Loading...
08-21-2024 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING AUGUST2fT 2024 INDEX Area Variance No. 44-2024 Ann&Jay Dixon 1. Tax Map No. 239.17-1-12 Area Variance No. 45-2024 Gregg Nolte 4. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-10 Area Variance No. 46-2024 Mountain Vista Properties(Chris Racicot) 7. Tax Map No. 315.6-2-12 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 08/21/2024) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 21ST,2024 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL ROBERT KEENAN RONALD KUHL 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,August 21", 2024. If you haven't been here before,our procedure is relatively simple. There should bean agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up,read the case into our record,allow the applicant to present the case, ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we open the public hearing,take input from the public,close the public hearing,poll the Board and then proceed accordingly,but first we have a little administrative item here. APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 18`h,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 18TH, 2024, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 21"day of August,2024,by the following vote:: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-So first case is AV 44-2024,41 Antigua Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 ANN &z JAY DIXON AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) J. WILLIAM MAYNARD &z MARGARET MAYNARD. ZONING WR LOCATION 41 ANTIGUA RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME TO BUILD NEW HOME WITH A NEW FOOTPRINT OF 2,235 SQ. FT. AND NEW PORCH/DECK AREA OF 405 SQ. FT. EXISTING SHED AND DRIVEWAY TO REMAIN. NEW SEPTIC AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO BE DEVELOPED. NEW WALKING PATH RETAINING WALLS AS PART OF SITE WORK. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND POSSIBLE HEIGHT VARIANCE. CROSS REF SP 46-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO.239.17-1-12 SECTION 179-3-040 CONNOR DE MYER,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 44-2024,Ann&Jay Dixon,Meeting Date: August 21,2024 "Project Location: 41 Antigua Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish existing home to build new home with a new footprint of 2,235 sq ft and new porch/deck area of 405 sq ft. Existing shed and driveway to remain. New septic and stormwater management to be developed. New walking path retaining walls as part of site work. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and height variance. Relief Required: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home needing setbacks and a height variance. The project site is 1.02 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant requests height relief where the maximum height allowed is 2S ft and proposed is 29.6 ft. Relief is also requested for shoreline setback where 63 ft is proposed and 75 ft is required; then stream setback where 46 ft is proposed and 75 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 possible to reduce the height. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested for setback to the shoreline 12 ft. and stream is 29 ft. Relief requested for height is 1.6 ft over the allowed height. 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 area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a new home to be 2,640 sf footprint home and to have four bedrooms. The plans show the location of the home where the parcel is located in a zone requiring a 75 ft setback to the shoreline where most projects are for 50 ft setback. The plans show the height of the new home in relation to the site location similar to the existing home to be removed. The planting plan includes at least 7 of the existing trees to remain and additional plantings to be installed on the site. The plans show the elevation and floor plans for the home to be constructed." MR.URRICO-And the Planning Board,based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that was adopted on August 20`h 2024 by a unanimous vote. MR. DE MYER-Good evening,everyone. Connor DeMyer with Environmental Design Partnership. I'm here tonight representing Ann and Jay Dixon of the Dixon/Maynard family. The property has been in the family for 40 plus years. They've used their existing cottage as they've seen fit and now they're deciding to kind of build it into a more seasonal, or, I'm sorry, full-time residence, kind of get a good foundation under it and move forward with that. The home will be built roughly in the same footprint. We're kind of encroaching on the stream setback. We're not going to be removing any of the vegetation that borders the stream,and we're 46 feet from it. I believe this is an improvement to the property as it exists. There's no stormwater,wastewater's undersized and we do have a new wastewater design and stormwater. So if you guys have any questions,I'd be glad to answer any of them. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. CIPPERLY-I have a question for Staff and the applicant as well. The drawing shows 46 feet where 50 feet is required. The statement says 46 feet where 75 feet is required. Is it 75 or 50? MRS. MOORE-It's 75 feet. So what happens in this area of Queensbury,it's in an Adirondack Park land use code. So that requires 75 feet setback to shoreline and stream. So that was just a miscommunication with the applicant and our office. MR. DE MYER-Yes,we missed that. MR. CIPPERLY-If it were somewhere else it would be 50 feet. MRS. MOORE-Typically it's 50 feet,but it's pretty much,from Bay Road west on the shoreline is 75 feet. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) MR. CIPPERLY-Thanks. 