The URL can be used to link to this page

01-20-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 31-2020 Bill Pogonowski 1. Tax Map No. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60 Area Variance No. 45-2020 Harrisena Community Church 5. Tax Map No. 266.3-1-59 Area Variance No. 49-2020 Rockhurst, LLC 10. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35 Area Variance No. 2-2021 Jay & Kim Ogden (Cont’d Pg. 33) 29. Tax Map No. 289-18-1-13; 289.18-1-15 Area Variance No. 3-2021 Jason Walker 30. Tax Map No. 315.10-1-52 Area Variance No. 1-2021 David R. White 36. Tax Map No. 239.15-1-4 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 01/20/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 20, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD CATHERINE HAMLIN JOHN HENKEL BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. This is Mike McCabe. I’m the Chairman of the Queensbury Zoning Board th of Appeals. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting, January 20, 2021. Our format tonight is new to us. The first time that we’ve done a Zoom meeting. So it’s probably going to be awkward at points, but we’ll do our best to get through it. We do have a full Board tonight, and so there’ll be seven votes on most projects. We have some changes to our original agenda for this evening. Case Number Four which is AV 1-2021 is going to be moved from Four to Six and AV 2-2021 is going to remain at Five and Jason Walker, which is AV 3-2021 is going to move up to Four, but before we get the meeting started we have an administrative item to take care of, and that’s the meeting minutes from our December meeting. So, John, will you make a motion for us. APPROVAL OF MINUTES December 16, 2020 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER 16, 2020, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So our first application tonight is AV 31-2020, Bill Pogonowski, 24 Russell Harris Road. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BILL POGONOWSKI AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL – RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) BILL POGONOWSKI ZONING WR/LAKE GEORGE CEA LOCATION 24 RUSSELL HARRIS RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED 672 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) GARAGE WITH FLOOR AREA OF 1.114 SQ. FT. THE GARAGE HEIGHT IS TO BE GREATER THAN 16 FT. IN WR ZONE (NEW HEIGHT 18 FT. 10 ¾ INCHES). THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,954 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,195 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR FLOOR AREA & HEIGHT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 42-2020; BP 99561-7931; BP 99562-7930; AV 27-1999; AV 28-1999; P20020807 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.3 ACRES (7); 0.09 ACRES (60) TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60 SECTION 179-3-040 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-So this application has already been heard back in October but the applicant has made some changes. Roy, can you read the changes into the record please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31-2020, Bill Pogonowski, Meeting Date: January 20, 2021 “Project Location: 24 Russell Harris Rd. Description of Proposed Project: (Revised): Applicant proposes to construct a detached 672 sq. ft. (footprint) garage with floor area of 1,114 sq. ft. The garage height is to be greater than 16 ft. in WR zone (new height 18 ft. 10 ¾ inches). The existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (footprint) with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. Relief requested for floor area & height. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for floor area and height. Section 179-3-040, 179-5-020 Garages – Waterfront Residential WR The garage is to be 672 sq. ft. with a new site floor area of 4309 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 3,956 sq. ft. Relief is also requested for the height where 18 ft. 10 3/4 inches is proposed and 16 ft. is the maximum height allowed- the applicant has revised the application to reduce the height. 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 as the garage is located near Russell Harris Road. 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 to reducing the height and floor area may be possible. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the floor area is 353 sq. ft. more than allowed and height relief is 2 ft. 10 3/4 inches more than allowed. 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: The applicant proposes to construct a new garage on the site with associated site work. The revised plans show the garage height has been reduced. The plans show the garage and floor plan. The lots are to be merged as part of the project.” MR. MC CABE-Do we have the applicant or Ethan here tonight? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Ethan that’s you? MR. HALL-Yes, it is. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to talk about the changes that you made? MR. HALL-So, yes, I went back and spoke with Bill and Wendy Pogonowski about the project and about what we could do to knock the house down and make it a little bit lower. We’ve actually lowered the door so that you have to come through the back door in the attic space and then go up a couple of stairs so that we could get the door in, in the peak of the building. We’ve reduced the size of the overall height to 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 18 feet 10 inches, which gives us an 8/12 pitch which is significantly lower than what the existing house is, but it’s something that they can live with . It does give them enough space upstairs that they can store things, and still walk around and not have real bad head bangers or anything like that, and it is, you know it gives them the ability to have some additional storage up there. Obviously this is all under seven foot eight which is the required headroom for habitable space. So we’ve shown that we don’t have the habitable space up there. This could never be used as an apartment or anything like that. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-You did a good job. MR. MC CABE-There is a public meeting advertised for this evening, and so at this time I’ll open the public hearing and I’ll take any input from the public. So do I have anybody that would like to speak on this particular project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. BROWN-Mike, what I did first was I put in, there’s a caller who’s somebody who’s called in with the number. I don’t know their name or what project they’re here for. So if they’re listening right now they can, I think, press *6 to try and unmute and make comment.. Otherwise I will look in the lobby for anybody with their hand up and we’ll get you in for the public hearing. MR. MC CABE-Laura, do we have any written correspondence on this particular project? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’ll read that in. So this is “To Whom It May Concern: I’m the neighbor to Bill and Wendy Pogonowski’s parcel located at 24 Russell Harris Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804. My parcel is located immediately next to theirs. It is my understanding that the Pogonowskis’ are interested in constructing a garage structure on their property. Please accept this correspondence as official notification that we are in support of this proposed construction project. The garage structure, as proposed, will not hinder our view and/or encroach on our property lines. I am confident that the garage structure will improve the appearance of the property as well as the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Kimberly Mariani” MR. MC CABE-And that’s it? MRS. MOORE-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So, Craig, have we identified anybody calling in? MR. BROWN-We have not. I don’t see any hands up in the lobby right now. MR. URRICO-There is somebody asking how they can get into the meeting, but I’m not sure. MR. BROWN-I’m working on a response there. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So we’re all set with public comment on this particular project. So at this time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-I think the Pogonowskis and Mr. Hall have done a nice job of reducing the height of it with what we asked. So now he’s only asking for two feet ten inches which is favorable, and there still is a floor ratio problem of 357 feet or whatever. It’s over the allowable, but I can live with that. So I think he’s done a good job and I think it fits the balancing test. So I’d be in favor of it. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I appreciate the changes that were made. They’re sensitive to the area and it’s the minimum necessary if we pass it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m happy with the revision. I think that will satisfy my initial concern. So I think they fit the test and I would be in favor of it. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m satisfied with the end result. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I think with the changes, they’ve responded well to our request and I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It appears as if the Pogonowski’s and Mr. Hall were diligent in the revisions here going from the original 12/12 pitch to the 8/12. They did a nice job reducing that height. As Mr. Hall indicated additionally, you know, this, I would be maybe concerned if this could be used as an apartment or anything like that. It cannot. As well as good to hear from Ms. Mariani, the neighbor next door, supporting it. So with that I would be in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support this project. I’m impressed that the applicant made the changes basically that we requested, and so at this time I’m going to ask Michelle to make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Bill Pogonowski. (Revised): Applicant proposes to construct a detached 672 sq. ft. (footprint) garage with floor area of 1,114 sq. ft. The garage height is to be greater than 16 ft. in WR zone (new height 18 ft. 10 ¾ inches). The existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (footprint) with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. Relief requested for floor area & height. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for floor area & height. Section 179-3-040, 179-5-020 Garages – Waterfront Residential WR The garage is to be 672 sq. ft. with a new site floor area of 4309 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 3,956 sq. ft. Relief is also requested for the height where 18 ft. 10 3/4 inches is proposed and 16 ft. is the maximum height allowed- the applicant has revised the application to reduce the height. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. 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. This structure does fit in with the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and changes have been made to the plans to further fit in with the neighborhood as well. 3. The requested variance is moderately substantial, but that is acceptable to the Board. 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. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2020 BILL POGONOWSKI, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) th Duly adopted this 20 Day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. HALL-Thank you very much, Board. I appreciate it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 45-2020, the Harrisena Community Church, 1616 Ridge Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II HARRISENA CHURCH AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) HARRISENA CHURCH ZONING MDR LOCATION 1616 RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A THREE-LOT SUBDIVISION WHERE THE EXISTING LOT IS 3.8 ACRES. LOT 1 IS TO BE 1.3 ACRES, LOT 2 IS TO BE 1.3 ACRES, AND LOT 3 IS TO BE 1.2 ACRES. LOT 1 IS TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME 1,580 SQ. FT. WITH DECKS (FOOTPRINT) AND LOTS 2 & 3 ARE FOR FUTURE HOMES AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PLANNING BOARD: REVIEW FOR SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE. CROSS REF SUB 16-2020; AV 37-2003; SV 60-2002; BP 2000428; BP 93057-990 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.8 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-59 SECTION 179-3-040 MATTHEW WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. URRICO-Mike, just for the record, I’m recusing myself from this application. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So this application has already been read into the record. It was addressed during our last meeting, but at that meeting we only had five Board members in attendance. The applicant is entitled to seven. So tonight we have a slight problem in that one of our seven has recused himself and so the applicant doesn’t quite have his seven votes yet. So he has the option of waiting until we do have a full Board because tonight we have no alternates available to us or he can, like he did last week, go through the process and see how he makes out, if the other five maintain their vote, and see how he makes out with the new member. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 45-2020, Harrisena Church, Meeting Date: January 20, 2021 “Project Location: 1616 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a three-lot subdivision where the existing lot is 3.8 acres. Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 is to be 1.3 acres, and Lot 3 is to be 1.2 acres. Lot 1 is to maintain the existing home 1,580 sq. ft. with decks (footprint) and Lots 2 & 3 are for future homes and associated site work. Planning Board: review for subdivision. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size in the Moderate Density zone- MDR. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The project proposes three lot subdivision where Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 is to be 1.3 acres, and Lot 3 is to be 1.2 acres and the lot size required is 2 acres in the MDR zone. Lot 1 will maintain an existing house and the remaining two lots are to be sold for future homes. 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 include reducing the number of lots. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for Lot 1 is 0.7 ac, for Lot 2 is 0.7 ac, and Lot 3 is 0.8 ac. 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: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.8 ac into three lots. The Harrisena Church will retain Lot 1 that has the existing home. There are no changes to lot 1. Lot 2 and Lot 3 are to be sold for future homes. Lot 3 will have access on Clements Road, Lot 2 will have access on Ridge Road, and Lot 1 access on Ridge Road will remain the same. The subdivision plan shows the three lots and proposed house location and septic. The APA has provided correspondence explaining they may reverse decisions if not based on statutory basis and has in the past reversed decisions associated with density requests. Further the APA has explained the underlying APA classification is Rural Use where 8.5 ac per principal building for the parcel location. The applicant requested to be tabled at the December 2020 meeting as there was not a full board.” MR. MC CABE-So do we have a representative from the Harrisena Community Church here? MR. WEBSTER-Yes. I’m with VanDusen & Steves, representing our client, Harrisena Community Church. MR. MC CABE-So you heard our little problem here? MR. WEBSTER-Yes, and we would still like to move forward tonight. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Matt, is there anyone else we need to bring in? MR. WEBSTER-No. Our client is sitting opposite me. MR. BROWN-All right. MR. MC CABE-So Brent McDevitt is our new Board member tonight. He is aware of this application, has read the notes. Do you have anything to add from our last meeting that could be of interest here? MR. WEBSTER-Just one of the things I’d like to mention. I know that it’s not necessarily the purview of this Board, but as there was some discussion last time about stormwater issues and neighbors concerned about those implications for these lots, we would of course be willing to go forward with a contingency that we develop a stormwater prevention plan. That would not be a problem. MR. MC CABE-Actually tonight without knowing what sort of structure is going to be on the proposed new lots, I don’t know that we can really make any sort of judgment in that particular area. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Board members, do we have any additional questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-The only thing is none of that area was designated as wetlands anyway. I mean it’s lower than the road, but none of it has been designated as wetland. Right? MR. MC CABE-Right. Okay. So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised and I’m going to open the public hearing, and anybody who would like to comment on this particular project is invited to comment, but first I’m going to ask Laura, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There is written comment, and what I’d like to just briefly read through is we did receive comment from Robin Burgess at the APA and she just wants you to know their variance request involves a variance from the local controls governing intensity of development and therefore it would be subject to Agency review, and we’ve done that before. Once the Board reviews it, they do receive information from us, and they have in the past potentially the opportunity to overturn it. They do note in this comment that historically the Agency has reversed variances for density as they represent a variance from one of the basic 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) tenets of the APA Act represented by the overall intensity guidelines, and so again it’s just a comment so that you’re aware of it. I’m going to continue with the actual public comments that have been received. This first one is from Agnes Vigotty. “My home is directly across from Harrisena’s parsonage. Concern #1 – I have a well at my home since Queensbury town water doesn’t go up as far as my area. With two additional homes possibly to be built across the street (if approved), I’m not sure how that will affect my water supply. Concern #2 – I also know that two more homes built on that property will also affect the run-off water on to the properties of my friends and neighbors on Clements Road. After the last zoning meeting, I thought that possibly only one home would be built, and now it looks like the plan is back to th two. Sincerely, Agnes Vigotty” And then she had submitted a similar letter back on December 16, 2020. th And then this is also received