Loading...
Minutes 01.18.23(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 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 (REVISED) 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, AND REDUCTION OF HARD SURFACING ALSO PROPOSED. 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. FLOOR AREA GARAGE WITH LIVING SPACE. SITE PERMEABILITY WAS REDUCED PRIOR TO SUBMISSION AS PART OF PARKING ARRANGEMENT ON THE SITE. 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 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: ALD 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 & KIRSTEN CATELLIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 63-2022, 3 Sons and Holly, LLC (Michael Carey, Jr.), Meeting Date: January 18, 2023 “Project Location: 28 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 4 16 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, stone slab path, enlarging the fire pit area, and reduction of hard surfacing also proposed. 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. floor area garage with living space. Site permeability was reduced prior to submission as part of parking arrangement on the site. 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 permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and setbacks for residential additions and site work. 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 71.6% is proposed and 75% is required. 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 3.4% and setback relief is 11 ft. for the deck and 65 ft. for stormwater device. 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 2 Staff comments: The applicant proposes 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. The applicant has explained prior to site plan the parking area was redone and as part of the site plan process it was d etermined the permeability was reduced from 75% to 71.6%. Town Staff conducted a site visit in December. The project has been revised with the number of bedrooms remaining at 4 where two will be in the existing home and two in the upstairs of the garage.” MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Kirsten Catellier from Studio A and Mike Carey, the applicant, is behind us. Laura, could you put up the proposed conditions. So we were here previously and at that point John had asked us to look at permeability and see what we could do. So the permeability variance is now from 75% to 71.6. It’s a small site. He’s not doing significant things in terms of what’s proposed, but the square footage, it doesn’t take a lot of square f ootage to be a few percent just because it’s such a small site. The addition to the house is on the roadside, not near the lake, but everything that we’re asking for here is a benefit to the lake. Kirsten will go through this in detail, but there’s dramatically increased planting towards the lake. Of course Queensbury requires planting, but this is going above and beyond. On the north side of the neighbor’s property there’s an existing stormwater problem that’s not caused by Mike that the water comes down the road and floods and storms into this property and the property to the north. So what Kirsten has designed all along the top there is a stormwater facility that will direct the stormwater from the lake along the property line. First it’ll infiltrate into the basin that she’s created, and then the variance that we’re asking for for stormwater basin that’s not 100 feet from the lake, on the top side it’s about 40 feet and that’s a good thing because it’s infiltrating rather than running off. The deck that’s there now is being removed and replaced by a patio area and a deck, but right now the water comes off the deck, it goes down the hill and runs right into the lake untreated. So the patio is slopes away from the lake towards the house where there’s a trench. It’s going to be captured and it’s going to go into a basin to be treated on the south. So again that’s eliminating water that’s going untreated into the lake. Now it’s going to be treated and it’s going away from the lake and, you know, it’s a small house. What’s proposed is just a new entryway, a new dining room, you know, nothing dramatic, but important for the family in terms of enjoying the site. In order to get to the permeability reduction, there are two paved spaces along the north side of the front that are going to be removed, re-vegetated. So that’s how we got to the 71.6%. So I’ll turn it over to Kirsten. MS. CATELLIER-Kirsten Catellier from Studio A. Just to add on to Jon’s comments. Some of the site improvements that we’ve done since the last meeting to improve permeability. You can see on the front there’s two walks shown right now from the paved asphalt to the front of the house and into the garage. We actually eliminated the third little strip, the leg that was in there. So that’s gone. We eliminated the two parking spaces and on the lakeside of the residence we actually eliminated two feet width of the pavers that are proposed to pull that back from the shore. So that all contributed to making the permeability better on the site, and then lastly we also added that planting area, just to the north of the reduced parking area. We thought that had many benefits. One to capture additional water running down the road, but also, too, to help buffer from the adjacent neighbor and just increase the vegetation in that area, and then lastly I know there was a question about the bed count. We are remaining at four bedrooms. What is currently on the property, we’re not increasing, and the septic system that was already installed and approved previously is compliant for four bedrooms. So everything is to remain as is. I think that’s about all the improvements that we’ve done since last meeting to just improve the request that we’re asking for. