Loading...
03-22-2023 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS FIRSTREGULAR MEETING MARCH221' 2023 INDEX Area Variance No.49-2022 Faden Enterprises 1. FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No.2SS.-1-5S Area Variance No.4-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 2. FURTHER TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No.227.17-1-25 Area Variance No. 63-2022 3 Sons and Holly,LLC (Michael Carey,Jr.) 2. Tax Map No.239.12-2-57 Area Variance No. S-2023 Sharon Serini 7. Tax Map No.240.9-1-4 Area Variance No. 9-2023 Phillip Mitchell 12. Tax Map No.239.20-1-10 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 03/22/2023) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 22ND,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL ROBERT KEENAN RICHARD CIPPERLY MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL 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, March 22 d 2023. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up,read the case into our record, allow the applicant to present the case. We'll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised we'll open a public hearing, seek input from the public on the particular project, close the public hearing,poll the Board and proceed accordingly. First we have a couple of Administrative Items. So,John,I wonder if we could get a motion on the meeting minutes from February 15`h APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 15`h,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 15TK,2023,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 22 d day of March,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr.Keenan,Mr.,Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: REQUEST TO TABLE AV 49-2022(FADEN ENTERPRISES)TO APRIL 19,2023 MR. MC CABE-And then a request for AV 49-2022. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Faden Enterprises. Applicant proposes removal of an existing building on the site to construct 3 new buildings and associated site work. The project includes one building of 5,355 sq. ft. that is designated as 3 tenant spaces:2,000 sq.ft.for a drive-thru;2,500 sq.ft.for a restaurant;and 3,555 sq.ft.for retail space.The second and third buildings will contain a total of 24 units of self-storage in 3,4 SO sq.ft.Each building will be 1,740 sq.ft.and have 12 units.Site plan for new commercial development and self-storage facility,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline/wetland, Freshwater Wetland permit, and Special Use Permit for Self Storage facility. Relief is requested for setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.49-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the April 19,2023 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 2211d Day of March,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl REQUEST TO TABLE AV 4-2023(EBERLEIN)TO APRIL 19,2023 MR. MC CABE-And how about AV 4-2023. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Geraldine Eberlein. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,411 sq. ft.; an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq. ft.; and a new floor area of 3,343 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for a new permeable driveway, stormwater management, and shoreline landscaping; the project also includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining property. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks,floor area, and permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Robert Keenan: Tabled to the April 19,2023 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. Duly adopted this 2211d Day of March 2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-And so our first application is AV 63-2022,3 Sons&Holly LLC. TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO.63-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 3 SONS AND HOLLY,LLC (MICHAEL CAREY, JR.) AGENT(S) STUDIO A LANDSCAPE, ARCH. &z 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 72 SQ. FT. COVERED PORCH AND A 238 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME. THERE IS TO BE A DECK ADDITION OF 365 SQ. FT., GROUND LEVEL PATIO OF 297 SQ. FT. AND LANDSCAPE ROCKS FOR PATH AND FIRE PIT AREA. THE PARKING AREA IS TO BE REDUCED HARD SURFACING AND INSTALLING AN AREA OF REINFORCED TURF. IN ADDITION, THERE IS TO BE A RAIN GARDEN AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS ADDED TO THE SITE. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 2,809 SQ. FT. TO BE INCREASED TO 3,047 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING 1,152 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA 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 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 KRISTEN CATELLIER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;MIKE CAREY,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 63-2022, 3 Sons and Holly, LLC (Michael Carey,Jr.), Meeting Date: March 22, 2023 "Project Location: 28 Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 72 sq.ft.covered porch and 238 sq. ft. addition to the existing home. There is to be a deck addition of 365 sq. ft., a ground level patio of 297 sq. ft. and landscape rocks for path and fire pit area. The parking area is to be reduced hard surfacing and installing an area of reinforced turf. In addition, there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings added to the site. The existing floor area of 2,809 sq. ft. to be increased to 3,047 sq. ft. There are no changes to the existing 1,152 sq. ft. floor area 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 expansion of a nonconforming structure and setbacks. Relief Required: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) 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 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. Rcl icf for permcabil ity is no longer requested as project is to be 75.3110 permeable. 