The URL can be used to link to this page

04-17-2024 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS FIRSTREGULAR MEETING APRIL I7"F 2024 INDEX Area Variance No.14-2024 Patten Property Development 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.2S9.11-1-59.312 Area Variance No.15-2024 Patten Property Development 2. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.2S9.11-1-23 Area Variance No.4-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 3. Tax Map No.227.17-1-25;227.17-1-24 (septic) Area Variance No.IS-2024 Paul Zemanek(Lot 1) 10. Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-52.1 Area Variance No.19-2024 Paul Zemanek(Lot 2) 14. Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-52.2 Area Variance No.20-2024 Victor&Terry Celadon 1S. Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-15 Area Variance No.23-2024 Seeley Machine Inc. (Lot 1) 22. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 309.1E-1-1 Area Variance No.24-2024 Seeley Machine Inc. (Lot 2) 24. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 309.1E-1-1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 17TK,2024 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY RICHARD CIPPERLY ROBERT KEENAN RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Wednesday April 17`h, 2024. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is pretty simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each application up,read the application into our notes, allow the applicant to present his case. We'll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we'll open the public hearing,take input from the public,close the public hearing,poll the Board, and then we'll proceed accordingly. But first we have a couple of administrative items. John? APPROVAL OF MINUTES March 20`h,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 20TH,2024, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 1S`h day of April,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl March 27`h,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 271K,2024, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan: Duly adopted this 1S`h day of April,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl MR.HENKEL-We're going to table two items here. AREA VARIANCE NO.14-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL (RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE) ZONING WR LOCATION OFF HALL ROAD (BARBER RD) APPLICANT PROPOSES A 641 SQ. FT. HOUSE FOOTPRINT WITH A 299 SQ.FT.PORCH/DECK AREA. THE FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 1,351 SQ.FT. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO DECREASE THE LOT SIZE FROM 0.47 AC TO 0.35 AC. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, WELL, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED LOT DISTURBANCE. SITE PLAN FOR PROJECT WITHIN 50 FT.OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY,LOT SIZE,AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 12-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.47 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.11-1-59.312 SECTION 179-3-040 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Patten Property Development. Applicant proposes a 641 sq.ft.house footprint with a 299 sq.ft.porch/deck area. The floor area is to be 1,351 sq. ft. Project includes a lot line adjustment to decrease the lot size from 0.47 ac to 0.35 ac. Site work includes new septic, well, landscaping, stormwater, and other associated lot disturbance. Site plan for project within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes. Relief requested for permeability,lot size, and setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2024, PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to July 17,2024,with any new information by June 17`h,2024. Duly adopted this 17`h Day of April 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So was there anybody here who was going to make public comment on the first Patten Development project? Because we advertised that the public hearing would be open,so I'm going to open the public hearing and we'll just keep it open until we actually hear the project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL (RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE) OWNER(S) PATTEN PROPERTY MANAGEMENT LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 96 HALL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,537 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME WITH 47 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 5,165 SQ.FT. THE EXISTING HOME HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED AND THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS TO BE DEMOLISHED AS WELL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO INCREASE THE LOT SIZE FROM 12,690 SQ. FT. TO 18,200 SQ. FT. THE LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ALLOWS FOR DIRECT ACCESS TO HALL ROAD FROM THE LOT(PREVIOUS ACCESS WAS THROUGH ADJOINING LOT). SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, WELL, LANDSCAPING, STORMWATER, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED LOT DISTURBANCE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ANEW DOCK SYSTEM ALONG GLEN LAKE. SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND NEW FLOOR AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY,SETBACKS,HEIGHT,FLOOR AREA,ROAD FRONTAGE,AND NUMBER OF GARAGES. CROSS REF SP 11-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.11-1-23. SECTION 179- 3-040 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Patten Property Development. Applicant proposes to construct a new 2,537 sq. ft. (footprint) home with 47 sq. ft. porch/deck area with a floor area of 5,165 sq.ft.The existing home has been demolished and there are other items to be demolished as well. The project includes a lot line adjustment to increase the lot size from 12,690 sq. ft. to IS,200 sq. ft. The lot line adjustment allows for direct access to Hall Road from the lot (previous access was through adjoining lot). Site work includes new septic, well, landscaping, stormwater, and other associated lot disturbance. The project includes a new dock system along Glen Lake. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and new floor area. Relief requested for permeability,setbacks,height,floor area,road frontage,and number of garages. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2024, PATTEN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: Tabled to July 17,2024,with any new information needed by June 17`h,2024. Duly adopted this 17`h Day of April 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-And so I'm going to also open the public hearing for AV 15-2024. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-So our first application is Area Variance 4-2023,Geraldine Eberlein. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) TABLED ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GERALDINE EBERLEIN AGENT(S) STUDIO A OWNER(S) GERALDINE EBERLEIN ZONING WR LOCATION 12 SEELYE ROAD NORTH (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 ALSO INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR A NEW PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND SHORELINE LANDSCAPING; THE PROJECT 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 JON ZAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 4-2023, Geraldine Eberlein, Meeting Date: April 17, 2024 "Project Location: 12 Seelye Road North Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,334 sq.ft.,- an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq. ft.,- and a new floor area of 3,121 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 requested for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,floor area, and permeability for the construction of a new home and associated site work. The project is on a 0.3 ac parcel located in the Waterfront residential zone,Lake George. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant proposes a new home where the front yard setback is proposed to be 13.5 ft. where a 30 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback is proposed to be 54 ft.where a 65.77 ft. setback(average of the adjoining buildings) is required. The permeability is proposed to be 73.60/o where 750/o is required (increased permeability). The floor area proposed is 3121 sq. ft. (23.5%) where 2SS5.47 sq. ft. (220/o) is maximum allowed(reduced floor area). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 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 minor impacts on the neighboring properties as the construction of the home has more than one variance request. 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 possible to meet the requirements of the waterfront residential zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. The front setback relief is 16.5 ft.,shoreline is 14.77 ft.,the floor area is 1.S%in excess and permeability is 1.40/o less permeable for the site. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The project includes a new septic system and stormwater management for the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) The applicant proposes to construct a new home in the waterfront residential zone that includes site work and new septic system. The applicant has indicated the new home is in a similar location as the existing home. The plans show the new home location including elevations and floor plans. The applicant has revised plans to increase permeability and reduce floor area." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board,based on its limited review, has identified the following areas of concern: Floor area ratio exceeds allowable limits which impacts setbacks, shoreline and permeability. Two Board members are not concerned with the permeability versus the five that have a concern,and that motion was adopted on April 16`h,2024. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Matt Huntington the project engineer from Studio A in Saratoga and Gerry Eberlein,the applicant,is right behind us. So as you know this has been on your agenda for about a year,being tabled while we were working with the Town Board to get through the septic variances. To be succinct about that, that's a lot of the reason why there's no environmental impact on this. The cottage was built in 1907. So it's 114 years old, and the septic system was put in at the same time. So both of those need to be replaced,but because of the size and the proximity to the lake,the size of the lot,which is about 13,000 square feet, Gerry was able to work out an agreement with her neighbor to the west, the house behind here, to replace both her septic system and their septic system with a raised bed system and enhanced treatment unit which is 200 feet back from the lake. So obviously nothing could be done on our site unless it was a holding tank which nobody wants for a full time house. So that took a while to work out,but we have signoff from,we have approval from the Town Board acting as the Board of Health for the septic system. We have a signoff from the Town Engineer on the stormwater before we got back to this Board. As part of the plan we also came up with a curtain drain along the driveway which will take groundwater, to address the neighbor to the south was concerned. They have the same septic system with a raised system,but they were concerned because that field gets wet and it's because of the groundwater. So Matt designed a curtain drain,perforated pipe and stone,that will take the groundwater towards the lake and in not too much time should dry out that whole area and help all of the neighbors,and that's about a$20,000 bill,but it was just the right thing to do to address the concerns of the neighbors. So when we got all that done and approved by the Town Engineer,we got the Town Board's signoff and now we're back at it. In terms of the variances themselves,although there were a few different ones,we hope that you'll see that they're pretty modest. The front setback is 54 feet. So the standard setback in the zone would be 50 feet,but of course it's the average of the two homes. The home on the south side is about 10 feet from the lake,but on the north side it's the Kirkpatrick family,and Doug is here. He's supportive of this. That's way back,so that's why when you take the average it should be 65.77, but we're back beyond the 50 foot line, and,you know, the reason why it's not self-imposed is because this lot is so shallow from the lake. So we're 13 feet from the neighbor in the rear and 54 feet from the lake because it was just better to stay back,you know, as far as we could from the lake. The first time we went to the Planning Board, a few weeks ago, they asked us to tighten it up, and so the house was reduced in size to reduce the floor area request and increase the permeability. So that was along what's on the bottom on the screen which is the south side. So that was moved from 30 feet to 34 feet from the property line, and that also affords a better view from the neighbors behind them, the Ries, who also support the application, and I think they sent Laura a letter as well. That's their main view from their deck. You probably saw it when you went out there. They're on that south side of this property. So eliminating the house on that side was helpful to them to just increase their view. So those two neighbors are supportive of this. There's request for a 13 foot variance from the back of the house. It's called a front variance because it sort of faces Seelye Road,but it's really not the front,it may be under the definition but it's not a front because there's the Ries house behind them. On that variance there was a guest cottage right, about a foot from the property line that's being removed. So they're going from a foot to thirteen feet and that's the garage side of this house. So those are the setbacks,54 from the lake,where most people are 50, and 13 on the back, but the neighbors are satisfied with that. In terms of the floor area and the permeability,when you've got a lot that's.you know,roughly 13,000 square feet,two percent is about 260 square feet. So it sounds like,you know,two percent sounds significant,and that's why there are a couple of new members of the Planning Board last night, and they were like,two percent,but it's a few hundred square feet. So it's really minor and we already made the house smaller,but this is going from an obviously old cottage to a year round house for Gerry. So it's certainly a modest house. The permeability,there was a proposal before, this month, for a fire pit that would have been paved closer to the lake, and that was removed, so it's just lawn. So that made the permeability better and so the permeability being a few hundred square feet to get to 23.5. So it's 1.20/o,you know,we got it very close to the 750/o. MR.HENKEL-So what's the proposal now? MRS. MOORE-73.6. MR. ZAPPER-73.6 instead of 75. MR.HENKEL-Okay. We have 70.4. MRS. MOORE-It's 73.6. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR. ZAPPER-So it's 1.40/o. So again, when you're talking about a lot that's this small, the percentages sound like a lot,but it's really a few hundred square feet. I mean could they knock a few hundred square feet off of the house and not have to have those? Yes,but it's just,you know,it's already kind of a modest house, and we knocked it down. So they're asking for that relief. Also when you put the septic system 200 feet back on your neighbor's lot,you don't have constraints of setbacks to septic system as well.. So, you know,that makes it easier to develop. It's certainly not any kind of a large house. It's just nice home, and the benefits to the neighborhood with conforming stormwater, the curtain drain, added expense which should help everybody, and septic system that's hundreds of feet from the lake, fortunately they were able to work that out. So there were never really any concerns with the neighbors about the size or location of the house. The neighbors on the south side were concerned about the septic system,but that's the same system that they have, a raised system, because that's what you have to do here with high groundwater, and we worked that all out and got through the Planning Board,or the Town Board,excuse me. So I think that, although it sounds like five variances, they're all really minor and I think that on balance they're doing a really good job for the lake,the improvements here. So with that I'll just ask Matt to fill in. MR.HUNTINGTON-Matt Huntington with Studio A for the record. Yes,Jon hit most of the high points. So I'll just try to fill in a couple of spots there. Regarding the permeability, again,you know,with a 13,000 square foot lot,any small increase is going to make a large percentage change. So to mitigate that we tried to eliminate any actual paving,paving. It's permeable pavers for the driveway. Permeable pavers for the patio. We've also introduced stormwater management practices in terms of the permeable pavers and a raingarden, which currently there are no stormwater practices on the property. Additionally, we have a pretty densely vegetated shoreline now. We proposed, you know, a healthy planting plan along the shoreline area buffer. So with the addition of stormwater management practices, the addition of dense plantings,you know,we feel we're really mitigating any increase in that floor area ratio that may be present in terms of runoff. As Jon said, the septic system is pretty State of the Art. It's an enhanced treatment unit, it goes out to a mound system that actually provides the separation to groundwater and is very conservatively sized,actually. You could say it's almost oversized where the mound is,just because of the fact that we're in a Critical Environmental Area, you know, we took a conservative approach to that as well. Currently the septic system is probably within 50 feet of the lake and it's an antiquated leach field type system that I'm sure is not on the up and up right now. So with that being improved, we feel like we're mitigating a lot of these concerns,variance wise,permeability wise. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-Yes,I've got a question. MR. HENKEL-You're still going to keep the kitchen, the outdoor kitchen and all that other stuff, right, other than? That's not going to be reduced at all so it's farther away from the lake,right? MR. ZAPPER-It's not that big,but that's important for lifestyle. MR. CIPPERLY-Did you say the fire pit was gone? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. CIPPERLY-Okay. MR. HUNTINGTON-No, the fire pit's there. We had a permeable patio around it that didn't meet the 50%. MR.HENKEL-The fire pit's still there. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,the fire pit's there. It's just on the ground. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. ZAPPER-I'm sorry. I thought that the impermeability was the issue. MR.HENKEL-Gotcha. MR.MC CABE-Other questions? So I believe the public hearing is still open. So I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience that would like to address us on this particular project? Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN BILL KIRKPATRICK 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR. KIRKPATRICK-Hi, for the record it's Bill Kirkpatrick, on east Lake George. We're the property directly to the northwest of this property, and I've been spending a fair amount of time looking at this project and understanding the impact of the local area. I think it does a very good j ob with the stormwater management,with the septic and I think that was a concern, and that really has been a pretty significant benefit in that area, that region with the curtain drain. I just wanted to go on record as supporting this project. I think they have a fairly antiquated home that they're trying to improve, and I think the appearance of the area will be enhanced. I feel like their planting plan, and I just want to at least add my support to the project because I feel like it does enhance the area and I wanted to just support them in that. I think the variances, as you folks have heard, are relatively minor, and I think overall the project will improve the area,improve the effect on the groundwater of the lake. So I just wanted to add my support. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We'd like to recognize the improvements and appreciate the attempt there,but we still have serious concerns regarding the numerous variances requested as we feel that those are the most impactful for shoreline properties within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George, permeability, shoreline setbacks and floor area ratios. These variances are, we feel, excessive, considering the circumstances and the greater concern is where there's areas of harmful algae blooms on the lake. We feel these impacts from the variances will be exacerbated and have a greater impact on water quality with the other activities on the property. We feel that actually putting in a curtain drain is creating a worse situation. You're going to take water that is naturally in the ground and naturally filters in the ground,and now you're going to pipe it directly towards the lake, and, you know, we feel that that's just going to create a larger algae concern there, as well as excavating into the shoreline to create a beach. So clearly there are alternatives to the application that can eliminate the variances. The impervious cover could be reduced by 1S4 feet, become compliant. There's an outdoor kitchen, large patio along the entire frontage, extending out 20 feet. It's clearly development that is walking towards the lake. That protective area along the shoreline is becoming hard scape. We feel that,you know,the floor area ratio is excessive and could be re-considered again. Again, walking that development towards the lake, reducing that protective hard scape area and reducing the vegetative cover. So we feel that there can be improvements here and we feel that actually I think the curtain drain doesn't do as much good in the long run,and I think there'll be greater impacts to the lake. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else out there that would like to address us on this particular project? So would you like to comeback? I guess has our Town Engineer voiced any opinion on the curtain drain? MRS. MOORE-No,they haven't,but there is public written. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me, Roy. Sorry I neglected you there. MR. URRICO-"This is David Ries. We live next door to the Eberlein property at S Seelye Rd. We are in support of the Eberlein project and have no issues with the building project. If the Board has any questions, I would be happy to answer. Thank you! David Ries" This is a letter from Bob and Trish End at S Waters Edge Drive. "We are writing in strong opposition to the proposed variances requested in connection with the construction project application by Geraldine Eberlein. Our primary concerns are associated with the septic system that has been designed as a result of the new home. The septic system designed is a convoluted plan which results from Ms. Eberlein's desires for a home that is too large for her .31 acre lot. The variances that she is requesting all relate to the fact that she wants a house and associated living spaces that is simply too large for her lot. As a result, she is forced to build a septic system in her neighbor's yard which is effectively a wetland,and would officially be a wetland if it met the minimum size of one acre. The drainage system that has been developed to accommodate the plan will result in major disruption to the land during construction and its effectiveness long term has to be questioned. For some reason,the planned mound system has been located in the wettest part of the neighbor's lot where standing water is a constant issue. 1 am attaching a picture of the proposed location taken on March 11 of this year. As an aside,it also will be at the end of our driveway,and because of the need to build it higher than would be required because of the chronic water issues,will be an eyesore for years to come. If the Board does go along with Ms. Eberlein's overreaching plan, she should be required to landscape around the mound to at least soften the impact of her actions on the neighborhood. Again, all of this is a result of Ms. Eberlein's desire for a house that is larger than her lot can accommodate.A holding tank system,such as her neighbors to the west(Kirpatricks) are considering, on her lot is a totally feasible plan and should be mandated by the Board if this project is allowed. Thank you for your consideration. Bob and Trish End S Waters Edge Drive" There's a second letter from the same people. This is dated April 5`h,2023 this letter. "We live at S Waters Edge Drive in Cleverdale. We have a home that we constructed in 2016-2017 that is adjacent to a portion of the proposed Eberlein project. We share a right of way driveway with several neighbors who are directly adjacent to the proposed project.We are strongly opposed to the construction of a new home in this densely populated neighborhood as proposed. Our primary reason for opposing this project relates 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) to the fact that the significant number of variances(5) requested are dependent on placing a new septic system in property owned by David Ries. The land proposed for locating the septic system is directly adjacent to our property and would have a significantly detrimental impact on our property. The lot has serious water table and drainage issues and has for as long as we have owned our property(1994).We have heard from neighbors who predate our ownership that the water drainage issues have been a problem for years before that. We have serious concerns about health issues related to seepage from a septic system as well as concerns about effluent inevitably reaching the lake.When we built our home,we were very careful to address water runoff issues in all respects. We complied with the requirements of a major stormwater runoff plan that included multiple rain gardens, a significant (15 ft.)buffer at the lake front, and a state of the art septic system. We are always cognizant of the fact that the lake is our greatest asset and needs to be protected at all cost.When we proposed rebuilding our residence,we went from two homes,and more importantly,two septic systems,to one home and one septic system. We were told by the planning board at the time that that was a very positive impact of our project.In planning our project,we were told by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA) that the lot proposed for the new Eberlein septic system was a wetland but that because it was less than an acre it did not qualify technically as a formal wetland. We independently engaged an environmental consultant to provide an assessment of the lot and whether it would be deed a wetland and she confirmed that it was a wetland and staked out the locations that confirmed that it was including locations where there were cattails growing. Our interest at the time was to determine potential setback requirements associated with wetlands. It does not take much to conclude that the Ries lot is effectively a wetland. There is standing water after the winter thaw for months. Even after summer rainstorms there will be standing water for days. It is not unusual to see Mr. Ries' riding lawnmower stuck for days until the field dries out.The significance to us is that the water drains primarily into our yard and the yard of our neighbors Steve and Caryn LaFleche.The LaFleches by the way ultimately put in a holding tank as the best solution to address the water table issues. We had more land to work with and could address the drainage issues more conventionally. The current proposed location also happens to be the wettest part of the lot. The proposed septic would also be an aesthetic blemish in the neighborhood.Because of the water table issues,any leech field would have to be a very tall and prominent feature in an otherwise empty lot with no cover of any trees. The proposed location would be right at the end of our personal driveway and would be a constant eyesore. There are locations on the lake where holding tanks should be the only option for addressing septic issues. This is one of them. The existence of an easement should not be a reason to allow a septic system in such a problematic location. While the septic issue may not be the focus of the early Planning Board and Zoning Board meetings,consideration of any of the requested variances can only be weighed in light of the overall project which is based at least partially on locating the new system on the Ries property. Thank you for your consideration. Bob and Trish End" The septic has been resolved by the Town Engineer. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to address the curtain drain? MR. ZAPPER-Matt will, but I'll start. So that was something that was on the plans that the Town Engineer approved. It's something that the DEC stormwater manual that DEC supports. We think it'll help the whole neighborhood, as Mr. Kirkpatrick said, Dr. Kirkpatrick,but that's just one minor point of this. I understand that the Town Board didn't like them also, but that's what the Town Engineer's for. He's concerned about a couple hundred square feet of impermeable area and it's hard to understand that when Geraldine's doing everything right to move the septic hundreds of feet from the lake,heavy planting, as Matt said, along the lake. So we think on balance this is much better than what's there now,but also much better than if you just took a couple hundred square feet off of the house and didn't do all of these other enhancements and didn't ask for variances. I think these are really minor variances when you have a small lot. It's hard to fit everything,but we think this is the right thing for the lake. MR.HUNTINGTON-Regarding the curtain drain,we understand Chris'concerns. I would say probably more if it was on the surface or surface water that we were really taking in there,but this is designed to intercept groundwater. So it's groundwater that's already there,filtering through the soil as is. It's just giving it a place to go, as opposed to just pooling up and rising to the surface at this point,and in terms of septic regulations and design, typically I mean groundwater is treated very similarly to a surface water body like Lake George,you know,there's efforts that are made to protect it. That's the reason our mound system in back has been raised up so high conservatively to stay above that groundwater level. So in our opinion,you know,by the time you're into the curtain drain with the groundwater,much of that filtration has happened and is still happening. This is a pipe that's wrapped in crushed stone and geotextile fabric, which also provides a media for bacterial growth,for filtering of the groundwater as it goes through it,and again,as Jon said,this is an approved practice by the DOH and DEC for the wastewater. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to be careful on these smaller lots with the amount of development that's proposed. I think,you know,if you look at the square footage of the project, even though it's over, S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) it's still being driven by the fact that you have a garage on the back,and I think that's within reason. If we removed the garage,it would make a difference,but it's not going to give you year round usage. One of our concerns also is when you expand from seasonal use to year round use you're only supposed to increase by about a third over the size of what was there previously,and I assume you're going to be quite a bit over. MRS. MOO RE-So that's only when it's an addition to an existing home. This is a whole new house. MR. UNDERWOOD-This is all new. MR.HENKEL-It's 235 feet above allowable. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think Chris'comments about the direct drainage to the lake,I think even if it's evs pipe,you know,the perforated pipe that's going to send groundwater out there, I think if you have some kind of a stand basin before you got to the lake so it's not direct discharge, it might make more sense to add that. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, currently it discharges into that plant bed. So there's a substantial filtration that happens there. It's not going directly into the lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's not like a straight pipe. MR.HUNTINGTON-Not into the lake,no. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I think,you know,given the facts and given the concerns I think that we could still probably approve this project as proposed here this evening,based upon your setback. You're 54 feet back and I think that's substantial. MR. MC CABE-So you're a yes? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes, I tend to agree. I think the compromises that they've made certainly over the last year and a half have put it about as good as it's going to get,especially with the size of the lot. So I would support it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I think,obviously you've made some substantial changes from the original design and it's a huge improvement over what's currently existing. I think you can find 235 square feet, though, in the design. At this point I don't think I could approve it. I don't mind,the front yard variance is nothing,but I'd like to see that floor area ratio back down to where it should be. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-To me I think they've worked hard to satisfy most of the requirements that we've asked them to do and as such I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I value the Waterkeeper's concerns, I do. The Town Engineer gave the good on that curtain drain and he's the subject matter expert. So although I value what Mr. Navitsky said,I'll go along with it. I'll be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I mean there's a possibility that probably could be pushed back away from the lake three more feet. That's something that could maybe be considered, but I think they have worked hard. There is a big water problem in that area, and if they're saying that permeability is 730/o, .6 or whatever, that's pretty darn good considering all those properties around there. They eliminated the pavers around the fire pit. I think they've done a good job. That property had a lot on it at one time with that exterior little house and that. So I think they've done a good job. They've worked hard on it. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. I'm impressed that the applicant went to the lengths that they did to reduce the variances that were originally requested. It would be nice to have the permeability or the floor to area ratio be within,you know,so we don't have to approve both,but when you only have a .3 acre lot,that's pretty hard to do. So I've got a soft heart tonight. So I'm going to say yes. I wonder if, Dick,you could give us a motion here. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 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 requested for setbacks,floor area, and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,floor area, and permeability for the construction of a new home and associated site work. The project is on a 0.3 ac parcel located in the Waterfront residential zone,Lake George. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant proposes a new home where the front yard setback is proposed to be 13.5 ft. where a 30 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback is proposed to be 54 ft.where a 65.77 ft. setback(average of the adjoining buildings) is required. The permeability is proposed to be 70.40/o where 750/o is required. The floor area proposed is 3343 sq. ft. (25.50/o) where 2SS5.47 sq. ft. (220/o) is maximum allowed. Infiltration device proposed 70.5 ft.where 100 ft.is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on February 15, 2023; March 22, 2023; April 19, 2023; May 17, 2023;June 21,2023;August 16, 2023; October 1S, 2023; December 13, 2023;January 17, 2024; February 21, 2024;March 20,2024;March 27,2024;April 17,2024 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 they've gone out of their way to set this way back from the lake,in cooperation with the neighbors. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and what they've done is reasonable and very little else is possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because this really has minimal variance request. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty,however,is self-created. 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. 4-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17h Day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Keenan MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. ZAPPER-It's been a long project,we really appreciate it,everybody. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV IS-2024,Paul Zemanek,10 Elm Drive. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO.18-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PAUL ZEMANEK(LOT 1) AGENT(S) R U HOLMES ENGINEERS PLLC OWNER(S) PAUL ZEMANEK ZONING WR LOCATION 10 ELM DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS WHERE LOT 1 WILL BE REDUCED FROM 0.72 ACRES TO 0.315 ACRES,AND LOT 2 WILL BE INCREASED FROM 0.05 ACRES TO 0.455 ACRES. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES SITE WORK TO REMOVE EXISTING SHEDS ON THE SITE, REDUCTION OF HARD SURFACING AND DRIVEWAY SURFACE REDUCTION BETWEEN BOTH LOTS. LOT 1 RETAINS AN EXISTING HOUSE AND LOT 2 PROPOSES A NEW HOME. THE EXISTING HOME ON LOT 1 (1,019 SQ.FT. FOOTPRINT AND FLOOR AREA OF 1,968 SQ.FT.) WITH REDUCED LOT SIZE IS TO REMAIN. LOT 2 IS TO HAVE A 1,400 SQ.FT. FOOTPRINT AND FLOOR AREA OF 4,200 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE, LOT WIDTH ROAD FRONTAGE, AND WATER FRONTAGE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.10-1-52.1 SECTION 179-3-040 ARRON ROBERTS &TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 18-2024, Paul Zemanek, Meeting Date: April 17, 2024 "Project Location: 10 Elm Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels where Lot 1 will be reduced from 0.72 acres to 0.315 acres,and Lot 2 will be increased from 0.05 acres to 0.455 acres. The project also includes site work to remove existing sheds on the site, reduction of hard surfacing and driveway surface reduction between both lots. Lot 1 retains an existing house and Lot 2 proposes a new home. The existing home on Lot 1 (1,019 sq. ft.footprint and floor area of 1,968 sq. ft.) with reduced lot size is to remain. Lot 2 is to have a 1,400 sq. ft. footprint and floor area of 4,200 sq.ft. Relief requested for lot size,lot width,road frontage, and water frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size,lot width,road frontage, and water frontage. The parcel is to be 0.315 ac in the Waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The project requires an area variance for reducing lot size less than 2 acres to 0.315 ac, lot width for less than 150 ft.where 63.56 is proposed,road frontage for less than 150 ft.where existing is 67.71 ft. and 50 ft. is proposed,water frontage for less than 150 ft.where 140.23 ft.existing and 63.72 ft.is proposed. 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 lot configuration and the existing house location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief for 1.65 ac lot size, 86.44 ft.lot width,100 ft.road frontage, and 9.77 ft.water frontage. 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 environmental conditions. Project includes improving the permeability on site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain the existing home with site improvements including removal of a shed and increasing permeability. The plans show the existing home and the improvements. Photos of the existing home were included." 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 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 adopted on April 16`h 2024 by a unanimous vote. MR. ROBERTS-Good evening. Aaron Roberts with R U Holmes Engineers. With me is Tom Jarrett and our client Paul Zemanek at 10 Elm Drive on Glen Lake. The project before you proposes a lot line adjustment between two existing tax parcels owned by the Zemaneks. The total shoreline width of these two parcels is 150 feet. The Lot One width is proposed to be reduced from 140 feet to 63 and a half feet. Lot Two is proposed to be increased from 10 feet to S6 and a half feet. The existing house on Lot One is proposed to remain and a new single family dwelling on Lot One is proposed with a new well, new wastewater system in the rear. Both Lots One and Lot Two are proposed to be compliant in terms of required permeability and floor area ratio. Lot One does have existing non-conforming setbacks to the shoreline and to the property line to the south,but we are maintaining compliant setbacks to the property line to the north and to the rear. Lot Two is designed to be compliant with all side yard setbacks and rear yard and shoreline. With the reduction in size of Lot One,we are requesting relief from minimum lot size, lot width,road frontage and water frontage. With the increase in size of Lot Two we're asking for relief from minimum road frontage, house site and access to the neighboring property, which is also owned by the Zemaneks. Both lots have proposed stormwater management practices that account for all existing and proposed impermeable cover on the site. So overall we believe the existing development on Lot One and the proposed development on Lot Two are keeping in character with the current development on Glen Lake and will not have a significant impact on the community or Glen Lake. With that,we open it up to any questions the Board may have. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-I do. How does a lot get developed,how do you get a lot at.05? Where the heck did that come from? That's not a buildable lot. PAUL ZEMANEK MR. ZEMANEK-Paul Zemanek. So originally there were three deeded lots. The lot that the house is existing on is 50 feet by the lake, and then there was a 100 by 100 foot deep lot right on the shore,and then the remaining parcel was in the back, and I don't remember what that was. What happened was the neighbor at the time, Mrs. Spadaro,her late husband wanted my parents to not block their view. So my parents agreed to do a 10 foot easement or increased,you know, offset so they wouldn't build,you know, so the setback would be another 10 feet added to whatever it was at the time. He passed away about two years later and when I purchased the property in 2001,my parents,the tax bill came to me and Mrs.Spadaro because my parents were no longer paying it and it was a joint paid tax parcel. So I started paying the taxes on it,20 some years ago now, and it's actually not correctly,it doesn't go all the way to the back,but that's how that tax parcel became and actual parcel. My parents actually adjoin the other three lots and created this lot at some point during their ownership of the property. The problem being that if I were to build,knock down that house and build a sizeable house on the existing lot by removing the other house, I'd not only be blocking the right of way from the other neighbors in the back,but,you know,it's just,I've lived there 30 years. I've seen some big houses go up across the way,and I've seen four or five small houses come down and a monster go up,but that's not what we're building here. I'm going to try to build a modest house. So when we got into it, Mr. Brown told me to do a lot line adjustment and make that non- conforming lot conforming to the lake width,and that's basically where we are now. MR.HENKEL-Yes,but now you're going to create two non-conforming lots. MR. ZEMANEK-Well they're all non-conforming, aren't they? I mean everything on Glen Lake is non- conforming. MR.KUHL-No,not everything. MR. ZEMANEK-That I'm aware of on my side,I think they're all. MRS.MOORE-So I've been working with Paul on this project for a long time and that lot line adjustment, at least it increases,makes it more conforming. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. KUHL-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. On this S-1 drawing,it talks about a 10 foot wide right of way from Glen Lake Road to Glen Lake. What about that? I can see it on the print. MRS. MOORE-It stays there. It doesn't go away. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR.KUHL-It stays there. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So when you pull up this plan,sorry. MR.KUHL-So what does that do,give people from Glen Lake Road access to the lake? MR. ZEMANEK-So I believe it's deeded to the empty lot in the corner where Elm Drive surrounds,off of Glen Lake to the house directly behind me, and I'm not positive on this,but I think there's a deed for the 15 acres across the lake that allows those people to have a 10 foot access to the water. Yes. MR.JARRETT-That will remain. MR. ZEMANEK-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So there's a neighbor that contacted me, didn't write a letter, but wanted to be assured that that was still there, and there was nothing on the plans to say it was going away. MR.HENKEL-There's another one like that over by the old Casino,the old Casino bar restaurant there. MR.JARRETT-There's a neighbor here that may speak to that issue. Tom Jarrett. We spoke with a neighbor just before the meeting and he may speak in the public hearing,but he raised that issue. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Ron,you all set? MR.KUHL-For now. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.KUHL-Thank you. 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 out there who would like to address us on this particular project. Sure. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARY G. PINERO MR.PINERO-Good evening,everyone. My name is Gary G.Pinero. I'm the owner of 390 Glen Lake Road. I don't have any problem with the owners of this property,what they're going to do. I was just explained to that the right of way that the property has will still be in existence. Whatever Mr. Zemanek is going to do won't impede onto the right of way,take away any access that I could have to the lake. So as far as any objections to what Mr. Zemanek is going to do, no, as long as the right of way stays clear and I have access to the lake. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR.PINERO-Thank you. Have a good day. Is there anybody else out there that would like to address us on this particular project? Roy,have we got anything written? MR. URRICO-Yes, there's one letter. "We have a summer camp at 14 Genista Lane, so we were sent a variance notice. I don't know the specifics about the actual project, so there could be some details about the project that I am unaware of. However,in general,I would hate to see another house built close to the lake,unless it was replacing an existing house. Glen Lake is already totally built out,with no undeveloped land left that I am aware of. To add more houses near the shoreline without municipal water and sewer seems like a bad idea. Also there was a bald eagle nest last year,that is very close to the proposed project. It successfully fledged 2 eaglets, and I assume they will be back for many years. It would be a shame to impact their survival and success. Stephen Mackey" That's the only letter. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-On the face of it it seems pretty simple. It's a lot more complicated when you look directly at it,but I would be in favor of the adjustment. MR. MC CABE-Ron? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR. KUHL-No, I'm not in favor of it. I think that Waterfront Residential, looking for 150 foot lake frontage,that's what they have, and I'm not in agreement with the gentleman that says every lot around is getting smaller. The existing ones,before we had zoning,yes, they are small. They are together,but we had a situation up on Lake George where something similar to this occurred and it had financial ramifications to the one person that wanted it done, and we refused that person and so based on that I'm refusing this. MR. MC CABS John? MR.HENKEL-It does kind of make sense,but I agree with Ron. I think we've got to protect our lakefront properties. By increasing the number of lots when it's already not compliant with what you need for shoreline,I would not be in favor of it as is. MR. MC CABS Jim? MR.UNDERWOOD-I'm going to have to disagree with the other guys. I think that there's no real impact on Lot Number One because you're just changing the line,moving the line over. I don't see a negative on that one at all. As far as the creation of the other lot on Part Two of this project it's going to be an S4 foot wide lot. It's set back the required distance from the lake. I don't think there's going to be a negative impact for the lake in this instance. So I'd be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I tend to agree. I think they've done the best with the creation of the second lot. I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-In some respects I hate to see another lot created on the lake. I think with this project, I think I can agree with it just because you're really not making that, you're really within most of the variances and I think I would approve this. MR. MC CABE-So I can't agree with this. It just goes a little bit too far. The reason for zoning was to reduce the density of the properties on Glen Lake, and this kind of just goes the other way,but I only have one vote and you already have four. So I'll just go on record as being a no. So,Jim,I wonder if you could fashion us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Paul Zemanek. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels where Lot 1 will be reduced from 0.72 acres to 0.315 acres,and Lot 2 will be increased from 0.05 acres to 0.455 acres.The project also includes site work to remove existing sheds on the site,reduction of hard surfacing and driveway surface reduction between both lots.Lot 1 retains an existing house and Lot 2 proposes a new home. The existing home on Lot 1(1,019 sq.ft.footprint and floor area of 1,96E sq.ft.)with reduced lot size is to remain. Lot 2 is to have a 1,400 sq. ft.footprint and floor area of 2,56E sq.ft. Relief requested for lot size,lot width,road frontage, and water frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size,lot width,road frontage, and water frontage. The parcel is to be 0.315 ac in the Waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The project requires an area variance for reducing lot size less than 2 acres to 0.315 ac, lot width for less than 150 ft.where 63.56 is proposed,road frontage for less than 150 ft.where existing is 67.71 ft. and 50 ft. is proposed,water frontage for less than 150 ft.where 140.23 ft.existing and 63.72 ft.is proposed. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April 17,2024. 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. The new lot created will be S4 feet wide. This current one will be 61 feet I believe. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and have been included to minimize the request. We feel that it's reasonable as proposed. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the lots will be similar to the neighboring properties adjacent. 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,but it's also created by the odd size of that initial lot that they were stuck with. 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. 18-2024 PAUL ZEMANEK (LOT-1), Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 17h Day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan NOES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe MR.JARRETT-Thank you very much. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 19-2024. AREA VARIANCE NO. 19-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 PAUL ZEMANEK (LOT 2) AGENT(S) R U HOLMES ENGINEERS PLLC OWNER(S) PAUL ZEMANEK ZONING WR LOCATION GLEN LAKE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME OF 1,400 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 4,200 SQ.FT.THE EXISTING PARCEL IS VACANT AND SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, WELL, AND DRIVEWAY ACCESS FROM THE ADJOINING LOT. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES SHORELINE PLANTING PLAN AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE PROJECT PARCEL IS ASSOCIATED WITH A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT WITH THE ADJOINING LOT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE,ACCESS FROM ADJOINING LOT,LOT WIDTH, WATER FRONTAGE AND HEIGHT. CROSS REF SP 16-2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY N/A LOT SIZE .05 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.10-1-42.2 SECTION 179-3-040;179-6-065 AARON ROBERTS&TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 19-2024, Paul Zemanek, Meeting Date: April 17, 2024 "Project Location: Glen Lake Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a new single family home of 1,400 sq.ft.footprint with a floor area of 4,200 sq.ft. The existing parcel is vacant and site work includes new septic,well, and driveway access from the adjoining lot. Project work includes shoreline planting plan and stormwater management. The project parcel is associated with a lot line adjustment with the adjoining lot. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for road frontage, access from adjoining lot,lot width,water frontage, and height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage, access from adjoining lot, lot width, water frontage, and height. The parcel is to be 0.455 located in the waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) Relief is requested for road frontage where 0 ft.is proposed and 150 ft.is required,lot width where 93.29 ft. is proposed and 150 ft. is required, water frontage where S6.5S ft. is proposed and 150 ft. is required, height where 36 ft. S 7/S inches is proposed and 2S ft.is the maximum allowed and access where access is through an adjoining property where direct access 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 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 merge the adjacent lot for a conforming lot for the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to relevant to the code. Relief requested for road frontage of 150 ft.lot width of 56.71 ft.water frontage of 63.42 ft., S ft.7 inches for height,and access through the adjoining property to Elm Drive. 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 project includes construction of new single family home with associated site work. The plans show the location of the new home with stormwater management,shoreline plantings, and new septic system. MRS. MOORE-So I just want to make one correction, and it should show up on the previous project description as well as this one, is that the floor area for this building is 2,565. So the value that was in there,4,000,is simply the allowable, and this project is less than that. MR. URRICO-What was it again? MRS. MOORE-2,565. MR.KUHL-I'm a little confused,Mr. Chairman. Roy just read this,the height is 36 Sand 7/S`h. Over here on our sheets it says the height is going to be 27 6,on the drawing it says 25 7 and three-quarters. MRS. MOORE-Let me just pull this up. MR.KUHL-What's right? What's wrong? MRS.MOORE-So if you look at this drawing,what they had considered the bump out of the garage,they're considering that as not being part of the overall height,and my understanding is that that height goes from 27 and a half,27 something,and it follows all the way through with that nine foot garage door. So there's a drawing that shows how the garage is actually bumped out. Flip that page over. MR.KUHL-I'm just looking at numbers. MR.HENKEL-You're right,though. MR.KUHL-Yes. Okay. MR.JARRETT-This is Tom Jarrett. There's a misunderstanding. When we designed this, we thought that the garage bump out would not be in the plane where the height had to be measured. We were advised just the other day, and confirmed last night,that we should have measured it through the garage. So that's why there's a confusion in the paperwork. Now just to clarify, they height from the lake is compliant,that's the 27 feet. The height viewed from the back would have the garage,the rear garage to the house,so it would be taller from the rear. MR. CIPPERLY-Was that built into that? MR.JARRETT-Built into that change in grade. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR.KUHL-Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-So Lot Two is designed to be compliant with the floor area ratio and permeability. As discussed, it's also compliant with all setbacks to the side, to the rear and to the shoreline. The lot is proposed to be increased from the 10 feet to the S6 and a half feet. There is a new wastewater system proposed as well to the rear of the property. There's an existing well that will go along with the new house and the new well is proposed where the existing house is,and the access would be through Lot One,which is owned by the Zemaneks, and there's also stormwater management proposed for this and an enhanced lake buffer planting plan to help with aesthetics shoreline. So with that we'll open it up to any questions. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Go ahead,John. MR. HENKEL-When you're building a new house on any lake and you've got the opportunity to build it further from the lake, why don't you build it further from the lake, so that when you want to build a fireplace or something closer to the lake you don't have to come back for a variance,you know,you think they would. I mean you've got the opportunity to build that back farther from the lake. It's a great time to do it. MR. ROBERTS-The way the existing grade on the lot is,it drops down right here at the rear of the house. So we're about eight feet, nominally, from where the driveway is to where the house sits. So if we re- located the house to the rear,we would be behind a large mound essentially. MR.HENKEL-I was on the property,but it's hard to tell without a map. MR. ROBERTS-Yes,we actually are compliant with the required setback to the shoreline. MR. HENKEL-I realize that. I'm just saying in the future it seems like everybody's got to put fire pits, Jacuzzis,all that stuff out in front there. MR. JARRETT-Good point, but in this particular situation we also have the driveway and then we reserved septic area for the adjoining lot. So it constrained a lot of movement to put the house back further. MR. ROBERTS-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-Is the applicant going to be moving into this house? PAUL ZEMANEK MR. ZEMANEK-That is my plan. Paul Zemanek. MR.KUHL-That is your plan,and will there be something in writing that's going to give you access to the driveway? MR.JARRETT-Yes. There's an easement between the two lots. MR.KUHL-What is that going to look like,I give you access? Does it need an easement? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. So you're going to do an easement? Just so that if I move in next door to him, you know,I won't break up his driveway. I mean I think that that's needed. It would protect you. MR.ZEMANEK-Yes. Originally there were three deeds and they have easement,are written in the deeds, because that lot that we're proposing is not exactly that size,but there was a lot there that was 100 by 100 on the lake which is obviously way too small to build a structure by today's standards. MR.JARRETT-Lot Two will also be giving Lot One a reserve septic area. So there'll be benefits to both lots. 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, see if there's anybody out there that would like to address us on this particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy,do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Nothing written. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR. MC CABE-So 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 think they've improved this lot size. I think what you're proposing works for the lot,and I would approve it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I agree. I think once we improve the lot sizes I think we're okay with the house location as well. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Waterfront lots that minimize the number of variances necessary are always preferred and I think this one does a great job. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-Yes,it's a good project. I'm on board. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I didn't agree with the subdivision. So I don't want to be hypocritical. I'm going to stay,I'm not in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I think it satisfies the criteria. MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to be consistent also. The lot shouldn't exist in my mind. So I've got to vote no,but again,I'm only one vote. 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 Paul Zemanek. Applicant proposes a new single-family home of 1,400 sq.ft.footprint with a floor area of 2,56E sq.ft. The existing parcel is vacant and sitework includes new septic, well, and driveway access from the adjoining lot. Project work includes shoreline planting plan and stormwater management. The project parcel is associated with a lot line adjustment with the adjoining lot. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for road frontage, access from adjoining lot,lot width,water frontage, and height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage, access from adjoining lot, lot width, water frontage, and height. The parcel is to be 0.455 located in the waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 Relief is requested for road frontage where 0 ft.is proposed and 150 ft.is required,lot width where 93.29 ft. is proposed and 150 ft. is required, water frontage where S6.5S ft. is proposed and 150 ft. is required, height where 36 ft. S 7/S inches is proposed and 2S ft.is the maximum allowed and access where access is through an adjoining property where direct access is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April 17,2024. 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 of the new property development,new housing going on. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to-minimize the request. 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 3. The requested variance is not substantial, the project tries to meet as much of the area variance requirements that are required for the building of the project. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created because of the building of a new home. 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. 19-2024 PAUL ZEMANEK (LOT-2), Introduced by Robert Keenan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 17h Day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan NOES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.JARRETT-Thank you. MR. ROBERTS-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 20-2024,Victor&Terry Celadon,29 Jay Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 VICTOR &z TERRY CELADON AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL (RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE) OWNER(S) VICTOR &z TERRY CELADON ZONING WR LOCATION 29 JAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,700 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,889 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT WILL MAINTAIN A WELL POINT FOR THE HOME,A 131 SQ.FT.SHED,AND EXISTING SHORELINE BUFFER. THE SITE WORK INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND SITE DISTURBANCE OF 12,198 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 17-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.75 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.10-1-15 SECTION 179- 3-040,179-5-020 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;VICTOR&r TERRY CELADON,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2024, Victor & Terry Celadon, Meeting Date: April 17, 2024 "Project Location: 29 Jay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of the existing home to construct a newhome of 2,700 sq.ft.footprint with a floor area of 3,889 sq.ft.The project will maintain a well point for the home, a 131 sq. ft. shed, and existing shoreline buffer. The site work includes a new septic system and site disturbance of 12,198 sq.ft.Site plan for new floor in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of a new home. The project site is a 0.75 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The variance relief requested from the shoreline for the following: garage is to be 18 ft. 8 inches, existing shed 11 ft. 4 inches,the proposed home 17 ft. 1 inch to the west side,then 21 ft. from the east side where a 50 ft. shoreline setback is required. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 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. 4. 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 lot configuration. 5. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief for the garage is 31 ft. 4 inches, existing shed 3S ft. S inches, west side of home 32 ft.11 inches,east side of home 29 ft. 6. 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. 7. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new single-family home with associated site work. The plans show the new home and site improvements including a new septic system.,, 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 16`h 2024 by a unanimous vote. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, my name is Ethan Hall, principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight are Victor and Terry Celadon. They're the owners of the property. The existing seasonal residence has been used by Vie's family since 1946. The house is a significantly old house. It has a stone foundation that is in pretty bad shape and it's deteriorating pretty rapidly. The back portion of the house, which is closest to the driveway to the upper part, all the water has drained down through there. It's completely rotted out,and when you walk into the kitchen it drops about a foot and a half. So the house,if we don't do something with it,it's going to take itself out pretty soon. MR.KUHL-It's got character. MR.HALL-Yes,character. The existing garage is really just a storage building. You couldn't put a modern car in there if you tried. The shed is a little bit of a unique item. The shed that's there was the original Hovey Ice House. It has an inner wall and an outer wall. So when they were harvesting ice to bring it down here,they would bring it out and store it in the shed and the inner wall, in between the inner wall and the outer wall,would be filled with sawdust to keep the ice from melting. So,yes,Vic and his family have done a great job in kind of maintaining that. So rather than tear that down and do anything different with it,they're leaving it there as kind of apiece of history. We do meet the setback requirements. We are moving the septic system,which basically now is non-existent. It's just a seepage pit out behind the house now. Tom Hutchins has designed and approved that,gotten approved a pump up system which is going to be up in the corner where Jay Road and just adjoining driveway come together. The existing point is a push point. It works really well. They're right down the peninsula so they have plenty of water. All of our setbacks are equal to what's there existing. The only one that gets closer is the stairs which go off to the west. That one gets a little bit closer,but that's on the side that's going towards the shed so for setback relief for the shed. We've kept everything under the 2S feet that's required. We've got some storage that's going to be above the garage because basically the house has no storage availability. There's just a crawl space there. So there will be no cutting of trees along the shoreline. They do have, I think I figured out, it's like 390 some odd lineal feet of shoreline and you go all the way out and around the peninsula,but that's very well vegetated. The pictures that I've provided show views from the lake so you can see where all of the existing vegetation is and all of that will be. We are providing some new stormwater management devices, eaves trenches, to get the stormwater off the house into the ground which currently does not exist and the overall permeability of the site is going to go up because right now that entire upper area is crushed stone. So we're going to make it all permeable,lawn area. I think that covers just about everything. Questions? MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-The shoreline,you could probably subdivide that lot ten times. Right? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR. HALL-Not at all. This is one of the few lots that I've been able to work on, on Glen Lake, and I've been here for a number of these with you folks before. This is one of the few that we've not had to get some floor area ratio variances and permeability,and so the setbacks were the biggest issue. 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 out there that would like to address us on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GARY HIGLEY MR.HIGLEY-Gentlemen and ladies,thank you. My name is Gary Higley,23 Jay Road. I'm Vic's neighbor to the east. We adjoin our property lines. Vic is a very,very good steward of the lake, and his family has been one for many, many years. Sothis project I'm hoping will be approved unanimously. It's a good project. The house is in poor repair and it needs repair and this is going to be a big help for it. The one thing that I'm very happy of is the septic system is going to be upgraded. That's desperately needed, and I'm really looking forward to having Vic has a full-time neighbor. So thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else out there? DEAN REALI MR. REALLGood evening. My name is Dean Reali. I live at 24 Jay Road and I'm Vic's neighbor to the west and he's been a good neighbor. The proposal he has I think is reasonable. His presence and what he's planning to do will improve the character and the quality of our neighborhood. So I would ask you to approve this. It will be a great addition to have Vic year round. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Anybody else? Anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-No written comment. 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 Ron. MR.KUHL-I just have one question. Did you say you're doing permeable pavers? MR.HALL-No. MR.KUHL-Okay. I think it's a good project. I applaud the engineer for engineering a house that works, and as Mr.Higley said the septic is really what we need. We need new septics on the lake. Thank you for that. So I'd be in favor,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I am also in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-Yes, I have no issues with the project, glad to see the septic's going to be upgraded. So I think it's good. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I also am certainly in favor of it. The benefits are a better septic system and probably environmentally it's going to be good. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if we were looking at a blank lot here we probably would set the house way back in the back 40, but,you know, your house has been there for a long time, and I think as far as the septic issue goes,I think that's going to alleviate any concerns. The setbacks from the waterfront,you're on a peninsula. So you've got the hardship of having water all around you. Not much you can do about that. So I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABE John>? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR.HENKEL-They're really not asking for anything. It's a total improvement. So I'd be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support it. I think it's going to be a much better house than is existing. It needs replacing and this is the right thing to do. So, Ron,I'm going to ask that you do a motion for us. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Victor&z Terry Celadon. Applicant proposes demolition of the existing home to construct a new home of 2,700 sq. ft. footprint with a floor area of 3,SS9 sq. ft. The project will maintain a well point for the home, a 131 sq. ft. shed, and existing shoreline buffer. The site work includes a new septic system and site disturbance of 12,19E sq.ft.Site plan for new floor in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of a new home. The project site is a 0.75 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The variance relief requested from the shoreline for the following: garage is to be IS ft. S inches, existing shed It ft. 4 inches,the proposed home 17 ft. I inch to the west side,then 21 ft. from the east side where a 50 ft. shoreline setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,April 17,2024. 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 new dwelling is going to be on the same site as the old one,like for like. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and included in the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, again, due to the fact that it's going like for like, removing the old,putting the new in. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty,we could say,is self-created,but again,it's minimal at best. 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. 20-2024 VICTOR &z TERRY CELADON, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 17h Day of April 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 23-2024,Seeley Machine,75 Big Boom Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 1) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) SEELEY BOOM WORKS LLC ZONING CLI LOCATION 75 BIG BOOM RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 7.25 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 PARCEL IS TO BE 3.04 AC AND WILL CONTAIN THE EXISTING 21,300 SQ.FT.BUILDING PORTION NOTED AS SEELEY MACHINE LLC;LOT 2 IS TO BE 4.21 AC PARCEL AND CONTAINS THE 15,000 SQ.FT.WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH AN EXISTING TENANT AND STORAGE. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE WILL SEPARATE THE TWO BUILDINGS BETWEEN THE SHARED COVERED DOCK LOADING SPACE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE SITE. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SITE WORK COMPLETED IN 2019. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 24-2024; SP 18-2024; SUB 3- 2024;SUB 4-2024;SP 67-2014;SP 65-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024 LOT SIZE 7.24 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS&ED LEONARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. MC CABE-So I understand you guys are going to make a proposal, and then we're going to table it. Is that what's happening? MRS. MOORE-That is correct. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.HUTCHINS-Good evening. Tom Hutchins with Hutchins Engineering with Ed Leonard,who is the co-owner of Seeley Machine Inc. and Seeley Machine has been at 75 Big Boom Road since 1995. They employ 16 people in very well paying jobs. They manufacture custom parts for the power generation industry and within their building they have 36 or more permanently installed high-tech machine tools. Now what we're here for is to, presently the entire parcel, which is 7. some acres, contains this 21,000 square foot building which houses Seeley Machine Incorporated, and it also contains this warehouse building which houses a tenant which is a manufacturer of motorcycle helmets and it's also warehouse storage space. The property is owned by Seeley Boomworks which is separate from Seeley Machine Inc. and in prior times both those companies were under common ownership and that was Craig Seeley, and Craig Seeley is deceased now, and Ed and Scott have taken over ownership of the machine tool company of Seeley Machine. What they don't have is ownership of the property. So what we're proposing to do is create this line here and create a parcel of 3.04 acres which will be owned Seeley Machine Inc. and contain Seeley Machine within the existing building and the remaining four something acre parcel will contain the 15,000 square foot building and remaining ownership of Seeley Boomworks for the time being. It's a little bit complicated in that these two buildings are 50 feet apart. The side setback is 30 feet. So that line is 25 feet from each building, and additionally there is a canopy. This is an open-sided canopy. It's just a roof and it covers loading dock doors on each building and so technically we're asking for a zero foot property line setback to this structure for the proposed property line which does not yet exist and I believe that's the reason why we're asking for a recommendation from this Board or your support,an indication of support from this Board. No? MRS. MOORE-Yes,it's just not in a formal resolution. MR. MC CABE-Right. So you just want to know how we feel. MR.HUTCHINS-We want to know how you feel. We think this makes a lot of sense. Ed and Scott are the two co-owners of Seeley Machine. They worked really,really hard to put this arrangement together, because it's been complicated and it's been a difficult time, and we're asking for your support for our proposal to subdivide this parcel into two parcels understanding that we are asking for a variance of zero lot line setback for that new parcel. Does anyone want to add anything? MR.LEONARD-So we've been at the property since 1995. Moved in there June of 1995. We,due to Craig's death in 2021,he died without a will, so the property got taken over by his wife which became an estate. So at that point in time she owned the entire parcel. We need to operate. We've been in business since 1955. I've been with the company since 1992. We need to operate and have the facility function for us. If I can't stay in that building and I've got to move to another building,it would be very costly and detrimental to the company. So we talked to the Estate. We had her agree to sell some property if we can get it subdivided,and then we can stay there,continue to keep the company in Queensbury,and continue to pay taxes in Queensbury and not interrupt our production at all. MR. MC CABE-So does anybody have any questions before we start? MR. KUHL-What do you need the additional property for, access? You're cutting a piece off. What do you need that for? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR.HU TCHINS-They've got stockpiled materials back there. A lot of steel. MR.KUHL-It's outside storage. MR.HUTCHINS-Yes,outside storage. MR.KUHL-You just need the real estate. MR. LEONARD-Yes. MR.KUHL-And you want to make sure it's yours,not on somebody else's lot. MR. LEONARD-That's correct. MR.KUHL-Good. MR. MC CABE-So,Bob,how do you feel about it? MR.KEENAN-I have no issues. It sounds like a solution to a problem that you have. Keep the company here in Queensbury. I have no problems with it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-It makes sense. I have no problem. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It makes sense. The only this is to make sure you have reciprocal arrangements for access,so you don't get into a conflict if they sell that eventually that to another concern. MR. HUTCHINS-Exactly. I didn't mention that. There will be reciprocal easements for access which both buildings use because there's a loading door there. There will be easement agreement for that access as well as maintenance of the canopy. As they currently have also with the adjoining neighbor. MR. MC CABE-And so I realize the difficulty if you had to re-locate precision machining equipment. That's no small task. I worked for Finch. We used to use Seeley Machine and they did a good job for us, and so I certainly would support this. MRS. MOORE-So you do need to open the public hearing for this one and the next one. MR. MC CABE-So I do have to open the public hearing. MRS. MOORE-You do have to open the public hearing. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'll open a public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.MC CABE-Is there anyone out there that would like to approach us on this particular project? Seeing none, Roy,do we have anything? MR. URRICO-Did you get to us down here? MRS. MOORE-I'm sorry. I interrupted his poll calling. Sorry. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-What I was going to say is that it's similar to the reciprocal agreements like Staples has and Home Depot. They've done the same thing. They own the property they're on and they signed a reciprocal agreement to make sure they have access. So I think that's exactly what we're looking for. MR.HENKEL-We're not supposed to compare projects,but we did one similar to this on Assembly Point where we connected two houses by a breezeway like that. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR.URRICO-And there was another commercial project over on the other side near the healthcare place. Didn't we,somewhere back in there. I can't remember the name of the plaza,but you're okay. You're on the right track. MR. MC CABE-So at this time,then,John,we're going to need a tabling. MR.HUTCHINS-Laura,do we have all we need to go back to the Planning Board next week? MRS. MOORE-So this one gets tabled. So Lot Two is next. You don't necessarily need to discuss it,but you do need to open the public hearing,table it,and that information goes back to the Planning Board. MR.HENKEL-So we'll table both. MRS. MOORE-I would do one at a time. MR.HENKEL-All right. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Roy,was there anything written? MR. URRICO-Nothing written. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So now we can table Lot One. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seeley Machine Inc. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and will contain the existing 21,300 sq.ft.building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC;Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel and contains the 15,000 sq. ft. warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage. The proposed lot line will separate the two buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no changes proposed to the site. Site plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.23-2024,SEELEY MACHINE INC.(LOT 1),Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to April 24,2024. Duly adopted this 17`h Day of April 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So now we're going to start Area Variance No.24-2024. AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT 2) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) SEELEY BOOMWORKS ZONING CLI LOCATION 75 BIG BOOM RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 7.25 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 2 IS TO BE 4.21 AC. PARCEL AND CONTAINS THE 15,000 SQ. FT. WAREHOUSE BUILDING WITH AN EXISTING TENANT AND STORAGE;LOT 1 PARCEL IS TO BE 3.04 AC.AND WILL CONTAIN THE EXISTING 21,300 SQ.FT.BUILDING PORTION NOTED AS SEELEY MACHINE LLC. THE PROPOSED LOT LINE WILL SEPARATE THE TWO BUILDINGS BETWEEN THE SHARED COVERED DOCK LOADING SPACE. THERE ARE NO PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE SITE. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR SITE WORK COMPLETED IN 2019. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 23-2024;SP 19-2024;SUB 3-204; SUB 4-2024;SP 67-2014;SP 65-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2024 LOT SIZE 7.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.18-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS&ED LEONARD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT MR. MC CABE-So the same deal here? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes. This is Lot Two. This is Lot One. The numbers are the same, because the buildings are 50 feet apart and the line's right in the middle. MR.MC CABE-Okay. So anybody have any additional questions? So we'll start with you,Roy. How do you feel about it? MR. URRICO-Same as I felt about the first one. Thanks for asking. MR. MC CABE-Ron? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman,for acknowledging me. I have no issues. MR. MC CABS John? MR.HENKEL-I'm all good. It feels good. MR.KEENAN-I'm good. MR. CIPPERLY-I'm good. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm good. MR. MC CABE-So now I've got to open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-So is there anybody out there that would like to address us on this particular project? Seeing no one, Roy,do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seeley Machine Inc. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 7.25 acre parcel. Lot 2 is to be 4.21 ac parcel and contains the 15,000 sq. ft. warehouse building with an existing tenant and storage; Lot 1 parcel is to be 3.04 ac and will contain the existing 21,300 sq.ft.building portion noted as Seeley Machine LLC. The proposed lot line will separate the two buildings between the shared covered dock loading space. There are no proposed changes to the site. Site plan review for site work completed in 2019. Relief requested for setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2024, SEELEY MACHINE INC. (LOT TWO), Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly: Tabled to April 24,2024. Duly adopted this 17`h Day of April 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR.HUTCHINS-Thankyou. MR. LEONARD-Yes,thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So next week I will not be here, and Bob,you will not be here? MR.KEENAN-Probably not. MR.HENKEL-Are we going to be all right? MRS. MOORE-Yes,we have Mary who will be here, and Brent. Yes,I do have two. MR. MC CABE-So I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 17TH,2024,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17`h day of April,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 26