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes. Can you put this one up, please. This is accurate. Correct? MS. CATELLIER-Yes. MR. CIPPERLY-It’s just kind of an odd question, but that house as it currently is, there’s only one bathroom and that’s accessible through the different bedrooms. Right? MS. CATELLIER-Two. MICHAEL CAREY MR. CAREY-There’s two bathrooms in that house. MR. MC CABE-First you have to state your name. Sorry. MR. CAREY-I’m Michael Carey. I’m the owner of the property. MR. CIPPERLY-I can’t find it. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 3 MR. CAREY-It’s right there. Yes. MR. CIPPERLY-That’s the new. MR. CAREY-No, it’s not. That’s the new. MR. CIPPERLY-You have that identified as the addition. MR. CAREY-The addition is in the front of the property right there. Correct. The bathroom is currently right where the addition is right now, too. There is a bathroom. MR. HENKEL-So it’s in the kitchen area now. MR. CIPPERLY-I could not find an existing plan. This one’s been around for, since November. MR. LAPPER-That’s a good question, because we’re only showing the new one, but it’s replacing the one that was there. MR. CAREY-It pretty much just makes it larger. It’s really tight in there now. Small bathroom. MR. CIPPERLY-So when you talked about taking things away, that bathroom is going away or is that being incorporated? MR. CAREY-Remodeling the bathroom. Just making it larger. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. I mean I guess we went through this with the bedrooms and the garage and I’m a little confused at times. MR. CAREY-Previously when we submitted for the first plan we had an extra, we were trying to add an extra bedroom, because I was under the impression that we could. The system that was designed, it could handle the capacity of that bedroom, but what I misunderstood from Tom the engineer, the leach field wasn’t designed for a five bedroom system. So that’s why we went back and eliminated that. So there’ll still be four. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. HENKEL-But you do have a closet in the living room area which kind of makes it be a bedroom potentially. It’s kind of unusual to have a closet in the living room. MR. CAREY-That serves as like a mop closet. We don’t have one in the kitchen area like that right now. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. CIPPERLY-You brought up, there’s no closet in bedroom two, is that correct? MR. CAREY-Correct. The bedroom as you walk in does not have a closet in there right now. MR. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. CAREY-There is a bed in there, though. MR. MC CABE-Are we all set? A public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JEFF MEYER MR. MEYER-Good evening, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Jeff Meyer. I’m an attorney with Meyer, Fuller, and Stockwell in Lake George. I’m here on behalf of Mr. Hogan and a number of the property owners on Holly Lane. I handed out a four or five page letter with a little exhibit detailing the arguments why the variances, plural, should not be granted. There are a number of alternatives that exist. Essentially a quick summary. The Staff Notes correctly show that the property is currently in violation. The pavement along the road was added to that permit. It’s why the property needs the variance for permeability, and there are also an existing fire pit and on grade pavers on a portion of the patio out front. They were all done without permits and without coming before this Board. So essentially what we’re (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 4 saying is the applicant shouldn’t be allowed to expand the violation as justification for variances. There’s previous discussions as to what the use is for the property and whether it’s actually a single family residence or a short term rental. I just want to clarify that the property is permissible to be used as a short term rental. We’re not arguing that fact. What we’re saying is that use and the impacts associated with that more intensive use, should be considered when you’re evaluating the detrimental impact that will occur in the neighborhood and the larger community, and as you start to work your way through the criteria, it becomes abundantly clear, you know, is there going to be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. The answer is yes. Even with some of the reduced pavement along the road, there’s still room to park eight vehicles. That’s four times what’s normally associated with a single family dwelling and it isn’t justifiable based on what is shown. It’s double what is permissible or what is recommended for a short term rental based on the number of bedrooms. So all the impervious surfaces and the variances associated with that become unnecessary and irrelevant. The stormwater. They’re asking to locate it within 35 feet of the lake. If you get rid of all the impervious surfaces and all the paving up by the road you can actually treat it and infiltrate it up by the road and not down by the lake where if anything were ever to go wrong or you get a large storm event that overflows some of the