Loading...
05-15-2024 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING MAY15',2024 INDEX Area Variance No. 3-2024 David Howard Jr. 2. REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No. 30S.7-1-4S.1 Area Variance No. 16-2024 Redbud Development Inc. 2. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-S2 Area Variance No. 26-2024 Hilltop Construction/Len Romeo S. Tax Map No. 226.16-1-40 Area Variance No. 27-2024 1545 State Route 9,LLC 14. Tax Map No. 2SS.S-1-5.1 Area Variance No. 2S-2024 Kevin&Grace Kelly 17. Tax Map No. 226.19-3-3 Area Variance No. 29-2024 Kevin&Grace Kelly 20. Tax Map No. 226.19-3-1&226.19-3-2 Area Variance No. 30-2024 Renee &Tom West 23. Tax Map No. 239.7-1-16 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 05/15/2024) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 15TK,2024 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL ROBERT KEENAN RONALD KUHL MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RICHARD CIPPERLY 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 May 15`h,2024. If you haven't been here before,our process is pretty simple. There should bean agenda on the back table there. What we do is call each application up,read the application into our record,allow the applicant to present his case. If a public hearing has been advertised we'll open the public hearing, take input from the public on the particular project. Then we'll close the public hearing, poll the Board and proceed accordingly,but first we have a couple of administrative items. So, John,I wonder if we could have motions for the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 17t',2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 17TK,2024, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 15rh day of May,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs.Palacino ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly April 24`h,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 24TK,2024,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 15rh day of May,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mrs. Palacino NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-And then we have a tabling request. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) REQUEST TO TABLE AV 3-2024 (DAVID HOWARD JR.)TO JUNE 19,2024 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Howard, Jr. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 25.7E acre parcel into two lots. One lot is to be 24.70 ac and the other lot is to be LOS ac. The project is located in the MDR zone where 2 acres is required for lots without sewer and water together. Project site is in the Barringer Heights subdivision previously approved for SR- IA Cluster subdivision of 32 lots not to exceed 40 lots per SUB 4-2003. The project area was previously approved for a 4-lot subdivision under SUB 19-2015. The proposed subdivision would be 36 lots in total where Lot 1 E would be 24.70 and tied to deed to another parcel 30S.6-2-IS and Lot 1 D would be LOS ac to be developed for a single family home. Relief is requested for creating a parcel less than 2 acres. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2024 DAVID HOWARD,IR Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Robert Keenan: Tabled to June 19,2024 with no new information needed. Duly adopted this 15h Day of May 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Our first application is AV 16-2024, Redbud Development Corporation, 226 Lake Parkway. TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT INC. AGENT(S) GEFF REDICK OWNER(S) LAKE PARKWAY RETREAT LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 226 LAKE PARKWAY (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 438 SQ. FT. PAVILION ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AND MAINTAIN THE DORMERS OF THE HOME. THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES IMPROVING PERMEABILITY ON THE SITE, A NEW PLANTING PLAN, UPDATED PATIO WALKWAY AREAS, RETAINING WALL NEAR HOT TUB AREA AND NEW BOULDER WALLS ON THE SITE. PROJECT INCLUDES EXISTING AND NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE SHORELINE AREA IS TO BE IMPROVED WITH PLANTINGS AND RETAINING WALL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN THE CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 13-2024;AV 72-2005;SP 53-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-82 SECTION 179-3-040;147 JON ZAPPER&GEFF REDICK,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2024, Redbud Development, Inc., Meeting Date: May 15, 2024 "Project Location: 226 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)Applicant proposes to construct a 43S sq.ft.pavilion addition to an existing home and maintain the dormers of the home. The project work includes improving permeability on the site, a new planting plan, updated patio walkway areas,retaining wall near hot tub area and new boulder walls on the site.Project includes existing and new stormwater management. The shoreline area is to be improved with plantings and retaining wall.Site plan for new floor area in the CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline.Relief requested for setbacks, floor area,and stormwater management setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,floor area, and stormwater management setbacks. The project is located on a 0.62 ac site in the Waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-6-065 new floor area, The applicant proposes a new open side pavilion addition to the existing home to be 13 ft. S inches from the south side of the home where a 20 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback is to be 36 ft. 7 inches where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new stormwater management along the retaining wall area is less than 35 ft. The new floor area is to be 9,165 sq. ft.reduced by 127 sf where the maximum allowed is 5,929 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) sq.ft.and existing is S,740 sq.ft. (house built in 2005 may not have included basement area in original floor area). 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 limited due to the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor relevant to the code. Relief for side setback of the pavilion is 6 ft. 4 inches,the shoreline setback is 13 feet 5 inches. Floor area relief 3,236 sf remainder new floor area is for an outdoor pavilion of 43S sf (house built in 2005 may not have included basement area in original floor area). Relief is requested for stormwater device less than 35 ft. to the shoreline. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is for an open side pavilion of 43S sf addition and site alterations to improve the shoreline planting and stormwater management for the site. The plans show the location of the addition and walkway including elevation renditions. The plans also show the extensive planting and site work to improve the shoreline buffer and stormwater management. The applicant has removed the covered walkway to the basement area and has proposed no alterations to the dormers." MR.ZAPPER-Good evening. For the record,Jon Lapper with Geff Redick from Redbud Development and Dave Westcott the property owner. I believe that this is a much simpler application than it seems. Essentially what David is trying to do is put a roof over an existing patio. It appears,you know,because of this issue that 19 years ago when the house was built basements didn't count for floor area ratio and now anything over five feet in the basement,of course,counts as floor area ratio,but this is areal basement. It's not a walkout basement. It's just an unfinished basement. Sothis isn't a 9,000 square foot house. It's a house with a real basement. The approximately 400 square feet that he's asking to add over the patio, existing patio which is going to be made smaller, they're on the west side to get the sunset. All this is about is just having the roof over the patio. Big improvement for the applicant, but no impact on the neighborhood,and in terms of that,Geff will go through everything that's changed since last time in terms of reducing the floor area ratio,reducing pavement. A lot of planting. So I think that just the 400 square foot roof over existing impervious patio is really a minor ask here,and there's a lot of nice stuff that's being offered to compensate for that,but I just want to leave you with this is certainly not a 9,000 square foot house. It's just abasement that now technically counts,and if it was built today it would be five feet and it wouldn't count,but that's all it is. MR. HENKEL-What's the square footage of the basement? MR. ZAPPER-3,000. MR. REDICK-3,000 square feet. MR. HENKEL-Is the basement? MR. ZAPPER-So it's not a huge house. It's just the basement that now counts,but didn't when it was approved,when it was built. MR. REDICK-It should be also noted that the basement has a lot of utilities in it. It's not a full ceiling. We've got a lot of duct work and what not in the basement, and to clarify what Jon was saying, again, there's no access,walkout access from the basement. MR. MC CABE-I've got to have you say your name first. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) MR. REDICK-I'm sorry. Geff Redick from Redbud Development. Again, the basement does not have walkout access to the lake like a lot of lakeside properties do. So to come back to some of the improvements and changes that we've made since our last application. We've reduced the size of our proposed covered patio space,the roof structure,and then we modified,we were originally asking for two dormers on the second floor of the house to be made slightly larger, but we returned those back to the original condition. So we removed over 100 square feet of roof structure on the outside of our floor area. We've also made some minor changes in the sense that we've taken stormwater management systems that we're proposing for the project and moved them further away from the lake. I want to make sure the Board understands, too, that there's some discussion that the proposed retaining wall along the lakeshore is a stormwater management catchment device. It's not. There is going to be gravel behind this proposed wall,but that gravel is really structural in nature. It's not supposed to be capturing any stormwater. So all of the roof water,everything that's going into the new chambers that we're going to be installing,is well beyond the setbacks from the lake. None of our proposed hard surface,none of our proposed roof structure, none of our proposed patios,go into any of those stormwater catchment,or anything at the lake. It's into the devices that are going to be on the north side,the south side of the house. Our reasoning for wanting to create the boulder wall at the lakeshore is for erosion. We're getting a lot of wave action from boats and then just general wave action from the lake, and we have a very steep pitch that's coming down that slope. So if we can mitigate that through a natural Adirondack what we call sort of an Adirondack round large boulder wall,with a very steep pitch on it that still allows animals and what not to get down to the lake,that's all that that piece is about. It's not about stormwater. Between that boulder wall and the main house we now have an opportunity,once this wall gets created,to really take advantage of that slope and add a lot of new native plant material. So we're installing and proposing significant amounts of plant materials that all come from the Town of Queensbury suggested plant material. One of the other improvements we made was to continue to reduce the permeability on the site. There was a proposed hot tub space,which in the description that was recently read the hot tub space still is in the description,but that's not accurate. The hot tub space has been removed. So that continues to improve our impervious, which we have a negative,I think,2.35%improvement. And again I talked about the plant materials. So, again, to kind of reiterate where Jon was coming from, all these improvements are significant relative to what the current condition of the property is now because there's a significant amount of hard surface on the property with no real stormwater controls. Actually I should back up on the stormwater controls,too. When we did our research through the Town,there are,we'll say stormwater management devices on the north and the south side of the house. All we can provide is picture documentation of those being installed. There's no paperwork. There's no volume calculations to calculate how much stormwater was actually captured. So we're proposing to remove those entirely and install entirely new devices, and these new devices are going to have more than, I think we're at about 1340/o of the total hard surface on the site is going to be captured. So we have in excess of about 340/o of stormwater control that currently we don't even know it's there. We just know that there's gravel pits on the either side of the house. So none of what is existing there now is controlled or captured through those devices,and we have no record for what actually happened. So we're actually going to be making significant improvements on this entire property through the plant material introduction,through the erosion control management scenarios,through the removal of significant amounts of impervious impermeable material to make these improvements for what we think is a relatively small ask. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-Well,what he just said,does that change any of the variance calculations? MR. MC CABE-Well there must be some reduction in the floor area because you said you cut down on the roof over the. MR. ZAPPER-Yes,part of the roof is being removed. MR. MC CABE-How much? MR. REDICK-We think it's 12S square feet of roof entire was removed. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? A public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and seek input from those in the audience. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We continue to have concerns regarding the application,as it does not appear that there's been enough modifications to reduce concerns regarding the variances requested for the property that are, it's non-compliant with permeability and floor area ratio, and again, this is all within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding the lake, and that raises a question about the third variance which was on stormwater management. I am confused where that variance is. It appears that the stormwater that I 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) saw are moved outside of the 50 feet, I'm not sure where that variance is required. In reviewing the materials,it appears that permeability has actually been reduced,but that is basically across the road. If you actually take a look at the area between the house and the lake, permeability is actually increased, when you do that. So although permeability has been reduced,it's actually increased in a most critical area. Maybe that's why they need the stormwater management variance because that is closer to the lake than the setbacks. I had a question. There's a patio or something off of one of the doors on I think it's the north side,it says that it's black polished pebbles. Are they considered to be permeable? I don't think that they're in the calculations. Again,we feel this is an instance of development walking towards the lake, and we just feel that this is a little too much on this property and the balance isn't there. I won't get into the sea wall. I don't think that that's a concern for this Board,but we have our own concerns about that. So thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else out there who would like to address the Board on this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So would you guys like to comment on? MR. REDICK-We appreciate Mr. Navitsky's comments. I'll address the black pebble patio area outside the master bedroom That space is large gravel. It's well over two inches in diameter and we've had several discussions with the Town that anything over two inches in diameter does not require,does not count for permeability or impermeability,and the stormwater controls they are,again,on the north side,south side of the house and both sides of the house they're significantly away from the lake and none of the hard scape surfaces are going into any of the controls that are beyond the setbacks. MR. ZAPPER-It's really about the 437 square foot roof over a permeable patio. So it's already permeable. It's just that it doesn't count for floor area ratio if it's an open patio,but if it has a roof over it,it does. That doesn't affect the neighborhood and it doesn't affect the stormwater. It's already pervious. It just is a benefit to the applicant to have a small area that's shielded from the sun facing the sunset. MR. MC CABE-So what about the stormwater management setbacks? I think it's supposed to be 50 feet back from the lake? MRS. MOORE-No,it's 35. MR. HENKEL-Thirty-five. MR. MC CABE-Thirty-five. Okay. So that's a recent change? Okay. So where are the stormwater setbacks? MR. REDICK-The stormwater controls are,the 35 foot setback you can see on the drawing is that second dotted line that's closer to the house. Yes. So our controls are north and south of the house. They don't show on this drawing. The drawings are on our drainage design. MRS. MOORE-So the last time I had looked at this was that there was an outfall,barely over the 35 foot, and I don't know if that's still the case. MR. MC CABE-So I guess we've got to know how much we're approving if we're going to approve the stormwater setback. MRS. MOORE-So if it's further back than 35 feet,then there's no variance being requested. MR. MC CABE-Right. So is that the case? MR. REDICK-Yes,it is. Is it beyond that 35 feet. MR. KUHL-Are you doing anything to collect the runoff from the patio cover you're putting on? MR. REDICK-Yes. That's going,so the chamber,if you see the dotted circular chamber on the left side of the page,that's where all the roof water,you can see those,we'll say blue pipes that are leading to it,those blue pipes connect to gutters that would be installed on that roof structure. That roof structure would go directly into a gutter system. The gutter system would go into the pipes and the pipes would go into that stormwater control. MRS. MOORE-I guess I'm just looking at this plan, and this is where this came up is it still says existing gutter pipe daylight,and that's beyond the 35 feet and it's closer to the shore. Okay,and you had that,we marked that at a distance. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) MR. ZAPPER-Geff says that can be pulled back to 35 feet. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So then we don't have to approve the stormwater setback. MRS. MOORE-Correct. It's been withdrawn. And you guys just covered that the house already has an existing gutter system that captures all the water from the roof. MR. URRICO-That doesn't cover the patio. No,it doesn't. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? MR. URRICO-So what are we dealing with? MR. MC CABE-So it sounds like we're dealing with setbacks,and floor area ratio. So the setbacks are the shoreline setbacks,36 7 where it's supposed to be 50 feet and the pavilion,existing home is proposed to be 13.5 where a 20 foot is required. So six feet and 22 feet. So are we all set? 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 have to somewhat agree with your opinion about the,back to the canopy pavilion already having impermeable below it,but I'm still concerned, and I think Chris mentioned,too,with the lower retaining wall,even though that's not within our purview hereon this Board. I think that if you can maintain your shoreline accordingly with what you currently have without doing any work down by the foreshore there,keep that big tree down by the water,then I would be in favor of approving the covered pavilion part of the project,but otherwise I'm not going to approve it without that condition. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I think, you know, you heard the concerns that were expressed at the last hearing. Went back,re-worked the numbers,re-worked the design,I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-So you are in favor? MRS. PALACINO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I think Jim's suggestion with the shoreline development is a good one. I mean I appreciate the stormwater improvements that you've made so far, but I think there's some more work to be done there. I guess I could approve the project with those modifications. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement with Jim's approach. With that additional change,I would be in favor of it. Without it I would not be. MR. MC CABE-So,Bob,just to get it clear,you're conditional like Jim? MR. KEENAN-With the conditions. MR. MC CABE-And,Roy,you're the same thing? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Ron,how about you? MR. KUHL-Yes,I'll go along with approving it with those conditions put into it. MR. MC CABE John? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) MR.HENKEL-Yes,I'd like to see a little less of the pavilion there that close to the lake,but I guess I would be agreeable with those conditions that Jim said. Yes. MR. MC CABE-And,from my standpoint,I just can't approve any more floor area taken up. So I'm not in favor of this project,but it sounds like you have a way out here. MRS. MOORS Just for,I don't know if the applicant can explain as well as the Board,in reference to the shoreline,are you talking about the proposed? MR. UNDERWOOD-This is what the shoreline looks like now,that picture there. MRS. MOORE-And you want that maintained? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would like to maintain that as opposed to. MRS. MOORE-The proposal. MR. UNDERWOOD-This plot picture here which removes everything on the shoreline. MR. ZAPPER-So the applicant will agree to that condition. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So,Jim,I wonder if you could give us a motion here. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Redbud Development Inc.(Revised)Applicant proposes to construct a 43S sq.ft.pavilion addition to an existing home and maintain the dormers of the home. The project work includes improving permeability on the site,a new planting plan,updated patio walkway areas,fetaipAng wall roar hot tub area and new boulder walls on the site. Project includes existing and new stormwater management. The shoreline area is to be improved with plantings and retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and sto,,,.,-,.,r.,te managemen ems. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,floor area, and stormwater management setbacks. The project is located on a 0.62 ac site in the Waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-6-065 new floor area, The applicant proposes a new open side pavilion addition to the existing home to be 13 ft. S inches from the south side of the home where a 20 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback is to be 36 ft. 7 inches where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new stofmwatef managementb b than i5 t. The new floor area is to be 9,165 sq. ft.reduced by 127 sf where the maximum allowed is 5,929 sq.ft.and existing is 5,740 sq.ft. (house built in 2005 may not have included basement area in original floor area). SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on March 20,2024,March 27,2024,&May 15,2024. 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. It's covering over a patio,and so the permeability is going to be considerably improved over what currently exists with nothing on site to collect rainwater. 2. Feasible alternatives will be that there will be no shoreline improvements to the project as agreed upon and it will minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not considered to be substantial because they're just covering over a patio area and it will allow some cover from the elements and sunshine on the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.As it will be preserving essentially what currently exists along the shoreline. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created,but it's also created by the fact that zoning has changed since the original building was built 20 plus years ago. 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) The applicant has agreed to remove the proposed waterfront work as it exists below the level of the patio down to the Lakeshore(planting plan,shoreline sea wall). b) 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. 16-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT INC., Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 15th Day of May 2024 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote,you have a notation in the project description,the hot tub area,so that should be crossed out. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's removed. MRS. MOORE-Okay. And just to follow up,I guess I'm not following. When you say they're not going to do anything at the shoreline buffer area. MR.UNDERWOOD-The shoreline down below where they were going to build that retaining wall,that's not going to happen at this point. You're going to maintain what you currently have. MRS. MOORE-So these plantings that are up here,I just want to make sure that this is. MR. UNDERWOOD-The only thing that's going to change is going to be the deck up on the. MR. ZAPPER-Those plantings were going to be in the fill area. That's not going to exist now. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's not going to exist. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So my other comment is that,you may make that a condition,but if the Planning Board wishes to have them install that. MR. MC CABE-That's their purview. MR. ZAPPER-We expect that'll happen at the Planning Board. It's just not going to be on the plat., MRS. MOORE-All right. I just wanted to make sure that's clear. AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. ZAPPER-Thank you,everybody. MR. REDICK-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 26-2024,Hilltop Construction,282 Cleverdale Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION/LEN ROMEO AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP ZONING WR LOCATION 282 CLEVERDALE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING HOUSE AND DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,990 SQ.FT. AND DETACHED GARAGE FOOTPRINT OF 400 SQ. FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 3,725 SQ. FT. INCLUDING THE GARAGE. PROJECT WORK INCLUDES PERMEABLE PAVER 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) DRIVEWAY, WALKWAYS, AND NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 21-2024;AV 5-2018; SP 5-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO.226.16-1-40 SECTION 179-3-040 JON ZAPPER&BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2024, Hilltop Construction/Len Romeo, Meeting Date: May 15, 2024 "Project Location: 282 Cleverdale Rd Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish existing house and detached garage to construct a new home with a footprint of 1,990 sq. ft. and detached garage footprint of 400 sq.ft.The new floor area is to be 3,725 sq.ft.including the garage.Project work includes permeable paver driveway,walkways,and new stormwater management. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for the construction of a new home. The project is on a 13,158 sq. ft.parcel located in the Waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new home is proposed to be 13 ft. from the side yard setback on the north side and 12 ft. on the south side where a 20 ft. setback is required. The garage is to be 5 ft.from the south property side setback where a 20 ft.setback is required,the garage is to be 10 ft.from the front setback where a 30 ft.setback is required. The floor area ratio is to be 28.300/o where 220/o is the maximum allowed. Permeability is increasing from 700/o to 70.910/6;a variance is not required for permeability. 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 possible to reduce the size of the home to be more compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The proposed home North side setback relief is 7 ft.,South side is 8 ft. The floor area relief is 8.300/o in excess than allowed. The relief for the garage South side setback is 15 ft. and the front setback is 20 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a new single-family home with associated site work. The plans show the elevations view of each side and the floor plans for the house and garage. The plans show the location of the new home, existing septic system and well. Site work includes new plantings for the shoreline area." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern: 1. The floor area ratio exceeds the allowable by 28%which the Planning Board considers to be significant,and that was adopted May 14`h,2024 by a seven to zero vote. MR. ZAPPER-For the record,Jon Lapper with Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design Partnership and the applicants, the Romeo's, are behind us. The application was submitted on behalf of their contractor, Hilltop Construction, but the Romeos are the owners. So they're long-time local residents, Romeo Toyota of Glens Falls, and they're moving, selling their home in Glens Falls and moving to 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) Cleverdale as their permanent home and that's why they purchased it. It needs to be replaced. It's a 1940's very tired home. I know that you've all been up there,and when you're on Cleverdale Road all you see are garages. Almost every house is the same. So even though the garage is close to Cleverdale Road, that's how that whole area was developed. They also happen to be right across the street from Boats By George marina. So it's a heavily commercial area with a lot of traffic,boats and maintenance and a lot going on,a lot of noise,only in terms of what they're asking for,which we'll get into,for a little bit larger house. There's not going to be any impact on the neighborhood, and in fact they're, they have significant stormwater problems that we'll go into in some detail. On balance I think this is going to be a major benefit for the neighborhood,but we had an interesting discussion last night at the Planning Board and they were very supportive of certain aspects of the application. One of the Planning Board members said the footprint is essentially the same. What they're really doing to make this their full-time house is staying pretty much on the same foundation,which is six inches one way or another,but going to a full second floor,and that's why there's the extra floor area variance. The garage is actually coming down,but nobody,it doesn't affect anybody to have a full second story here. The site is very well buffered. Again,there's the marina property just across the street and one door to the north. I know that they have neighbors that are in support of this,and all the properties,these are all 60 foot wide lots. So in terms of the side setback,if you maintained a 20 foot setback on either side,you'd have a 20 foot wide house,which doesn't work Nobody has a 20 foot setback on this area of Cleverdale Road. It's totally in character. Many of the houses have been re- built because like this one they need to be and new houses are much more attractive,as this one will be as well, but another big aspect,in terms of the impact on the neighborhood, as