Loading...
04-19-2023 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS FIRSTREGULAR MEETING APRIL I91r,2023 INDEX Area Variance No.4-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 1. Tax Map No.227.17-1-25;227-17-1-24 (septic) Notice of Appeal No. NOA 1-2023 Edward Ostberg 2. Tax Map No.290.-1-S Area Variance No.49-2022 Faden Enterprises 7. Tax Map No.2SS.-1-5S Area Variance No.11-2023 John&Mary Jo Sabia 10. Tax Map No.2S9.17-1-26 Area Variance No.13-2023 G. Thomas Moynihan,Jr. &Joan Moynihan 15. Tax Map No.239.12-2-27 Area Variance No.14-2023 Artie's Camping and More/James Benedetti 19. Tax Map No.2SS.12-1-22 Area Variance No.15-2023 Alisha&Michael Griffey 23. Tax Map No.239.16-1-23&24 Area Variance No.16-2023 David Turner 32. Tax Map No.290.5-1-26 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MEETING 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 04/19/2023) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 19TK,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL ROBERT KEENAN RICHARD CIPPERLY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN ATTORNEY-MILLER, MANNIX,SCHACHNER&HAFNER JACKIE WHITE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, April 19`h, 2023. It's a little bit bigger crowd than normal. Just for safety's sake, if something happens,there's exits in the back to the north there where you came in. There's two exits on the east wall here on either end, and there's an exit to the southwest in back of us. If you've not been here before, our procedure is relatively simple. We have 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, ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we'll open a public hearing,take input from the public, close the public hearing, poll the Board and see where we stand and proceed accordingly. So first we have a couple of administrative items to take care of. So let's do the meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 22,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 22,2023,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 19`h day of April,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Kuhl March 29,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 29,2023,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico With one correction we've identified. Duly adopted this 19`h day of April,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel MR. MC CABE-And then we have a tabling. AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 GERALDINE EBERLEIN AGENT(S) STUDIO A LANDSCAPE,ARCH,ENG;JON LAPPER,ESQ. OWNER(S) GERALDINE EBERLEIN ZONING WR LOCATION 12 SEELYE ROAD NORTH (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 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 TO EAST PROPERTY LINE. 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. CROSS REF SP 5-2023;AV 70-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO.227.17-1-25; 227.17-1-24 (SEPTIC) SECTION 179-3- 040;147 MR. MC CABE-Was anybody here for the Seelye Road application? So I'm going to open the public hearing for that particular application,AV 4-2023. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-And we'll leave it open until we actually hear the case then. Nobody wants to speak on that. Do we have anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-Not that I see. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Geraldine Eberlein. (Revised)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 anew permeable driveway,stormwater management,and shoreline landscaping; the project also includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining property to east property line. 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 Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the May 17`h,2023 Zoning Board of Appeals Meeting. Duly adopted this 19`h Day of April 2023,by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-The only question I have is how many times are we going to table this? We've tabled this quite a few times. Who's fault is it now? MRS.MOO RE-I'll explain. So the applicant had issues in reference to location of the septic system which happens to be on an adjoining property that they do not own. The original project septic system was located in proximity to a wetland which would have triggered additional sorts of review,including a septic variance, and in light of the new location of the septic, it still needs a septic variance because it's still on property that isn't something that they own. MR.HENKEL-Gotcha. Fair enough. Okay. AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our first case is NOA 1-2023,Edward Ostberg,639 County Line Road. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. NOA 1-2023 EDWARD OSTBERG AGENT(S) ERIK SANDBLOM,PE (SRA ENGINEERS) OWNER(S) EDWARD OSTBERG ZONING CLI LOCATION 639 COUNTY LINE RD. APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION REGARDING A MICROBREWERY IN THE CLI ZONE. CROSS REF SP 28- 98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-8 SECTION 179-3-040C;179-7-080A;179-2-010 JOHN CAFFRY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) Notes from Staff,Notice of Appeal NOA 1-2023, Edward Ostberg, Meeting Date: April 19,2023 "Project Location: 639 County Line Road Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's determination regarding a microbrewery in the CLI zone. First,Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60-day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? The appeal was filed within the required timeframe. • The referenced Zoning Administrator determination was issued on February 24,2023. • The Notice of Appeal application was filed with the Town on March 15,2023 The Appellant is the property owner of record. Second,Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have standing: The issue at hand is whether a Microbrewery is an allowed use within the Commercial Light Industrial; (CLI) district. The appellant's main argument appears to be that since components of a Microbrewery use are allowable uses within the CLI district that the combined use must be allowable. Additionally, the appellant appears to assert that the Town Board did not intend to prohibit a Microbrewery in the CLI district when the use was added to the Zoning Code in 2013 and further,that the Town Board would not have required an amendment to the Code if the use had been proposed in the CLI district in 2013. There is no evidence to support either of these assertions. The Zoning Administrator position is outlined in the referenced email(s)and further supported by Section 179-4-010,C (4)which states; W Nonpermissible uses(NP).Any use which is not a permissible use by right, site plan review,or special use permit in a given Zoning district or which is not an accessory use to such a permissible use,site plan review use,or special permit use shall be a nonpermissible use and shall be deemed prohibited in that Zoning district.Such NP uses shall be depicted as blank or empty spaces on Tables 2,3 and 4 of this chapter Staff Comments: Additionally, the "individual components" argument is not sound in that the Town Zoning Code specifically defines a Microbrewery and the code further specifies in which zoning districts such a use is allowable. The specific use of Microbrewery is not an allowable use within the CLI district. Further, the assertions that "...no such Town Code amendment would have been needed in 2013 if the Davidson Brothers project had been proposed for the CLI district..." and that the Town Board did not intend to prohibit a Microbrewery in an Industrial district are unfounded.The first assertion is speculation and the second statement is inaccurate as the Town Board, after much deliberation, made a conscious decision at a public hearing specifically identifying the districts where a Microbrewery would be allowed thereby,by default,prohibiting the use in all other districts. The appellant has the option to seek a Zoning Code amendment, with the Town Board, to allow a Microbrewery in the CLI district." MR. CAFFRY-I'm John Caffry from Caffry & Flower. I'm here representing Hickory Hill Brewing Company LLC,which is the potential tenant of the property at 639 County Line Road that's at issue here. With me here is Ted Prime of Lake George. He's one of the owners of the Brewing Company and also Ed Ostberg who's the owner of the property on County Line Road and when the brewery opens he's going to be one of the brewers. Also here with us is Erik Sandblom,sitting in the audience,who's the engineer for the project,although we don't anticipate any engineering type questions. They seem to be probably more for the Planning Board. What Hickory Hill Brewing wants to do is build this production brewery with a tasting room at the County Line Road property and then it'll have it's primary tasting room and the special events at the base lodge of the Hickory Hill ski center in Warrensburg,but for various reasons that site's not really suitable to have a brewery there. It's in the middle of the ski rail. So they're looking to do the brewing at Mr. Ostberg's property. In February Mr. Sandblom began preliminary discussions about the project with the Town Staff and Mr. Brown told him that because the operation would fall within the definition of a microbrewery in the Town Code and because that's not specifically listed as an allowed use in the Commercial Light Industrial zone it wasn't allowed there. We looked at the Code and the legislative history of the provisions regarding microbreweries and we disagreed with Mr. Brown so we appealed. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) What we think he missed,and of course he addresses it in his response,but each element of the operation is an allowed use in the CLI zone. Light Industry that meets that definition. I know it's an operation that treats materials and then packages them among other things. Retail's an allowed use and they'll sell beer to go. They'll sell,if you will,souvenirs,glassware,hats,t-shirts,whatever,those kinds of things,with the logo on them,packaged food items,things like that, and food service will be pretty light, actually. They don't expect to have a kitchen,but they would have some sort of food available,whether it's pre-packaged or whatever. Along with limited service of their own beer. They don't anticipate having a full bar. If you have each one of these things separately,even under the same roof,but with a different door on them,they'd be allowed uses in that district. So it just,to us,doesn't seem logical that if you combine them into a single operation they're not allowed. There's nothing to support that Mr.Brown's interpretation of the Town's record which we think actually support our Appeal. As shown in our papers,and we attached the records from 2013,the entire reason this was done was to allow microbreweries in the commercial zone on Route 9 because Davidson Brothers wanted to go in there. All the discussions in the minutes,and it was a pretty short discussion, was about the Davidson Brothers site. There was no discussion of whether or not it should be allowed in other districts. It was all about that Route 9 site. Later on, through various other zoning amendments,it was added to other commercial districts,but it was not,there was no discussion at any of those times about the industrial districts. Because that was,you know, in 2013 the issue wasn't whether or not it was allowed in the industrial district. They didn't need to have that discussion because it was all about the Route 9 site. Mr. Brown says in the Staff Notes that there's no evidence to support our interpretation that this type of operation is allowed in the Light Industrial district,but in fact we just discovered this today that there is a winery operating in the Commercial Light Industrial district on Big Boom Road. It's really a very similar type of operation. They're making the wine and they're selling wine, retail. They're offering tastings and that operation has been through site plan review and building permit review multiple times by the Town and the Town has approved it every time,even though a winery is not specifically allowed in the Industrial zone. So we did a little research today and I would like to file with the Board copies of some of these things that I found. We have the assessment records from online, the 2022 site plan review records,the 2020 site plan review,some printouts from their website and a Post Star article about the grand opening of their new tasting room. Among other things the Town specifically said in the agendas and staff notes and other such things that a winery is a manufacturing use. There's really very little difference between a winery and a brewery. You're taking agricultural products. You're putting them through a process and you're producing an alcoholic beverage which you will then bottle and sell. So there's really no difference between the two types of uses. So we really don't think that that type of, and if you go through the records, again, it's very clear that winery, tasting room, these applications were unanimously approved at the Planning Board without any real faith that this was an allowed use. So, again,we just don't think there's really any rational basis to say that a winery's allowed and a brewery is not. In fact,an amendment was adopted to allow a commercial brewery,breweries in Commercial district, because it wasn't necessary for an Industrial district,just like it wasn't necessary to allow the winery to go in an Industrial district. We think the brewery is and always was allowed in the Commercial district. Here's another odd thing about Mr. Brown's interpretation. He's saying a microbrewery isn't allowed in the Industrial district because it's got all these other aspects to it,you know, onsite sales and retail and whatever else, but if Anheuser Bush came in and wanted to build an enormous Budweiser brewery, it would clearly be industrial and it in theory it would be allowed because it's not a microbrewery,but under Mr. Brown's theory you could allow that but not a relatively small microbrewery. So what we'd ask you to do is grant the Appeal, overrule Mr. Brown's interpretation that the brewery is not an allowed use, an allow us to proceed with the project. MR. MC CABE-So I just have one question. What's the anticipated output of the microbrewery per season? TED PRIME MR.PRIME-There's going to be about 1,000 barrels a year. Pretty small. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else have questions? Mr.Brown? MR. BROWN-Not much more than the Staff Notes. I think,just to summarize. I think the sum of the parts argument, it just doesn't hold water because in other sections, other zoning districts in the Town that use is specifically called out. It's not called out,not that it's blank in the Commercial Light Industrial table. It's not even a use that's listed for any Industrial zone. So the decision making process that I go through,hundreds of times a year,is you look at the Use Table. If the use is there it's allowed in that zone. If it's not in the Table it's not allowed in that zone. If there's a need to try and fit a use that may not be defined, then there's an opportunity to say, hey, this is close enough to a retail or it's a trucking depot or it's something. That's not the case here that a microbrewery is clearly defined in our Code. It's clearly outlined in what districts it is allowed, and I don't think that the Town Board's decision, it's not that it wasn't necessary to be done in a Commercial Light Industrial zone. It wasn't intended to be in those zones. Those were decisions the Town Board made. They had workshop meetings before the public hearing where the discussion was held that I think the counsel is referring to, and all those consequences were discussed,where do we want this,where do we not want this. I don't know specifically if they talked 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) about all zoning districts,but it was intended to only allow it in the zones where it is right now. So it's pretty straightforward. If it's not in the Use Table,it's not allowed. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of Mr.Brown? MR.HENKEL-I've got a question. Well then how was this approved on this winery? MR.BROWN-I can look at it. I think,if it's the one I'm thinking of,I think that was a historical use that's been on the property for a while. I believe this was a modification to that use. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I kind of remember it was. It's my brother-in-laws property. They used to run Adirondack Coffee and bottled water out of there,but I don't remember. MR. BROWN-Yes, I don't know. I haven't looked at what's been submitted. So I don't have a good answer for you. MR. KUHL-Could it have been that the microbrewery was just overlooked in the Commercial Light Industrial? MR. BROWN-I mean it could be. I think that's a great argument to go to the Town Board and say,hey, would you change the Zoning Code to make this an allowed use in the Light Industrial district now. I think that's a great argument. If you're going to allow all of the other pieces,why not allow it. MR.KUHL-Exactly. MR. BROWN-But that's not the way the Code's written. Could the Town Board change it to do that? Absolutely,but that's not what it says today. MR.KUHL-Are you sure we're not just hung up on the name microbrewery? Because the sum of the parts equals the whole, doesn't it? MR.BROWN-Yes,I don't think that holds water, and I don't want to take any thunder from counsel,but she may want to weigh in on the technicality part of it. MR.KUHL-She can any time she wants. MR.BROWN-But I just don't think that's an appropriate method to use. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'd like to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular project. Anybody? Roy,is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is nothing written other than what I read in. 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 seek some advice from counsel. MS. WHITE-So, yes, you asked Counsel to be here tonight. I'm Jackie White with Miller, Mannix, Schachner&Hafner, Town Counsel, and I think the reason why Counsel is here tonight is because of the things that Zoning Boards look at,interpretation appeals are probably what we run into the least. You're used to more of the Area Variances and to a lesser extent Use variances and an even lesser extent interpretation appeals. From a procedural perspective they're handled very similarly to your variance applications. You've heard from the applicant. You've heard from the Zoning Administrator on his position. You had your public hearing. You can now deliberate and make your determination. Where these differ a good deal from your variance applications is you don't have a test to apply. You don't have nice criteria that you can go through and check off and discuss. Your job is to look at the Code provisions at issue, interpret them and then decide that you agree with the Zoning Administrator, upholding his determination,that you disagree, overturning it,or you could modify it. So based on your interpretation analysis you could modify the determination somewhat. The things you shouldn't do,whether or not you like the project, you think a microbrewery is a great idea, that shouldn't impact your decision making. Your job is to interpret the Code. You're the appellate body to hear appeals,Mr.Brown's determinations. So your personal thoughts on the project of course should not matter. The other thing to keep in mind is Mr. Brown's interpretation, opinion, doesn't carry any greater weight because he's the Zoning Administrator. You are the appellate body and one of your jobs is to review determinations that are 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) appealed. So what you should be doing is looking at the Code,the language of the Code, and applying it to reach that determination on whether or not you uphold,overturn or modify his decision. Okay. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So at this particular time I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I trust the Zoning Administrator looked at this project with objective eyes, and according to the Code, and I feel like he made a proper assessment,I would feel better if the appellant had sought a Zoning Code amendment to the Town Board to make it, to clarify whether this use is allowed in this district because for me I don't see it, currently, and I think the Zoning Administrator made the proper assessment,judgment in this case. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Given the legal Counsel, the sum of the parts, I agree the sum of the parts,but we have the Code. The Code is made up and unfortunately the sum is there,but the title of what it is is somewhere else. So as much as I would like to go against the Zoning Administrator,I do have to agree with the Code, and maybe it was just an oversight that CLI wasn't put in with CI. I don't know. Maybe it was that Davidson Brothers was the first one and the discussion was well it's always going to be here. Why you didn't come for a Use Variance,I mean wouldn't they be able to get a Use Variance? MR.BROWN-They could apply for a Use Variance. MR.KUHL-And that would get them in to being able to build this microbrewery in the CLI,right? MR.BROWN-Use Variances are very difficult,but they can always apply,yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. So I mean there are avenues,but as the Code is written today,unfortunately I would have to agree with Mr.Brown. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes,I also agree with Mr. Brown. I think he read the Code and we read what's allowable and what's not with all the pieces,I agree with his determination. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I disagree. I think that this is a no-brainer as far as I'm concerned. I did speak with the Town Supervisor offhand about the project. He didn't have a problem with it. I think if you went to the Town Board, I think it would be over and done with the sweep of a pen in a meeting with the Town. At the same time I think,you know,the fact that you have the Adirondack Winery down on Big Bay Road and that's been in existence. It hasn't caused a problem. It's basically essentially performing the same services you propose on this site. So I'd be in favor of overturning the Zoning Administrator. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-When I look at this, somewhere in the Code microbrewery is defined and it's not listed as an allowable use in the CLI zone. I mean it's kind of, I'm not opposed to the project itself. I think the Town Board is the place to go and amend the zoning to include microbreweries or whatever else is popular in the Commercial Light Industrial zone,but as it stands,it's not. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I think I have to agree with most of the Board here. I think going to the Town Board and getting it changed to the zoning and get microbrewery added as an allowed use probably is the route to go. I think Mr.Brown's determination is what he typically does and the standard that we should be following for the most part and so therefore I couldn't see approving this. MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, think it's pretty straightforward. The definition is the definition. And although I think there's a worthy project here, I just can't go along with it, or I have to agree with Mr. Brown's assessment. But I'm going to hold off making a decision. I have 30 days to provide our final answer here, and so I believe I'm going to invoke that and provide an answer at some later date. MR. CAFFRY-So you're going to formally table it? MR. MC CABE-It's not really tabling it. Right? MS. WHITE-Yes,the Board has 62 days to reach a determination after the public hearing is closed. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. MC CABE-Yes. MS.WHITE-So if you wish to think about it,you've obviously been provided the materials tonight as well. If you want to prepare a written resolution to propose to the Board,you could have that time as well. So you do have time before you have to reach a determination. MR. MC CABE-And so I'm going to take that time. MRS. MOORE-I would ask the Board, are you looking to have that resolution prepared by Staff and Counsel? MR. MC CABE-With Staff and Counsel's help,yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Yes,because we do have some additional information here that we didn't get a chance to really study. I'm not sure that it will change anything. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So we'll be back to you. So next application is AV 49-2022 Faden Enterprises,1471 State Route 9. TABLED ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S): LANSING ENGINEERING OWNER(S): SARATOGA PRIME PROPERTIES ZONING Cl LOCATION 1471 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SITE TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT INCLUDES ONE BUILDING OF 8,950 SQ. FT. THAT IS BROKEN INTO THREE TENANT SPACES OF 2,000 SQ. FT., DRIVE-THRU, 2,500 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT,AND 8,355 SQ.FT.RETAIL SPACE. THE SECOND AND THIRD BUILDINGS ARE TO BE A TOTAL OF 24 UNIT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY OF 3,480 SQ. FT. WHERE EACH BUILDING IS TO BE 1,740 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 12 UNITS EACH. 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. CROSS REF SP 68-2022; SUP 6-2022; FWW 13-2022; SP 45-2015; SP 59-2014; SV 48-2014; SP 52-2011; SP 8-2006; SP 34-2004; SP 43-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2022 LOT SIZE 199 ACRES TAX MAP NO.288.-1-58 SECTION 179-3-040 PAUL LUBERA,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; RUSS FADEN,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 49-2022, Faden Enterprises, Meeting Date: April 19, 2023 "Project Location: 1471 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing building on the site to construct three new buildings and associated site work. Project includes one building of 5,950 sq. ft. that is broken into three tenant spaces of 2,000 sq. ft. drive-thru, 2,500 sq. ft. restaurant,and an 5,355 sq.ft.retail space. The second and third buildings are to be a total of 24 unit self- storage facility of 3,450 sq.ft.where each building to be 1,740 sq.ft.footprint with 12 units each. 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. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to the wetlands and stream for the construction of three buildings in the CI zone on a 1.92 ac parcel Section 179-3-040 dimension and Chapter 94 wetlands The plan indicated Building 1 (retail/food) is located 60 ft. from the stream and 74 ft. from the wetland; Building 2 is 41 ft. and 43 ft.from the wetland/stream area;Building 3 is 36 ft. and 44 ft.from the wetland area where a 75 ft. setback from building to wetland is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 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 little to no impact on the neighboring properties as they are primarily commercial. 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 limited due to the lot shape and constraints of wetlands and stream on the site. There may be feasibility to reduce the building size although a variance may still be required. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested--Building 1 is 15 ft.to the wetland,I ft.to the stream;Building 2 is 34 ft. and 32 ft.;and Building 3 is 36 ft. and 31 ft. 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 impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area due to the wetlands and stream. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The Applicant proposes removal of an existing building on the site to construct 3 new buildings and associated site work. The plans show the location of the storage buildings and a preliminary sketch for the commercial building with the retail and food service." MR. LUBERA-Good evening. My name's Paul Lubera. I'm with Lansing Engineering. I'm here with the applicant. We were last in front of you on October 19`h,and at that meeting it was requested that we have some verification of the actual wetland boundaries. We have since submitted to Army Corps of Engineers and have received back a wetland permit with disturbances associated with this. As stated it's 1.92 acres. There is some disturbance here and we ask your consideration of the variances to move forward with the project. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So I think before our question was is it really a wetland and so you're saying yes,it is. MR. LUBERA-Yes,we received it on March 17`h from the Army Corps. We have a permit. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised for this particular project. I can't remember whether I left the public hearing open or closed the last time. MRS. DWYRE-You closed it. MR. MC CABE-I closed it. So with your permission I'm going to re-open the public hearing and seek input from anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this particular project. Roy, is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. URRICO-No comments. 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 John. MR.HENKEL-I think it would be great to clean up this property. I have no problem with the retail in the front,but I still do have a little bit of a problem with the storage areas in the back there because there is quite a stream that runs through there,and I think it's just too close to the stream. It's too much blacktop, too much runoff that will be running into that stream. So that bothers me,but I would be on board with the commercial storefronts on Route 9,but not with the storage areas in the back. MR. MC CABE Jim? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. UNDERWOOD-I have to agree with John. I would approve building one. I think that's not a problem. It's an update of an overused structure from the past. It's long overdue for a replacement,but as far as the back two buildings go,I would not approve either one of them. I think it's too much disturbance close to a wetland and I think it's over the top. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I actually would support all three buildings. I think with the coordinated permit for the wetlands that that satisfies my concern about it. Walking back there,looking at the stream and looking at your grading plan, it would take quite an enormous flood to ever impact this, any of what they're proposing. So I'd actually be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I'm a little concerned about how close it is to the stream. Granted with the Freshwater permit that is significant,but,you know,one foot variance from the stream to me is a little excessive. MR. MC CABE-So you're not in favor? MR.KEENAN-I would not be in favor. Not of Buildings Two and Three. One I have no problem with. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I actually support the project as is. I think it's pretty well thought out. I'm satisfied that the permits that were granted for the wetlands satisfies my curiosity about it. I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of the project the way it's presented. I don't think that Building Two and Three as storage units will offer a lot of traffic. Yes,they are close to the wetlands but I also don't think it's going to have a negative effect on the wetlands. So I would be in favor as it's presented. MR. MC CABE-And,I,too,support the project. I believe that there should be some sort of activity there. Just to leave it barren is, you know, kind of a waste of space. And so I would support this. So I think that's four to three. So, Ron,I wonder if you could make a motion here. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Faden Enterprises. Applicant proposes to remove an existing building on the site to construct three new buildings and associated site work. Project includes one building of 5,950 sq. ft. that is broken into three tenant spaces of 2,000 sq. ft. drive-thru,2,500 sq. ft. restaurant, and 5,355 sq. ft. retail space. The second and third buildings are to be a total of 24 unit self-storage facility of 3,4SO sq.ft.where each building to be 1,740 sq.ft.footprint with 12 units each.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. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks to the wetlands and stream for the construction of three buildings in the CI zone on a 1.92 ac parcel Section 179-3-040 dimension and Chapter 94 wetlands The plan indicated Building 1 (retail/food) is located 60 ft. from the stream and 74 ft. from the wetland; Building 2 is 41 ft. and 43 ft.from the wetland/stream area;Building 3 is 36 ft. and 44 ft.from the wetland area where a 75 ft. setback from building to wetland is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on October 19,2022 and April 19,2023. 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 as this is a good use of this site. The building has been laying empty for a while and the fact that they're having the commercial up front and not close to the area of the wetlands. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 2. Feasible alternatives really have been looked at. They've been considered by the Board and are reasonable-and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as the rear part of the buildings closest to the wetlands are really going to be storage units. There's not going to be a lot of traffic. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created only because they want to build the buildings close to the wetlands. 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. 49-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of April 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Keenan MR. FADEN-Thanks,I appreciate it. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 11-2023,John&Mary Jo Sabia,43 Canterbury Drive. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JOHN &z MARY JO SABIA AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL (RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS) OWNER(S) JOHN &z MARY JO SABIA ZONING WR LOCATION 43 CANTERBURY DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A 1,776 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME. THE NEW FLOOR AREA OF THE HOME IS TO BE 2,672 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR THE INSTALLATION OF A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, USE THE EXISTING WELL, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND NEW SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE, AND NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR FLOOR AREA, SETBACKS, HEIGHT, AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 19-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2023 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.17-1-26 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.11-2023 John&Mary Jo Sabia,Meeting Date: April 19,2023 "Project Location: 43 Canterbury Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home to construct a 1,776 sq. ft. footprint home. The new floor area of the home is to be 2,672 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for the installation of a new septic system,use the existing well, stormwater management and new shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline,and new building within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes. Relief is requested for floor area,setbacks,height,and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for floor area, setbacks, height, and permeability for construction of a new home. The project is located at 43 Canterbury Drive on a 0.21 ac parcel in the Waterfront residential zone. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new home is to be located 1S ft.2 inches from the shoreline setback where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new home is to be located 2S ft. from the front setback where a 30 ft. setback is required (the data sheet should be corrected). The proposed height is 31 ft. 9 inches where 2S ft. is the maximum height allowed. The side yard to the north setback proposed is 15 ft. 10 inches where a 20 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is proposed to be 71.030/o where 750/o is required. The floor area is proposed to be 2,672 sq.ft. (29.30/o)where the maximum allowed is 2,009 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. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the requested variances. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for the new home is 31 ft.10 inches from the shoreline,2 ft.from the front,the side setback is 4 ft. 11 inches,the relief for height 3 ft. 9 inches in excess;permeability relief is 3.9%;floor area 663 sq.ft. (7.3%)in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal impact on the physical or environmental conditions. The applicant proposes a new septic system with the project as proposed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes demolition of an existing home to construct a 1,776 sq.ft.footprint home. The new floor area of the home would be 2,672 sq. ft. The plans show the site work to include the entire 0.21 ac parcel. The plans show the new home location including elevations and floor plans. The board may have additional discussion about the relief requested." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board,based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and that motion was passed on April 1S`h,2023 by a unanimous vote. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records,my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Mary Jo and Doc Sabia. They own the property at 43 Canterbury Drive. Canterbury Drive is a private right of way. It's not a public road. So basically this property has no street frontage. We've done several of the properties down along Canterbury over the years. We did the Canterbury house right next door a few years back. We also did the Benton house which is now the Smith house which is up on top. So the Sabia house is the white ranch house that sits down at the bottom of the hill right next to the water. They have fairly steep embankments that goes up to the Benton house which is now the Smith house behind them. The Canterbury house is the brown one that's on the side. The pictures that I've shown here are taken from the Benton property looking out over the top. Our 31 foot and change roof height will just barely be above the top of the walking surface up there. So it really won't affect the Smith's view because they're basically going to look over the top of this house. We went to the Town Board. We were there twice. The first time they didn't like the application for the septic variance because they felt the house at that point was more,we were asking for five bedrooms at that point. We've knocked it down now to three bedrooms. Really the only place that we can go with this house is up. We've tried to keep the setback that's currently from the front of the house to the lake. We've kept that where it was and we've built as close back to the steep embankment behind them as we could. We are putting in an on-site waste treatment package that will have a bottomless sand filter that we've got the variances from the Town Board the second time for that. We had to get Area Variances to the Sabias existing wells and the neighboring wells,which were signed off by the neighbors. We had to get setbacks from the lake. It's an S0 foot deep lot from the lakefront back to the back of the property. So meeting the 100 foot setback is physically impossible. So all those variances we had to go through the Town Board to get which we did. So we are asking for Area Variances for the setbacks to the shoreline and to the side yard. Again,this is such a small lot,when you apply those setbacks,there's a very small area in the property that would be allowed to be built on in the first place. The Area Variance for the floor area ratio,it's 22%, but the 22%,and I had this discussion with the Planning Board last night,is based on a two acre lot. When you apply that to a two acre lot and 56,000 square feet,you come up with 16,000 and change for buildable 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) area. When you apply that same 220/o to a 9,000 square foot lot,you have very little space to build to. We are asking for seven percent. Seven percent of 9,000 versus seven percent of 56,000. It sounds substantial but it's 663 square feet,and a lot of that is based on how the floor area ratio is calculated. It's based on the cover for the balconies. It's based on the covers for the porch. Anything that's a covered porch is considered in that floor area ratio. So a lot of that,if you got down to it, that's really where those came from. So we did get some comments from the engineering staff which we are addressing. It's nothing we can't get through. It's very typical stuff. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. CIPPERLY-What were the comments from the engineering staff? MR.HALL-They want to have us,they need to have us show what the percolation rate of the soil is for our stormwater basins. I haven't done the one rate next door. We know that it's great percolation. This is a boulder bed over there. There's a lot of really well drained gravel. There's no erosion problems there now and the measures that we've taken with eaves trenches and the drainage pits that we've installed are going to accept all of the stormwater from the grading. MR. CIPPERLY-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.KUHL-If you had to have it at 2S feet instead of 31,could you make that happen? MR.HALL-We'd lose the upstairs. We looked at it,Ron,to figure out as best we could to stay,to get the dormers into the house, and because of the flood elevation that we have to maintain to keep the basement where it is,that's what's pushing us to the 31 feet. If we drop it down,we get into the flood elevation of Glen Lake and that requires a whole bunch of other variances. MR.KUHL-Well how about the house on Dineen Road that's got a flat roof? MR.HALL-I'm not familiar with that. The one that's on the east end? MR.KUHL-Well,I call it the north end. MR. HALL-The north end,up by the outlet. What we're trying to do is to maintain the look so there's a, do you have the picture that shows the overlay? We're trying to maintain the look so it would kind of match the Canterbury house next door,and we'll be at the same height that the Canterbury house is now. That very last picture there. That superimposed this house over the top of the picture. JOHN SABIA DR. SABIA Just to introduce myself,John Sabia and this is my wife Mary Jo. In addition to the project and thank you for your consideration, what was really important to us was to make sure our neighbors outcome for what we were doing. We have four neighbors that live on the street and we have the folks that are above us,the Smiths. So we've kept them informed along the way,respectful of them,considerate of them. We want to make sure they're comfortable with the project. They've all been very supportive and I think there were a couple of letters written in that regard from our direct neighbors the Smiths and the Canterburys wrote some letters in support. So the theme of Glen Lake has been there's always been nice neighbors on that lake and we're very fortunate to have wonderful neighbors, and we've kept them informed every step of the way. We've sent them copies of the plan,details of the project and they've been very supportive. So our neighbors are very important to us. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. CIPPERLY-So the top elevation of the house you're proposing is going to be the same as the house next door. Is that correct? DR. SABIA-Correct. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. Thank you. MR. HALL-And I have a section that's cut through that lot there that shows, I wish it showed up better on this,but the section that we cut through the lot showed where that property is in the back and where the top of that is,and we're about two feet above the top of where the standard. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular project. Is there anything written, Roy? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, I have a few letters. "I am writing in support of the Sabia's application for their demolition and new construction at 43 Canterbury Drive. John and Mary Jo have been our next door neighbors for many years. They and their family are committed to Glen Lake and have long been planning to re-build their home. As I'm sure you are aware the property was built on in the 1960's. Their project will update the septic system and drainage to improve Glen Lake environmentally long into the future. They have engaged Rucinski Hall who handled this process for my family home as well as many others on the lake,to assure that the highest standards of compliance are adhered to. John and Mary Jo are highly valued members of the Glen Lake community. This project will help improve the lake for their neighbors and all that live on and visit Glen Lake. I offer my full endorsement of their plans. Please feel free to contact me should there be any questions. Thank you, Russ Canterbury 39 Canterbury Drive." "Pertaining to the above-mentioned,we have reviewed the plans for this project and support its approval. Our property runs adjacent to the Sabia's property sharing a common border and we see no issues. Thank you. Sincerely,Robert P.Smith Carla B. Smith" And it looks like 77 Birdsall Road. And then"We reside at 33 Canterbury Drive. We are neighbors of John and Mary Jo Sabia. The Sabias are wonderful neighbors. We have reviewed their plans and feel that their new home will be a beautiful addition to Canterbury Drive and Glen Lake. We are completely in favor of their project. Sincerely, David and Pamela Way" That's it. 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-Cumulatively it seems like it's a lot of request,but when you look at the size of the lot,the relationship to the properties adjacent to it,what we've done previously on the adjacent one,I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-One question. What's the height of the basement planned, the family room. What's the height of that? MR. HALL-The floor elevation? The finished floor is going to match what we've got right now. It's is at elevation. MR.HENKEL-So is that an eight foot ceiling roughly? MR.HALL-Yes,eight foot ceiling,and there's a significant amount of space down there,John,crawl space below. MR.HENKEL-Yes,I see the four foot eight there. MR.HALL-Yes, and that's so we got that,chopped that portion out of the floor area. MR.HENKEL-Like Jim said,it does sound like a lot,the height and everything,but I understand the three bedrooms. You're upgrading the septic system. You're doing the best you can with what you've got there and I don't think it's going to hurt the lake really per se. The permeability is pretty good there. I'd be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-You have a small lot. I think you didn't give us any leeway. We're supposed to give you the minimum, the minimum required. There isn't any area that you haven't asked for. I would like to see these people on that lake,but the way you present it,I mean that height thing,I think you could have done better. So as it's presented,I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm satisfied with the presentation. I think I'd be in favor of everything on here. The height doesn't bother me,but the fact that the neighbors support the project and it's equal in height to the next door neighbors seems to mitigate what I think might be excessive height. I'd be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Bob? 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR.KEENAN-I think my biggest concern coming in tonight was the height of the proposal,but it sounds like the neighbors seem to be okay with that. I realize it will be effecting them,but I think with that, I think I'd be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I,too, support the project. I think there's a benefit to the lake as well as the owner and the matching height answered any questions I had about the three feet. I'd support it. MR. MC CABE-So I don't support it,but it's a moot point. From my standpoint it's just a little bit too much for that lot. We beat down the neighbors and so to be fair to them,I would beat this down,but I'm only one vote. So you have a project here. So,Dick,I wonder if you could make that motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John&z Mary Jo Sabia. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home to construct a 1,776 sq. ft. footprint home. The new floor area of the home is to be 2,672 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for the installation of a new septic system, use the existing well, stormwater management and new shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, and new building within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes. Relief is requested for floor area,setbacks,height,and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for floor area, setbacks, height, and permeability for construction of a new home. The project is located at 43 Canterbury Drive on a 0.21 ac parcel in the Waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new home is to be located 1S ft.2 inches from the shoreline setback where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new home is to be located 2S ft. from the front setback where a 30 ft. setback is required (the data sheet should be corrected). The proposed height is 31 ft. 9 inches where 2S ft. is the maximum height allowed. The side yard to the north setback proposed is 15 ft. 10 inches where a 20 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is proposed to be 71.030/o where 750/o is required. The floor area is proposed to be 2,672 sq.ft. (29.30/o)where the maximum allowed is 2,009 sq.ft. (220/o). SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on April 19,2023. 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. This structure will pretty much match the one next to it. 2. Feasible alternatives,I think the Town pushed down one feasible alternative, and pushed it down from five bedrooms to three, and I can support that. I think they have been considered by the Board, are reasonable-and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not particularly substantial because they've tried to address everything that they can on a lot this size. I see support enough from the neighbors that would be most directly impacted. I see a benefit to the lake as well. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to replace their house with a bigger house. 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. 