infiltration areas, the contaminants are going to end up in the lake. If you look at the hard surface on the front, the blue stone patio isn’t outlined, and with the materials there’s an aerial photo that essentially gives you an idea of the number of parking spaces that are associated with the neighborhood, the permeability and, you know, what hard scape is also in and around the area. There’s simply, you know, the patio that they’re proposing is three times the size of anything else that’s in the area. It’s excessive and it’s unnecessary. It complicates stormwater, and again, you’re adding hard surface that results in greater detrimental impacts because there’s simply nothing similar. When you look at whether or not there are other feasible alternatives. The original application said this is it. There aren’t any feasible alternatives. You raised a bunch of issues. The Board asked a bunch of probing questions, two days they have a new plan with different alternatives. The Town inspected the property in December, realized there were some questions with the bedrooms. No alternatives. Boom. There’s alternatives and we have a new plan before you. As we’ve shown with some of the permeability, there are alternatives. You don’t need this giant patio. You don’t need all of this parking. You can reconfigure. You can reduce. You can limit. The impacts that they’re asking and the scope of the additions that they’re asking for are, you know, voluntary. The size of the structure isn’t necessarily what we’re talking about, but it’s the addition of all the hard scape, all the impermeable surfaces. Because quite frankly what’s going to come with it is the property across the street is similarly situated and it turns into a party house. You have, you know, what was essentially the creation of a compound where you’re going to have large parties. That’s why there was such a concern over the septic system by my client and the neighbors. You’re creating a situation where there’s going to be a lot of people there and it doesn’t need to be enhanced through the addition of impermeable surfaces, hard scape patios, a fire pit that’s 15 feet from the lake. And to that end the variance is substantial. They’re requesting three variances. There’s no need for three variances. If you’re looking at percentages, locating the stormwater device is a 65% variance from what is required. Twenty percent relief is required for the deck encroaching into the lake side setback. These are substantial variances and they should be looked at as a whole and in the abstract because a change to one can create alternatives for the other. Back to the adverse environmental impacts. I do think it’s quite evident and clear the stormwater impacts are there. The adverse environmental impacts are there. There is a stormwater situation on Holly Lane, but it’s only going to get worse if the impervious surface that was put there illegally is allowed to remain and become compliant through actions of this Board. That stormwater should be addressed, should be addressed properly and not channeled directly down the slope toward Lake George where the applicant draws water, my client draws water and a lot of the people that live on Assembly Point also draw water. Lastly, the difficulty is self-created. Yes it’s a small lot, but what they’re asking for is entirely self -created. There’s also the no build alternative. In choosing to create this large hard scape, create this large patio, create this large parking area when one isn’t necessary, and they all have impacts and they’re all to the detriment of the Town, the neighborhood and Lake George. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? BRIAN HOGAN MR. HOGAN-Good evening. I’m Brian Hogan. I live to the north of the subject property and rather than go over what Jeff has done already, I’ll just try to enhance it just a little bit. What we’re showing here is the number of bedrooms. The applicant really wants five bedrooms in the property. Going as far back as when they were looking for their septic variance. They indicated to the Town at that time that there was one bedroom in the garage. They were forced to correct this to two bedrooms. Then they came before this Board and indicated again that there was one bedroom in the garage. Then we went through a couple of tablings, inspections to determine that there were in fact two bedrooms in the garage once again. Subsequent to that they tried to get approval for five bedrooms and they couldn’t do that. Now we’re looking at a dining room, three living rooms and a modification to the bathroom. I honestly don’t believe, based upon what’s going on so far, that the applicant has any intention of leaving that as a dining room. Can you bring up the site plan with the plantings please. So the other thing the applicant has done is they’ve reduced the number of parking spaces from 9.5. As you can see there, they’ve basically added all of this parking area, and not just added parking area. They paved over stormwater. Originally the stormwater was handled there. Any of the addition traveled this way and went down towards my (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 5 property. Now by virtue of the fact they added all that stormwater pavement to the area, it flooded my yard. I had complained about it, at which time they indicated that they would fix that. I had originally thought that what they meant by fixing it was that they were going to get rid of the extra parking sp