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 see if there's anybody out there who would like to address us on this particular project. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board,and I'm going to start with Bob. MR. KEENAN-I think this is probably an improvement to the property. They're basically on the same footprint as existing. The wastewater upgrades,obviously. I don't have an issue. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-It's a minimal encroachment plus a lot of environmental benefits. I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The height variance is basically the chimney on the top of the house. It's not like any major deal or anything like that. The setbacks from the stream are going to be about equal to what they are presently and the lake setback is more than adequate since normally it's 50 and in this case it's 75. MR. MC CABEJohn? MR.HENKEL-I mean the house could be moved back closer to the road and it would eliminate the distance from the lake and from the stream,but what they're doing there makes sense with the upgrades anyway. So I'd be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issues,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm okay with the project as well. MR. MC CAB E-And I,too,agree with the project. I think what we gain is much greater than what we're giving up here. So,Ron,I wonder if you could craft us up a motion. MR. KUHL-Thankyou,Mr. Chairman,for the opportunity. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ann &z Jay Dixon. Applicant proposes to demolish existing home to build new home with a new footprint of 2,235 sq ft and new porch/deck area of 405 sq ft. Existing shed and driveway to remain unchanged. New septic and stormwater management to be developed. New walking path retaining walls as part of site work. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and height variance. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home needing setbacks and a height variance. The project site is 1.02 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant requests height relief where the maximum height allowed is 2S ft and proposed is 29.6 ft. Relief is also requested for shoreline setback where 63 ft is proposed and 75 ft is required; then stream setback where 46 ft is proposed and 75 ft is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on August 21,2024. 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: 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as what we're really doing is we're tearing down the old and replacing it with new. 2. Feasible alternatives really have been considered by the Board and are reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Again, a minor request, and again,we're replacing an old structure with a new one. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty you could say is self-created, again, because old for new, with some variations. 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. 44-2024 ANN &z JAY DIXON, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21"Day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. DE MYER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 45-2024,35 Assembly Point Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II GREGG NOLTE AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) DONALD&z ANN NOLTE ZONING WR LOCATION 35 ASSEMBLY POINT RD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 390 SQ.FT.ADDITION AND A 35 SQ.FT.COVERED LANDING TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE PORCH ON THE HOME IS TO REMAIN AND THE 144 SQ. FT. SIDE DECK IS TO BE REMOVED ALONG WITH SOME OTHER ANCILLARY ITEMS TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. SITE WORK INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 47-2024 WAREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-10 SECTION 179-3-040;179-6-065 CONNOR DE MYER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;GREGG NOLTE,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2024, Gregg Nolte, Meeting Date: August 21, 2024 "Project Location: 35 Assembly Point Rd Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 3S4 sq It addition and a 35 sq ft covered landing to an existing home. The porch on the home is to remain and the 144 sq It side deck is to be removed along with some other ancillary items to be removed from the site. Site work includes new septic system and stormwater management.Site plan for new floor area in a CEA.Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the construction of some residential additions needing setbacks and permeability relief. Section 179-3-040 dimensional 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) The applicant proposes an addition to be 2 ft from the property line where a 20 ft setback is required.Relief is requested for permeability where 69.49 %is proposed and 750/o is required. (Notcplan sheet will need to be u pdated to reflect the permcabil ity percentages) 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 moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for 1S ft to the rear property line and 5.510/0 for permeability. 