Loading...
Minutes 4.19.23(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ALISHA & MICHAEL GRIFFEY AGENT(S) BRANDON FERGUSON (EDP) OWNER(S) ALISHA & 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 & 24 SECTION 179-3-040; 147; 179-5-020; 179-13-010; 179-4-010 STEFANIE BITTER & 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 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. 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 expansion, 179-5-020 accessory structure, The main house addition is to be greater than 1/3 of the existing home relief is 1,548 sq. ft., the main house is to be 31.52 ft. in height where 28 ft. is the maximum height for the main home. The bunk house is to be 18.79 ft. where 16 ft. is the maximum height for an accessory. The bunk house is to be 875 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: 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 1,548 sq. ft., main building height is 3.52 ft., bunkhouse size 875 sq. ft., bunk house height is 2.79 ft. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 2 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal 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 1857 sq. ft. footprint and the bunk house addition would be 890 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 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 3 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 i n 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 here of that porch are at 48 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 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 dow n, push it back two feet and get rid of multiple variances, but then they’re losing that historic value of the site. BRETT BALZER (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 4 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 28 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 28 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 addit ion 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 tha t 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 18 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 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 83. So they’ve come back, they came back, they went to Balzer & Tuck, and they real ly 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 5 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, 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 6 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 875 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 890 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. 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 7 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 35% impervious or permeability, permeability. So I see significant disturbance in clearing proposed on the 30% 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 k now 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 100% 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. 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 8 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 hut 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 80 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. 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 attempt ing 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 9 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 CABE-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 i s 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? 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 10 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 21st with a submission of new information by May 15th. MRS. MOORE-May 15th. MS. BITTER-Okay. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Alisha & 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 & MICHAEL GRIFFEY, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the June 21st, 2023 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with new information due by May 15th, 2023. Duly adopted this 19th 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. (AV 15-2023 Alisha & 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/19/2023) 11 non-conforming changes to address modern needs (modern septic systems on undersized lots, +33% 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 (+107%), adding a sizable 2nd accessory living structure (+122% 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 = 804; 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, 8 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 b etter alternative than having someone purchase the lot between us and squeeze a new 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.