aces. What they’ve done is take this, thousands of gallons of stormwater generated by this flat roof, comes down gutters from the road, all this parking space, takes a right hand turn. Their septic leach field is right here. Now the septic leach field is at elevation 333. The elevation of the road at that point is 332 The elevation that they’re showing for their dry creek bed is right around 331. Now you do some simple math. They are taking the stormwater three and a half feet from that force ma in leach field two feet below the level of the leach field, directing it towards the lake, through an insufficient methodology to process that and down a 45 degree into the lake where we get our drinking water. That is unacceptable. And the way they’re trying to couch this with the good people is that they’ve determined that the existing permeability is 71.86%. If you look at the documentation submitted by the applicant, they indicated that the existing permeability is 71.86% when in fact it’s not. They added all of that pavement. The original permeability is 75%. So it actually requires a variance and a stormwater plan. By them coming before you this evening and telling you that the existing permeability is 71.86 they are trying to absolve themselves of the fact that they need a variance for, a, that pavement and, b, a stormwater plan. You have the letter in your possession from them indicating that they don’t need a stormwater plan. Do you have any questions for me? No? All right. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? MEREDITH HOGAN MRS. HOGAN-Hi, Meredith Hogan. 34 Holly Lane to the north. I had this really cute thing I was going to read, very sentimental about my neighborhood and where I live, but I think the gist of what I would like to say is that it’s going to be an LLC. It is an LLC that is the applicant. We don’t know who the members of the LLC. It’s not necessarily a family who’s living there. Th e applicant has spent very little time there since purchasing the property. My biggest concern is that fire pit and the smoke that comes into my bedroom at night when the wind’s out of the south, and if it heads the direction it’s in my neighbors’ bedrooms and I just noticed they were making is larger which I didn’t realize. When you come up to Assembly Point there’s a nice little sign there that says residential zone, and I kind of put a lot of stock into that when we moved in there about 20 years ago, and now I understand the applicant has a right to do short term rentals, but I don’t think the Town should approve any variances and put additional pressure to the lake for no other reason than for financial gain for what is in essence a hotel and that was all I had to say. Very intimidating coming up here. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else? Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper, and I’d like to thank the Zoning Board for their attention to the inconsistencies in this application and concerns regarding permeability and expansions in the critical environmental area surrounding Lake George. Although the applicant has been revised and claims to eliminate the permeability variance, there are questions regarding existing conditions used to determine the permeability and the fact that permeability will actually increase within the shoreline setback area. MR. MC CABE-So a couple of people have said that they weren’t requesting a permeability variance. They are requesting a permeability variance. MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. That’s part of my confusion on this. MR. HENKEL-They’re back to the existing permeability which they don’t need to ask for permeability now. Right? MRS. MOORE-Ultimately they need a permeability variance. MR. HENKEL-I thought the existing was 71. MRS. MOORE-What had happened was the applicant had paved prior to submission of the materials. So once the calculation was actually done, it was determined that they were originally compliant. Now they’re not. So that’s why the permeability still stands. MR. MC CABE-Non-conforming structure, permeability variance, and setbacks are what they’re looking for. MR. NAVITSKY-Right. That’s what I’m saying is that there’s confusion on the permeability. I even included a photo from the applicant’s real estate page that showed where a stormwater basin was located by the garage. This is over, taken in the last year, and now it’s paved over. So again, confusion on that. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 6 The existing building located within the shoreline setback is proposed to reduce the vegetative surface and important topsoil critical for shoreline protective areas and replace with a semi-permeable hard scape Additionally this will not be an on grade paver patio, but actually bring in 15 inches of fill in raising that up to push that stormwater back away from the lake which is another disturbance, and they do reference the shoreline buffer planting, but again that is required. It’s not anything additional they’re doing. That is actually required. So the project will result in an undesirable change to the neighborhood . The project proposed is excessive impervious cover and development of a non-conforming lot which states there are six available parking spaces, removes important vegetative cover within the shoreline and decreases the shoreline setbacks. For example, the shoreline setback to the new raised patio will be 25 feet when the existing patio is 28 feet from the lake The