2-story addition is to be located 6.S ft.to the side property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. Relief is 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) also requested for the garage height of 17 ft. where 16 ft. is the maximum allowed, then the floor area is proposed to be 2,569 sq. ft. where 1,615 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed noting the additional floor area being added is 339 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 limited due to the lot size of 0.17 ac and the existing house location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for floor area where 35%is proposed and existing is 30 %;50/o more than existing and 130/o more than allowed. Garage relief is 7 ft. to the side,l3.S ft.to the front and at most 1 ft.for the height. The relief for the addition is 5.2 ft.to the side. 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 impact on the physical or environmental impacts. The applicants plans to show removal of a hard surface area to be replaced with a grid and grass system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes two residential improvements to an existing property. One is a new garage of 554 sq. ft. and the second is a 2-story addition to the existing home. The applicant has provided additional information explaining the need for the residential addition and to have a garage suitable to park a vehicle. The applicant has provided the existing and proposed conditions of the home. The plans submitted show the elevation and floor plan." 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 passed September 20`h,2022 by a unanimous vote. MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. Tom Hutchins, Hutchins Engineers, with Tom and Marybeth Babcock. This proposal involves essentially two parts. There's a, again, this is 15 Chestnut. There's a very small S5 square foot footprint addition proposed on the south side of the existing house that basically plugs in that little corner and what that allows for them to do is get a minor expansion of the kitchen,and the kitchen area is very tight,and that allows for them to get a little bit more workable kitchen as well as the second story,it allows them to get a more workable bathroom. This is not a monster house. There's approximately 1900 square feet of total floor, living floor area in the house, not counting the garage and such,and what we're looking for is an S5 square foot footprint addition which adds 115 square feet of usable space over the two floors, and with that it that gets them immediate expansion of the kitchen and the bathroom upstairs to make it much more functional. As part of some of the work they have done on this property,one thing they did some years ago is did some major stormwater improvements. They installed infiltration drywells on both sides of the house. They have guttered the entire house. The entire roof is guttered and piped into those infiltration devices which are adequately sized and function very,very well. There's no longer any runoff that works its way from around the side of the house down toward the lake which was a problem in the past. Another major improvement the Babcocks have done is two years ago they installed an aerobic enhanced treatment septic system. I won't say it's the first one on Glen Lake,but it was one of the first ones on Glen Lake. It was the first one our office designed on Glen Lake. It's a full blown aerobic enhanced wastewater treatment system, UV disinfection pump station, at considerable expense that they didn't really have to do but they did it because they wanted to do it,and that was another improvement they've done. They've installed additional stormwater improvements to the north of the existing garage, up in here, which is not something they had to do, but there was an issue with some driveway runoff from this area in here and some runoff from actually the Town road that works its way right around their garage and was running down through here. They installed more stormwater devices there,which has solved that problem,again,adequately sized,and functioning very well. So they've taken quite good care of this property and the second portion of this variance leads to the garage. The garage is the portion of the structure,and that dashed line is the footprint of the existing garage. It's now an 1S by 1S,which is 330 square feet. It's got a very small door. It's an old structure. It's in very rough shape, and they propose to replace it with what we feel is the minimal size garage that we can adequately store two vehicles in. It would be 550 square feet. The proposed garage, which is essentially five feet wider, five 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) feet wider to the north,and a few feet deeper away from the house, and in doing that,that will allow them to actually park their two cars in the garage,which when they can do that,they propose to remove,right now this area is asphalt and gravel. They propose to remove that,replace it with a reinforced turf product which will be turf grass with a polyethylene reinforcement within it which will allow some overflow parking in the event they need to get additional parking there,but it won't be normal parking as it is now, and it will generate minimal runoff compared to what it does now. In doing that, they're removing 400 square feet of hard surface on the property so they're increasing the permeability of the property by a couple of hundred square feet,even though we're asking