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 physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the new addition for bedrooms and interior alterations and the new entryway. The plans show the elevation and floor plan of the home with the additions. The project includes associated site work with a new well and septic." MR.URRICO-And the Planning Board,based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that was adopted on August 20`h 2024 by a unanimous vote. MR. DE MYER-Good evening,everyone. Connor DeMyer, Environmental Design Partnership. I'm here tonight with Gregg Nolte of the Nolte residence. We're proposing a 3SO square foot addition to their existing house and a 35 foot, square foot, covered landing for the front entryway. We're removing two accessory structures on the property and replacing it with one 100 square foot shed,you know, standard, Home Depot style shed,just to store some of the equipment that they have. With that we got a Board of Health variance back in May for the holding tanks. We would have loved to have done an inground system, but how the property sits,it takes a lot of the runoff from Assembly Point Road,kind of in a low spot there. So with that we're also doing some site grading and kind of fixing up so that culvert there and making it a little bit better for drainage. If you guys have any questions. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-I do,Mr. Chairman. Do I remember seeing a private road that goes into that community,into those six,four houses is it? MR. DE MYER-So it only serves our property and the Shirvell's,which is one south. Mr. Schirvell has got a new driveway onto his own property there. So we're kind of just doing the same thing, similar from across the street,just kind of removing some of that gravel and giving us more parking on the property. MR. KUHL-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-Other 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. Is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-Yes. There's one. "My wife and I reside on Old Assembly Point Road,immediately adjacent and north of the Nolte property located at 35 Assembly Point Road. I am writing in acceptance of the proposed improvements that are being considered by the Town,specifically the site improvements and the 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) 16 by 24 foot addition that will be two and a half feet from my property line." And that's Jeff Randles. That's it. MR. MC CABE-So at this time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Poll the Board,and I'm going to start with John. MR.HENKEL-I think it's great. I think the Randle property,if anyone had a problem with it,they would and they wrote a letter in support if it,I guess I'd be in support of it,too. MR. MC CABS Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a very small lot. It's not on direct waterfront. I think what you're proposing is reasonable. I don't have a problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-The same thing. There's no detrimental effect to the lake and site improvement is worth the effort. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-Yes,I would agree with my other Board members. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm okay with the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes,Mr. Chairman,I think it's a good thing to do. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. Again,what we're being asked for is very small and it's typical on a lot this size to have permeability problems just because the lot's so small. So, with that in mind,Jim,I wonder if you could fashion up a motion for us. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gregg Nolte. Applicant proposes a 3S4 sq It addition and a 35 sq ft covered landing to an existing home. The porch on the home is to remain and the 144 sq ft side deck is to be removed along with some other ancillary items to be removed from the site. Site work includes new septic system and stormwater management.Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the construction of some residential additions needing setbacks and permeability relief. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant proposes an addition to be 2 ft from the property line where a 20 ft setback is required.Relief is requested for permeability where 69.49 %is proposed and 750/o is required. (Notcplan sheet will need to be u pdated to reflect the permcabil ity percentages) SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on August 21,2024. 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 minimal change from what exists and it'll improve the current situation. 2. Feasible alternatives are not really available on such a small lot and the request is minimal in my understanding. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/21/2024) 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Even though the permeability is going to be slightly less than what's required, it's a very small lot and it's understandable why they're exceeding the limit. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they want to improve the property but it's a very small,modest addition that they're proposing. 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. 45-2024 GREGG NOLTE, Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 21"Day of August 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. DE MYER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 46-2024,3 through 21 Foothills Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 46-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES (CHRIS RACICOT) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP (CLARK WILKINSON) OWNER(S) MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES LLC ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 THRU 21 FOOTHILLS RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES THE CONSTRUCTION OF THREE 4-UNIT APARTMENT BUILDINGS FOR 12 TOTAL NEW UNITS. SITE WORK WILL INCLUDE ON-SITE SEPTIC, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND CONNECTION TO MUNICIPAL WATER. PROJECT WILL MAINTAIN THE EXISTING 8 UNITS BETWEEN FOUR BUILDINGS;SITE WILL HAVE 20 UNITS. PROJECT INCLUDES MERGER OF TWO LOTS FOR A SITE OF 9.17 ACRES WHERE MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS REQUIRE 2 ACRES PER UNIT WITHOUT SEWER AND WATER. SITE PLAN FOR MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF UNITS ON LO SIZE, DENSITY, AND NUMBER OF UNITS. CROSS REF SP 48-2024;AV 15-1989;SP 64-88 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2024 LOT SIZE 5.