11-2023 JOHN &z MARY TO SABIA, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) Duly adopted this 19`h Day of April 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan NOES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe MR.HALL-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 13-2023, G. Thomas Moynihan,Jr. and Joan Moynihan. AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II G. THOMAS MOYNIHAN JR. &z JOAN MOYNIHAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING &z JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) G. THOMAS MOYNIHAN,JR. &z JOAN MOYNIHAN ZONING WR LOCATION 81 ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOME AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3-BEDROOM HOME OF 2,760 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT AND A FLOOR AREA OF 3,900 SQ. FT. HE SITEWORK INCLUDES PERMEABLE PAVER AREAS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 23-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO.29.12-2-27 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER,LUCAS DOBIE,&r TREVOR FLYNN,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 13-2023, G. Thomas Moynihan,Jr. &Joan Moynihan, Meeting Date: April 19,2023 "Project Location: St Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish the existing home and to construct a new 3-bedroom home of 2,760 sq. ft. footprint and a floor area of 3,900 sq. ft. The site work includes permeable paver areas, stormwater management, and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of a new home. The project site is located at St Assembly Point Drive on a 0.41 ac parcel in a Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new home is to be located 75.2 ft. from the shoreline where a 104.5 ft. setback (average of the two adjoining owners)is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the adjoining location of the existing homes and the lot shape. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested is 29.3 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 demolish the existing home and construct a new 3 bedroom home with a 2,760 sq.ft.footprint and a floor area of 3,900 sq.ft.The home is to be 27.6 ft.in height.The project plans indicate rain gardens and swale areas for stormwater management. The site work will include a new on-site wastewater treatment system, permeable paver driveway, stormwater management and shoreline 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) buffering. The plans show the new home location including elevations and floor plans and a rendition of the new home." MR.URRICO-And the Planning Board,based on its limited review,did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that motion was passed April 1S`h 2023 by a unanimous vote. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Trevor Flynn,project architect, and Lucas Dobie from Hutchins Engineering,project engineer and the applicants, Tom and Joanie, are in the back row as well. We hope you will agree with us that we, for a change,have a simple application. The only variance that we're seeking is the setback because the extreme distance to the one house on the north from the lake. In this zone of course, as Roy said,it's the average distance of the two homes or 50 feet. So 50 feet would be what we would need if it wasn't for the two homes and what's proposed here is 75 which is certainly with other homes in the area, and the one home on the north which is the aberration is because a while ago that's where Assembly Point Road was along the lake. So the house was kind of unnaturally pushed back 159 feet. I'm sure that if the neighbors to the north re-built their house someday, which they probably will,they wouldn't build it at 159 feet. This isn't a grand house by any means. It's three bedrooms. Tom and Joanie are downsizing. It's first floor living with two guest bedrooms upstairs. Everything else complies. Pretty substantial landscaping along the lake which isn't there now and all the neighbors are supportive of this. So with that I'll just ask the architect and landscape architect to walk you through the plans. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. I'm real proud of the project. Put a nice team together,put a tremendous amount of thought into it and this will be a real nice development for the neighborhood we believe. It's kind of a tired property now with an older home which is setup with a walkout basement on the lakeside. Soto make this a newer project,we're taking,demo'ing everything on the site, all the hard surface, driveway, taking the site down a few, several feet to create a first floor level through the whole, entire property. So you will drive up into the garage, first floor level, lakeside. The patio's at the first floor level to help with egress to the home. I believe we went the extra mile, all we could, with the permeable pavers, the permeable walks, enhanced treatment wastewater system using the Fuji Clean technology instead of septic tanks, an enhanced treatment, and provided stormwater sizing as if it was a virgin site,not a re-development. So we really feel we went the extra mile there and it's expensive landscaping through the site and the shoreline buffering. I'd be happy to answer any questions after the architect speaks to it. MR. FLYNN-For the record, Trevor Flynn with Flynn Design Studio. We did, from an architectural standpoint,start from the very,very beginning and looking at accessibility,keeping that first floor a master suite. Essentially the whole program located on the first floor, but there was an attempt to locate the building further away from the lake,but we were encumbered by the septic system that is in the front and the required distances and setbacks. What you can also see from the elevations to the top left,the south elevation,moving up to the second floor and two guest suites we took the best effort to actually take that second floor and pull it away from the lake as well so there's less of an impact on the lake,too. Other than that,we fought with the setbacks,the side yard setbacks and kept the rest of the building footprint within all the other required areas and fought to keep the floor area ratio below the required. Other than that,I'll answer any questions you guys have. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-I'd have a question for Lucas. What is a Fuji Clean septic system? MR. DOBIE-That's becoming quite popular around the lake. MR.KUHL-I haven't heard of it before. I know Fuji for a lot of other things. If you could explain it,if the Board doesn't mind. MR. DOBIE-It's coming. It's the latest and greatest technology if you will. It's a Japanese manufacturer I believe it's built in Maine. There's a local distributor and it's a reinforced poly fiberglass tank, approximately the size of a 1,000 gallon septic tank. There's several different chambers in it, anaerobic treatment to begin with,it re-circulates and I'm not a chemist. I forgot all that in college. Anaerobic and then aerobic on the second and third cycles, which creates a high quality effluent, much higher quality coming out of it than a traditional septic tank, and then we pump up to a conventional pipe and stone absorption beds, essentially putting very clean water into the septic field which obviously provides nice benefits for the lake. MR. HENKEL-Some friends of ours put one of those on the island there, 14 mile island and they said that they could take a glass of water afterwards. I wouldn't do it,though. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody who would like to address us on this particular project. Chris? Did you know what a Fuji septic system was? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. It's a good system, both aerobic and anaerobic chambers, it provides good treatment. MR.KUHL-How much maintenance? MR. NAVITSKY-Well you have to have annual inspections, as you do with any wastewater treatment. That's part of the deal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I think I just have more questions regarding the application than real opposition to the setback variance and some of my concerns I think will be more towards the Planning Board regarding six foot cuts through the site which we think do not really match what the neighborhood is,but my main question is why there are not variances required for the stormwater devices that are proposed less than 20 feet from the lake. I'm just not sure why that is the case. That's even greater than 500/o reduction from the Lake George Park Commission regulations and much less than the Town of Queensbury standards. So I'm not sure why that is,and they even have the discharge going down a steep slope right to the lake. So I don't think that that's a benefit at all. There is room to move those back and I don't know why the variance is not required. There is,I do have a question on the building height. They're right at the building height,just a couple of inches below, but the existing grade where the porch is is at 335 which is over a foot less than the elevation of 336.3 that they use. So I question how that building height is determined,and again,I have a problem with the excessive use of the permeable pavers,you know,they seem to just meet the permeability requirement, but if you look at the site hard scape,they're at 31.20/o and it's critical that we get these permeable pavers, how will that maintenance be guaranteed, you know, can that be a requirement that there's annual certification that those devices are cleaned to be a condition for any variances granted on the site. So those are my questions,really primarily stormwater. I just don't understand why there's not a variance required. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular project? Is there anything written? MR. URRICO-We've got some letters. "I own the property at S2 Assembly Pt. Rd. which is located, adjacent or within the vicinity of the proposed project mentioned above. I have reviewed the drawings and the application with the owners and am in support of the proposed Home and site improvements. The proposed design is suitable, situated appropriately from the lake, road and neighboring properties. The proposed design appears to have little to no negative impacts on the surrounding physical environment and no undesirable change to the neighborhood. I am urging the Zoning Board to approve the proposed application. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Edward J. Baertschi" This is the same letter signed by Norma Baertschi, and that's at S5 Assembly Pt. Rd., and the same letter,Cheryl Lamparella at S5 Assembly Pt. Rd. MR. MC CABE-So just a quick question. So,Laura,can you address the stormwater variance? MRS. MOORE-So this project is a minor project and I'm just reviewing it, and I don't believe it needs a variance in reference to the stormwater devices within the lake only because it's classified as a minor. I'll clarify that in a minute. MR. MC CABE-So,Jon,would you like to respond? MR. ZAPPER-Before I hand it over to the professionals to respond to Chris, I want to just say that his comments were mostly just directed to the Planning Board, site issues and those weren't raised by the Town Engineer and, you know, were it not for the lot to the north, and that was one of the people that signed the letter in the last one,you know,50 feet would be required and we're over 75 feet. So it's a nice setback. With that said usually we're here on a small lot looking for permeability and floor area ratio and a bunch of setbacks and as we'll hear everything has tried to be designed to avoid any variances just because that neighbor's lot is so far back and Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator,reviewed this and determined that there weren't any need for any other variances,and I do appreciate that Chris supports the Fuji Clean system because it is an enhanced treatment system and maintenance is part of what the engineer provides. So with that I'll hand it first to Lucas. MR. DOBIE-Our logic with the raingardens closer to the lake is that's the flattest part of the lake, and I agree with Laura that it's under the minor criteria that I believe the shoreline setback is for a major project, which just got changed to 35 feet by the Town Board last week I believe,and again as I stressed earlier,we looked at a full size sizing for these and a redundant system. So there'll be like a,the downstream part of 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) the site, a last effort to grab the yard and everything before it goes down into the lake. So we feel that's appropriate spots for the raingardens and if we wanted to nitpick the numbers we could take credit for the existing areas, which is allowed by Code, and reduce our stormwater. We didn't do that. We said let's provide the maximum that we can and most of it's kind of off the houses and going to get absorbed into the permeable pavers and patio. So if you look at the raingardens closer to the shore as a final polishing effort if you will,and then in little weirs point at the shore,in a five inch rainfall frozen ground,that's where the water's going to go. So it's an emergency outlet for the raingardens was the logic of those. MR. FLYNN-Also to add to the permeable pavers,I know that has been a sticking point saying that they will fill up with silt and salt, but actually they're going to be heated. So they will be well maintained compared to other ones that use salt or sand. As far as the building height, we actually just indicated a higher height than required from where we are at the current elevations,just to stay safe, and we're still within that 2S feet, and you can actually see from that south elevation the line drawn that it's existing grade,copy it up 2S feet and we're well within that range. MR.KUHL-So you're suggestion that because they're heated they're going to be cleaner,the pavers? MR. FLYNN-Yes,essentially I know in the past other Board members,the Planning Board,has noted that once they get sand and salt in them they start to clog up. So they'll actually be heated. MR. KUHL-Right,but the maintenance on the pavers are as more during the non-wintertime to take the old sand and dirt out. Right? To keep the open pores or whatever you want to call them of pavers active. Okay. I realize in the winter they're going to freeze, and if your point is they're heated, okay, the pores will be open more,but ultimately the maintenance requirements on pavers is annual or,I don't even know what kind it should be. I just wish I would have bought a vacuum years ago and my Ronny's vacuum truck,because everybody comes with pavers and what's the maintenance? And we have nobody around to check the maintenance schedule,but they should be cleaned. MR. FLYNN-Understood. I guess I'm saying we're going above and beyond. We're not going to have the silt and sand built up as normal to other permeable paver applications because of the heated application. MR.KUHL-I will agree to disagree. MR. FLYNN-Understood. 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 Bob. MR. KEENAN-I don't have any real issues with the project. It seems like they're doing as much as they can to keep into the variances, or the setbacks that are required here. So I have no real issues with the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-In terms of the relief that they're looking for,when you look at what we're forced to look at in terms of setback it's very minimal. So I would not have a problem at all approving their request. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem approving this one. I think, you know, the standard's 50 foot. You're going to be 75.2. That's more than enough. I think you should be complimented on your plan overall. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I think you've done a nice job of addressing this property. No doubt we're being asked for very minimal variance. The rest can be addressed by site plan. I'm on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I agree. The way it's presented,I have no issue with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project as presented. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. MC CABE-And the request is absolutely minimal and so I support this project. So,Bob, I wonder if you could give us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from G. Thomas Moynihan Jr. &z Joan Moynihan. Applicant proposes to demolish the existing home and to construct a new 3-bedroom home of 2,760 sq. ft. footprint and a floor area of 3,900 sq. ft. The sitework includes permeable paver areas, stormwater management, and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of a new home. The project site is located at St Assembly Point Drive on a 0.41 ac parcel in a Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new home is to be located 75.2 ft. from the shoreline where a 104.5 ft. setback (average of the two adjoining owners)is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on April 19,2023. 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 including property that currently exists. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial basically because of the way the setbacks are determined in this zone with the other neighboring sites being so far back is really what causes the variance. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It's actually an improvement to the neighborhood. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created only because of their making changes to the property,developing the property with the new building. 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. 13-2023 G. THOMAS MOYNIHAN, JR. &z JOAN MOYNIHAN, Introduced by Robert Keenan, who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of April 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. ZAPPER-The applicants really appreciate it. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 14-2023,Artie's Camping and More/James Benedetti. AREA VARIANCE NO.14-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 ARTIE'S CAMPING AND MORE/JAMES BENEDETTI OWNER(S) ADIRONDACK FACTORY OUTLET CENTER ZONING Cl LOCATION 1444 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO HAVE A 4,000 SQ. FT. TENT 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) PLACED IN A PORTION OF THE PARKING LOT TO OPERATE A TENT SALE FROM THE LAST WEEK OF JUNE TO SECOND WEEK IN SEPTEMBER 2023, 2024 AND 2025. THE SALES ARE FOR ARTIE'S CAMPING &z MORE. THE TENT WILL BE ENCLOSED WITH OPENINGS FOR ACCESS AND 18 FT. HIGH IN HEIGHT. THERE IS TO BE A SIGN ON THE TENT FOR THE BUSINESS OPERATION. SITE PLAN FOR OUTSIDE SALES TENT IN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR PARKING. CROSS REF. SP 28-2023; SP 12- 2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2023 LOT SIZE 7.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22 SECTION 179-4-090 JAMES BENEDETTI,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2023, Artie's Camping and More, Meeting Date: April 19, 2023 "Project Location: 1444 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to have a 4,000 sq. ft. tent placed in a portion of the parking lot to operate a tent sale from the last week in June to second week in September 2023,2024, &2025. The sales are for Artie's Camping&More. The tent will be enclosed with openings for access and I8 ft. in height. There is to be a sign on the tent for the business operation.Site plan for outside sales tent in the Commercial Intensive zone. Relief is requested for parking. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for parking for the use of a seasonal outdoor tent sales for an existing business. The project site is 7.01 ac located in a Commercial Intensive zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Section 179-4-090-Parking Relief is requested for 42 spaces where the existing building requires 380 spaces and the addition of the tent requires 20 additional spaces. The site would require 400 spaces but when the tent is up there will only be 358 spaces available. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the existing conditions on the site with the existing commercial retail building on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor relevant to the code. Relief requested for the number of parking spaces is 42 spaces. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have minimal impact. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to have a 4,000 sq. ft. tent placed in a portion of the parking lot to operate a tent sale for three years. The sales are from the existing Arties Camping and Supply. The existing building of 103,351 sq.ft.is to remain where Arties is an existing tenant. The plans show the tent location." 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 passed April IS,h,2023 by a unanimous vote. MR. BENEDETTI-I'm James Benedetti. I own Artie's. So we're just here for a variance for parking basically. MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward. MR.BENEDETTI-Yes. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. MC CABE-So you're Artie in disguise? MR.BENEDETTI-Yes,Artie is my dog. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-This is the same location that the previous tents used to go up every year? MR. BENEDETTI-Yes. I've done it myself the last two years,but Coleman did years ago in that location and then we were there for a couple of years. MR.KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Have there been any requests from other tenants in the building to do the same thing? Or are you going to be the one dog? MR.BENEDETTI-Yes,I'll probably be the only one because most of it's corporate. MR. URRICO Just so I understand,it's from June of each year to September of each year? MR.BENEDETTI-It'll be June 26`h to September 5rh MR. URRICO-So it's not June this year until? MR.BENEDETTI-No,I just want them to come back every year for the next three years. MR.URRICO-How do you plan to fit all those people that park? During the summer months it gets pretty busy up and down that road. You're going to have less parking spaces for those cars. How are they going to be absorbed into the rest of the parking? MR. BENEDETTI-I've done this for 14 years up there. Never had a problem with parking. The back of that building has 109 spots that nobody ever utilizes. So there's plenty of parking for people and most people walk from mall to mall. MR. URRICO-Are those spots considered in this,Laura,the ones in the back? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR.HENKEL-Yes,I've never seen a parking problem there. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised. So I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular project? Anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So at this 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 John. MR.HENKEL-I think it's a good way to promote business. He's an individual. He's not a corporation or a franchise or anything like that. He's just an individual. I'd support it. I think it's a good project. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It was previously permitted with Coleman. So I don't think it would be any big hindrance. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-It's worked in the past. It should work this time,too. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I've got to agree. They're not doing anything new. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm going to say no because I think giving up parking spaces in a location that's at a premium of parking with traffic problems that exist and they're getting worse because that whole area's filling up fast. I'm going to be against this project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-Coleman used to put up tents every year and I can't agree with you,Roy, about the traffic and the parking. They just seem to all fit in and fit together. I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And,I,too,support the project. I don't think anybody picks okay I'm in that business so I'm going to park in front of that business. They kind of park allover the place. So, with that,Jim, I wonder if you could make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Artie's Camping&z More/James Benedetti. Applicant proposes to have a 4,000 sq.ft.tent placed in a portion of the parking lot to operate a tent sale from the last week in June to second week in September 2023,2024, &2025.The sales are for Artie's Camping&More. The tent will be enclosed with openings for access and 1S ft. in height. There is to be a sign on the tent for the business operation. Site plan for outside sales tent in the Commercial Intensive zone. Relief is requested for parking. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for parking for the use of a seasonal outdoor tent sales for an existing business. The project site is 7.01 ac located in a Commercial Intensive zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Section 179-4-090-Parking Relief is requested for 42 spaces where the existing building requires 3SO spaces and the addition of the tent requires 20 additional spaces. The site would require 400 spaces but when the tent is up there will only be 35S spaces available. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on April 19,2023. 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 since it's essentially been in the same place for many other previous years. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered. It's the only tent. There's no requests from other vendors on site. 3. The requested variance is substantial because it removes some parking from the lot but we still find the parking that would be left would be adequate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because of wanting to do a tent sale. 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. 14-2023 ARTIE'S CAMPING AND MORE/TAMES BENEDETTI, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of April 2023 by the following vote: 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.BENEDETTI-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 15-2023,Alisha&Michael Griffey,26 Tall Timbers Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ALISHA &z MICHAEL GRIFFEY AGENT(S) BRANDON FERGUSON (EDP) OWNER(S) ALISHA &z MICHAEL GRIFFEY ZONING WR LOCATION 26 TALL TIMBERS RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-STORY ADDITION TO THE MAIN HOME AND TO CONVERT AN EXISTING GARAGE TO A BUNK ROOM WITH A LOFT. THE EXISTING MAIN HOME FOOTPRINT IS 1,540 SQ.FT.AND HAS A FLOOR AREA OF 3,560 SQ.FT. THE CONVERTED GARAGE IS TO BE 890 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT AND 1,034 SQ. FT FLOOR AREA. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING GUEST COTTAGE OF 485 SQ. FT. THAT IS TO REMAIN. THE TOTAL NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 7,910 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW EXTENSION OF THE DRIVEWAY AREA WITH CLEARING, PERMEABLE PAVERS ON THE SHORELINE SIDE OF THE NEW ADDITION, AN UPGRADED SEPTIC SYSTEM, PLANTING PLAN, AND RETAINING WALL IN AREAS OF THE NEW ADDITIONS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR, CONVERSION OF SEASONAL TO YEAR ROUND AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE HEIGHT, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, AND EXPANSION GREATER THAN 1/3 FLOOR AREA OF MAIN STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 30-2023; SP 66-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.79 AC. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-23 &z 24 SECTION 179-3-040;147,179-5-020;179-13-010;179-4-010 STEFANIE BITTER&r BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2032, Alisha & Michael Griffey, Meeting Date: April 19, 2023 "Project Location: 26 Tall Timbers Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-story addition to the main home and to convert an existing garage to a bunk room with a loft. The existing main home footprint is 1,540 sq. ft. and has a floor area of 3,560 sq. ft. The converted garage is to be S90 sq. ft. footprint and 1,034 sq.ft.floor area. The site has an existing guest cottage of 4S5 sq.ft.footprint that is to remain. The total new floor area is to be 7,910 sq. ft. Project includes new extension of the driveway area with clearing, permeable pavers on the shoreline side of the new addition, an upgraded septic system, planting plan and retaining wall in areas of the new additions. Site plan for new floor area, conversion of seasonal to year round and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief is requested for stormwater device setbacks, building height and accessory structure height, expansion of nonconforming structure, size of accessory structure, and expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for building height and accessory structure height, expansion of nonconforming structure, size of accessory structure, and expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main structure,an addition to the existing home and upgrading a garage to a bunk house with an addition. The project is located at 26 Tall Timbers Drive on a 2.79 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-010 1/3 cUansion,179-5-020 accessory structure, The main house addition is to be greater than 1/3 of the existing home relief is 1,54E sq.ft.,the main house is to be 31.52 ft.in height where 2S ft.is the maximum height for the main home. The bunk house is to be IS.79 ft. where 16 ft. is the maximum height for an accessory. The bunk house is to be S75 sq. ft. which exceeds the maximum allowed accessory structure limited to 500 sq. ft. Note the Town Code recently been updated as stormwater device can be no closer than 35 ft. versus 100 ft. there is no variance required for the proposed stormwater devices. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the variances requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for 1/3 expansion is 1,54E sq. ft., main building height is 3.52 ft.,bunkhouse size S75 sq.ft.,bunk house height is 2.79 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a project for an addition to an existing home,the detached garage to be converted to a bunk house with an addition, and the cabin to remain with no changes. The addition to the existing home is IS57 sq. ft. footprint and the bunk house addition would be S90 sq. ft. The new floor area would be 7,910 sq.ft. The plans show the floor plans and elevations show the arraignment for the main house and the bunkhouse." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board,based on its limited review, has identified the following areas of concern. 1. Concern is expressed over the unresolved engineering comments in that variance could alter site plans, and that was passed by a six to one margin. MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter. I'm here with Brandon from EDP,Brett Balzer from Balzer&Tuck as well as the applicant. Before I turn it over to Alisha who is here with us this evening I want you to focus on the fact that the applicant has chosen to bring this very carefully designed project before the Zoning Board. This could have been done without variances,but in an attempt to keep the character of this property,she has chosen to design it this way. Alisha,do you want to talk about that. ALISHA GRIFFEY MRS. GRIFFEY-Hi. Good evening. My name is Alisha Griffey. I'm co-owner. I am the homeowner. We live in Maryland but have been coming to Lake George every summer for almost 30 years,my family. So we think this is a special place for us. It is a wonderful, wonderful community and we've spent a lot of time and effort invested in the community,invested in protecting the lake. We've only been a homeowner for two years. We've always come and camped on the islands actually until we were excited to buy this property,partly because it's a gorgeous piece of land,but it has this house that's 95 years old on it,and it's this little Adirondack camp that is an amazingly wonderful time capsule that has only had two owners. It literally hasn't been touched. There's been no renovations. There's been no floor plan changed. The 1929 cabinets are still in the kitchen. So it is truly a time capsule, and it even has like books from 1930 sitting on the shelf. When we bought it everyone just assumed we were going to tear it down. That's the assumption that all the realtors had because that's what a lot of people do,and if we did that,we wouldn't be sitting here, as Stefanie mentioned,because we wouldn't need those variances,but we love the history of this lake. We love that when you go around it,you see these old towns,and so we would like to protect that and renovate the house,but because the screened in porch goes three feet over on the one corner,the setback,it then means that the renovations have, obviously, a lot of non-conforming rules that need to be followed. So we've chosen to be here because we are hopeful that you all agree that some variances would be a better way to do this,for the land,for the lake and for the history of the cabin,versus tearing it down, which we really prefer not to do. MS.BITTER-I want you to bear with us for a little bit because we're going to break this down on how this project came to be. I want you to first focus on the fact that this property is unique. We're not here asking you for floor area ratio or permeability. This property is 2.79 acres and I'm going to mention it a few times. That home that they're trying to preserve is from 1929 and that's the center of their project, to try and maintain that. Ironically enough the Code actually discourages this. The Code which we talk about character of neighborhood and preservation and impacts. In this Code is actually encouraging the applicant to bulldoze that and what we're trying to do is look for these variances,because that's how the Code is directing us to do, to keep this home in place. The architecture of the landscape is what the purpose of the project is. So that home has been the center of what they have designed. They're not demolishing anything by the lake. They're actually continuing the enjoyment of the character of this property. Three of the variances that are being sought this evening are all associated with maintaining that 1929 structure. She mentioned it briefly. The setback of the screened porch is what really kind of 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) puts us in this predicament,and that is only,what is it,two feet over,two feet over the setback. Okay. So by Code we're