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 shoreline 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 maybe 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: The applicant proposes alterations to the existing home to create a new entryway. The additional work includes anew deck to the back of the home and patio area improvement. The plans show the new addition entry elevation and the floor plan area of the new deck.The home and garage will remain with 4 bedrooms total where two will be in the existing home and two in the upstairs of the garage." MS. CATELLIER-Kristen Catellier from Studio A and I'm here with the applicant. So following the last meeting we went back to the drawing board and we looked at the site and we made a few modifications that we think the Board will take in a positive direction. So just walking through the modifications that we made. The addition that was on the front of the building,we've reduced it from 416 square feet to 310 square feet. In doing that we eliminated the proposed dining area and right now it's just proposed the mud room, family room and an addition. The other modifications we made were along the street scape. Right now there are two existing parking spaces outside the garage. We're proposing to transition those to permeable asphalt from what's there now. Also that I had the discussion on about being paved from the planted area,we're proposing to remove that and make a lawn surface,and then there are three parking spaces to the north of the property and we're proposing to transition those to a permeable asphalt surface. Also in these modifications we've eliminated the request for a permeability variance. The permeability currently is at 75.3. And I think that pretty much sums it up. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. CIPPERLY-No. A comment though. Thank you for putting the before and after. It makes it much clearer. MS. CATELLIER-You're welcome. MR. MC CABE-So the public hearing is still open,I believe,from the last meeting. MS. DWYRE-You closed it. MR.MC CABE-Okay. So if it's okay with you guys,I'm going to re-open the public hearing and we'll seek some input from the public. Is there anybody who would like to speak on this application? Chris? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. Confusion has surrounded this application since the beginning and it continues to surround the application, the current submission. I feel there's been a failure to compromise and incorporate the request of this Board. Regarding permeability,Page Two of the existing application states that existing impermeability,it's right there,is 25.40/o while stating that the existing,I'm sorry the existing impermeable cover is 2SA and on the same page below it says that the existing permeability is 750/o. Sol just think that needs clarification. That totals 1030/o,from what I add. Unless I'm missing something. Also in the previous submission the existing permeability is listed as 71.60/o. So how can the existing now all of a sudden change four percent when it's supposed to be existing? At the January meeting 1000/o of the Board was opposed, making statements that, quote, this makes a bad situation worse, quote, enjoy it the way that it is, quote, too much allowance is being given, quote making things bigger and closer to the lake. Four Board members stated that the fire pit was too much, but there hasn't been any change to the increased size or to the setback,reduce setback. Three Board members requested to shrink the patio and push the deck back from the existing,but there's been no change to the increased size of the patio or to reduce setback. Actually when you compare, and take the drawing from November'22, if you compare those plans to the new ones, 2/23, the November states that the proposed on-grade pavers will be 293 square feet. If you look at the new submission, the on-grade pavers will be 297 square feet. So they're actually proposing an increase in square footage. That's on their drawings. So again you can see where the confusion is coming from. They're actually proposing to expand it. So I think it's time to put this to bed. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this? JEFF MEYER MR. MEYER-For the record my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm an attorney with Meyer, Fuller& Stockwell. I represent Mr.Brian Hogan who is the adjoining property owner to the north and a few of the residents on Holly Lane. We certainly recognize the improvements that were made by the applicant in attempting to ameliorate what is along Holly Lane. The existing violation that is along Holly Lane is essentially being used as leverage for reducing the impermeability and bringing things into conformance while, to Chris' point, it's not addressing the shoreline. The questions that we have would be whether the stormwater along Holly Lane is actually being addressed. Yes, they're introducing some permeable pavement. Yes, there's talk of reinforced turf,but they've also removed all the stormwater controls that have been proposed on the northern side of the property that would address the known stormwater issues that exist along Holly Lane. We don't know what the permeability rate is for the pavement,or the blacktop that's being proposed, what the permeability will be for the reinforced turf. We just think that that information is going to be crucial to evaluate the potential environmental impact that is being proposed that is directly related to their ability to meet the permeability requirements of the Code. And lastly the inconsistencies with the application is an on-going concern for my client and the introduction of reinforced turf leads us to believe that it will remain as a parking area, which has always been a concern, and if it's,you know, there's really kind of no other justification for using reinforced turf except to be able to park vehicles on it. So we would ask the Board to clarify that, and if it's not truly a parking area, then make that a condition that vehicles aren't going to be parked along the full length of Holly Lane. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? So, Roy, we have a letter? MR. URRICO-Yes. The applicant has provided me with the updated submittals for the March 22 d meeting for the property at 2S Holly Lane by Three Sons and Holly LLC. I apologize for not being able to attend the meeting as I will be out of town. The applicant has removed the dry creek bed which diverted the road water into the lake and reduced, although not removed the pavement along Holly Lane. The pavement now shows as permeable,which will help mitigate the run-off onto my property. While this is an improvement, the use of Re-Enforced Turf would appear to be a continued effort on the part of the applicant to provide 9 parking spaces across the entire front of the property. Not the 5 spaces requested. No detail has been provided for this design. I do not believe that the small permeable pavement area in front of the garage can mitigate the stormwater from the pavement as well as the 600 sq. ft. of flat garage roof that gutters directly onto it. Nor does it address any of the water from Holly Lane. I would request that applicant replace the removed stormwater infiltration to the north of this pavement where it is shown as reinforced turf. Realistically, I would think that the Town Engineer should look at this part of the property to ensure what is proposed will work. Coincidentally, restoring the removed stormwater management would limit the applicant to the 5 parking spaces he indicated he wishes. The modified proposed addition to the 2 bedroom house seems appropriate and keeping with the character of the neighborhood. Finally,I continue to see that the applicant has neither been cited for nor asked to address the violations relating to the conversion of the screen porch to a 4-season room or the fire-pit installed within 15'of the lake. This is particularly unsettling, since within 12 hours of me speaking out at the last 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) meeting,I received a visit and written citations for supposed years old violations on my property from the Town. Sincerely yours,Brian Hogan" At 34 Holly Lane. MR. MC CABE-So would you care to address some of the inconsistencies that Chris pointed out? MS. CATELLIER Just to touch on a few of them. I know that you mentioned that we expanded on parts of the deck size. We actually reduced the patio by two feet during this whole process and one of our revisions was to pull away from the lakeshore and we did reduce that square footage early on a few months ago in one of the first meetings. I know the fire pit has been a topic of discussion in this whole application. The fire pit's existing. The only thing we're adding is a perimeter of blue stone slabs that are set on grade so that they is actually like a grass planted surface that is between them. So we are expanding the fire pit, but the fire pit's existing and we're just putting slab pavers around it. I know there's been discussion and comments about permeability and what the true permeability existing was and I can't remember if it was last month or the meeting prior,we did clarify that existing were 750/o and that when we got involved,we took our take off space along the existing submission survey so we had a lower percentage,but based on a reading of 75. So that's why we re-did our site plan to go with 75 with this latest submission. And then I just want to add one more thing. We do have signoff from LaBella on the stormwater plan. I know we've made a lot of changes since the beginning of this application, but we've actually reduced improvements that we're proposing. So in my opinion we're actually proposing more stormwater than is actually needed. I think unless Mike thinks different,if an evaluation by LaBella wants to be done again just to confirm that what we're proposing is compliant,I think we would be oaky with that,but we do have signoff on LaBella's side. MR. MC CABE-So,Laura,could you clarify? The 230/o permeability,where did that come from? MRS. MOORE-So in the original, and I'm not going to do numbers, I'm just going to say, the original proposal that came before the Board,you saw a project that had a paved surface where it was parking area towards Holly Lane. So that was done in the process, so the applicant was in violation. So they had,in that case,we clarified that at the last meeting that they were in violation because it was less than 750/o,and that was done prior to submission I guess that information. So at this point the applicant has now presented saying,look,I have increased it so it's more than 750/o. The information about permeable pavers, that's on the site plan about permeable pavers. The reinforced turf is also on the site plan. Permeable pavers give a 500/o credit. Reinforced turf is 1000/o. So that's why the numbers,the permeability has gone up. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there's certainly been some improvement on the back 40 on the property where all the parking has existed in the past,proposed to be existing essentially the same in the future. At the same time I think that the front,even though you've made some minor changes on there,it's still very busy on the waterfront down there and even though you're at 750/o permeability, I still think there's improvement that can be made down there on the waterfront to ensure that it's even better than what's proposed. So I wouldn't be in favor at this point. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,I think I have to agree with Jim. I appreciate the fact that you've got the permeability up to 750/o. I think that's an improvement,but the area so close to the waterfront,you know,I have a hard time having fire pit and the decking that close to the water,I have a hard time with that. So I don't think I'd be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I would not be in favor of it either. Again, as has been said,the area with the fire pit, with the extended patio area if you will call it that,I just think that it's not conducive to maintaining the health of the lake. MRS. MOORE-So I apologize,Mr. Chairman,I'm going to just remind the Board. MR. MC CABE-That's right. We're looking at setbacks here. MRS.MOO RE-We're looking at setbacks. So the only thing that requires a setback variance at this point is the deck itself. The patio doesn't require a setback. The fire pit doesn't require a setback. Just the deck. MR. MC CABE-Roy? 