Loading...
Minutes AV 63-2022 11.16.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 3 SONS AND HOLLY, LLC (MICHAEL CAREY, JR.) AGENT(S) STUDIO A LANDSCAPE, ARCH. & ENG.; JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) 3 SONS AND HOLLY, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 28 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND SITE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 416 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,275 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE DECK PORTIONS INCLUDE REMOVAL OF DECK/PORCH AREAS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 72 SQ. FT. PORCH AND A 200 S. FT. PORCH. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 3,225 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF AN ON-GRADE PAVER PATIO AREA AND STONE SLAB PATH, ENLARGING THE FIRE PIT AREA. IN ADDITION, THERE IS TO BE A RAIN GARDEN AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS ADDED TO THE SITE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING 1,152 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT GARAGE WITH LIVING SPACE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 76-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2022 LOT SIZE 0.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-57 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-4-080; 147 JON LAPPER & MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2022, 3 Sons and Holly, LLC (Michael Carey, Jr.), Meeting Date: November 16, 2022 “Project Location: 28 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 416 sq. ft. addition to the existing home of 1,275 sq. ft. footprint. The deck portions include removal of deck/porch areas to construct a new 72 sq. ft. porch and a 200 sq. ft. porch. The new floor area is 3,225 sq. ft. Site work includes installation of an on-grade paver patio area and stone slab path, enlarging the fire pit area. In addition, there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings added to the site. There are no changes to the existing 1,152 sq. ft. footprint garage with living space. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of nonconforming structure, and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for residential addition for permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and setbacks. The project site is on a 0.34 ac parcel in the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional Relief is requested for permeability where 68.14% is proposed and 75% is required. Existing is 71.6%. The deck to be setback 39 ft. where a 50 ft. setback is required. Stormwater device proposed to be 35 ft. where 100 ft. is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. 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 home near the shoreline. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for permeability is 6.86% and setback relief is 11 ft. for the deck and 65 ft. for stormwater. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. Stormwater controls are proposed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 2 The applicant proposes to alterations to the existing home to create a new entryway. The additional work includes a new deck to the back of the home and patio area improvement. The plans show the new addition entry elevation and the floor print area of the new deck.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was passed on November 15th, 2022 by a unanimous vote. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Kirsten Catellier, project architect and Matt Huntington the project engineer and the applicant, Mike Carey, is behind us. So we believe this is a pretty modest project. Of course it’s on a third of an acre. So a non-conforming lot. What Mike is trying to do, as Laura just stated, fix up, on the non-lakeside, the entrance way. On the lakeside replace the deck which is too steep and not really safe, make it smaller and a little farther back from the lake and then do basically a patio area just to improve the use of the site on the lakeside, and to compensate for that because we were already slightly under the permeability. It’s not a floor area ratio issue. He’s not trying to build too much house, but it’s a small site. So a little bit of permeability seems like a lot of percentage just because you’re on a third of an acre site. So to compensate for that and justify the relief req uested, there are a number of stormwater projects that are a part of this that are two basins, one on the north, one on the south, and most importantly, and Kirsten and Matt will show you in a minute, but there’s the existing stormwater situation that isn’t created by this house that comes down the road. I know it affects the neighbor to the north. So what we’ve done voluntarily here is to capture the stormwater, bring it along the north side of the property into a basin where it’s slowly let out, not into the lake, but to sheet flow across the grass to help control what’s happening on Holly Lane and help the neighborhood, and of course adding a bunch of plantings which Chris will say you have to do plantings if you do a project, but if you don’t do a project, you don’t have to do plantings. So there’s stormwater facilities and a