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.6-2-12 SECTION 179-3-040 CLARK WILKINSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;CHRIS RACICOT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 46-2024, Mountain Vista Properties (Chris Racicot), Meeting Date: August 21,2024 "Project Location: 3 thru 21 Foothills Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the construction of three 4-unit apartment buildings for 12 total new units.Site work will include on-site septic, stormwater management, and connection to municipal water. Project will maintain the existing 8 units between four buildings; site will have 20 units. Project includes merger of two lots for a site of 9.17 acres where multi-family buildings require 2 acres per unit without sewer and water. Site plan for multi-family project. Relief requested for number of units on lot size,density,and number of units. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the construction of 12 new units for the number of units on lot size, density,and number of units. The project parcel is 9.17 ac in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 density 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) The applicant requests relief for lot size where 12 units would require 24 ac where sewer and water are not provided requires 2 ac per unit. The existing number of units is S and the additional 12 units for a total of 20 units where 40 ac would be required. The lot size of 9.17 ac where 0.46 ac per unit is proposed.Number of units proposed is 20 overall where the maximum allowed is 4 units. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated with the number of units proposed. 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 minimize the number of units proposed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for the density where 9.17 ac is existing and 40 ac would be required. Number of units proposed is 20 overall where the maximum allowed is 4 units. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. Each building will be connected to an onsite septic and additional clearing is proposed for the locations of the buildings and septics. The existing cul-de-sac is proposed to be used for traffic. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct three new buildings with 4 units each. The units will each have a garage and three bedrooms. The plans show the location of the existing S units within three buildings plus a residential garage and site garage." MR.URRICO-And the Planning Board,based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that was adopted on August 20`h 2024 by a unanimous vote. MR. WILKINSON-Good evening. My name is Clark Wilkinson with the Environmental Design Partnership,representing this project. I have next to me Mr. Chris Racicot who is the applicant. As you heard from the description of the project,we're proposing three buildings. Each building is roughly about just under 3400 square feet per building. So that would be a substantially large house,but it houses four families which is part of the reason why the density seems high. I wanted to point that out first. Second thing is the existing duplexes,each of the duplexes is 1,000 square feet,plus an additional,I believe around 600 square feet for each garage. So that makes each of the duplexes for two units 2200 square feet each and you get two units out of that. So there's a comparison to what we're talking about as far as size of the building and mass and that kind of stuff. We're here tonight to actually request this variance, Area Variance, to build this project. There appears to be a significant need in the Town for multi-family type housing,and this specific project is a three bedroom style,which is very difficult to find within the Town of Queensbury. There's many two bedrooms,but very few three bedrooms. The project, as Mr. Urrico described, we're providing on-site stormwater management. We've done all the soil testing and requirements for that. We've actually gone through engineering review on it, and had some minor comments that we've already addressed,which are relatively insignificant. There's minor ways that we computed versus what they wanted. So we did it and everything's still the same. The on-site septic systems are designed so that each septic system takes two units, to minimize the amount of disturbance and the amount of difficulties that can come with putting multi units into one system, at least it's now down to two. So if you have problems you can limit it to two people. That's the reason it was designed that way. I also want to point out that to the south where the Inspiration Park is here,right here,those average size lots are quarter acre lots,and the development to the east over here is also the Hudson Pointe project,and those average size lots are between a third to.4 acres each. Again,they're cluster type housing. So you do get some benefit of having green space around it, but we're providing the same thing. The minimum required buffers on this project are 25 feet. In the rear towards Hudson Pointe we're providing 100, and to the south, towards Inspiration Park, I believe it's 75 feet that we're providing to, again,try to contain any disturbance or any significant to the adjoining owners, trying to minimize that impact by saving those trees and saving that buffer. So with that, I'd like to turn it over to the Board for questions, comments. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) MR. KUHL-Can I ask a question? Is Foothill Road,is that a private road or is that a Town road? MR.WILKINSON-It is a dedicated Town road,24 feet wide. MR. KUHL-Okay. Now as I read this document,the entire thing,with even the old six duplexes,that's 9.17 acres,or is that? MR.WILKINSON-That's the whole entire project. MR. KUHL-The whole entire project. Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-I know at over at Quincy they have a problem with Radon. Is that something that's? I know at Quincy they have a problem with radon. They have quite a few houses that have to have the ventilation part. MR.WILKINSON-There's no basement under this,so it's not as big of an impact. MR. HENKEL-Right. I understand. I was just wondering if that's going to cause even more problems in the neighborhood because I know that area does have some radon. MR. KUHL-Don't you need the house constructed before you have a radon problem? MR. HENKEL-Right,but I'm just saying,that could also cause,if you have,but they're not going to have a foundation. MR.WILKINSON-There'll be a foundation but no basement. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. URRICO-I want to know if there's an alternate plan here,because this seems like a lot to be crammed into these parcels. MR.WILKINSON-At this point,no,because it is our opinion that this fits within the neighborhood,based on the adjoining owners, and based on the fact that the existing cul de sac is there and it's three more buildings,where there's actually six buildings that exist there now,even though they're four 4 units, and with the garages inside the actual building itself, and contained within that, we feel it's not over- development of this site. So at this point we don't have an alternate, but we're open to just having a discussion about it. MR. KUHL-Well if you want to have a discussion about it,I guess what Roy is saying is if you could only have these three units with two per unit,would that be good? MR.WILKINSON-I don't know if that would be feasible at that point. MR. KUHL-The feasibility is there. I could be done. It's whether or not you want to do it. I mean as far as I,when I went and looked at this,I liked the fact that it was a dead end street and only people in there were the people that were going to live there,but,you know,Roy is talking about,well maybe you're over- building,because of what you had before,which was those six duplexes,at 1,000 square feet. That's just a thought you might want to mull that one over,depending on how your vote goes. MR. KEENAN-To Ron's point,you know,there's a zoning code for a reason and,you know,your density is really high according to what we recommend. I'd have a hard time with that. MR. HENKEL-That also changes because there's water. Isn't the Code setup for without water and. MR.WILKINSON-Without water and sewer,but there's no stipulation. MR. HENKEL-And there's water with this. So that kind of changes things. MRS. MOORE-So that's part of the relief that's being requested because they can't get two acres. MR.WILKINSON-Correct. Yes,there's no relief for only having one utility,only both utilities. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? A public hearing has been advertised. At this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing,see if there's anybody out there who'd like to address us on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) DAVID FIELD MR. FIELD-Hello. My name is David Field. I live at 661 Corinth Road,which he said to the south and to the east of the property he's leaving some woods. What about to the north? MRS. MOORE-That question will be answered,but do you have any additional questions? MR. FIELDS-Yes,seeing that's my property. I want to know how much trees are going to be. MR. MC CABE-So the way this works is you provide us with input. We don't answer questions,per se, but we certainly will consider that. MR. FIELDS-Okay, and I mean there's a lot of wildlife in there right now. It's a dense,wooded area and there's lot of wildlife in there. Where's the wildlife going to go? Rules are rules. He doesn't have enough room. Rules are rules. I guess that's what I've got to say. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. FIELDS-Thank you. HARRISON FRANCETT MR. FRANC ETT-Good evening. I'm the homeowner at 700 Corinth Road,which is a little bit to the west and the south. MR. KUHL-Your name? MR. FRANC ETT-Harrison Francett. And I got the letter in the mail so I just wanted to come and hear about the project and I mean I have plenty of wildlife and I live right on the main road,but I just wanted to say as long as there's not more light pollution and street lights being put up on Corinth Road, I think it's a good project,and I just came to voice our local opinion on it. MR. KUHL-Thankyou. MR. FRANCETT-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-All right. Is there anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-No written comments. MR. MC CABE-I'll close the public hearing at this particular time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'll poll the Board and. MR. HENKEL-Does he want to answer the questions? MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. So do you guys have anything to add there? MR. WILKINSON-Sure. To the north,with the cul de sac the way it is and having to get grading to get the drainage for stormwater management,right in this area only there'd be no trees up to the property line, but all the trees behind the existing duplexes will remain, and behind here will also remain,but that one section which is about 100 foot long,there will be very minimal trees,but again,that's to try and provide stormwater management. Currently the stormwater management along Foothills Road is relatively minimal. It's side ditches and things like that. So when you go and add some water you have to make sure that the water can drain around, and that's the reason why, to the south,we didn't provide 100 feet like we wanted to is because we're utilizing the existing on-site well point right here. All the water flows to there naturally anyway. So we're utilizing that whole area, and it's a little bit closer to the south line than we anticipated. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to poll the Board,and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we should be concerned with this one, where do the children play? You're cramming everything inhere with four units in each one of those. You have minimal space. You're going to have a lot of traffic going,traffic flow going in and out of the project. I think it's over-subscribed. I think it should go back in for an alternative. Feasible alternative would be to build less than what you're proposing. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) MR. MC CABS John? MR.HENKEL-I guess I think it would be abetter idea to reduce it. I understand the feasibility of it might be tough,but I have to say if you could reduce it a little bit,I'd probably be on board,but not as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-When I drove in there I thought it was a good application. And I'm going to stand on that. I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-To me I think they're overdeveloping this area here. I think there's too many units for us to approve, based on what's allowed in that area for this type of building, these types of buildings. So unless they reduce it by a substantial amount,I'm not going to be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-Yes, I agree that I think it needs to be reduced. Maybe that one unit that's on the north side of the property. Without the neighbor it would help the density,because you still have that buffer on the south side. So at this point I wouldn't be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I'm not opposed to a four unit with an on-site garage. I think that's a good unit that makes it affordable for tenants. I do think that, I could support this if there were two units rather than, two buildings rather than three. I think that would allow for a little more green space,a little more space to have kids play and reduce traffic a little. So as it is I could not support it. I would support it with two units. MR. MC CABE-So you don't have enough votes at this particular time. MR.WILKINSON-Can I present this to you guys? This is a map of all the adjoining owners for all of the, of the lots. I've got a couple of copies. We're asking for three,four, seven,and if you look at the average inhere,it is much less than that. So again,I'm trying to point that out. Also the question I would have is, I'm hearing words like half,or lose one building. One building would be down to eight units. What about the possibility of cutting off one unit per building and going to nine units and still having three buildings. Would that be something that would be amenable. MR. HENKEL-I'd be in favor. Actually, to tell you the truth, I've driven around that property a lot, and you are right, there's a lot of homes on small pieces of property. So there'd be less in that amount of property compared to anything around therm So I agree. MR. KUHL-Let's not negotiate here. He's presented this. It's either yes or no on this. MR.WILKINSON-Or we can ask to table it. I'm just trying to get a sense of,again,I wanted to make sure that you guys understood we did our homework. That's how we came up with this density, and again, each building is less than 3400 square feet. Some of these buildings that are on those .33 acre lots in Hudson Pointe are almost that size. MR. HENKEL-Goldfinch there,too. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to table and come back with another proposal? MR.WILKINSON-Yes,we'd like to table. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So,John? MR. HENKEL-Okay. When are we going to table it to? MRS. MOORE-So are you able to submit updated information by September 15`h to be on October? It's pretty short notice,but September 15`h is the next deadline for October's agenda. MR.WILKINSON-Yes. MR. HENKEL-So October 16`h MRS. MOORE-The first October meeting is fine. Yes. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting OS/21/2024) MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mountain Vista Properties(Chris Racicot). Applicant proposes the construction of three 4-unit apartment buildings for 12 total new units. Site work will include on-site septic, stormwater management, and connection to municipal water. Project will maintain the existing S units between four buildings;site will have 20 units. Project includes merger of two lots for a site of 9.17 acres where multi-family buildings require 2 acres per unit without sewer and water. Site plan for multi-family project. Relief requested for number of units on lot size,density,and number of units. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.46-2024 MOUNTAIN VISTA PROPERTIES(CHRIS RACICOT ,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled until October 16`h,2024 with any new information by September 15`h,2024. Duly adopted this 21"day of August,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-We'll see you again. MR.WILKINSON-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So I'll make a motion to adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 21ST,2024,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 21"day of August,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Keenan,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 13