expanding a non-conforming structure because we're placing an addition away from an encroachment. That addition is not going to be in, it's actually going to maintain the 50 foot from the shoreline that it's supposed to,but because it's attached it's an expansion of a non-conforming structure. We're also, because we're expanding the 1929 home, we're expanding something greater than one-third, all right,but that's another demerit because we're trying to utilize this 1929 home. MR. MC CABE-That's courtesy of one of your local, or one of your brothers. We never knew about that until about a year ago. MS. BITTER-I don't want to know who. Anyway,the last one is height, and the height,they'll show in their presentation,the engineers and architects,that it's so minor on the addition that we exceed the height variances, and that's to keep the architecture of the 1929 carried through to the addition. All right. So that's,those three are all associated with the residence. It's not for floor area ratio. It's not for permeability and it's not for shoreline setback. We're meeting all of those things. The second is associated with this accessory structure. The reason they're having an accessory structure is, oh yes, they could carry this addition on, along the shoreline, and we'd only be talking about three. We'd only be talking about three, but they're choosing to step up part of their living area so that they're breaking it away from the lakeside and that it's actually trying to get out of the visual aesthetics from the shoreline which obviously is important. So in doing that they'd need relief from the structure, size and height. Again,this is going to be their forever home. So they need some first floor living. That's what this accessory structure is going to also provide for, as well as to accommodate their extended family, their children, their parents. The height that allows them to have a mirrored architecture of the structure, of the home itself, the main residence, but again, this is a two acre lot. Height or size of structure does not impact the adjacent properties. There's no lack of views or anything that's going to impair anybody else's enjoyment from the lake or from their own properties. It's a respectful design of this project. That being said, you have to look at the balancing test. Like I said, she chose to be here because she feels that this is the best concept for this property to keep the character of this 1929 home. Two acre lot,while preserving the character of the historic home,no floor area ratio,no impermeability sought,no undesirable change. We feel that this project is to modernize the property,that we'll be preserving an existing home and character and it is not negatively impacting the lake. Other feasible methods, yes. If you look at the Code, the method is to knock it down and to start over,but that doesn't seem to be the least impactful or the best in preserving the neighborhood. That is not what it was intended to do. Is the request substantial? We do not believe it is. We actually think that the plan itself is very well thought out and respectful. No adverse effects, only positive. We have an enhanced septic system and inclusion of an additional stormwater mechanisms and management practices and it should not be deemed self-created. We're simply,like I said,maintaining the character of the 1929 structure. I'm going to turn it over to Brandon. MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. We've put together kind of a PowerPoint to kind of walk through these variances. This is the existing parcel right now. It's 2.79 acres. It actually used to be two parcels. After the Griffeys bought it they did merge the parcels together,but it was actually two separate parcels with the majority of the development on the southern parcel. So the existing home, the existing garage with a small little cabin. They're all on the 1.79 acre parcel and there was an acre parcel that was vacant up here. So theoretically if they had wanted to they could have done something different on this property, put another single family home. It might have needed some variances,but they did combine it. They did merge the two parcels together. This is kind of a blow up of the existing shoreline area which is where this project is kind of taking place. So you have this little 1929 home that looks preserved. You also have these stone patios here and they're kind of like old kind of granite in there and they're mortared together. As part of this project we're actually removing this lower one,we're actually removing both of them. We're putting in a patio that's further from the lake and it's going to be permeable. So we think that's a big upgrade there,getting rid of these kind of old stone patios that are up here near the house. This is the existing garage right here which we'll get to. That's going to be converted. That's where the accessory structure is going to go and part of that whole accessory structure, choosing that location was putting it in that area where there's already development. There was already a structure there and we're utilizing that space. So this, we recently were at the Planning Board. We did get this driveway access approved. So that's approved. That's currently under construction at the site right now,but I just kind of wanted to show you that just in case anybody came on the site and saw the activity over there. They got that approved through the Planning Board in order to gain access off of Old Assembly to make emergency access to the site better. That was an issue with Tall Timbers not being able to get emergency vehicles to the house. So here's the proposed site plan. Once again,here's the existing home that they are doing some cosmetic enhancements to it. For the most part it's staying as it is,and then here's the addition that's coming off the north side. So right now that existing, so that existing house,these two small corners right hereof that porch are at 4S feet. So it's just beyond that setback at the 50 feet,but that makes it a non-conforming structure,which is what kind of pushes us into the existing,modification to an existing non-conforming structure variance. So there's just two feet on each side of it,but our whole proposed addition that we're going to be,our closest point is 54 feet. So we're beyond that 50 foot setback with the expansion of the structure. So the variance request,we have expansion of a non-conforming structure, expansion of the existing floor area by greater than one-third, building height, accessory structure area, and then accessory structure building height. So expansion of 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) an existing structure as we kind of just talked about,it's kind of an odd Code thing. You can't expand a structure by over one-third,but theoretically they could tear this structure down and build what they're proposing without that variance, and that's kind of the thought process. Yes,we are over that. However we're trying to preserve something,and we're well under the floor area ratio for this site. So counting the whole acreage, 2.79, theoretically, you could have almost 27,000 square feet of floor area and that's a significant site, and they're looking at,they're total with the accessory structure,the little cabin there and the house,the existing house is 7,910. So they're at 0.65 for their floor area ratio,well below what's allowed for FAR on this site. So the whole idea that they could theoretically tear it down,push it back two feet and get rid of multiple variances,but then they're losing that historic value of the site. BRETT BALZER MR.BALZER-Laura,I think this is not the one that was sent today. MR. FERGUSON-So I'll let Dennis kind of,the only thing we're missing here is the second floor plan,too. I think if you want to kind of explain the addition portion of it,the project here. DENNIS MC GOWAN MR. MC GOWAN-Talking about the plan for now, the existing residence is this square here with the screened porch towards the lakeside, and then our new addition sits to the north of that and you can see this is that setback line here. Just this portion of the screened porch is encroaching on that and then this re-worked back upper patio here was, down toward the lake. So in talking about the building height, when we looked at the existing site,how that 2S foot offset works out in this diagram we can see that there are two red areas, one of which is a chimney on the existing house and the other is this triangular shape here, and that is the area of the addition which sits above that 2S foot maximum. In roof plan,that is this area here which breaks down to three percent of the overall area. Then just from the north you can see,in elevation,that this is that line that we're referring to and the proposed ridge line of this roof sits about five and a quarter inches below the existing, keeping it within the height of the existing house, and then the architecture is set up to avoid a long continuous ridge but give a delineation from the existing residence and the new with the change in elevation in the connecting space of the roof and then the orientation of the gable that looks out towards the lake. And then as we head up to the accessory structure, the goal here was to create a space for the family to use for a sleeping area and a living space and a bathroom for gathering as well as sleeping,but originally we had this space as part of the addition to the residence,but through conversations with the Griffeys and their desire not to create that expansive addition along the lake,we looked at this existing area,which is already developed,to have this accessory structure building. A couple of pictures here. The first on the left is the existing garage and this concrete pad. Next to it is a parking area off the driveway for reference as to the location of the existing structure, and then up on the right here,on the far side of the garage that you can't see,is the current set of steps that take you down to the main house. This gives some reference to some of the difficulties going from the parking area down to the existing house and how the new site circulation down to the addition will help with easy access and safe access. We have four views of the accessory structure. The top two are from the drive, excuse me, the top two are the driveway side with the lake in the distance, and then the bottom two are from the lakeside looking back up towards the accessory structure from each side. On the left picture, the right side of the structure is where the existing stair currently is located,but the goal is to relocate that to the north side of the accessory structure to allow for a new set of steps re-worked with the grade and for easier traversing. That then runs down towards the entry to the addition to the residence. A couple of elevations,the first of which is the west side lakeside looking towards the lake and how the architecture is in line with the existing structure and the addition and then giving reference to the height of the existing garage. Now the height of the existing garage on the lakeside is higher than the re-worked roof of the gable and then shed, or sorry, the dormer on the on the west side. So on the lakeside we'd be bringing down that elevation. These are the existing same elevations,the west end is right and south is left,giving reference to the existing height of grade. MR.FERGUSON-That existing garage is actually a little over 20 feet for building height. So with the new layout we're actually bringing that building height down to like IS foot 9. So it's actually a reduction from what's existing there now as far as height. So there's some site benefits to this project. So we're updating this 1929,we're trying to save that character and trying to add to that character on the site,instead of just tearing it down and starting from new here. There's a decrease in the patio areas on the lakeside. We're adding stormwater management to the site. There is none now along that house. All that amount of impervious area all just flows into the lake. So we're adding stormwater not just for the proposed developments but also for the existing house as well. So we're adding a substantial amount of stormwater protection to the lake, and this whole proposed building accessory design really utilizes the areas that are already kind of developed on the lake, especially that accessory structure. Instead of adding it on to the main house,if they were able to push that house over,include that addition into that living space within the house, but now we're pushing further into undeveloped lands instead of putting it back some place that's already been developed, and we're expanding a wall into the shoreline where it's going to be more visible from the lake. So when we first started this process, especially with all this,we first started this process with the Griffeys, they looked at a number of alternatives and this is the one that they originally 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) came up with. We actually started the submittal process with the Town before they said,wait,this is not what we want to do. So at that stage they were thinking of keeping this as a garage instead of turning it into an accessory structure and then keeping all that living space within the main residence. As you can see,it really stretched it out along that shoreline there. It was a lot more impactful to the visibility and to the existing shoreline area. And this is what they ended up with here with this design. This is quite a bit shortened up structure right here. This is 121 feet along the shoreline and this is like S 3. So they've come back,they came back,they went to Balzer&Tuck, and they really reduced it. What caused a lot of that reduction was pushing some of that living space into this accessory structure that sits behind the house and out of view of both the lake and road. So this is that elevation view of what they were originally proposing. So this would have been, theoretically, what you would have been looking at from the lake. So actually they were able to keep the height a little bit lower. So they might have avoided a height variance as well there,but you can see there's,it's a lot more of an impact compared to the elevation you saw before where the house is really cut off here. So this was their original rendering of the original design. You can see how here's the existing 1929 house. Here's the existing patio here that they're really kind of extending along that shoreline to gain that space that they need for they and their extended family and then you go to the next one. So this is what they're proposing now. So you can see how before that part of the house is way over here. This is pushed back closer to the existing, and here's that accessory structure tucked in behind,with this view you're looking at it from above. This is a photo taken from a drone probably 40,50 feet above the lake. So you're kind of looking almost over the house really if you're down on a boat lake level you're not even really going to see this accessory structure right here unless you're really creeping along the shoreline looking up in there. So we really took that living space and from a really visible and more impactful point and pushed it uphill into an area that's already developed, and that's what resulted in those accessory structure variances. So I'll turn it over to the Board for any questions,comments. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-The Planning Board referred to unresolved engineering comments. Do you know what those are? MR.FERGUSON-Yes. We received those I think Monday,but we've already turned them around. So the Board had some concerns that were stormwater related. We're not looking for a stormwater variance on this one. So a lot of them had to do with erosion control measures, adding some additional measures. Some of them had to do with just fixing a couple of inconsistencies between the plans and the model, adding the neighbors wells and septics onto the plans to make sure we met those setbacks and we're not impacting them, which we're not. So we actually turned that around. I e-mailed that to Laura. We dropped off hard copies tonight to the Town. So we've already responded to those comments. We just didn't have a big turnaround to meet the Planning Board meeting last night. MR. URRICO-Except we have to consider that here because it's part of the minutes here. MR. FERGUSON-So like I said we went through those comments. We've addressed, we feel like we've adequately addressed them. We'll keep working with LaBella to get their signoff, but none of those stormwater changes from their comments resulted in any changes to anything that we're requesting. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.KUHL-Yes. What's going in this bunkhouse? Will there be a kitchen? MR. FERGUSON-No,there will not be a kitchen. MR.KUHL-There will be water and electric I would assume with a bathroom and shower? MR. FERGUSON-There is a bathroom. MR.KUHL-Okay. And you got approval for the new driveway. Right? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR.KUHL-You're going to be going out to Assembly road? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR.KUHL-Will the old driveway to Tall Timber,will that be taken down? Will that be removed? MR. FERGUSON-That's not the plan. I mean really when you go back to that original image driveway. So this is where that proposed driveway is coming in right at the end of Tall Timbers anyway. So really there's not much to remove there to begin with and that adds a potential secondary access. So it would be their desire to keep that access as well,but one of the issues with the original, with Tall Timbers access, 2S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) it's very tight and narrow and they actually had an incident on the site where they had to get emergency vehicles there and they couldn't make it to the site. MR.KUHL-On the drawing I have there's a one story cabin. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR.KUHL-Is that going away or is that staying? MR. FERGUSON-That is staying. So that's right here. It's up here. It's a one story little cabin. There's no plumbing,no heat or anything yet. It does have electricity. There's a little bed. It's part of our bedroom count. MR.KUHL-A mother-in-law cabin? Just out of curiosity,because you're cutting into Assembly road,will your address change? And your mailbox will be out there. MR. MC CABE-It's Old Assembly,right? MR. FERGUSON-It's Old Assembly road, similar to what the neighbor to the north is. I believe their address still stayed Tall Timbers. It didn't change. MR.KUHL-Because you're not removing that access,right? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. CIPPERLY-That road keeps going. Correct? MR. FERGUSON-Tall Timbers? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR. FERGUSON-So it does, it kind of ends here, but the neighbors to the south, they do use it occasionally. I don't know if they have a right of access through it. Their driveway is pretty steep and sometimes difficult to get into and they come in this way. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. URRICO Just so I understand,the bottom line is that the existing garage is 510 square feet, and the bunkhouse is going to be S75 square feet. So that's the difference between the current garage and with the bunkhouse. MR. FERGUSON-The garage,the square footage, is actually 925. I think there's a misprint on that. Not the garage,the bunkhouse or the accessory structure is 925. On our plans it says 925. MR. URRICO-So it's not right on the? MRS. MOORE-Correct. So right now it's indicated as the converted garage is to be S90 and my understanding is that the converted garage footprint should be 925 square feet. MR. FERGUSON-So then if you take that plus the existing little cottage up there which counts towards that as well,so the converted one is like 905,would be the variance we're asking for. MR. URRICO-So we're almost doubling the size of the accessory structure that's allowed. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, but at the same time I think it's also important to point out that they're not proposing a garage on the site, and they are allowed,per Code,1100 square feet for a detached garage and they have decided to not go forward with the garage on this site. MR. URRICO-But you're exceeding the maximum amount for an accessory structure. MR. FERGUSON-But we are exceeding the accessory structure. Right,but if they kept it a garage,they could expand it as well as the garage. MR. MC GOWAN-And something to reiterate there is the garage is the 515 square feet,but the concrete pads next to it is all structure essentially,retaining walls and a concrete slab. So it's all impervious area there currently. We're not proposing to expand impervious area. MR. FERGUSON-We're keeping the accessory structure essentially in that same footprint as that garage and that pad. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody who has input on this particular project. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR.NAVITSKY-Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Chris Navitsky,Lake George Waterkeeper. I appreciate the presentation by the applicants and the thought they put into the project,but we feel there's really nothing minimal about the variance application for the non-compliant structure located within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George that will disturb and removal critical resources that protect the lake. Regarding the balance test,I actually think it's sad to say that it could be in character with the adjacent property,which we feel is overdeveloped on the steep forested shores of Dunham's Bay,but this is not in character with the remainder of Dunham's Bay. We feel there are alternatives to reduce the variances requested and the disturbances that they have proposed. There is concern about the negative environmental effects of the proposed property. It is a benefit that this is 2.79 acres and brings permeability down. We are aware the development is concentrated,and they're putting it all in the area that's going to impact the lake the greatest. So if you take a look at the 200 feet back from the shoreline,that area is 350/o impervious or permeability,permeability. So I see significant disturbance in clearing proposed on the 300/o slopes, and construction and disturbance will expand, especially when you're putting in those steep driveways and we do have a question whether there is a septic variance required because they are expanding the septic area. They have to bring in fill and so setbacks should be taken from the fill area and they are actually putting in retaining walls. It is great that they're providing stormwater but they would have to anyway. So that's not really a benefit that they're adding. They would have to do that. Really they're disturbing the entire width of the property as they would have on the one image that they showed where what their initial design was. The view from the lake,maybe we should actually see what the view from the lake is. They provided a view that's up 40 feet looking down on an angle,but they didn't provide that view right on the property from the lake. People will not look at this from 40 feet up. They'll look at it from four feet up. I think a couple of months ago I was here, and they're not proposing a garage, and I think the Board had a question to a previous application that came in front and said but we know you're going to be back. This is going to be a year round home. They're going to be living up here. They're going to want a garage up in the North Country. So again that may be something coming down the pike as well. So we just don't feel, we feel this is a little bit excessive for this very unique property, as I said, and this property that can have significant impacts to the lake. Thank you. MR.MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to address the Board on this particular project? Roy,do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-No,no written comments. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I like the fact that you're keeping the building and I understand that causes you an awful lot of, the reason that you're here. I like the project the way it's presented. I don't think it's overbuilt along the shoreline and I'd be in favor of the way it's presented. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I think,like Ron's saying, they did put a lot of care into this project. It is a large piece of property. I'm just having a little bit of a problem with the accessory building,the bunkhouse you're calling it. That's where my concern is. So I'm not really totally 1000/o on board as is. So I'd probably not be in favor of it right now. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I previously had reiterated my opinion that all these homes that are proposed up on the lake should have a garage built into them, and I think the garage is concept is something that should be considered in lieu of the excess space that you want to build in the back, you know, with accessory structure for more living space. You've got 7900 square feet of living space proposed which is an extraordinary amount of living space anywhere on Lake George,I don't care how big your lot is. I think Chris'comments about the steepness of the lot,it's all centered down on the foreshore and I think it has a maximum effect. I think your evolutionary plan from what you originally started is an improvement,but I think you can go back and think about it even more. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I guess I agree. I don't care about the garage because if you put it down there you would be carting it up to the lake anyway. It's just too steep to try to deal with in the wintertime. It's also hard to infiltrate anything into rock. The thing is just sitting on rock. I mean,you could put permeable stuff if you want but it's going to go down and it's going to go sideways. There's nowhere else to go. I think what have is an existing problem and you're doing something at least to try and mitigate it. So I'm sort of, I'm on the edge. MR. MC CABE-So is that a yes, a no,or a maybe? MR. CIPPERLY-That's a maybe. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,I'm really torn about this one,too. I like the fact that you're keeping the original house and the design of the main house,but I have a problem with the size of the accessory structure. I know this isn't going to be the case, but we've had a lot of previous proposals here where people, neighbors complain about the possibility of an Air B and B being used with these accessory structures which probably isn't the case here,but it's a consideration. There's two accessory structures on the property already and there's no garage. So I think at this point I'd have concerns and I'd probably be a no. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I also want to compliment the presentation and the care that's being considered in the presentation and in the design of the project,but I do care that there's,that we're giving and taking in some instances, and I think one of the areas that we seem to be taking more than necessary is the bunkhouse. I think to me that's, it's almost double the size of what the garage is right now and it's double what the accessory structure is limited to and I think we have to be careful just because we're trying to be careful of what we're doing here that we don't allow something that'll change the character somewhat of the neighborhood and other accessory structures nearby. So I'd be against it at this point. MR. MC CABE-And as I see this project, I support it. We had a similar proposal that we ultimately supported. I believe that was a house from 1927 where the applicant needed a few more variances than would have been required had they torn the structure down and put something new up, and I appreciate the fact that you tried to maintain this old architecture which is one of the reasons why Lake George became so popular,but unfortunately me and a maybe aren't enough for you. MS. BITTER-So in order to get those maybes to cross over to the positive. MR. MC CABE-So as we look at the variances that would be required there, I don't think anybody has a concern with the more than one third of the existing property. So I think it's the bunkhouse that's causing the problem. MR.HENKEL-The other concern is we've got a property of 2.79 acres. That's a lot of property. Where's the maintenance? Where are you going to house all that equipment to maintain that property? There's nothing in the provision for that. You don't have a garage or anything. You're going to have to have something. MRS. GRIFFEY-Alisha Griffey, homeowner. So to answer the question about like are you storing your mother-in-law up all those stairs in that,we call the snore hut,which is the other accessory dwelling,that's what we're using for storage. So that's how it's been. Right now there's no toilet. There's no nothing up there. So we're using that for storage and we have a big cellar and that's all like right now just open, unconditioned space that's all storage. MR.HENKEL-You can get a tractor or truck in there? MRS. GRIFFEY-Well,no,but also we're paying someone to plow it during the winter. We're not doing it ourselves. So we have a bunch of shovels and a bunch of gardening equipment and all that stuff is between the cellar and the snore but right now. So we're using,the thing that doesn't come across in this is it's actually 10 stories between the lake and that other little cabin at the top that we call the snore hut. It's 10 stories. So getting up and down is quite a challenge, and so we keep all of the gardening, all of the stuff up at the top and we're,you know,you can't use that for living space because you're going up and down and we're trying to get SO year old parents in and out of the house. So I don't know if that answers that, and to answer the question about Air B and B, I forget who asked it. I think you did. We're not going to Air B and B. I'll be happy to sign whatever to say. MR.HENKEL-The State allows that. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR.KEENAN-It's allowable,but. MR. FERGUSON-And I think with the lawn tractor, there's no real lawn to mow there. It's mostly wooded up top and on the lakeside is going to be landscaped. So there'll be some landscaping and they're not going to need a lawn tractor to maintain it. MS. BITTER-And I think what we even got to with the Planning Board last night is, you know, they questioned this accessory structure just as you are because that would get to additional variances and we reiterated the fact that we're asking for that to make the concentration not right on the lake, and even the Waterkeeper said bring the concentration further back, and that's exactly the purpose of this accessory structure is to step out this actual addition. So we're attempting to do that. That's what causes this accessory structure variances. So if it's necessary, I think I have authorization to identify that we will waive a garage with the understanding that we have to remove a structure in order to come back for another variance. Did I state that correctly? MR. FERGUSON-Yes,we talked about this with the applicant. We would be open to a condition where if they were to install a garage or wanted to install a garage, they would have to remove an accessory structure on the site. MR. MC CABE-Does that change anybody's opinion? MR.HENKEL-Well,I'd go for it. MR. MC CABE-How about the maybe? MR. CIPPERLY-You're talking about a garage but now turns into a gigantic long driveway. You could put a garage up there and no one would ever know it was there. It's the perfect spot if you want to store lawnmowers. MR. FERGUSON-I think if they were ever to put a garage on this property,it would more than likely go up,like I said, on that long driveway, and we have that little pull off, a couple of parking spots. It would go in there and they would remove the snore hut. MR. CIPPERLY-That's fine. MR. MC CABE-I still don't think we have enough votes. So you've got a choice here. You can call for a vote but it's not going to go well, or you can ask for a table and take a look at things. Even if the maybe said yes,there's not enough votes here. MR.HENKEL-So that's one,two,three. MR. MC CABS John changed it. MR.HENKEL-As long as with the condition like he said they would remove the guest house or whatever. MR. MC CABE-So a new structure would require the removal of an existing structure. MR.HENKEL-That would be a condition. MRS.MOORE-So that doesn't occur today. It occurs sometime in the future? Very hard to enforce. Sorry, and you can put that condition on. MR.HENKEL-So if I'm on the Board still. MRS. MOORE-I'm just letting you know, that's very hard to enforce,but that's fine,but it is difficult to enforce it. Because someone has to remember that point, and we do do the research when applications come up and things like that,but it has to be,that condition has to be specifically on the site plan final. MS.BITTER-We have no problem with it being on the site plan,incorporated into the deed. Any of those. MRS. MOORE-It would have to be a condition of the resolution. MR.KUHL-I'm not into a condition. I liked it the way it was presented,but no conditions. MR.CIPPERLY-What's the slope of the driveway from the existing driveway from the existing road down to the end? MR. FERGUSON-From the new driveway down to the house? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. CIPPERLY-From the existing, Tall Timbers Road. MR. FERGUSON-Tall Timbers down. It maxes out at like seven feet. MR. MC CABE-So we're at an impasse. So you either need to call for a vote or table. MRS. MOORE-So I'm just going to let you know the next agenda would be their June agenda. MS. BITTER-May I ask a question? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MS. BITTER-If obviously we table it, I understand that,we have to come back with something different. The difference is we'd either be eliminating the accessory structure and putting it on the lake. MR. MC CABE-Well,you don't need to negotiate that. MS. BITTER-We're not negotiating. I'm looking for any suggestions, because I realize we can't get a determination now. Reducing the square footage of the accessory structure, what is the preference of those that are supportive of the project. MR.URRICO-I really don't want to get into that right now. I laid out my concerns and I really don't want to negotiate here. MR. MC CABE-Yes,that gets sticky. MS. BITTER-So I'll look in the minutes to see exactly what it was. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So June 21"with a submission of new information by May 15`h MRS. MOORE-May 15`h MS. BITTER-Okay. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Alisha &z Michael Griffey. Applicant proposes a 2-story addition to the main home and to convert an existing garage to a bunk room with a loft. The existing main home footprint is 1,540 sq. ft. and has a floor area of 3,560 sq. ft. The converted garage is to be 890 sq. ft. footprint and 1,034 sq. ft. floor area. The site has an existing guest cottage of 485 sq.ft.footprint that is to remain. The total new floor area is to be 7,910 sq.ft. Project includes new extension of the driveway area with clearing,permeable pavers on the shoreline side of the new addition, an upgraded septic system, planting plan and retaining wall in areas of the new additions. Site plan for new floor area, conversion of seasonal to year round and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for stormwater device setbacks, building height and accessory structure height,expansion of nonconforming structure,size of accessory structure,and expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main structure. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.15-2023 ALISHA&z MICHAEL GRIFFEY,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the June 21", 2023 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with new information due by May 15`h 2023. Duly adopted this 19`h day of April,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So we'll see you in June. So our next application is AV 16-2023, David Turner, 9 Snug Harbor Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO.16-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID TURNER AGENT(S) STUDIO A OEFFREY ANTHONY) OWNER(S) DAVID TURNER&z MARTHA BANTA ZONING WR LOCATION 9 SNUG HARBOR LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A RENOVATION OF A SHORELINE AREA INCLUDING LAND RETAINING WALLS, PLANTING BEDS, VEGETABLE GARDEN AREA AND PATIO AREAS. THE REAR DECK IS TO BE ENLARGED TO 488 SQ. FT. THERE IS TO BE 210 SQ. FT. PERMEABLE PATIO AREA TO BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE RETAINING WALLS. THE EXISTING 2,734 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 31-2023; SP 26-91 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2023 LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO.290.5-1-26 SECTION 179-3-040;179-4-080 JEFF ANTHONY,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2023, David Turner, Meeting Date: April 19, 2023 "Project Location: 9 Snug Harbor Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a renovation of a shoreline area including land retaining walls,planting beds,vegetable garden area and patio areas.The rear deck is to be enlarged to 4SS sq. ft. There is to be 210 sq. ft.permeable patio area to be installed between the retaining walls. The existing 2,734 sq. ft. (footprint)home is to remain with no changes. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck expansion. The project is located at 9 Snug Harbor Lane on a 0.22 ac parcel in the Waterfront residential zone. 179-3-040 dimensional,179-decks The new deck is to be located 29.97 ft.to the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home on the lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for 20.03 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 construction of a 4SS sq. ft. open deck area. The plans show the location of the deck and the existing home. The project includes site work with the existing retaining walls and areas to assist improvement to the stormwater management." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board,based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. That was passed on April 1S`h,2023 by a unanimous vote. MR. ANTHONY-I'm Jeff Anthony from Studio A Landscape Architecture and Engineering and we represent David and his wife. We were initially asked to come look at this piece of property which is on Sunnyside lake because they were concerned that the retaining walls were falling down and crumbling. There are two walls approximately lakeside,between the building and the house and the lakeshore, and the first one that wall,the lake is to the left on that drawing, and that line that has like a bump in it is the shoreline and there's a wood wall there which is not subject to any failure or any kind of concern on our part or their part, and these are the next two walls back, and if you look there's a set of stairs right in the middle going down towards the lake,the house is on the right. The walls that are to the north,up above in this picture,of that stairway we've determined are structurally sound. They're fine. They're not falling down. They're polished up a little bit to make them look nice,but the walls from the stairs going south, they're crumbling and the lower one is tilted and falling down. The next one up is also crumbling,tilted and falling down. I have pictures of it here if you'd like to look at them,but that was their initial concern and that's why they initially retained us was to see what they could do to fix these walls. Well upon 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) looking at them we said we don't think these two walls that are to the south of the stairway can be repaired and replaced,repaired as they are. We would recommend removing them and putting them back in kind. So that's part of our proposal which is not subject to any variance request here. It's just why we were asked to make sure you look at the property. So in looking at the property the first thing we noticed is if you look between the upper wall and the next wall you'll see there are kind of lines converging on one another. There's a thing there which they call it the pit. It is actually a depression between those two walls. The previous owner was a sculptor or artist of some form and he used to make outdoor works of art and he displayed them in this basically three or four foot down hole in the ground between those two walls. It's a disgusting space. Nobody wants to go in it and nobody wants to walk in it. Our clients never go in it. It's just a nasty space. So it turned into us trying to find out,well what do we do with that space? How do we make it more palatable or usable for them. So in reconfiguring this space,we came up with a plan right here which essentially keeps the stairway to the lake in the same place. It's structurally okay. All the walls to the north and the upper part of that stairway stay. All the walls essentially stay or are being replaced on the south side and that pit area which is between the two walls is just going to have an on-grade paver patio put in it and it's going to be leveled out so that it's usable,it's not a hole in the ground. The subject of our request for a variance comes with,between the upper wall and the house they would like to put a wood deck and not have a stone patio or concrete paver patio on grade. So they requested we design them a one step up wood deck. It will be built out of Trex or Azek or something like that. So it will not be a wood,but it will be a simulated wood, and so the subject of our request for a variance is that deck which is six inches above grade, attached to the house, and you can see a set of stairs going up to a little square there. That's an existing porch and stairs and it's a screened porch, and this deck would be from that screened porch to the south end of the house and that's where the 400 and something square feet of decking,that's the subject of our request for a variance and basically that's our story. In doing this,by the way, we did, we were able to reconfigure and redesign this, not by design, not by plan,but we were able to increase the permeability of this site by about three percent over and above what it is now,simply by taking what we used for stormwater management. We did get a review letter back from LaBella. They had no comments basically other than they would like to see a detail of the retaining wall added to the construction drawings when we submitted to the Town for a building permit and I think we have yet to finalize that detail. It will most likely,it's going to be concrete. We just don't know how we're going to finish the surface to match the old wall. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward. MR. CIPPERLY-Thank you for the history of the pit. MR.ANTHONY-1 was amazed at that by the way. MR. CIPPERLY-What is that? MR.ANTHONY-Did you go there and look? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes. MR.ANTHONY-Isn't that lovely? I've been to the site six or eight times in working, I myself have never walked down to the pit. I don't want to go down there. They kind of joke about it and call it the snake Pit. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to address us on this particular project? Roy,do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no public comment. 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 Bob. MR.KEENAN-I don't see any issues with this project. It looks like an improvement over what's existing. So I'm good. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I agree. And you're right,that one wall,sooner or later,is going to go. I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABE Jim? 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm in favor. MR. MC CABS John? MR.HENKEL-Yes it's a little scary,small piece of property. They are 1500 feet over the FAR variance,but it does make sense with what he's explaining. So I'd be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-Yes,it's an improvement to what is falling apart. I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. What's being asked for is minimal. So with that I'm going to ask Ron if he'd make another motion for us. He did a really good job the last time. MR.KUHL-Well,thank you,Mr. Chairman. Thank you for that opportunity. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Turner. Applicant proposes a renovation of a shoreline area including land retaining walls,planting beds,vegetable garden area and patio areas. The rear deck is to be enlarged to 4 SS sq.ft.There is to be 210 sq.ft.permeable patio area to be installed between the retaining walls. The existing 2,734 sq. ft. (footprint) home is to remain with no changes. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck expansion. The project is located at 9 Snug Harbor Lane on a 0.22 ac parcel in the Waterfront residential zone. 179-3-040 dimensional,179-decks The new deck is to be located 29.97 ft.to the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on April 19,2023. 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 as this is just improving some,taking away a wall and making a little deck to improve the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to minimize-the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as it just improves a falling down and makes an improvement. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could say that the alleged difficulty is self-created but only because it's a pre-existing, non- conforming property. 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. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2023 DAVID TURNER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of April 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.ANTHONY-Thank you. (AV 15-2023 Alisha&z Michael Griffey Cont'd) MR. URRICO-I need you to re-open the Griffey case. There were two letters that need to be read in. MR. MC CABE-I closed that public hearing. So I'll open that public hearing. MRS. MOORE-And you'll leave it open. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR.URRICO-So"Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Area Variance AV-15-2023 submitted by Alisha and Michael Griffey,26 Tall Timbers Road. We own the home at 30 Tall Timbers Road next door to the Griffey property. The Griffey proposal is thorough and the proposed architectural design complements the existing house built in the early 20th Century. However,as presented,we have concerns about the plan's non-conforming scale and scope. When the Griffey's main house was built almost a century ago the importance of a natural buffer around the shoreline wasn't fully understood or appreciated. Consequently,like many other homes around the lake,the natural lakefront area in front of the main house was almost entirely replaced with a poured concrete seawall,hundreds of square feet of impervious stone terrace, wide stone walkways and large stone stairs leading down to the lake. Eventually, as awareness evolved,waterfront zoning laws were established to protect Lake George and the town's other waterways. These laws grandfathered existing non-conforming homes and included hardship provisions for reasonable non-conforming changes to address modern needs (modern septic systems on undersized lots, +330/0 additions to non-conforming homes close to the water,etc.). As presented, the proposal asks to substantially compound the existing non-conformity by more than doubling the main house living space(+1070/o),adding a sizable 2nd accessory living structure(+1220/o total site floor area and 7 bedrooms), adding an additional parking area and another massive set of stone stairs to the lake. This proposal excessively increases non-conformity resulting in the loss of natural vegetation, mature trees and shrubs from the lakefront buffer. Furthermore,the proposed 7,910 sq. ft. total site floor area is substantially out of character with the neighborhood. Based upon the Warren County Real Property website data,the combined square footage of the 5 lakefront houses to the south is slightly less than the proposed total site floor area of 7,910 sq. ft. (Simms=1,250; Rapaport=2,314; Slote= 504; Green = 1,105; Seitz = 2,250; Total 7,723 sq. ft.). We feel the non-hardship relief requested "....for stormwater device setbacks,building height and accessory structure height,expansion of nonconforming structure, size of accessory structure, and expansion greater than 1/3 floor area of main structure..." is excessive and results in the inordinate loss of natural vegetation, mature trees and shrubs from the lakefront buffer. We respectfully ask that the plan's scale and scope be reconsidered and substantially reduced before approval." And that's Lenton and Barbara Simms, S Burnt Ridge Road. Then one other letter. "I own the home immediately next to the Griffey's on Tall Timbers Rd., Lake George. I have had the chance to review their proposed project and fully support their request. I feel their project is designed in very good taste and fits beautifully within the lot. As their closest neighbor,their plans are a far better alternative than having someone purchase the lot between us and squeeze anew house in there. I feel very confident their project will be a positive addition to the neighborhood!' And I don't see a name on this,or an address. That's it. MR. MC CABE-At this particular time I'd like to close the meeting tonight. MR. CIPPERLY-I have a question. We still have this Ostberg issue. What happens with that? MRS. MOORE-So you have 62 days to make a decision. MR. MC CABE-I'm going to,with Counsel and Staff,I'm going to configure an answer based on what our. MR. CIPPERLY-Does that come back at the next meeting? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) MRS. MOORE-It'll come back in 62 days at least. MR. MC CABE-I think I heard enough from you guys. It's going to be mostly Counsel. MR. CIPPERLY-But we have to vote on it. That was my question. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So you have up to 62 days to make that decision,to make a motion. MR. MC CABE-We're more than likely going to be looking at a 7S here,because they did employ Caffrey. MRS. MOORE-So the other option is for them to withdraw their case and then proceed with a Petition of Zone Change. MR. MC CABE-Right. MRS. MOORE-So that is their other option. MR. MC CABE-More than likely that's what's going to happen. MR.HENKEL-What happened with my brother-in-laws property there? MRS. MOORE-Because microbrewery says specifically here. If you look at the definition that is pretty clear. It's very clear what microbrewery says. MR. MC CABE-And they weren't exceeding the output of a microbrewery. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 19,2023,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19`h day of April,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 3S