I mentioned,is that there's basically all the stormwater from that area free flows across this property in major storms,which we know happen every month these days. Laura,could you put up the picture from last night? Sothis is just,Lenny took a picture of this just on atypical storm everything comes. The top area is where the garage and the parking area are. Right now, and they just bought this a few years ago. This was pre-existing,but right now, although it looks like pavers,it's stamped concrete. So it's completely impervious. All of this is a low spot on Cleverdale Road. So all the water comes down and sheet flows directly into the lake untreated. A lot of this project,and Brandon will go through the design,is a raised area with parking areas to completely change that with permeable pavers, twelve inches of gravel, and then a big stormwater settlement basin which will settle out the solids and then a six inch pipe towards the lake which is going to daylight 100 feet before the lake and the Planning Board asked us to add a bunch of riprap which of course we'll deal with when we get to the Planning Board. This is going to be able to not only capture but treat the stormwater that is with a typical storm going right now right into the lake that they have to deal with,but also not good for the lake. So in terms of the environmental and on balance the impact on the neighborhood,where this is,you know,with all the houses on top of their side setbacks just going up to the full second floor isn't going to look different to the neighbors. It isn't going to look different from the lake. It isn't going to look different from the road because everyone's looking at the garages anyway,but they're going to do a lot. They're going to do a lot of plantings on the lake and with this, you know, expensive stormwater system, which is necessary, that's going to improve this for everybody. Again, having Boats By George, this isn't a typical place on Cleverdale. This is right in the heart of a busy commercial area with boats. Let me hand it to Brandon to talk some more about that. MR.FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design Partnership. I think Jon covered a lot of it,but from a stormwater perspective,like he said,that driveway now is stamped concrete as well as a concrete sidewalk. It kind of funnels all the water down towards the house and towards the lake. So we're proposing to replace that. They still need a spot to park off the road there. So we're proposing to replace it with permeable pavers with a large stone reservoir underneath it to try to collect as much of that runoff as we can, get it into the ground. Then there's an overflow structure that would allow,you know,have a sump in it to allow additional sediment to get in there before biking it down and stopping a little short of the lake so we can get some additional treatment before it gets to the lake as well going down to the grass property line. The sidewalks on there will also be converted to permeable as well. So that'll help if any water does flow down,that gives it another chance to get into the ground compared to flowing down a pervious sidewalk. As far as the structure goes,there's an existing four bedroom house on the property now. They're replacing it with a four bedroom home,and it is a small lot. It's only a little over 13,000 square feet. The side yard setbacks now are like nine and a half and thirteen and a half. We're going to thirteen and twelve. So we're maintaining and actually improving on the one side. As far as shoreline setback,we're actually pulling it back slightly from the lake,51,52. So that's the only compliant, and actually pulled back a little bit, and then for a floor area ratio,Jon kind of mentioned, I mean it's not really that out of character, the size of the house for the area. We do have a garage there,which a lot of these homes along there do have garages. This garage that we're proposing is actually slightly smaller than the garage that's existing there now. We've also pulled it a little bit further off the road. The existing garage now is only like six feet off the road. We're going to 10. So I think that's also an improvement. So there's a lot of improvements being made to this property for the stormwater to some of the setbacks. So I guess I'll turn it back up to you if you have any questions. MR. ZAPPER Just one other thing. So what I didn't mention,when you have a less than a third of an acre, site, you know, when you're talking about percentages, the upstairs area, we're talking about approximately 700 square feet of extra space. So it sounds like a lot,2S%,but when you're talking about a 13,000 square foot lot,you know,it's not a lot of square feet, and I know you guys have recognized that in the past when it's a really small lot and this third of an acre is nothing. So it sounds like,2S%sounds 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) like a lot,but it's not a lot of square feet. It's just we're building up on a small lot,but that's that whole neighborhood. They're all the same sized lots. So I don't think that's substantial while at first blush it sounds substantial. MR. FERGUSON-Brandon again,yes. As far as FAR, too, obviously the garage, as well as what's also counted is the covered patio area on the lakeside of the house. So that patio area has got a stone reservoir underneath it,plus stormwater from the roof and everything,but it's just a cover over that patio. So it's not an interior living space of the house. So that's also included in that Floor Area Ratio. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Since you do have that covered area, could you reduce a little bit of the permeable pavers that are so close to the lake? You're out pretty far there. I mean,you've got a nice covered area there close to the lake. Do you really need that extra? MR. FERGUSON-Yes,we could definitely look into reducing some of that patio space. Between the lake and the covered patio you're talking:? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's something I'd want to consider. If you didn't have that covered porch, then I'd understand that,but now with that covered porch area, and then you've got a deck above it that you can seethe lake from,too. So you've got a lot of area that you can enjoy the lake. You don't really need all that area there. That would help your permeability,which you're not asking for,but. MR. ZAPPER-The applicants just said that they could pull that back. MR. HENKEL-How much? MR. FERGUSON-Right now we're at about 35 feet. You see where that curb is,we can kind of pull it back to there and just cut it straight across. MR. HENKEL-Okay. That would be great. MR. FERGUSON-1 don't know what that distance is. MR. KUHL-He might get a lot of people when he has his barbecue. He might need that. MR. HENKEL-Yes,but like I say,he's got the deck above there,the second floor. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else,any questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. 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. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thankyou. Chris Navitsky,Lake George Waterkeeper. I appreciate the description of the stormwater. I think that's a good aspect,but thank you,Jon,for that,but that was our concern again. We thought that that the hard scape was expanding towards the lake because we did calculations and we understand the Town's policy regarding the permeable pavers that are considered 500/o permeability,but the vegetative cover actually on this property is decreasing by six percent once you factor that credit out. So in theory the property's getting more hard scape. So by reducing that I think that brings it more into balance so we appreciate that consideration, and that was really our concern, that permeable patio and, again,that hard scape going to the lake. So thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else out there who would like to comment on this particular project? MR. URRICO-I have one letter. "We are the owners of the residence at 2S0 Cleverdale Road. Our property is located immediately to the south of 2S2 Cleverdale Road. Regarding the setback variance,site planning request for 2S2 Cleverdale Road, we have had opportunity to discuss our concerns with the applicant, Len Romeo at Hilltop Construction. We believe that the visual drainage and impacts of the proposal can be mitigated through landscaping and site grading. In light of the assurances we have received from the applicant that he will, one, have the property professionally landscaped to maintain privacy, and, two, address any drainage impacts resulting from the proposed addition, we support the proposal. Further we will be out of Town during both the Zoning Board and Planning Board and we ask that our comments are included in the record." And that's William and Diane Karafanda,2S0 Cleverdale Road. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) MR. MC CABE-So,John,what was your point? MR. HENKEL-What is the agreement as to how much of the pavers they're going to take out and how much pavers are going to be there as far as the size? We won't know. MR. KUHL-I have a question. Are you going to get the answer to that,John? I mean,how would you like the answer? MR. HENKEL-I'd kind of like to have an idea how much we're going to be back from the setback here? Right now it's almost 35 feet,the one edge there. MR. KUHL-Could I have a question of Staff? Mr. Navitsky talked about the 500/o permeable. I thought it was 62%? MRS. MOORE-It's always been 50. I would have probably said,when I first started it was zero, and then we graduated to 500/o. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. FERGUSON-We can pull it back about five feet. MR. MC CABE-Five feet from the lake? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. KUHL-What does that do for your six percent,Chris? Hard scape. MR. NAVITSKY-I'm not that quick. MR. KUHL-Okay. But I mean it reduces that number. MR. MC CABE-Well,we're not approving permeability. MR. KUHL-No,I understand that,but I mean Chris brought up a point about hard scape versus. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's probably 90 square feet,90 or 112. MR. MC CAB E-All right. 