Loading...
Minutes 4.17.24(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 1 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 LAPPER, 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 68.77 ft. setback (average of the adjoining buildings) is required. The pe rmeability is proposed to be 73.6% where 75% is required (increased permeability). The floor area proposed is 3121 sq. ft. (23.8%) where 2885.47 sq. ft. (22%) 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 may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The front setback relief is 16.5 ft., shoreline is 14.77 ft., the floor area is 1.8% in excess and permeability is 1.4% 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: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 2 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 pe rmeability versus the five that have a concern, and that motion was adopted on April 16th, 2024. MR. LAPPER-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 se ptic 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 the y 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 averag e 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 68.77, 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 23.8. So it’s 1.2%, you know, we got it very close to the 75%. MR. HENKEL-So what’s the proposal now? MRS. MOORE-73.6. MR. LAPPER-73.6 instead of 75. MR. HENKEL-Okay. We have 70.4. MRS. MOORE-It’s 73.6. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 3 MR. LAPPER-So it’s 1.4%. 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 s eptic 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. LAPPER-It’s not that big, but that’s important for lifestyle. MR. CIPPERLY-Did you say the fire pit was gone? MR. LAPPER-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. LAPPER-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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 4 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 job 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 alg ae 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 184 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 exce ssive 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 come back? 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 8 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 8 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 r equesting 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. l 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 t he 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 8 Waters Edge Drive” There’s a second letter from the same people. This is d ated April 5th, 2023 this letter. “We live at 8 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 5 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 m ore 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 opti on 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 meet ings, 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. LAPPER-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 simil arly 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, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 6 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. MOORE-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 the y’re saying that permeability is 73%, .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 wit h 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/17/2024) 7 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 a new permeable driveway, stormwater management, and shoreline landscaping; the project also includes installation of a new septic system on the ad joining 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 68.77 ft. setback (average of the adjoining buildings) is required. The pe rmeability is proposed to be 70.4% where 75% is required. The floor area proposed is 3343 sq. ft. (25.5%) where 2885.47 sq. ft. (22%) 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 18, 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 179-14-080(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; 8. 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 17th 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. LAPPER-It’s been a long project, we really appreciate it, everybody.