for two minimal expansions. So we think it's a benefit. The existing garage, again,it's a tired old structure and there is a rendering in your packet,the look of the proposed new garage. It's certainly not out of character with the neighborhood. When I looked yesterday there's at least four places along Chestnut that have garages right along the road. Both the neighbors do. One of them is very close to the road,and both neighbors,neighbors on either side have garages located up near the road and then more up the road. So certainly not out of character with the neighborhood. We believe it's actually a benefit to the character of the neighborhood as opposed to a detriment. Additionally they've also proposed additional stormwater plantings along the high shoreline, on the shoreline side of the house, which pick up anything from any of the walkways down there and get some natural planting, deep rooted vegetation as Chris mentioned earlier,as compared to grass. So with that,I guess,do you guys want to add anything? THOMAS BABCOCK MR.BABCOCK-I guess just briefly,first of all thanks so much for giving us the time and your commitment. Missy and I have been on the lake for over 35 years. We're deeply committed to the lake and to be good stewards of the lake. The lake has brought us a tremendous amount of enjoyment over the years and as we get older we'd like to spend more time there,and as our families have expanded and they come back on the weekends or whatever,we just want to have the capabilities,in essence,to be able to have some ability to be able through the winters to be able to put a car in,versus getting things out. We're not getting any younger and then also from the standpoint we have always been extremely proactive in everything that we've ever done with our property and we feel very,very blessed in the fact that we've had this wonderful experience for 35 years,and we just want to be able to continue,and we're requesting some minimal things in essence that we believe will help us achieve this. I guess that's pretty much it. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. UNDERWOOD-You guys are not going to be removing any vegetation,big trees or anything? MR. BABCOCK-No, sir. We have beautiful oaks. We're a little bit nervous,to be very honest with you, Mr. Underwood,with the moth caterpillars. We've been very blessed. MR.KUHL-I have a question. Tom,what are you going to do. You have the leach field in front of the new garage. What's it going to be, asphalt? MR.HUTCHINS-That will be asphalt. It's asphalt now. The leach field is designed to be under a garage. It was done just a few years ago, 2019. It's highway rated, infiltration chambers in the stone bed with a foot of highway gravel fabric,road fabric, and it's designed to be under a road, and that strip will remain asphalt to enter the garage,but we're going to get rid of all the asphalt to the north. MR. KUHL-Right. In the application it talks about 17 feet. In the drawings it looks like 16 feet. Do you have to measure it from the back? Does it drop off? MR.HUTCHINS-It's one of those things. MR.KUHL-Okay,but just tell me,is it going to look like 16 from the road? MR.HUTCHINS-Yes,it's going to look like 16 from the road. MR.KUHL-Then we'll stop right there. MR.HUTCHINS-Okay. MR.KUHL-Good. 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? Roy,do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes,there are two letters,again,both identical. So I'll read one in and read the names. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) MR.HUTCHINS-And those letters were put together in a little bit of an earlier phase of this project. Both the neighbors are on board. There are some numbers in those letters that are not accurate and they mention a bunch of distances and they're not accurate. So they are supporting letters from both adjoining neighbors. MR. URRICO-So there's two supportive letters and I'll try to leave the numbers out, then. "We understand that the Babcocks wish to add a two-story addition to the east side of their home. It will allow them to enlarge their kitchen and upstairs bathroom. Also, they want to replace their garage due to the decay of the existing garage. The floor slab is severely cracked,and the retaining wall is leaning. The new garage will be 215.2 sq.ft.larger to permit the use for two cars and some storage of summer items. I,as an adjoining neighbor, have no objection and support the approval of their applications. They have a new up-to-date septic system. They have handled stormwater,improving same by installing a large catch basin in the driveway/parking area and by installing two catch basins at the front of their home that have leach field piping for any potential overflow. Even with the bump-out and increased size of the garage, the existing percentage of impermeable area of site will be decreased. The permeability of the site will be increased . The setbacks are not significantly impacted by the bump-out addition or new garage. The bump-out is 1.4 feet out of compliance with shoreline setback,but a good portion of home is much closer to the shoreline. The new garage is set back further from Chestnut Road. With the new septic system and the improved stormwater system, the overall impact will be positive. Sincerely, Bill Smith 13 Chestnut Road, Lake George, NY 12545" These are two identical letters, and one from Tom Corrigan, 17 Chestnut Road. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-This is a small property at .17, but this bump-out that they're asking for on the house, it's already bumped-out and it's not as close to the property line as the existing, and so I'd be in favor of it the way it's presented. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I was prepared to say no on this project, but because of the FAR variance, and of course permeability has nothing to do with it,but they're still nine percent below what they should be. After listening to Mr.Hutchins I definitely have changed my tone and I think it's a good project. They definitely need the two car garage. It makes sense even though it's a lot larger than what's there. I'm on board as is. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR.UNDERWOOD-It's always encouraging when people are proactive as opposed to reactive,when they do things we need to do on the lake,and I'm encouraged by the fact that even though you're going to,you're way over your FAR allowance, the house isn't out of character with the neighborhood and I think the addition that you've proposed on that side there is very minimal. I don't think it's going to change the dynamics or be a detriment to the neighborhood or the lake. The garage is going to be a definite benefit and just slightly larger than what's currently existing and it's well set back from the water. So I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I look at the addition as really very minimal and actually it's only going to end up just a few inches closer to the side line and the garage is kind of a benefit. It's certainly not going to be a detriment to anything. It's a real benefit. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm impressed with the effort to preserve and protect what you're doing there. So I'd be in favor of everything you're doing. MR.MC CABE-So it's down to me. I don't make any difference. I'm insignificant. So actually I'd be hard- pressed to disapprove a project in this particular area that wouldn't allow an extra car to get into the garage. Sol,too,will support the project. So,given that information,Jim,I wonder if you could make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thomas &z Marybeth Babcock. Applicant proposes to construct a 2-story addition to the south side of the existing home. The existing home is 1,079.2 sq. ft. with 357 sq. ft. porch area (footprint);the existing floor area is 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 2,230 sq.ft. The new garage to be 554 sq.ft.,-total new floor area is 2,569 sq.ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for setbacks, floor area, and height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,floor area, and height for the construction of a new garage and a two-story addition to the existing home. Section 179-3-040 WR,179-6-065 new floor area,179-13-010 expansion The existing garage to be demolished where the new garage is proposed to be 5 ft.to the side property line where 12 ft. is required,proposed 16.2 ft.to the front property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. The 2-story addition is to be located 6.S ft.to the side property line where a 12 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for the garage height of 17 ft. where 16 ft. is the maximum allowed, then the floor area is proposed to be 2,569 sq. ft. where 1,615 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed noting the additional floor area being added is 339 sq.ft. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 21,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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. It's not any different than what currently exists in the neighborhood on that side. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. It's a slight increase in the size of the garage. It's deemed to be reasonable and the addition is minimal. 3. The requested variance is not considered to be substantial because it's a minimal change from what currently exists on the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. They have an enhanced system for their wastewater treatment and all the proposed additions that have been proposed here this evening will enhance the property,the property value, as far as stormwater goes. 5. The alleged difficulty is considered to be self-created. It's a small lot. 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,- S. 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. 42-2022 THOMAS &z MARYBETH BABCOCK, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 21"Day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. So I'd like to remind everybody that it's getting towards the end of the year, and if you don't have your training in,make sure that you make provision for that. We've got a short Board again next week. Who's missing next week? MRS. MOORE-Mr. Urrico and Mr. Cipperly. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) MR. MC CABE-But we think Brett's going to be here? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know,he will be here. MR. MC CABE-So given that,do you think we should have a lawyer here next week. MRS. MOORE-You have a Sign Variance. MR. MC CABE-And then a side yard swimming pool. MRS. MOORE-There's two pools and a Notice of Appeal.. MR. MC CABE-And a Notice of Appeal,yes. So I'm going to adjourn the meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 21ST,2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21"day of September,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Meeting is adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 27