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-Any time that we improve the septic and the environment it's a good thing. On these small lots there's not much you can do with it. If the applicant chooses to live in,as Mr. Lapper said,a very busy area. I don't see that that should add into this whole thing. I mean that's just what it is. It's that block. It's that kind of traffic. I think the improvements that they're making to the property are valid and there's not much you can do with a lot this size. I'd be in favor of it the way it's presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project with the revision that were suggested. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I recognize the size of this lot just makes things very difficult,but I think you have a good project,with John's suggestion in pulling back five feet the permeable pavers from the shoreline, I'd be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I would be in favor with the condition of reducing that patio space. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm in favor of it with the five foot cut back on the patio. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) MR. MC CABS John? MR. HENKEL-As Mr. Lapper has explained about the size of the house related to the footprint's not getting any bigger it's just putting on a second story which is needed for the family, the growth of the family,I'm on board as is. MR. MC CABE-So normally I take a pretty hard stance on floor area, but in this particular case I think there's a lot to be gained by improving the stormwater collection and mitigating it. So with that in mind I,too,approve the project. So,Ron,I wonder if you could give us a motion. MR. KUHL-Thankyou,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hilltop Construction / Len Romeo. Applicant proposes to demolish existing house and detached garage to construct a new home with a footprint of 1,990 sq.ft. and detached garage footprint of 400 sq. ft. The new floor area is to be 3,725 sq. ft. including the garage. Project work includes permeable paver driveway, walkways, and new stormwater management. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for the construction of a new home. The project is on a 13,15E sq. ft.parcel located in the Waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new home is proposed to be 13 ft. from the side yard setback on the north side and 12 ft. on the south side where a 20 ft. setback is required. The garage is to be 5 ft.from the south property side setback where a 20 ft.setback is required,the garage is to be 10 ft.from the front setback where a 30 ft.setback is required. The floor area ratio is to be 25.300/o where 220/o is the maximum allowed. Permeability is increasing from 700/o to 70.910/6;a variance is not required for permeability. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 15,2024. 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 is a small lot and they're adding new systems, and the footprint of the house is reasonably the same. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial due to the fact that,again,it's a small lot and there's only so much you can do with it. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Although we could say the alleged difficulty is self-created,but it's created because of the size of the lot. 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) That the permeable pavers towards the lakeside would be reduced by five feet away from the lake. b) 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. 26-2024 HILLTOP CONSTRUCTION/LEN ROMEO, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) Duly adopted this 15th Day of May 2024 by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-We have to add the condition. MRS. MOORE-You have to add the condition,please. AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. ZAPPER-I really appreciate it. Thanks,everybody. LEN ROMEO MR. ROMEO-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 27-2024,1545 State Route 9,LLC. AREA VARIANCE NO.27-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 1545 STATE ROUTE 9 LLC AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN &z STEVES (MATT WEBSTER) OWNER(S) 1545 STATE ROUTE 9 LLC (CHAD NIMS) ZONING Cl LOCATION 1545 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO- LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 4.69 ACRE PARCEL. LOT 1 IS TO BE 094 AC AND HAS A PREEXISTING BOAT STORAGE BUILDING OF 8,020.8 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT;LOT 2 IS TO BE 3.75 AC AND MAINTAIN THE EXISTING MOTEL COMPLEX MULTIPLE BUILDINGS FOOTPRINT 36,605.7 SQ.FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS OR OPERATIONS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE,SETBACK,ROAD FRONTAGE,AND LOT WIDTH. CROSS REF SUB 4-2024;SUB 5-2024;AV 75-2003, SP 6-92; SP 53-91 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2024 LOT SIZE 4.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO.288.8-1-5.1 SECTION 179-3-040&z CHAPTER 183 MATT WEBSTER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2024, 1545 State Route 9 LLC, Meeting Date: May 15, 2024 "Project Location: 1545 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 4.69 acre parcel. Lot 1 is to be 0.94 ac and has a preexisting boat storage building of 5,020.S sq.ft.footprint;Lot 2 is to be 3.75 ac and maintain the existing motel complex multiple buildings footprint 36,605.7 sq. ft. There are no changes to the existing buildings or operations. Relief requested for lot size, setback,road frontage,and lot width. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size, setback,road frontage, and lot width for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is located on a 4.69 ac parcel in the Commercial Intensive zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensions and Chapter 1S3 Subdivision The proposed subdivision for Lot I is to be a lot size of 0.94 ac where I ac is required. The existing boat storage of 5,020.5 sf is to be 19 ft. from the side property line where 20 ft. is required. Road frontage for Lot 1 is proposed to be 29.69 ft.where 50 ft.is required. Lot width average is proposed to be 79.55 ft.where 150 ft.is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing buildings on each parcel that are to remain with no changes. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minor where lot 1 relief for size is 0.06 ac,l ft. of relief for setback for the boat storage building,road frontage for lot 1 20.31 ft.,and lot width 70.45 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is for a two-lot subdivision where the existing boat storage building will be on one lot and the motel buildings are to be on another lot. There are no changes to the buildings." MR. WEBSTER-My name's Matt Webster with VanDusen & Steves Land Surveyors, on behalf of our client, Chad Nims, the owner of 1545 State Route 9, LLC. As Mr. Urrico pointed out, it's a relatively straightforward subdivision. I know that the variances sound like there's quite a few,but the real objective here is to actually restore historical tax parcels,which is what the lot lines are designed around. We had discussions with the Planning Department about the best approach to that, and prior to Mr. Nims' ownership of the property,these were two separate tax parcels to begin with. When he took ownership they were merged at that point,but for the boat storage building, as a side anecdote if you will,it's been used by Boats By George forever. The property actually was previously owned by George Pemsiil's father and now part of this proposal is for Mr. Pensel to purchase it back. Obviously you can see these are two independently operating businesses as they always have been. Sothis is really just aline on paper to codify them. MR. MC CABE-So I just have a quick question. If we do the subdivision, we've created a lot with essentially just a garage on it. You're not allowed to have that in Queensbury. MRS. MOORE-It's a commercial business. MR. MC CABE-Okay. All right. So that's the difference. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That's considered a flag property,flag lot? MR. KUHL-No. You consider it a flag lot when you build a house beyond another house. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So going to see if there's anybody out there in the audience who would like to address us on this particular project. Anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No communication. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll poll the Board and I'll start with Bob. MR.KEENAN-I think this is pretty straightforward,an obvious change back to what it previously was. I have no objections. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I have no difficulty approving this one. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It makes perfect sense. MR. MC CABEJohn? MR. HENKEL-Yes,it makes sense. No problem. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of it as it's presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CAB E-And I,too,can't argue with it. It's just putting it back the way it used to be. So,Mary,I wonder if you could whip us up a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 1545 State Route 9 LLC. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 4.69 acre parcel. Lot 1 is to be 0.94 ac and has a preexisting boat storage building of 5,020.5 sq. ft. footprint; Lot 2 is to be 3.75 ac and maintain the existing motel complex multiple buildings footprint 36,605.7 sq. ft. There are no changes to the existing buildings or operations. Relief requested for lot size,setback,road frontage,and lot width. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size, setback,road frontage, and lot width for a two-lot subdivision. The project site is located on a 4.69 ac parcel in the Commercial Intensive zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensions and Chapter 1S3 Subdivision The proposed subdivision for Lot 1 is to be a lot size of 0.94 ac where 1 ac is required. The existing boat storage of 5,020.5 sf is to be 19 ft. from the side property line where 20 ft. is required. Road frontage for Lot 1 is proposed to be 29.69 ft.where 50 ft.is required. Lot width average is proposed to be 79.55 ft.where 150 ft.is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 15,2024. 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 we're, in essence, returning these two individual lots to their prior position within the Town. 2. There are no feasible alternatives. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, again,because it is returning one property to what had been two previous properties. 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 simply because they wish to separate two tax properties. 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. 