fire pit which has never received site plan review for hard scape within 50 feet of the shoreline will decrease the shoreline setback from 19 to 15 and a half feet and the size will actually be tripled from 78 square feet to 218 square feet. So they’re really expanding the area and the impervious between the house and the lake by 100%. Now that’s not a variance in itself, but that shows the magnitude of disturbance. The project will result in adverse impacts to the environment through increased impervious cover and reduction of vegetation cover within the shoreline protection area, especially in an area experiencing harmful algae blooms. So we recommend you deny this as proposed. Thank you. BILL CROWELL MR. CROWELL-Bill Crowell, 20 Holly Lane. I would just point out that as has been detailed by Jeff Meyer that there is unclean hands. There is a legal doctrine which may not be applicable to the Zoning Board, but in a court of law you need to come in with clean hands to get relief. So they’re at previously, without having a permit. When they paved the front of their property and put in additional parking spaces I certainly think that from people on Holly Lane’s perspective this is something that we’re extremely concerned about because if they are going to do this, other people can do it, and you’re going to have situations where front yards become paved. This is very unusual in a rural area, or even a lakefront area, but it happens in many cities. Some cities actually have ordinances that proh ibit it and put limitations on what you can do with a front yard. So just simply to say that if we, as was pointed out, it was at 75%. We don’t believe they had any demonstrative engineer’s report that it was at 75%. Now it’s at 71.6, and I think that this really has to be dealt with prior to any of these other variances being dealt with and, again, you know, from a resident’s point of view, look down the street and the front yard is gone. It’s all parking spaces. So thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Is there anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, there’s a letter. “In reviewing the site plan with all its new structures including: the addition to the house, as well as the lake side patio and enlarged fire pit, it is clear that hard surfacing is increasing in close proximity to the Lake. This will have detrimental impacts on stormwater runoff. While the applicant proposes shoreline plantings and a rain garden to treat stormwater, this solution is far from robust. While the applicant can argue that this is better than what exists today, the fact is the addition to the house, the patio and the enlarged fire pit also do not exist today. In essence the applicant is proposing a solution to a problem that he is causing. It should not be seen as an improvement over the existing situation. If this project is to go ahead, please require the applicant to meet the 75% permeability required by Town Code. Current permeability has been decreased to 71.86% due to a previous violation where the owner paved over an existing stormwater management area. The new proposed permeability with the additional structures is 68.14%. The proposed hard surfacing will move this lakeshore property even farther from the Town’s 75% permeability rule without remedying the previous violation. The relief that the applicant is requesting in terms of a 50 ft. setback from the Lake is significant. His patio will be within 24 ft. of the Lake and his enlarged fire pit will be within 15 feet. His infiltration devices will also not meet the 100 ft. setback required by Town Code. Avoiding hard surfacing near the Lake, improving permeability, and respecting setbacks are critical to maintaining a healthy lake. Yours sincerely, Lorraine Ruffing Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition” MR. LAPPER-Okay. So as we started out, everything we’ve proposed here is dramatically better for the lake. When Chris talked about 15 feet of fill, I know you’ve been to the site. MR. MC CABE-Yes, we’ve talked about that. MR. LAPPER-It slopes to the lake. That makes it so it can be positive drainage. You can’t pump stormwater to the front of the lot, and again, this is going to be infiltrated and treated before it goes into the ground, but you can’t pump stormwater uphill. The front of the house is where the septic is, which is where it should be because it’s far from the lake, and that’s where your parking should be because it’s far from the lake as well. So we’re talking about a few percentage points, but it allows stormwater to be treated right to take the water off the road and to get that into the ground. I do want to address, the area that was paved over was already riprapped. So when Mike bought the house, the fire pit was there, the deck was there, and the area that he paved to create another parking spot was stone. So he thought it was impervious and we’re addressing that. Kirsten will talk about that, but we did all the math and we’re (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 7 making it better and taking the parking spaces away where they should be on the north side so we can plant an infiltrate. So with all that, this is certainly better for the lake, and as Chris said, you know, you have to plant if you do a project, but if you don’t do a project you don’t have to plant, but what Kirsten designed is way beyond what the Town requires in terms of plant materials. So it’ll be better planted, infiltrated and