new septic already There’s stormwater facilities being added. We’re trying to address the road issue and also a bunch of plantings along the lake. So on balance I think th is is a modest project on a small lot, but all good for the lake. So with that I’ll ask Kirsten and Matt to explain it. KRISTEN CATELLIER MS. CATELLIER-So just to walk you guys through the project. MR. MC CABE-Hold on. You have to introduce yourself. MS. CATELLIER-Sorry. Kirsten Catellier from Studio A. MR. MC CABE-It’s for the lady that transcribes the minutes. She needs to match your voice to a name. MS. CATELLIER-Awesome. Thank you. So just to walk you through the project. Starting o ut on Holly Lane, there’s existing asphalt which is a series of about six parking spaces right now that bump up to an existing detached garage structure. A series of walks connect the garage and the asphalt parking to the front of the residence, and that’s where we’re proposing an approximate 416 square foot addition with the porch on the front of the residence. Those are the extent of the improvements in the front. We are proposing a set of evergreen trees along the north property line to buffer from the adjacent neighbor, and then going around the front of the residence on the shoreline there is an existing deck structure right off of the residence and it actually extends out currently. We’re proposing to remove that and actually reduce the deck structure back in size and then put in an on grade patio. Portions of the on grade patio are going to be broken up by blue stone pavers just to break up all the paving in general. There’s an existing fire pit that’s to remain where it currently is, but we are proposing to put a series of blue stone slabs surrounding the fire pit to expand upon the size of that fire pit, and additionally we are proposing stormwater which Matt will chime in and go through the series, and then also too we’re heavily bufferi ng the shoreline in regards to the Town of Queensbury Code and meeting all the requirements in that aspect. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, Matt Huntington with Studio A. The stormwater practices for the site consist of a raingarden and a depressed detention basin. The depressed detention basin and swale are on the north side of Holly Lane, and that was just installed. There was nothing really saying that we had to do that as part of this project, but Holly Lane has had some runoff issues that are directed kind of towards the neighbor to the north. So in an effort to mitigate as much as possible and kind of be a good neighbor, as long as Mike was doing a project here, we’ve installed a swale along the north property line in addition to the plantings Kirsten mentioned that’ll help with any runoff uptake through the root system. That swale’s going to take that runoff issue from Holly Lane. It’ll travel down the swale and go to a small detention basin that has kind of a level spreader to spread the flow back out before it gets to the lake and all that’s set back from the lake. It’s not directly discharging into the water. So we hope that’ll help the Holly Lane situation. In terms of the proposed development on the site, the front porch and the patio area are all designed to a raingarden that’s being installed to the south. You can kind of see it south of the deck on there, and the patio paver area is actually pitched back towards the house to a slot drain that will then drain into the raingarden to avoid anything coming off of that patio paver going directly into the lake. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 3 Currently there’s no stormwater practices on the site. So we feel this is a pretty robust attempt at controlling what we can from a stormwater perspective. MR. MC CABE-Is that it, Jon? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Do we have questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input from the audience and anything that might be written. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BRIAN HOGAN MR. HOGAN-For the record my name is Brian Hogan. I own the two properties immediately to the north that was part of the discussion about the stormwater management. First of all let me apologize for handing out all this stuff to you folks. I was not aware of this meeting. I never got notified. I own two properties. I never got any notification. So I had to rush to put all this stuff together, but I’m going to be brief in terms of what I would like you guys at least to look at. This is extremely uncomfortable for me. They’re showing a one bedroom apartment over the garage. Since 2004 that has been a two bedroom bunkroom and it’s since been converted to a one bedroom with a den, four season residence with cooking facilities and I believe laundry facilities as well. That work was not completed until after this application was filed. Moving upwards, the applicant has purchased a two bedroom home across the street which they’re advertising on VRBO with lakefront access, and that’s current. As a matter of fact you can look on BRB and still see the two bedroom construction of the place. So I believe that requires a variance. The other thing, moving upward from that, we see the original thing where they had six parking