27-2024 1545 STATE ROUTE 9, LLC, Introduced by Mary Palacino, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan: Duly adopted this 15th Day of May 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.WEBSTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 28-2024,Kevin&r Grace Kelly,12 Serenity Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO.28-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KEVIN&z GRACE KELLY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JOHN E. KELLY III &z HELEN JO R. KELLY ZONING WR LOCATION 12 SERENITY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RELOCATE AN EXISTING 750 SQ. FT. CABIN AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW WALKOUT BASEMENT OF 750 SQ.FT.UNDER IT WITH 1,500 SQ.FT.FLOOR AREA. SITE WORK INCLUDES ANEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, GRADING, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR PHYSICAL ACCESS TO AND FROM THE LOT TO A PUBLIC ROAD, REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TWO PARKING SPACES. CROSS REF SP 25-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.39 ACRES TAX MAP NO.226.19-3-3 SECTION 179-3-045;179-4-050;179-4-090 LUCAS DOBIE&r TREVOR FLYNN,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 28-2024,Kevin&r Grace Kelly,Meeting Date: May 15,2024 "Project Location: 12 Serenity Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to relocate an existing 750 sq.ft.cabin and to construct a new walkout basement of 750 sq.ft.under it with 1,500 sq.ft.floor area. Site work includes a new septic system,grading,and stormwater management. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and new hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline. Relief requested for physical access to and from the lot to a public road,required to provide two parking spaces. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for physical access to and from the lot to a public road,required to provide two parking spaces for the construction of a new single-family home. The project is on a 0.39 ac in the Waterfront Residential. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-050 frontage The cabin parcel does not provide a direct access to Bay Parkway or Serenity Lane where relief is sought for lot access. In addition,the cabin parcel does not provide parking spaces for residential use where two parking spaces are 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be considered to provide the parcel with direct access and include two parking spaces. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for direct access to the site and lack of parking onsite. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) The applicant proposes to construct a new home with associated site work. The site is to be developed with no driveway area for access or parking. The applicant has indicated the adjoining lot at 10 Serenity Lane will be utilized for access. The plans show the location of the new home and the elevation view." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review have not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted by a May 14`h,2024 unanimous vote. MR. DOBIE-Good evening,Board. For the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. With me is Trevor Flynn of Flynn Design Studio,the project architect who mastermind the whole project for the most part,and our clients Kevin and Grace Kelly are with us here tonight. They presently live on the middle lot, which is considered 10 Serenity Lane. That project, as we will hear next,is a tear down and anew build. The project we're talking about now is their southerly parcel which has a 750 square foot cabin situated approximately 37 feet from the shore. So part of the comprehensive project, due to some drainage issues with that cabin being constructed too low,they'd like to elevate the cabin four feet,and initially we looked at setting it right back in the same place,but he said,well someone's going to ask,if we're going to all this effort,why can't we make it conforming and our clients agreed to do that,to bring that back to beyond the 50 foot shoreline setback and adjust the rotation just a little bit. It's a very simple project. We believe it will be a nice improvement for the property. They'll get a new Elgin wastewater system, which is an enhanced system. Right now it's just a cess pool system and the feasible alternative is to put in its own driveway and parking which we own over a 200 foot long driveway and we just don't feel that would be appropriate since the family owns the three parcels. The northerly one contains the parking off of Serenity Lane. So that would be the parking for the cabin and they can access it across the lawn easily enough,and they also own,it's actually a fourth lot has all the lake frontage on it. So we believe the project is very straightforward. I believe it's the simplest variance we've ever done. So we hope the Board concurs with that. We'd be happy to answer any questions,and thank you for having us tonight. MR. MC CABE-So it must be simple because Chris left. Do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none,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? Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comments. MR. MC CABE-So at this time,then,I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board,and I'm going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-I guess like Lucas said it's pretty simple. As long as you're going back 50 feet from the shoreline,that makes sense. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it's a similar situation like we had with Takundewide, and I think if you're going to preserve the size of the property, the little cottages on there. I think it makes sense to upgrade them,set them back from the water. So I'm all for it. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-Taking it back away from the water and reconfiguring its location. I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I'm good with the project,improving the septic and getting the building back. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes,I have no issue with the way it's presented. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) MR. MC CABE-And I, too, approve the project. I think what we're giving up is minor for what we're gaining here. So with that in mind,Bob,I wonder if you're make us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kevin&z Grace Kelly. Applicant proposes to relocate an existing 750 sq. ft. cabin and to construct a new walkout basement of 750 sq.ft.under it with 1,500 sq.ft..floor area.Site work includes a new septic system,grading, and stormwater management. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief requested for physical access to and from the lot to a public road,required to provide two parking spaces. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for physical access to and from the lot to a public road,required to provide two parking spaces for the construction of a new single-family home. The project is on a 0.39 ac in the Waterfront Residential. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-050 frontage The cabin parcel does not provide a direct access to Bay Parkway or Serenity Lane where relief is sought for lot access. In addition,the cabin parcel does not provide parking spaces for residential use where two parking spaces. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 15,2024. 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 you're actually re-locating the building to a better spot on the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to-minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because they're actually improving the site. 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, but you're trying to actually improve the property,make things better. 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. 28-2024 KEVIN &z GRACE KELLY, Introduced by Robert Keenan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 15th Day of May 2024 by the following vote: MR. FLYNN-Excuse me,Mr. Chairman,before the vote,could we add a comment just for the record? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. FLYNN-So we do want to note that this existing cottage, since we're relocating it and doing a new foundation,it's technically anew structure,given that nature. So when it comes to APA review and raising it two feet versus four feet,you know,it's a new structure and we're pulling it back so that two foot raising height doesn't technically apply in our mind. So I just wanted to bring that up. MRS. MOORE-I guess I don't follow in the sense it's compliant with the Town's height requirement., 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) MR. FLYNN-Yes,and it's compliant with the Town's height. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So as long as it's less than 2S feet then we're fine. MR. FLYNN-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much,Board. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Next application is AV 29-2024 Kevin and Grace Kelly,10 Serenity Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KEVIN &z GRACE KELLY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JOHN E. KELLY III &z HELEN JO R. KELLY ZONING WR LOCATION 10 SERENITY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO THE EXISTING 945 SQ.FT.CABIN TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 1,725 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT HOME WITH 275 SQ. FT. PORCH OR DECK AREA, AND A FLOOR AREA OF 4,165 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT,AND LANDSCAPING. THE DRIVEWAY BEGINS ON THE EXISTING PARCEL AND CONTINUES TO THE ADJOINING VACANT PARCEL,THEN ENDS WITH THE DRIVEWAY ON THE PARCEL WITH THE NEW HOME. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR DIRECT PHYSICAL ACCESS. CROSS REF SP 26-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.43 AC&z 0.44 AC TAX MAP NO.226.19-3-1&z 226.19-3-2 SECTION 179-3-045;179-4-050 LUCAS DOME&TREVOR FLYNN,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.29-2024,Kevin&Grace Kelly,Meeting Date: May 15,2024 "Project Location: 10 Serenity Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demo the existing 945 sq. ft. cabin to construct a new 1,725 sq. ft. footprint home with 275 sq. ft. porch or deck area, and a floor area of 4,165 sq.ft.Site work includes a new septic system,stormwater management,and landscaping. The driveway begins on the existing parcel and continues to the adjoining vacant parcel,then ends with the driveway on the parcel with the new home.Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief requested for direct physical access. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for direct physical access for the construction of a new single-family home. The project is located on a 0.44 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-050 frontage The parcel for the new home has a driveway that accesses Bay Parkway then the driveway is noted to be on the north parcel 226.19-3-1 then returns to the parcel with the proposed new home;relief is sought for lot access as it is not direct. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the neighboring properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be possible to provide direct access. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for not providing direct access. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The project is for the construction of a new single-family home and associated site work The plans show the location of the existing and new home. The plans include floor plans and elevations." MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury 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 by a seven zero margin on May 14`h,2024. MR. DOBIE-Thank you, Board, and good evening. For the record, my name is Lucas Dobie, project engineer, with Hutchins Engineering and with us is Trevor Flynn of Flynn Design Studio, the project architect, and then our clients, Kevin and Grace Kelly, are with us also. I just wanted to,if I could take just a little bit of your time just to get on the record for the larger historical context is when the Kelly family bought these parcels, which was known as the Bellwood Park Subdivision of 1953, 'S4, the Kelly family bought it in 2010 from the original landowner/developer if you will,and that owner retained Lot 4,which has the big semi-historical house I would call it. It's the real tall house you can see from the lake pretty well,and they own all the inland lots as well. They've cleaned those up. They've taken a bunch of cabins out of there, and so the inland parcels comprise eight and a half acres and that's vacant other than the tennis courts, and then they own the four parcels on the Harris Bay side and as we discussed at the last one,they've taken three cabins off of those parcels that remain,this project is the middle parcel,Lot Two, and the Kellys presently live in that cabin which is situated approximately 40 feet from the shore. That gets the wrecking ball, and then a new confirming house that Trevor designed will be built and their goal is to go about Labor Day with the project. So that parcel is conforming with the floor area ratio, the permeability. We provided stormwater plans. There is none now, and anew Elgin wastewater system, and the purpose of my history is that we used the setbacks at the time of the subdivision,which gives us a little more room to work So that allows us a 10 foot side setback,but the other one has to be twenty,and we did verify that with Laura and Craig. So since we had that documented well. So that's why we're not requesting any setback relief when we utilize the subdivision setback. So we still meet our 50 feet current shoreline setback. So it's an improvement from what's there, and again,we're here for the access to the parcel in that Serenity Lane does originate on this parcel but then it goes over the northerly parcel. So it's determined that that needs an Area Variance. So an alternative would be to construct its own driveway entirely upon the parcel which we don't feel is appropriate at all. It's a nice,gentle grade. What's there now is good,nice paving job on it,and they propose to maintain it as is,tie into it for the new house. Again, pretty straightforward variance request we believe. We're here to ask for your approval tonight, and hopefully we can get it approved tomorrow night and build it this fall,and again,we'd be happy to answer any questions. Trevor can speak to the building very well. We've put a lot of effort into it. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-How about trees? Are you removing any trees or are you leaving them all up? MR. DOBIE-Yes, Mr. Kuhl, we do have a planting plan in there that shows existing conditions and we tried to color code them for what's being removed,but the quantities will remain the same. The goal is to try and transplant a bunch of them that are in the way. If the root ball's too large to do that with a decent sized excavator,then there will be new plantings,but we propose to keep the same quantity. There's quite a few trees that they've had over the years. MR. KUHL-And they're awful tall. MR.HENKEL-Is there any reason why you can't push the house back even a little bit farther from the lake so your permeable pavers wouldn't be,because they're on the other side of the 50 feet. That would also bring that garage back towards where the other driveway is,Serenity Lane is. Wouldn't it? MR. FLYNN-Trevor Flynn. Due to working in the septic. MR. HENKEL-The septic's pretty far from the house,the leach field, MR. FLYNN-Right,but you also account for,you know,by the time we're grading and starting to work through some of the water and a turnaround area from the garage,you know,minimal turnaround it's still 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) tough for a larger vehicle like a truck. This is as far as we could drop back the house and at this time we propose permeable pavers,but they might not even do the patio,but we wanted to show the largest extent possible for our application. MR. HENKEL-So there's no leeway at all. MR. FLYNN-Very tight,overall. Working within the FAR and also the height restrictions. We tried to make it as compact as possible within the site. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. 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 comment on this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comments., 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-I'm okay with the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I think I'm good with the project. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I don't have any issues with it either. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's going to be a positive with all the changes. MR. MC CABEJohn? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree,just as long as they don't come back to us later with a permeability because right there on the cut off as it is and if they add more hard surfacing that's going to cause a problem,but I'm okay with it as it is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of it as presented. MR. MC CABE-And I,too,think it's a pretty straightforward request. What we're giving up is very little and what we're gaining is some stormwater control which is always beneficial to the lake. So I'm in favor. So I wonder if I could get Jim to make us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kevin&z Grace Kelly. Applicant proposes to demo the existing 945 sq. ft. cabin to construct a new 1,725 sq. ft. footprint home with 275 sq. ft. porch or deck area, and a floor area of 4,165 sq. ft. Site work includes a new septic system, stormwater management, and landscaping. The driveway begins on the existing parcel and continues to the adjoining vacant parcel,then ends with the driveway on the parcel with the new home. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and new hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline. Relief requested for direct physical access. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for direct physical access for the construction of a new single-family home. The project is located on a 0.44 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-050 frontage 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) The parcel for the new home has a driveway that accesses Bay Parkway then the driveway is noted to be on the north parcel 226.19-3-1 then returns to the parcel with the proposed new home;relief is sought for lot access as it is not direct. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 15,2024. 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. The building will be set back 50 feet from the lake and all the improvements will be positive. 2. Feasible alternatives are not really available. Essentially they're just really asking relief from direct physical access and we've provided that on the previous application that we just approved moments ago. 3. The requested variance I guess could be considered substantial but it's not really substantial because they're going to maintain their access as it's always been. 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 fact that the subdivisions were much smaller when it was created back in the 20's. 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. 29-2024 KEVIN &z GRACE KELLY, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mary Palacino: Duly adopted this 15th Day of May 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have another project. MR. DOBIE-Thank you so much,Board. MR. FLYNN-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 30-2024,Renee &Tom West,79 Knox Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RENEE &z TOM WEST AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) RENEE&z TOM WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 79 KNOX RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A DETACHED GARAGE LOCATION AND DESIGN WHERE THE FOOTPRINT IS TO BE 1,066 SQ.FT.AND THE FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 2,045.6 SQ. FT. (PREVIOUS APPROVAL WAS FOR A 1,050 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND 1,950 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA). THE GARAGE LOCATION WILL BE 40 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE,THEN 180 FT.FROM THE LAKE. THE PROJECT ALSO MODIFIES THE MAIN HOUSE CONFIGURATION FOR A HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 3,388 SQ. FT. (PREVIOUS APPROVAL OF 3,190 SQ. FT.) SITE WORK PROPOSED INCLUDES A REDUCTION IN HARD SURFACING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK TO WETLAND AND HEIGHT. CROSS REF AV 33-2023; AV 53-2022; SP 70-2022; FWW 14-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-6 SECTION 179-5-020 BRANDON FERGUSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 30-2024, Renee &Tom West,Meeting Date: May 15,2024 "Project Location: 79 Knox Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a detached garage location and design where the footprint is to be 1,066 sq. ft. and the floor area is to be 2,045.6 sq. ft. (previous approval was for a 1,050 sq. ft. footprint and 1,950 sq. ft. floor area). The garage location will be 40 ft. from the front property line,then ISO ft. from the lake. The project also modifies the main house configuration for a home with a footprint of 3,3SS sq. ft. (previous approval of 3,190 sq. ft.). Site work proposed includes a reduction in hard surfacing. Relief requested for setback to wetlands and height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback to wetlands and height for the construction of garage with living space upstairs with no kitchen facilities. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Section 179-5-020 garage The garage location will be 40 ft.from the front property line versus 39 ft. and then 42 ft.from the wetland which was approved in 2023 where a 50 ft. setback is required,then ISO ft. from the lake (5 ft. closer than 2023 approval). The garage with living space is to be 27 ft. It 1/2 inches in height where garage is limited to 16 ft. in height. Previous garage design was granted height relief in the 2022 for the same height as proposed in the 2024 variance the new design triggers the height variance at this time. 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 to reduce the height of the garage and meet the required setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal moderate relevant to the code. The relief for height would be It ft. 11.5 inches greater than 16 ft. The setback relief is S ft. to the wetland. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new home and new garage.The home was previously approved in 2022. The garage was approved in 2022 then in 2023 due to shifting the location. The 2024 proposal has a new design and the location has shifted.The garage maintains the same height of 27 ft. 11.5 inches on a parcel of 1.22 acres. The project does not alter the proposed new septic system,stormwater controls,permeable driveway areas and landscaping." MR. KUHL-You said the 2022 proposal. You mean the 2024? MR. URRICO-The 2024 proposal has a new design. The location has shifted. MR. MC CABE-This is getting to be an annual affair here. MR. FERGUSON-Good evening, Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. I guess to kind of summarize it,the owner,Tom West,he switched design teams. So he was using one architect,switched to another architect in order to give a different look to the building on his construction drawings,and the building differs slightly from the building that was previously approved. So it's still in the same location as what was previously approved before,42 feet from the wetlands,and it's still got the same height. The 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) floor area did bump up a little bit more than it was before,just because of the architectural style of the upstairs changed,which gave them a little more space in the upstairs area above the garage,but this one was previously approved at 42 feet with that 27 foot 11 and a half inch variance in the same location as where this one is. It's just a different style and slightly different floor area in therein different areas of the building. MR. MC CABE-So 2022 is when we were originally approached, and then we re-did it in 2023 and now we're re-doing it again in 2024. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. So in 2022 we had the building pushed back. I think we were meeting that 50 foot wetland setback. The issue with that one was it was getting in,Laura kind of has it up there. This is the difference between 2022 and 2023. We were meeting the 50 foot. However,constructability of getting into the steep slopes was going to impact mature trees that were up in that area and impact those steep slopes. So working with the architect and the contractor they felt it was better to pull it a little bit closer to the wetlands and avoid that area,and that's why that variance,when that variance was granted for the 42 feet from the wetlands. So tonight if you go to the,there should be another one. That one. So this is the current proposal. So the red and blue, those are existing, or those are previously approved and proposed. The blue is proposed. So you see there it's in the same location as what was approved back in 2023,the 42 feet. The height's the same. MR. MC CABE-So it's because of the topography. MR. FERGUSON-Yes. And now they have,it's just a different floor area. MR. HENKEL-But the footprint is bigger,then. MR. FERGUSON-The footprint is bigger by 16 square feet. MR.HENKEL-Which isn't a lot,but it's still more than normal. So we already gave you the height. Now we're going to give you more. MR. FERGUSON-And I think it actually gets narrow within the setback of what the previously approved building was,but it's got 16 square feet more and then I think it's about 100 square feet more of floor area. MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-Yes. Why are you back? What is going on? MR. FERGUSON-It's just a change to the dimensions of what was previously approved. MR. KUHL-Okay,when is construction starting on this mess? MR. FERGUSON-Actually what happened is he switched design teams,submitted construction plans for this project and the building permits and when Laura and the Planning Department reviewed it ,they noticed that it was slightly different than what was originally approved. So he wants to get construction going on this right away. What happened was he was working with one architect, switched architects, gave them the old plans. The architect changed things slightly because he wanted more of an Adirondack style look to the home,and that resulted in these minor changes to the building that puts us back here. MR. HENKEL-It's just the garage that's changed. MR. FERGUSON-It's just the garage. MR. KUHL-The Adirondack look is what he's tearing down. But anyway,say no more. MR. MC CABE-So, any 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 who would like to address us on this particular project. Anybody in the back there? Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's nothing written. 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 Jim. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that, I don't think we've crossed any grand threshold here of change. It essentially preserves what we originally approved,slightly tweaked because of the style change. So I would be in favor of the proposal. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I feel like we're getting nickel and dimed here,but,you know, all in all it's very minor. I guess I would approve the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm not going to be so forgiving. I think we approved this with certain relief,and even the height relief at the time was granted with some relief at the time. It wasn't just a few feet that we granted. We granted quite a bit,and now we're back. Maybe it's just a little bit different. Maybe it's not. It's still an incremental change,and I just feel like we're rolling the dice each time,and I just don't like the way this has evolved,and I'm going to vote against it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm not in favor of this. I think that we've worked awful hard and long and maybe the mere fact that nobody's in the audience. I mean are people just tired? But anyway,I'm not in favor of it. I'd vote against it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I wasn't big on this before, and I'm definitely not,just that little bit of change definitely, even though it's only 95 square feet,the footprint's only a little bit bigger, I'm not going to be on board to approve it. MR. MC CABE-So in my mind here what we're approving is basically the same thing that we approved before. So we had quite a bit of discussion about this project the previous two times,and I don't think it's worth going through it again. So I'm going to be in favor of this project. So with that in mind, Mary, 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 Renee&z Tom West. Applicant proposes a detached garage location and design where the footprint is to be 1,066 sq. ft. and the floor area is to be 2,045.6 sq. ft. (previous approval was for a 1,050 sq. ft. footprint and 1,950 sq. ft. floor area). The garage location will be 40 ft. from the front property line, then ISO ft. from the lake. The project also modifies the main house configuration for a home with a footprint of 3,3SS sq. ft. (previous approval of 3,190 sq. ft.). Site work proposed includes a reduction in hard surfacing. Relief requested for setback to wetlands and height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback to wetlands and height for the construction of garage with living space upstairs with no kitchen facilities. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Section 179-5-020 garage The garage location will be 40 ft.from the front property line versus 39 ft. and then 42 ft.from the wetland which was approved in 2023 where a 50 ft. setback is required,then ISO ft. from the lake (5 ft. closer than 2023 approval). The garage with living space is to be 27 ft. 111/z inches in height where garage is limited to 16 ft. in height. Previous garage design was granted height relief in the 2022 for the same height as proposed in the 2024 variance the new design triggers the height variance at this time. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 15,2024. 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: 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/15/2024) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties based on the fact that what this is,in essence,is pretty close to previous variances that were approved by the Board in 2022,2023. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to-minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial,again,because the project has been reviewed in the past two years. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because the Wests have changed architects for the look of the house. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2024 RENEE&z TOM WEST,Introduced by Mary Palacino,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 15th Day of May 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. FERGUSON-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 15TI,2024,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 15`h day of May,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Palacino,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 2S