everything’s where it should be. The addition’s in the front and the small, and the parking’s in the front where it should be, away from the lake. So if you could just talk about the permeability. MS. CATELLIER-Yes. So I think everyone’s probably be clarified on the percentages from 75, how that was the original prior to paving. When we got involved we did a takeoff and we calculated 71.6. We came to you, the Board, we were proposing 68.14 and now we’re back to the 71.6 which was post paving conditions. By taking away those two parking spots, we dimensioned them to the Queensbury Code and we thought that was a good tradeoff to take away the two parking spots that he pa ved over. We did reconfigure it because we’ve seen videos of the water rushing down Holly Lane and by going to that north portion of the parcel, that’s where it’s all collecting and running into the Hogan’s property. Technically we don’t have to add that swale to the north side and add the basin in down on the western side of the parcel, but we did to be good neighbors and to accommodate the stormwater. Additionally by adding that extra planted area in, we thought there was more area for the water to run into and collect prior to going past the Carey residence. I think that’s pretty much it. MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt you’ve done a good job on the permeability and that, but there’s so many inconsistencies from the beginning when this project first came to us. That garage area was totally different than what it is now. I mean you’ve got two laundry areas. You’ve got a laundry area in the garage. You’ve got a laundry area in the main house which is going to cause a lot of problems with extra water, and there’s no doubt that paving on Holly Lane. I know Holly Lane pretty well and there’s no doubt there’s a lot of water problems there. So now you add that paving there where that crushed stone actually helped take some of that water away. So you’ve actually kind of created, because you’ve got, what, seven spaces there, eight spaces for cars to park? Where that was all grass there before. MS. CATELLIER-The existing, there were existing of nine spaces. We did have our engineer in-house take a look at that and he determined it wasn’t actual stormwater practice, and if you look at the grade of Holly Lane at the start of the parcel, it’s a steeper slope and then it picks up speed and then levels out as you get towards the north end of the parcel. So I could see why that existing planted area would collect a lot of water, but alternatively this I think is a feasible solution to propose this planted area and the swale on the north side of the property where it’s still going to equate to what was previously there where that planted area was. And we do have more square footage between swale, planted area and the basin down towards the lake than what was existing in that paved area. MR. HENKEL-Concentrated into one small area, compared to distributing it over across the whole front of the lot. Because now you’re going to increase it because you have to have a paving area where it’s going to take the water off the roof of that garage and bring it into that stormwater area you talked about, but you’re creating more problem than helping, too. MRS. MOORE-So, just so the Zoning Board understands, the project did go through engineering review. So at the Planning Board level it has been through that engineering review process. MR. LAPPER-We actually have a LaBella signoff letter on the stormwater plan from the Town Engineer. So we’ve gotten through that. MR. HENKEL-Are you bringing that back up to 75? MS. CATELLIER-We crunched every number. I mean I spent hours crunching numbers on this. We took away pavement. We took away walks. We tried taking away an extra walk in the front of the parcel, but the Carey’s determined that they need that access to the garage because they have only one access point to the garage. We tried reducing the parking down but the actual dimensions parking spaces weren’t totally compliant with the Queensbury Code. We thought that by equally 71.6, yes, it’s not existing, but we thought it was a good alternative approach. MR. HENKEL-And I know, Jon, it’s not your fault about the garages, but what happened was that? Why was there something told to us at the beginning and then it’s told to us differently now? MR. LAPPER-So Mike thought when he went through with Hutchins Engineering, you know, when he first bought the house that he had approval for five bedrooms, but he didn’t. They designed it so that a leach line could be added, but it’s a four bedroom. The Town was out there, it’s a four bedroom. We’re proposing four bedrooms, and that’s it. That’s the rule. MR. HENKEL-I understand that, but why are the plans totally different now, the way the bedrooms are and the bathroom. The bathroom was over on one side. Now the bathroom is in the middle. Compared to what you showed us in the first project. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 8 MS. CATELLIER-So the plans that you have for the architectural plans that were submitted in December is what’s there now, and that was submitted to confirm, in addition to Craig Brown coming out, that that’s existing and that’s what’s to remain. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So the other one was not existing you’re telling us, that you showed us first? MS. CATELLIER-That was a proposed plan that the Careys were thinking of renovating to. MR. HENKEL-Like I said, the original first plan that you came to us with the garage was totally different than now. So you say that was existing. So now which one is existing or are you going to change it? MR. CAREY-Michael Carey, 28 Holly Lane. The last meeting I explained to them when we had submitted that plan for the garage I had been working on possibly changing that around to a one bedroom up in the garage to create the extra bedroom in the main house, and when we had submitted that plan, I didn’t realize that I had had that plan done by an architect. I submitted the wrong plan by accident when we sent this in to Studio A. That was a proposed, what was I thinking about doing. That wasn’t the existing garage plan. So it got submitted wrong. That’s all. So it is two bedrooms up in that garage, with the bedroom, and with regard to the laundry room, in the garage, if this is approved, in the main house, that laundry room in the garage will go away. That was trying to get the laundry room in the main house. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-And that could be conditional. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. CIPPERLY-Quick question. Every other project that I can remember there’s a plan of what’s existing and then a plan of what you propose. MR. CAREY-That existing plan was submitted in the original application. MR. CIPPERLY-I don’t have one that shows what the house looked like today. Is there anything other than this? I went back three times, and I can’t find a plan that shows what your house looks like today. MS. CATELLIER-There is an existing one submitted at the original application date. MR. CIPPERLY-And part of it comes back we’re going to put on a 416 square foot addition on something, but the something isn’t here. MR. HENKEL-This is the one that was submitted in October. This is the October one. MR. CIPPERLY-It’s the same. MR. HENKEL-Yes, it is the same. MR. CIPPERLY-It’s the same. There’s never a plan of what’s there today. MR. HENKEL-Well, the bedroom is different. They’ve got a dining room in here. MR. CIPPERLY-Things are shuffled around, but we always start with, here’s where we are and here’s where we want to go. That’s why I brought up the bathroom thing. Well there is a bathroom there. MR. CAREY-That was the original proposal. MR. CIPPERLY-What exists there today? Is there a plan for what exists toda y? MR. CAREY-That was submitted in the original application. MS. CATELLIER-That’s what I thought it was submitted, too. MR. CIPPERLY-I mean I’m trying to look at the 33% increase in the non-conforming use, and I don’t know what the non-conforming use is. MRS. MOORE-Typically the non-conforming structure typically is an existing setback issue. MR. CIPPERLY-It is. MR. HENKEL-Yes. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 9 MRS. MOORE-Because it’s an existing setback issue that’s in violation, not in violation, but doesn’t meet the current Code. MR. LAPPER-It was never an issue with floor area ratio that the house was too big for the lot. MR. HENKEL-It’s below floor area ratio. MRS. MOORE-It’s below floor area ratio. MR. LAPPER-Before and after. MRS. MOORE-So, no, there is not a plan that I have on file at the moment that shows the existing conditions. MR. CIPPERLY-And that’s one of the things that you do typically request. Correct? MRS. MOORE-We do, but this is, so they’re just adding this addition. So to me that was what they have on file. It didn’t trigger us saying, hey, what was the existing condition completely. MR. CAREY-This whole area would be the addition. The house right now is right here. Bedroom, bedroom, kitchen, dining room, three season porch, living room. MR. CIPPERLY-Where’s the second bathroom? MR. CAREY-It’s right here. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. So that’s in now what is proposed to be the kitchen? Correct? MR. CAREY-Correct. That bathroom would move to the addition part. MR. CIPPERLY-I think it would be really helpful to have what’s existing so that we can kind of figure things out. MR. CAREY-I really do believe that an existing plan was submitted, though, with this new plan. MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Hogan, you had one more addition? MR. HOGAN-I did. Brian Hogan. The LaBella review, I believe in December the applicant submitted their response indicating that they reduced the permeability to 71.86 so there’d be no change, when in fact there are some changes. It’s supposed to be 75, but the other thing that happened as a result of that is that I believe the LaBella review was limited to the stormwater on the front side of the property, and not including the pavement to the rear because it was considered existing at that time. I believe if you look at the letter it’ll bear that out. I believe Mr. Lapper’s in error on that. Thank you. MS. CATELLIER-So the proposed plan that we submitted came in after the fact, after the paving conditions. So we took out parking spaces, making the impervious impermeability calculations better. We proposed the stormwater at the north side of the parcel to improve on existing conditions, but we’re not proposing any hard surfaces up on the upper portion of the site. Therefore we didn’t, like the LaBella review did an overall review of the overall proposed stormwater plan, but we’re not proposing anything up there that is being directed into that swale, into that basin, that needs calculations done by LaBella. It’s a good faith effort on our part to help improve the roadway and a negative situation that exists, and we’ve put in dry bed swales on numerous projects of ours and we see that they collect water, it runs down, and it’s a good practice to have and it efficiently takes care of the stormwater issues. 