spaces. Actually be Town guidelines that’s 9.5 parking spaces, and to achieve that they removed 800 feet of stormwater management and paved it over. Now that’s listed as the existing condition as well. So you’ve got two existing conditions. This existing condition wasn’t even constructed until after the applicant filed this application in front of you. The other part we’re looking at here, now that that is done that way, this just generates 4,350 gallons of stormwater. That was part of my original complaint to Mike. I said, hey, you’re flooding my yard eight inches, can you do something about it, and in all honesty I expected this evening’s meeting to be about addressing the specific issues associated with it, not expansion of the property. Holly Lane is actually a highway by use. So the applicant has more responsibility in terms of permeability as well as stormwater. The other thing that’s occurred as a result of this is he has a newly installed septic system. It’s in a failed state. The two criteria for determining the failed state of the septic system is surface water and full D box test. It’s failed both of those tests on multiple occasions. This is a result of any time there’s a significant rain storm. It basically fails and they’re trying to rent this out now as a commercial venture with a lot of renters and everything in and out of it. I didn’t make these tests. They were done by the septic system installer IBS. They were on site twice. One time the fella was there and he put his foot into the leach field up to his ankle and said this is a swamp. Another time a guy was on site and dug up the D box and activated the pump in the system. MRS. MOORE-So in regards to the septic system, that’s not the purview of the Zoning Board. MR. HOGAN-I’m going to go through it anyway because it does affect the stormwater, and the water actually squirted up from the ground. So they’re showing stormwater management where they’re driving 4350 gallons of water into a relatively small dispersion area and it’s going past a failed septic system. Now while it keeps the water off my property, it goes past the septic system and into the lake right in front of my house. Neither situation is actually very good. The last thing I’m going to mention is the unapproved development in front of the place, and while this is not Mike’s fault. This was done in 2019. The whole fire pit was added as well as the previous owners had gotten permission from the Town to put in a screened porch. As part of the screened porch they were supposed to remove all facilities from the apartment which they did. That happened in 2004. In 2019 it was converted from a screened porch into a four season room. Basically now it’s advertised.. The detail is on there with all of that stuff. You guys are welcome to ask me any question you want. Otherwise I need to sit down. MR. MC CABE-So other people that would like to speak on this particular project? Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. There are concerns regarding the permeability variance for this small non-conforming lot within the Critical Environmental Area of Lake George. In an area that’s experiencing Harmful Algae Blooms as recently as three weeks ago. The project proposes to enlarge the hard scape patio and move it closer to the lake, reduce vegetative cover and topsoil within the shoreline protective zone. In fact when you compare the existing deck to what the proposed deck/patio area will be, the new one will be nearly 100% larger. This patio is actually not an on grade paver patio as claimed in the application, but it’s actually being installed on 15 inches of fill, according to the drawing. So if you look at Drawing 1.1 that area that’s closer to the lake is actually a 15 inch grade. That’s how they get the grade to push everything back towards the house. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 4 So there is the question about the unapproved work on the property. I attached to the letter that I submitted a 2002 aerial which shows that stormwater management area where those parking spaces are that has been removed and paved over and also there’s a question on the fire pit which is within that 50 foot setback where there’s supposed to be approvals for all hard scape. I don’t know whether that has received approvals. There is a question about the stormwater management along the northern property line and whether that could be adjusted and pushed further away from the lake be cause that is handling runoff from the road from traffic areas, and that’s supposed to be 100 feet from the lake. So those are my comments at this time. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Ma’am. LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board members. My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live on Assembly Point. My concern, and I think the concern of most of the neighbors on Holly Lane, is the fact that in October a harmful algae bloom was found in this very small, shallow bay. While the LGA was not able to get out fast enough to test this algae bloom, according to the DEC that has tested for toxicity, according to the DEC as soon as a harmful algae bloom is known, my may not drink the water and you may not swim in the water and so I think we have to do everything possible to increase the permeability rather than decrease it because it is obvious that the lake is under stress. The plan submitted by 3 Sons, particular the new extensive patio which is 24 feet from the lake, has the potential to increase the runoff which has already been aggravated, as was mentioned, by unapproved development. The impervious patio would replace the existing deck which did have a pervious surface underneath it and the plans in effect make a non-conforming lot even more non-conforming. I think Miss Connor, in her letter to you, said that the Board is being asked to adjust the rules governing the owner’s property so that he can build whatever he chooses. While it has been alleged that the relief request ed is minor, it is not and its impact could be major for this bay. It is curious why the Town of Queensbury would be asked to accept a lower standard for setbacks for stormwater infiltration devices. We often hear the defense that the new stormwater devices wherever they are placed will be better than non-existent ones. However, in the case of 3 Sons, the addition of more hard surfaces near the lake seems to necessitate a stormwater infiltration which is against the code. So do two wrongs make a right? Given the fact that the lake is in decline and that harmful algae blooms are prevalent in this area, please ask the applicant relocate the patio and decrease the hard surfacing near the lake. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? Go ahead. WILLIAM CROWELL MR. CROWELL-My name is William Crowell and I reside at 20 Holly Lane. My concern I think mirrors some of the concerns that have been previously testified to before the Board. The major concern that I have is really with the fact that it seems to me that this is a commercial use in a Waterfront Residential zoned area. As was pointed out earlier, there’s rental. 3 Brothers owns two properties, two single family homes and they’re on VRBO and it seems to me that this is a commercial undertaking. MR. MC CABE-Short term rentals are not considered commercial and they’re not our concern. MR. CROWELL-They are your concern. MRS. MOORE-No, I’m sorry. They’re not. Not for the Zoning Board, but I’ll let you continue. MR. CROWELL-Well, the Zoning Board, the definition of tenant tourist accommodation, the building or group of buildings, whether detached or in connected units, designed for transients and providing the accessory off street parking facilities. The term tourist accommodations includes buildings designated as tourist, etc. So I’m suggesting to you that this is a usage. So as use. MR. MC CABE-You’re free to suggest that. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. CROWELL-And you’re free to say that it doesn’t have any impact, but it certainly does on the residents and it certainly has an impact on the use of the property and the fact that there’s going to be rentals of two properties and in fact you’ve got a definition of single family unit. I mean the definitio n of a single family home, there’s a single housekeeping unit, a more or less permanent arrangement, stable rather than transient. MR. MC CABE-So we understand your point here. MR. CROWELL-Okay. Good. Thank you. I appreciate it. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 5 MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else who has input? Go ahead. JEFF MEYER MR. MEYER-Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Meyer. I’m here on behalf of a number of the property owners on Holly Lane, including Mr. Brian Hogan. What I asked, and Mrs. Moore was kind enough to pull up is the survey that the applicant submitted, done by Van Dusen and Steves. That is base line. That shows what’s pervious, what’s impervious, what was permitted by the Town of Queensbury. All of the future calculations, everything else relative to this application, should be based on that. It’s still a small lot. There’s still going to be pre-existing, non-conforming issues, but in terms of the pervious surface, it is conforming. There isn’t an issue with impervious surface that pre-dates the 1800 or so square feet of paving along Holly Lane that is the source of a lot of the stormwater issues. It also pre-dates a lot of the impervious surfaces that are in between the house and the lake. Anything beyond that has been an addition and should require review by this Board as part of this application. In looking quick at the statutory criteria, because you guys have had a lot thrown at you, you’re looking at whether an undesirable change is going to be produced to the detriment of the community and the adjoining property owners. You’ve heard numerous people speak to how there are stormwater issues, parking for 11 cars, a wide open parking lot on the side of a residential street would never be approved. Any time a highway application, any time a business opens in Town they look at a single point of ingress and egress for parking and DOT from the State, County and municipal level, everybody’s trying to close off the situations that this applicant has created, where cars can come and go. It’s hazardous to pedestrians. It’s hazardous to other vehicles. Additionally, you have a massive patio that’s on the front. It’s excessive. It’s out of character with the rest of Holly Lane. It’s out of character with Assembly Point if you start looking at aerial photos. There’s simply no need for 500 plus square feet of hard scape on this lot this small right against the shores of the lake. You have zoning and shorefront protection in place that are designed to protect against this type of development. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other feasible method other than an area variance. Yes. There are feasible alternatives. You don’t have to build out the property in this manner. You don’t need the massive patio. You don’t need all the hard scape. All the other homes in the area get by just fine. There’s simply no need for that additional patio and all the impervious surfaces both along the lake and along the road. The requested variance is substantial. The permeability numbers allow for 75%. It is, based on that survey, it is in compliance. What they’re asking for is 68%. That’s a significant deviation from what is allowed and what is feasible on the property. You’ve heard a lot about the adverse environmental impacts. You have the Waterkeeper talking to you about algae blooms and all of this is well documented. You have heard about the septic and the stormwater. MR. MC CABE-I don’t think Chris mentioned algae blooms. Did you? You did? MR. NAVITSKY-You weren’t listening. MR. MC CABE-Sorry. Go ahead. MR. MEYER-You heard about the septic issues and the stormwater issues and so I’ll keep that brief. And lastly whether the hardship is self-created and it’s entirely self-created. You have a home. There’s always the no build option. To build in this manner with this much hard scape right along Lake George is entirely self-created. It is up to this Board to essential safeguard the protections of the community and deny this variance. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? So, Roy, do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-We do. Some have already spoken. So I’m going to read the letters that weren’t. “Plea se accept this letter concerning the application before the planning and zoning boards by Three Sons and Holly LLC. Currently scheduled for 11/15 and 11/16. I write in reference to the property at 28 Holly Lane, Lake George NY 12845, for an addition to the structure and the plans for materials around a fire pit that do appear to be detrimental to the property concerning absorption and runoff effecting the lake. We must protect the shoreline to protect the lake. (Presently we are monitoring "blooms" in this area.). Queensbury has regulations to protect the shoreline and lake. These are not new regulations. The current owner is aware of them; yet takes no notice when he asks for them to be ignored. It is your duty as stewards of the land and lake to uphold the regulations for all the reasons they exist. The town boards are not here to adjust an owner's property to fit the structure he/she chooses to place on it. You are here to protect the property's use because it effects more than the owner's desire to add amenities. Hold true to your office and protect Queensbury's corner of Lake George bordering Assembly Point. I request that you reject these requests made by the owner of 28 Holly Lane, Lake George, NY 12845.” And this is Florence E. Connor, 6 Holly Lane. “We are writing In reference to the current application before the planning and zoning boards by Three Sons and Holly LLC. Currently scheduled for 11/15 and 11/16. This owner has purchased multiple properties at the end of our street. All with the sole intent of maximizing income from short term rentals. The owner himself spends very little time using any of the property. Significant additional work has been completed on the properties in recent months to further increase revenues, including adding dock space, expanding parking areas and other expansion work on the property. Now he is seeking further significant (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 6 variances to allow for even more additional living area and expanding the party area on the lakefront. We live in a quiet residential neighborhood on a small road. Our expectation is that it should remain that way as much as possible. Placing a 1960's style cabin colony on our road is not something we feel should be encouraged. Awarding additional variances and approving further development for what are purely commercial purposes is not in keeping with a residential neighborhood. Nor does it meet any of the balance tests for awarding such variances. We strongly object to any award of variances that put additional pressure on the lake or change the character of our neighborhood, especially for obvious commercial purposes.” And this is signed Christine Baertschi, William Crowell, Curt and Tami Carstensen, Lynn Gauger, Bruce and Carolyn Hodgkins, Eileen Considine, Bob and Jen Metivier, Brian and Meredith Hogan, and Edward and Susan O’Hanlon. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-That’s it? So, Jon, would you like to provide any rebuttal? MR. LAPPER-That was much ado about a small project. Mike bought the property a year ago. He assumed that the fire pit had always been there, and if it wasn’t it wasn’t, but everything that he’s proposed here is good for the lake to be putting in the stormwater facilities. Chris’ argument about putting in a little bit of fill, obviously that’s a good design so that the new patio drains away from the lake and goes into the basin. Dealing with the issue on Holly Lane, you know, was something, again, that he didn’t have to do, that we think is for the benefit of the neighbor Mr. Hogan, even though he’s objecting. It’s a brand new septic system. There’s no failed septic system. It’s a brand new septic system that was just installed. Nothing’s changed above the garage. There’s no kitchen above the garage. What did you say, you re -did the floor? MIKE CAREY MR. CAREY-I re-did the floors and the walls and re-painted. MR. LAPPER-Yes. There’s no cooking facilities. MR. MC CABE-You have to come up here if you’re going to make a comment. So do you have a comment? MR. HOGAN-Brian Hogan again. Laura, can you bring up the site plan that shows the plans for the one bedroom apartment. As you can see, it is now a one bedroom apartment. He said he changed the floors. That’s not true. If it, in fact, is what’s shown on this as an existing condition, then there’s a disconnect here. It was a two bedroom bunkroom without kitchen facilities. I see a kitchen. I see a den with a pull out couch and I see a bedroom. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. CAREY-Mike Carey. I’m the owner of 28 Holly Lane, the subject property. So that plan is incorrect. That upper level, that was a plan that we were thinking about doing and re -configuring it. It was a one bedroom and another den. I believe a room has to have a closet to be considered a bedroom. Right now the bathroom is in the center. Where that shows a one bedroom is like a den and then the far bottom right corner is a bedroom. There’s a one bedroom, one den. That never got re-configured that way. I didn’t realize that that was submitted that way. So there’s no kitchen. There’s a countertop with a sink. There’s no cooking facility. There’s no cooktop. So that plan is wrong. I didn’t know it was submitted that way. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Do you have any proof of that? MR. CAREY-I will get that submitted the correct way. MR. URRICO-Which one do we have, Laura? Which one is actually the one that was being submitted? MRS. MOORE-This has been submitted. MR. URRICO-This one here? MRS. MOORE-That’s been submitted to us for, as part of their review. MR. URRICO-And you say that’s incorrect. MR. LAPPER-What Mike is saying is that the Town can come in and inspect that there’s no, nothing’s there. MR. URRICO-But that is not the right one? MR. CAREY-That’s not the right plan. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 7 MR. URRICO-But that’s the one that’s on file. MR. CAREY-That is on file. It was submitted improperly. MR. URRICO-So we don’t really have good information here. MR. LAPPER-That’s the first time we heard about that. So that’s valid and we’ll have to fix that. So, again, there’s no contamination. There’s no algae bloom caused by this. What we’re talking about here is water that runs off a paver patio, which isn’t contaminated, and goes into a basin which is beneficial to the lake compared to what’s there now. MR. MC CABE-So I’ll just ask the question. Where does the drinking water for this property come from? MR. CAREY-From the lake. MR. LAPPER-Yes, lake water. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So you have a further issue. Jon, would you give up the table for a second. MR. HOGAN-Brian Hogan, 33 and 34 Holly Lane. On Page 3 of the pre-submission conference form, it’s in the document that I gave you. It’s the third page. MR. HENKEL-It says Page Eight at the bottom. MR. HOGAN-You see where it says Item Two on there, and you see where the requested septic information, Page Four, DOH resolution 4-2022. I attended the meeting at which this. MR. MC CABE-So this would be a Town Board meeting? MR. HOGAN-This is a Town Board meeting, Board of Health. I had an opportunity to review the plans. At that time the plans showed that there was three bedrooms in the main house, one bedroom in the apartment. I spoke to the engineer at the time, Mr. Hutchins, and I informed him of this, and he corrected the plans at that time. If you look at the fourth page of what I have, and you see the actual Board resolution, I see Mr. Hutchins making a comment here. This is a four bedroom design. There are two bedrooms in two separate structures on the property. This was a change he made at my request because it was inaccurate. Now we see that it’s back again in the pre-submission form as three bedrooms in the main house and one in the other one. I have a significant disconnect here with what’s going on. MR. MC CABE-Jon? MR. HUNTINGTON-Matt Huntington with Studio A. I don’t really have a lot of insight on the septic design of this because we didn’t do it, but it sounded like from that statement it was a four bedroom septic and it’s still four bedrooms. So it seems like it was the same design for the same bedroom count, three in the house, one in the garage, and if it was designed for two in the garage, two in the house, it’s still a four bedroom septic. MR. LAPPER-I’ve heard a lot of weird conspiracy stuff. I would like to table it just in terms of clarifying the application to make sure that that’s the right plan. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So when will you be ready? MR. LAPPER-December. MR. HENKEL-We only have one meeting. Right? MRS. MOORE-So December’s meetings, the deadline was on Monday for December’s meeting. We need to come up with when you would be sending information by, as well as, I would prefer January. MR. HENKEL-What are we going to do, January or December? MR. CAREY-I have the correct plan. MRS. MOORE-So could you provide information by Friday of any clarifications? MR. LAPPER-I guess before we table I’d just like to hear if anything else members of the Board would like us to address. MR. MC CABE-I think the most important thing is that we have the right information. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 8 MR. LAPPER-Of course. MR. HENKEL-The permeability scares me a little bit. MR. MC CABE-So why don’t we make a motion about tabling. MR. UNDERWOOD-Why don’t we get some comment from the Board so it gives them more ammunition to come back with something. MR. MC CABE-Well, certainly if you could clarify, it sounds like permeability is an issue. So if you could clarify that a little bit. It sounds like there was more impervious. MR. LAPPER-We didn’t address that. So this whole area in front of the house was landscaping, riprap, and Mike did add two more parking spaces, but we can address permeability. We can look closer at that. We’re asking 68% which isn’t a lot. I know it’s a small lot, but, sure we can look at that. MR. MC CABE-So we’ll have a motion for December. MR. HOGAN-Can I make a comment. MR. MC CABE-I haven’t closed the public hearing. So come up. MR. HENKEL-Our two Wednesdays are the 14th and 21st. I’d assume we’re doing the 14th. MRS. MOORE-We’re only doing the 14th. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you’re going to submit it by this Friday? MR. HOGAN-Brian Hogan. One of the things I don’t understand about the Board, and maybe you guys can explain this, I don’t know. MR. MC CABE-We don’t ask the questions of you, you provide input to us. MR. HOGAN-Okay. What I’ve seen happen over the years is that any time when you find some significant discrepancies in what look to be sometimes deliberate acts, the applicant tends to immediately request to be tabled, and then when you’re down the road where there’s four, five meetings, at which, you know, you request public comment and everything, and that just seems crazy to me that you would do that. In this particular instance, based on this, I would deny the application and send them back to the drawing board, and it really should go back to the Planning Board first now that they have all the proper information. It’s self-serving on my part because I don’t want to come back to another meeting in January and maybe another one in February and do this thing, and it seems like from my perspective that just tends to wear you guys down and eventually you give in, and I’ve seen situations with the Board where you go to six meetings and seven meeting and you guys finally approve something and then at the end of it some of the Board members look at it and go, how did we approve this. MR. URRICO-You’re making a lot of generalized comments here. He raised it. I want to answer it. MR. MC CABE-There’s more than 80 years’ experience sitting right here on this Board. MR. HOGAN-I’m sorry. I apologize. I’m getting upset and I shouldn’t be. MR. URRICO-I’m getting upset listening to you. MR. HOGAN-Thank you. Sorry. MR. MC CABE-So we need a motion on the tabling. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 3 Sons and Holly, LLC (Michael Carey Jr.). Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 416 sq. ft. addition to the existing home of 1,275 sq. ft. footprint. The deck portions include removal of deck/porch areas to construct a new 72 sq. ft. porch and a 200 sq. ft. porch. The new floor area is 3,225 sq. ft. Site work includes installation of an on-grade paver patio area and stone slab path, enlarging the fire pit area. In addition, there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings added to the site. There are no changes to the existing 1,152 sq. ft. footprint garage with living space. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of nonconforming structure, and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and setbacks. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 9 MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 63-2022 3 SONS AND HOLLY (MICHAEL CAREY, JR.), Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to December 14th, 2022 with new information due by Friday, November 18th, 2022. Duly adopted this 16th day of November, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. LAPPER-I’d like to ask one other thing. It’s a credibility issue and there’s no, it’s not a dwelling unit above the garage. So I’d like to ask Laura to have Bruce Frank go and inspect the garage so he can see what’s there. I think that should be in the record. A lot of this crazy neighbor stuff we hadn’t heard before, septic systems failing. We’ll be back in December. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you.