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) MR.URRICO-Yes,I'm basically in agreement with Jim,but I really think the deck needs to be scaled back somewhat. It's still 39 feet where 50 feet is required. To me that's still too close. I would like to see it scaled back. MR. CIPPERLY-On the bright side, I can support the addition to the house toward the road. I kind of share the suspicion of permeable or reinforced turf which is parking place that's grass. I guess it's permeable but it's still going to be a parking place and I also share the same concern about anything that increases traffic,non-permeability toward the lake. The fire pit is just,even though it was there,it was a violation when it was put there. MRS. MOORE-So in the sense that it's not a setback issue, it's hard surfacing within 50 feet of the shoreline,that would be a Planning Board portion of review I guess. So people on the lake,if they do hard surfacing of patios,that's within 50 feet,that would trigger them to go for site plan review,not necessarily a Zoning Board review. MR. MC CABS John? MR.HENKEL-There's no doubt they've come a long way and it does make sense to make the parking area there with the grass,I mean you go around the lake and everybody's cars are parked on grass surfaces. I mean most people have people over and they're using more than the parking spots that are there. So they park on the grass that's not a problem. Permeability's come a long way. That's at a good point right now. Like they were saying,the fire pit is pre-existing,and you can go around the lake. Everybody has a fire pit pretty much. Some are even closer than that. I feel I've given them a hard time in the beginning. I feel that they've come a long way,and if the permeability wasn't where it is an it was a really sloped piece of property toward the lake, I would probably be against it. I think they've come a long way and I'd be supportive of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, have to support the project. I appreciate what the applicant has done to improve things, and in terms of the setback of the patio, certainly what is being asked for is not a large request,considering some of the other things we've had. Unfortunately two doesn't overcome five. MR. HENKEL-Plus they reduced the FAR variance. It's below what's required, way below, and in the past we've passed ones that have been way above and less permeability,so I think that's one thing to look at. MR.MC CABE-But regardless. So you have a choice here. You can call for a formal vote,or you can table and try to make some more changes. MR. CAREY-Michael Carey. I'm the applicant. The existing deck is 2S. The other is 39. Part of the reason for that expansion of the deck is that,if you were there you'd see when you come off that patio it's very steep. But as far as the stormwater,we have no stormwater practices on the back patio now. There's a deck that's there now. There's no stormwater in the backyard now. MR. MC CABE-Well, I guess we formally didn't address that you're requesting relief for the stormwater device to be 35 feet as opposed to 100 feet,and again,I have no problem with that because 100 feet is going to be too far back to be useful in any way,shape or form. MR.HENKEL-Sometimes it's hard to visualize when you see this. I actually walked around the property. I walked to the front of the property by the lakeside to see this, and I don't know if anybody else did,but to look on the paper, this doesn't look good,but if you looked, if you actually walked to the front of the property,to the lakeside,and look at it,it really gives you a little better. Sometimes on paper it looks scary, but,it's not so scary after this last time I walked around. MR. CAREY-I spent a lot of money here trying to get this project through,and I feel we're at a good point. I know this patio is a problem for the Board. Again,there's a deck there now. Everything we're doing is an improvement to try to stop stormwater from going into that lake. MR. HENKEL-I think, again, everybody gets scared by that fire pit, again, but like Laura says that's not completely our concern,that fire pit. It seems like everybody's afraid of that fire pit. MR. MC CABE-So I need a call from you guys. Do you want a formal vote,or do you want to table this? MR. CAREY-Yes,I guess we'll have to table it. MR. MC CABE-I can re-open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) MR. CAREY-That comment he made about the violation of the screened porch,I don't remember exactly what was said in the letter,but when we purchased this house,any violations that may have been on there, we were not aware of. So that screened porch was there when I bought it back in July. So I don't know why I would be in violation with that. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'm going to re-close the public hearing. MRS. MOORE-If you leave it open,if they're requesting to be tabled,you would just leave it open. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Then I'll leave it open. So when are we talking about? When will you be ready to re-submit? MRS.MOO RE-So our deadline for April has passed. So May would be the next meeting. So by April 15`h new information would be submitted for a May meeting. MR. HENKEL-So do you want to do May 17`h or May 24`h? Like I said,I don't know if anybody walked about the property. I did. It gives you a better visual than what you see on paper. MRS. MOORE-The first May meeting. MR.HENKEL-May 17`h with new information by when? MRS. MOORE-April 15`h MR.HENKEL-April 15`h. Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 3 Sons and Holly,LLC (Michael Carey Jr.). (Revised)Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 72 sq. ft. covered porch and 238 sq. ft. addition to the existing home. There is to be a deck addition of 365 sq. ft., a ground level patio of 297 sq. ft. and landscape rocks for path and fire pit area. The parking area is to be reduced hard surfacing and installing an area of reinforced turf.In addition, there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings added to the site. The existing floor area of 2,809 sq.ft. to be increased to 3,047 sq.ft. There are no changes to the existing 1,152 sq.ft.floor area 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 expansion of a nonconforming structure and setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.63-2022 3 SONS&z HOLLY,LLC(MICHAEL CAREY, JRJ,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly: Tabled to the May 17`h,2023 Zoning Board meeting with any new information due by April 17`h,2023. Duly adopted this 22110 day of March,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR.HENKEL-Good luck. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 8-2023,Sharon Serini,15 Private Rd.#1. AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 SHARON SERINI AGENT(S) NICK ZEGLEN(EDP) OWNER(S) SHARON SERINI ZONING WR LOCATION 15 PRIVATE ROAD # 1 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-STORY HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 972 SQ. FT., PORCH AREA OF 240 SQ.FT.,AND A FLOOR AREA OF 2,113 SQ.FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE PLAN INCLUDES A VEGETATIVE PLAN FOR REMOVAL AND PLANTINGS TO REMAIN. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN THE CEA. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. CROSS REF SP 10-2023; FWW 2-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: ALD LOT SIZE 0.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO.2409-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040 NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;SHARON&r MICHAEL SERINI,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2023, Sharon Serini, Meeting Date: March 22, 2023 "Project Location: 15 Private Road # 1, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-story home 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) with a footprint of 972 sq.ft.,porch area of 240 sq.ft.,and a floor area of 2,113 sq.ft. The project includes a septic system and stormwater management. The plan includes a vegetative plan for removal and plantings to remain. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA. 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 home. The project is on a 0.19 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone,Lake George;the current site is vacant. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new home is to be 10.0 ft.from the south property line where 12 ft. setback is required. The height of the new home is to be 31.35 ft.where the maximum height allowed is 2S ft.Floor area relief is also requested where 2,113 sq.ft. (25.60/o)is proposed and the maximum allowed is 1,S15 sq.ft. (220/o). 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. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the neighboring properties. 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 feasible alternatives may be considered to construct the new home within the requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief for setback is 2 ft.,the height is 3.5 ft. and 3.60/o for floor area. 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 as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a new home on a vacant parcel. The new home will have access to Cleverdale Road from Private Road#1. The plans show the home to be two-story constructed on a slab. The plans include stormwater management,clearing,vegetative plantings." MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. I'm Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership with the applicants, Michael and Sharon Serini. We're here tonight seeking a variance proposal for a proposed modest 972 square foot footprint, three bedroom residence located on Private Road#1 off of Cleverdale Road. So the existing vacant lot is S,250 square feet and only 50 feet wide. So it's a small lot and so that's why we're here tonight seeking variances. The first variance for building height for 31.35 feet versus the 2S feet required. This is a relief of 3.35 feet. So the nature of this variance is the house itself,measured from finish grade to peak,is actually around 20.7 feet. However,how the Town interprets building height, it's measured from the road's natural adjacent grade. So when we place the house on the site, and the topography of the site, it slopes down towards the lake. So on that lakeside we're measuring from the existing lower grade, results in a variance of 31.35 feet. Now the elevation of the house is where it has to be to promote proper drainage around the house and provide adequate separation for stormwater management. So both the house to the north and the proposed house to the south of this lot are both higher, significantly higher,than this lot. It creates sort of a backfill effect, and in order to prevent water from ponding where that house is proposed,we had to get down to the elevation that's shown on the plans. It's still a little bit lower than both the house to the north and the house to the south,but it is raised up higher. The second variance is for side yard setback. We're requesting aside yard setback of 10 feet versus the 12 feet that's required, for relief of two feet. We don't feel that that is a substantial amount of relief, especially looking at the width of the lot is 50 feet, and when you take the 12 foot setbacks on either side, we're only left with 26 feet of building width. Furthermore,the lot that is directly affected by this setback is also owned by the applicants. So if there were an objection by anyone it would be the applicants themselves. The surrounding would really not be affected. It would not be a detriment to them. And the third variance is for floor area ratio. So we're requesting a floor area ratio of 25.60/o versus the 220/o that's required. Again,we feel that this number is not substantial,especially given the size of the lot,only S,250 square feet. The house that's proposed is very modest. It's just a little over 2,000 square feet which is a very standard house size. So again we feel that it's not substantial,and with the cost of construction these 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) days and the price of the lot and building, it didn't make sense for the applicant to build something that didn't meet their daily needs. So that's why we're here for this variance. Other site improvements are on- site stormwater management. We did see the comments from the Designated Town Engineer yesterday, which we addressed and submitted today. We do have on-site septic system that was approved by the Town Board of Health back in November of 2022 and we are proposing additional plantings within the shoreline buffer. Again, we feel like this house is not substantial. It's not a mega mansion. It's very reasonable. It's just unfortunately on a small lot. So we'd be happy to answer any questions that you have or that the public may have tonight. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-The first application, the square footage was less than this, 475 feet less than, and now we're at. MR. ZEGLEN-We're at 2113. Yes. So with that first application, the applicants sat down with their architects, started laying out houses and what not, and just realized that it just,there just wasn't enough room. It didn't work for them. MR. HENKEL-So you're 600 feet over now. The problem,in the future,there's no shed on that property, no garage. So now you're going to eventually probably have to come back to us for something like that. You have no storage. You have a slab. No storage. No cellar. Where are you going to put everything? I would be happier going with the square footage of 29S feet above the FAR variance if there was a garage on that property. I do struggle a little bit with having that 29S feet over the FAR variance, without a garage or a shed. MR. ZEGLEN-The applicants do own the property next door and that will have a garage. It's a two acre property. There is a lot of room on that property if they needed storage. MR. HENKEL-So why don't they combine the two pieces of property? Then they could build their McMansion. MRS. SERINI-This we're building is large enough. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised, and so at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody who would like to comment on this particular project? Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. The concern regarding their FAR variance and their request along the shoreline is that really defines the allowable building size and development for adequacy and sustainability of the site. I wonder if a viable alternative is a lot line adjustment between the parcels. It's the same property owner that owns parts of these adjacent to it. That would increase the parcel acreage and increase the allowable building square footage. In theory if you do that it may not change anyway because it's just a line and it's going to be the same amount of building. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak to us on this particular project? Is there anything written,Roy? MR.URRICO-I want to read two things in. The Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern: One, the recommendation that a compliant structure that would not require a south setback variance, and, Two, a recommended floor area ratio to be reduced or to be Code Compliant, and that motion was passed on March 21",2023 by a unanimous vote. And there's one other letter. "There are some concerns regarding the proposed 1440 square foot home at parcel 240.9-1-4 containing.20 acres. The current setbacks for this property are 12 feet from the property line and 2S feet high. While these are minimal setbacks to begin with, there are setbacks for a reason. Our biggest concerns are proximity, noise and view obstruction. The first concern is proximity. According to the Town of Queensbury's GIS system, the property is 55 ft. wide. That leaves a building width of 31 feet, which would give plenty of space to build within the current setbacks. Our log cabin was built in 1976 and is probably pre-existing and non-conforming to today's current setbacks. According to the Town of Queensbury's GIS system, our home is 10.5 feet from the property line. Our log cabin is also a true log cabin which does not have HVAC system. We rely solely on open windows for ventilation. Having a neighbor so close by brings us to the next point. Noise is inevitable with any neighbor,but the proposed home would be about 20 feet away from our current home. Another issue would be view obstruction and 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) privacy. If this proposed home is 30 feet high,that has the potential to block part of our view or look over and into our home. We have concerns regarding outdoor lighting that may impact the windows facing the shared side of our properties. We also have 2 questions: 1—Since the Scrim's also own the adjoining lot,could they move the proposed dwelling closer the larger lot? 2 —Are the neighbors provided with a copy of the survey to see the exact location of the proposed dwelling? Thank you for your consideration in this,Peter&Mary Iwanyckyj",and that's 195 Roses Grove Road in Water Mill,New York. MR. HENKEL-They wrote the letter based on the first application of 1440 square foot house instead of 2100. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to comment? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. So just a couple of things to add. The shoreline setback,specifically for the house,so this lot,you know,it's either 50 feet or the average of the two parcels, whichever is greatest. So this is a situation where the 50 feet is thrown out the window. We measured from the Iwanyckyj's house to the north, and then the proposed house to the south, and that's how we got to it. The setback's actually 64 feet. So this house would be right in line with the neighboring property and would not obstruct any views of the lake or anything like that. And another point. We did move the setback closer to this other lot, that's where the two foot setback is so it does meet the 12 foot setback. So we did try to move that setback, and as far as the lot line adjustment goes,I don't know,I know that it's an existing,lawful,non-conforming .2 acre lot and the allowable lot size is two acres. I don't know how that works,taking from a lot that is two acres and make the lot bigger,if you're creating two non-conforming lots. I don't know. MRS. MOORE-It would trigger a variance. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes,it would trigger a variance to do that as well. MRS. SERINI-Sharon Serini. We are not touching the tree line,there was a tree line, and we had spoken with our neighbors and we said, you know, are fully, we do not want to inhibit their privacy. I want privacy, too. So we're in agreement that whole tree line so they can have their privacy, and we also are planting additional plantings. So we talked to them and explained to them what we were doing, if they had any suggestions at the time,they didn't say anything,but we explained to them that we respect them. We pay a lot of money to be on this lake. Everyone deserves to have their privacy, and I would not take that away,no way. So we had decided,we walked it with the tree people. We are not taking any of those trees down. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board,and I'm going to start with Dick. All right. So,wait a minute. So I have to re-open the public hearing. You need to use the microphone there because somebody's transcribing all this. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. SERINI-Mike Serini, owner of the property. They made the comment of seeing one house from the other,with the second story. Well we have a first story. The first story lines up with their first story. So if you add a one story house to a two story house,the visibility to their house and their lot. MR. MC CABE-Right. So at this particular time I'm going to re-close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Dick. MR. CIPPERLY-Thank you, Mike. I think I tend to agree with the Planning Board comments. There's sort of two ways out of it. You can downsize a little bit,or move the lot line and we grant two variances which would probably be pretty simple. It just seems they're on an 5,000 square foot lot. It's an awful lot. There's really nothing left. MR. MC CABE-So you're a no? MR. CIPPERLY-For now,yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Roy? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in agreement. I think this can be scaled back a little better. We may not need the variances if that were the case, and I must say I'm a little bothered by the height. Even though it's in somewhat of a valley,I still think it's three feet above what's allowed and these things tend to spread if we do allow them. So I would be against it as presented right now. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I would not be in favor of it. I think there are considerations that still need to be pursued. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I think I agree that either the lot line adjustment or a little smaller building site so that we don't have to deal with the variances almost. Obviously with the lot line adjustment you would have the variances,but I think that would be a good solution here. I don't know as I have too much of a problem with the height of the building,considering the contours of the lot,but that would be my recommendation. So,no. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-In a practical sense here I think we have to be realistic about what people propose up on these smaller lots. This is only a.2 acre lot. There's no cellar in here. There's no storage available for any storage whatsoever in the building. Anybody who builds a house up on the lake wants a garage eventually. I think that would be inevitable that there would be a request for that. So I think they're going to have to substantially shrink this down to a one bedroom or maybe a two bedroom place,but it's going to have to have a garage and all the amenities that go with year round living up there. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. There's no doubt. There's one good thing,though. Your septic system is 13S feet from the lake which is a good thing. So you've got one good positive thing, and you guys are lucky you have some options because of the property you have next door. So I would not be on board. The height definitely bothers me. The setback, that could be changed with a lot line adjustment or something. You're lucky you have options. Not everybody has that. I'm not in support of it. MR.MC CABE-So I have a problem with the FAR. It just opens Pandora's Box. It's like too big a building on too small a lot. I have no problem with the height. As you say, you know, the average height is not larger than what we require. If it was flat,I would have a problem with the height,and I have no problems with the setbacks,but I do have a problem with the FAR,and so I'm not in favor of this project,either,and I would have to say that I would find it much more acceptable if a lot line adjustment was made to make this lot a little bit bigger. We can't count on you being the neighbor all the time. You could either sell your property or you could sell this one. So I think to me this whole, it would be better to make this a bigger lot. MR. ZEGLEN-We request to table until the next available meeting. Is that possible, in case there's an opening on the April. If we get everything in on time for the April agenda. MR.HENKEL-We're shooting for May,right? MRS. MOORE-Right now we're on May because March was the deadline for April. MR.HENKEL-We're looking at May 17`h. Is that okay? That's still open? Okay. MR. ZEGLEN Just to reiterate. So the lot line adjustment would be favorable? MR.HENKEL-It sounds like it. MR. MC CABE-It would be certainly to me. MR. ZEGLEN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant would be responsible for submitting an updated application of this project,and then if they wish to pursue the lot line adjustment,they would trigger a variance for the other lot. MR. MC CABE-Does that have to be two separate meetings? MRS. MOORE-No. So it would be two applications. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) MR.HENKEL-You said the other property is two acres? MR. ZEGLEN-I believe it's more than that. MR. CIPPERLY-On the ground it looks reasonable. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sharon Serini. Applicant proposes a 2-story home with a footprint of 972 sq.ft.,porch area of 240 sq.ft., and a floor area of 2,113 sq. ft. The project includes a septic system and stormwater management. The plan includes a vegetative plan for removal and plantings to remain. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks,floor area, and height. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2023 SHARON SERINI,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mary Palacino: Tabled to the May 17`h,2023 Zoning Board meeting with any new information due by April 17`h,2023. Duly adopted this 22110 day of March,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr.Keenan,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. ZEGLEN-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 9-2023,Phillip Mitchell,2960 State Route 9L. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2023 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE 11. PHILLIP MITCHELL OWNER(S) PHILLIP MITCHELL. ZONING WR LOCATION 2960 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 160 SQ.FT.SHED ON THE PROPERTY. THE EXISTING HOME OF 983 SQ. FT.AND A 288 SQ. FT. GARAGE ARE TO REMAIN. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 1,800 SQ.FT.AND NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 1,960 SQ.FT. THE SHED IS TO BE LOCATED NEAR THE DRIVEWAY AREA WITH STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION IN A CEA. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 17-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2O23 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-10 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-020 PHILLIP MITCHELL,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2023, Phillip Mitchell, Meeting Date: March 22, 2023 "Project Location: 2960 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to place a 160 sq. ft. shed on the property. The existing home of 983 sq.ft. and a 288 sq.ft.garage are to remain. The existing floor area is 1,800 sq.ft. and new floor area is to be 1,960 sq.ft. The shed is to be located near the driveway area with stormwater management.Site plan review for new construction in a CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of shed. The property is located in the WR zone that is 0.42 ac. Section 179-3-040 WR dimensional,179-5-020 shed The shed is to be located 7.2 ft.where a 20 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. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) 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 location of the existing home and driveway area on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 12.S ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a new 160 sq.ft. shed on the property. There are no other changes to the site. The house and garage are to remain. The plans show the location of the shed and existing building on the site. The applicant has included details to manage stormwater for the new shed." 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 was approved on March 21" 2023 by a unanimous vote. MR. MITCHELL-I'm Phillip Mitchell. MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything else to add? It's pretty straightforward. MR. MITCHELL-No, I don't really have anything to add. I did talk to my neighbor to the south that's eight feet away from the shed,you can't see it so it's no problem there. The hill is so steep that you can't see the shed from the road and the neighbor to the north,that's a Trust and it's kind of complicated to talk with them,but their cottage is only about 10 feet more from the property line,but it's also right next to the lake, and the shed that I'm proposing is 30 feet towards the road and 30 feet away from the back of their place through the bushes. So that shouldn't really impact them. Their shed is basically on the property line at my road. What I'm doing is consistent with everything else that's around us. I don't see a problem. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. PALACINO-I have just one question, having visited the site, my question to you is, will you take down the shed that's existing,that's there now,placed prior to this meeting? MR. MITCHELL-Okay. Here's the way this happened. I wanted a shed. I had some materials so I built the base at 10 by 16,and then it occurred to me that maybe I needed a permit,and I came up and talked to the folks here and they said,well,if it's 10 by 12,you don't need a permit. Well,I had the platform at 10 by 16, so I made that shed that you saw there with an interior space that was 10 by 12, hoping that, okay, having a four foot place sticking out wouldn't trigger having to get a permit,but indeed it does. So that's why I'm here. So that is,the shed that's there,is the shed that I want to have officially permitted. MR. CIPPERLY-It looks good. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-I have a letter. "My name is Joe Didio. We reside year round at 2966 State Route 9L,Lake George in Dunham Bay. I am writing in regards to the Ordinance Reference — 179-3-040, 179-5-020, application by Philip Mitchell of 2960 State Route 9L, Lake George. We live year-round in the home to the south of the proposed project. We have no objection — in fact endorse the project proposed by the Mitchells. As multi-generational residents of Dunham's Bay,the Mitchells have been longtime stewards of Lake George and Dunham's Bay. As they have become year-round residents we understand their need for additional storage,workspace,etc. Especially with new Grandchildren. We feel the size and location of the shed does not affect the lake or their neighbors in any way esthetically or environmentally. Knowing the property,I don't believe there is another location possible. Respectfully,Joseph&Cynthia Didio" MR. MC CABE-So Mr. Didio's been before us a couple of times,and usually the neighbor across the street complains. So you must be on better terms with him than. MR. MITCHELL-Yes,he can't see me. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Mary. MRS. PALACINO-Regardless of what I said earlier, I would be in favor of it. I've seen the property, obviously. I appreciate the contours of the land and what you've done. So I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I don't have any objections to the project. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No objections. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-Yes,I think you should build a bigger one. You start getting things in there,it's not going to be big enough. I'm all for it. MR. MITCHELL-I would if I could,honestly. MR.HENKEL-That's a tough piece of property. MR. MITCHELL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes,I think it's fine. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, approve the project. So, Dick,I'm going to ask if you'd make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Phillip Mitchell. Applicant proposes to place a 160 sq. ft. shed on the property. The existing home of 9S3 sq. ft. and a 2SS sq.ft.garage are to remain. The existing floor area is 1,500 sq.ft. and new floor area is to be 1,960 sq.ft. The shed is to be located near the driveway area with stormwater management. Site plan review for new construction in a CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of shed. The property is located in the WR zone that is 0.42 ac. Section 179-3-040 WR dimensional,179-5-020 shed The shed is to be located 7.2 ft.where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on March 22,2023. 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 because it's almost invisible to the adjacent properties and it's been there. 2. Feasible alternatives are not possible. This is a flat spot, and they've (the alternatives)have been considered by the Board and are really not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's a small shed. It's almost within the Town's exemption for sheds. So I don't see a problem. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) 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. He could do without a shed. 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. 9-2023 PHILLIP MITCHELL, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 22110 Day of March 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. MITCHELL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 22ND, 2023, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 22 d day of March,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 16