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 think we still need to go back to Square One on this project. If you look at the whole street scape on that whole corridor down along on the lakefront there, everybody’s done a pretty good job I think of maintaining what we assume should be the street scape for that part of the lake, but I think this property here started off on the wrong foot by paving over up on the roadside. I think that expanding the fire pit would be a big mistake. It’s not necessary for the enjoyment of the property. You could keep what you have and still enjoy it at the same time. So I’m not in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Mary? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 10 MRS. PALACINO-I’m not in favor of the project either. I think because previous owners may have done something that was not within permitted and then expanding on it now only takes a bad situation and makes it worse, and I think seven parking spaces. I also have a question with regard to one of the bedrooms not having a closet. According to real estate, if a room does not have a closet, it’s technically not considered a bedroom. So I still have issues with what’s been presented with permeability, with variances that you’re suggesting. I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I’d like to see the permeability up to 75% so there’s not a need for a variance, and I can’t tell you how you can do that, but that’s what engineers are for, whether it’s the parking area or th e blue stone patio, there’s got to be some way on a lot this size. I think that permeability is pretty important, especially in that location, and I would agree the fire pit size, I would agree you could enjoy it at what it is now. So I don’t think I would be in favor of this project at this point. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-When you look at this project, as Jim said, you got off on the wrong foot, but that doesn’t necessarily affect what we’re looking at right now except we know things have changed before and maybe they can change again for an even better project. I think when we’re dealing with permeability we come up short. In dealing with stormwater device proposal, that comes up short, and certainly the setback is more than we’d like to see close to the lake. So I think to me that’s three items that are in an area that can’t afford to be off. It has to be right, and I think there’s too much allowance here in this variance proposal. I would be against it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I, too, am against it. I think the parcel came with some baggage to you and really not a lot you can do about it, but you could do something about it. The idea that the fire pit was unpermitted at the time. Okay. Now we’re going to take that as a given in fact we’re going to make it bigger and move it closer to the lake, and I mean that doesn’t sell well. Whether the plan was in there or not, I don’t know, but I still always like to see something that’s existing and here’s what the proposal is. And it is a fair sized addition. If the numbers are even close, it’s about a 33% expansion of a building, and with that comes more of everything that comes out of a building. I guess there’s just enough pieces missing that I cannot support it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, basically I agree with my Board members also. There’s no doubt if they had come to us with a better project right off the bat I think it would have been better, but for some reason there’s too many questions right in the beginning. I mean everybody’s got a fire pit. I understand that, but it could be probably not so close to the lake. Now the original house, the deck was 28 feet from the lake. I’d like to see them get at least back to the existing, and the permeability there’s no doubt it probably could be better. I mean I see you’re trying to get more spaces in there, and they have a right to rent it if they want to. That’s part of their rights, but you’re trying to fit too many cars in there, I think, and I think that paving along Holly Lane is not needed. There needs to be grass there. So I’d not be on board as is. MR. LAPPER-So we would ask to table it and we’ll try to get to 75% and make the changes that the Board’s asking. MR. MC CABE-So from my standpoint you’ve got to shrink the fire pit and you’ve got to shrink the patio. MR. LAPPER-We understand. We hear you. MR. MC CABE-So when will you be ready? Or when are we ready for them? MRS. MOORE-March. Probably do a deadline by February 15th. If that works. MR. LAPPER-Sure. MR. HENKEL-March 22nd or the 29th? MRS. MOORE-The first Zoning Board meeting. MR. HENKEL-And have new information by the 1st of March? MRS. MOORE-No. by February 15th. MR. HENKEL-February 15th? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/18/2023) 11 MRS. MOORE-Yes. 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. 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 Richard Cipperly: Tabled to March 22, 2023 with new information due by February 15, 2023. Duly adopted this 18th day of January, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Palacino, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We hear you loud and clear.