from December 16. This is from John and Barbara Keyworth. “We request that in reference to the variance AV 45-2020 for the Harrisena Church property that you do not grant a waiver for Stormwater Management and that if the subdivision is granted that you make the most stringent enforcement of the Stormwater Management regulations possible for the following reasons: 1. The water runoff from Ridge Road is already a problem for the people that live ion Clements Road. More so in the winter than in the summer. In the winter of 2018 we had 2 to 3 inches of water over our driveway that would freeze and thaw depending on weather conditions due to the run off from Ridge Road and the grade of Clements Road. 2. Every winter poses a problem for the water as it travels down Clements Road. As the town should know from past winters extra sanding has to be done during freezing weather for the safety of vehicles traveling down our road as the runoff water will freeze in significant areas as it travels down the road. 3. The area in question for the variance on the corner of Ridge Road and Clements Road provides some buffering for the snow melt and runoff. Granting a waiver to the Stormwater Management regulations will only increase the water runoff. In addition the dense growth on this property has become a wildlife refuge and transition point for animals of all types as they pass through our area. The growth in that area provides protection for turkeys, deer and their offspring. It would be a shame to lose that. Thank th you, John and Barbara Keyworth” And then a phone conversation that also occurred on December 16. Staff Laura Moore received a phone call from Katherine Standbridge at 8 Clements Drive. She explained that her lot is across the street from the lot proposed on Clements Drive. She would prefer if the driveway was not directly opposite her driveway and would prefer the trees along Clements Road side to be keeping with the rural area. That’s all I’ve got. MR. MC CABE-So is there anybody on queue here who wants to speak? MR. BROWN-I do have a message from Kathy Grant. I would like for the record to again reiterate my concern over the drainage issue and the drainage pipe that flows under State Route 9 onto the property located on the corner of Route 9 and Clements Road. I think that’s the Kathy that I’ve added to the meeting. So if she wants to unmute and speak some more that’s available, and I don’t see any other hands in the lobby. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Let me ask Laura. Is this close enough to Washington County that we have to inform them as to what we’re doing here? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MC CABE-So has Kathy decided to address us in addition to the note? KATHY GRANT MS. GRANT-I have. Can you hear me? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I can. MS. GRANT-Okay. Hi. I’m Kathy Grant. I live across the street from Clements Road. My driveway is literally across the street from Clements Road and again I’m just, there is a drainage pipe directly from our property, the ditch on our side of the road, across underneath 9 into that property. The next closest drainage for mine going south is down at the cemetery. So that drainage literally flows right on to that corner lot. I know when they were re-doing, when the State was re-doing the road this year, there was a lot of talk about that. They actually extended a lot of the ditch along our side which would be the west side of 9 and made sure those drainage pipes were properly in place and set. So again the State is using that property right over there as drainage and like I said the next drainage is all the way down to the cemetery. So it’s not along any other, you know, that’s the one spot, and then it goes beyond the houses to the cemetery before there is another drainage pipe underneath the road in order to prevent issues. MR. MC CABE-Is that it? MS. GRANT-That’s it. I think like all my neighbors I’m just very concerned about the drainage issue. It is a wildlife little preserve over there and I think putting a house there is going to pose a problem trying to get a well, a septic and the issue of the drainage problems. Thank you for listening. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else? MR. HENKEL-Mr. McCabe? So in other words really it’s not Harrisena’s fault that the State has actually created more of a wetland area there. It’s not their fault and really the State shouldn’t be using their property for the drainage. MR. MC CABE-And also from our standpoint with those structures being approved here, we can’t really talk about how drainage is going to be changed. From our standpoint it’s no different than it is now. We’re just drawing some different lines on a piece of paper. MR. HENKEL-That’s part of site planning anyway. We’re just deciding if we can grant that amount of relief for not the full two acres. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to look at, if you guys look at the plat you can see that there are four driveway access points on the west side of Ridge Road. This is going to create a single, one more. So there will be a total two counting the one that’s already pre-existing at the Church. I think the addition of a single curb cut and driveway over on the other side, on Clements Road side, too, is going to be a minimal change in the neighborhood. As I reiterated at the last meeting , we’re looking at lot sizes that are very similar in size to what exists on the west side of the road from Ridge at the present time. So I don’t really see that this is a huge impact. I think it’s a minimal change. No one wants to see everything developed completely, but this area has been primed for that for a long time. So I’d be in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Could I ask Laura one more question? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-When did this zoning to two acres occur? Do you have a feel for that? MRS. MOORE-How long ago it was changed in zoning? I don’t believe it was since the time I was here. I believe it was prior to me. MR. BROWN-I think 2009. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. So my opinion has not changed because I do believe there is a big difference between what they’re proposing for the size of these lots and the two acres that is required. Regardless of what the character is, there’s a reason the Town Board put a two acre minimum here. Perhaps to dimensionally change the character of the neighborhood or to forestall any loss of rural character. I’m not sure what their intention was, but it is their intention, and I do believe that the applicant can still get a reasonable rate of return by splitting it into two instead of three lots, and that one larger lot and then we will be able to maintain the zoning. So I am not in favor. My position has not changed. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I understand the concerns of the neighbors. It makes some sense, but if you look at the properties, especially the ones across the street, they’re half the lots of the lots that you’re trying to produce there, and I think with some good site planning there’d be no problem with wells and septics creating any kind of problems with the other neighboring lots. The relief isn’t that great. You’re talking .7 and .8 for Lot Two and Three. They still have road frontage of 200 feet, Lot Two does on Ridge Road. Then you’ve got 197 feet or actually over 200 feet on Clements Road if they put the driveway on the other side. So I think it fits the neighborhood. So I would say definitely looking at the criteria it passes the balancing test. So I would be in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m still not in favor of the project for the reasons I said in the last meeting. Primarily with the proliferation of undersized lots in that area. It’s setting a precedent. To me you look at the larger area, it’s rural. There’s a lot of farm land around there if you don’t go too far. So for that reason I’m not in favor. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’d be in favor, Mr. Chairman. As Mr. Henkel indicated, I believe that the relief isn’t that great and that with good site planning, stormwater management and associated factors that go into all of that area of planning that I would be in favor of the project. Looking at the 200 feet front and 197 on Clements, I don’t believe it is that great in terms of relief. So I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I believe that most of the concerns of the neighbors can be taken care of in the next phase when buildings are actually being proposed here, and so really all we’re doing is re-drawing some lines on maps and so therefore I don’t think we’re really making any huge changes. So I support the project. So at this particular time I’m going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Harrisena Community Church. Applicant proposes a three-lot subdivision where the existing lot is 3.8 acres. Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 is to be 1.3 acres, and Lot 3 is to be 1.2 acres. Lot 1 is to maintain the existing home 1,580 sq. ft. with decks (footprint) and Lots 2 & 3 are for future homes and associated site work. Planning Board: review for subdivision. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size in the Moderate Density zone- MDR. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The project proposes three lot subdivision where Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 is to be 1.3 acres, and Lot 3 is to be 1.2 acres and the lot size required is 2 acres in the MDR zone. Lot 1 will maintain an existing house and the remaining two lots are to be sold for future homes. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 16, 2020 & Wednesday, January 20, 2021. 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 many of the nearby properties have equal or smaller lots. So in that respect we’re not really making a change to the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but really don’t fit the needs of the applicant. The alternatives are two lots instead of three, but the applicant needs the three lots. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial. We’ve subdivided a number of two acre lots into much smaller than the more than an acre that’s proposed here. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. At this particular time all we’re doing is subdividing. There won’t be any impact physically or environmentally until actual structures are designed. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2020 HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of January 2021 by the following vote: 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. MR. WEBSTER-Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 49-2020, Rockhurst, LLC, Assembly Point Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2020 SEQRA TYPE II ROCKHURST LLC AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) ROCKHURST LLC ZONING WR LOCATION ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME 2,400 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 4,300 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND EXTERIOR PATIO AREAS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK (FILL, GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE LANDSCAPING, NEW SEPTIC & WATER SUPPLY FROM LAKE). PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT AND SHORELINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV SP 57-2020; AV 22-2020; SP 81-2011; P20110614; PT 582-2020; PT 583-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-35 SECTION 179-3-040 GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2020, Rockhurst LLC, Meeting Date: January 20, 2021 “Project Location: Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new home 2,400 sq. ft. footprint with 4,300 sq. ft. floor area and exterior patio areas. Project includes site work (fill, grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic & water supply from lake). Planning Board: site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for height and shoreline setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height and shoreline setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new home to be constructed is to be 29 ft. 10 inches where 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. The new home is to be 50 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The parcel involved was part of a subdivision in 1993 where the Town Code required a 75 ft. setback, todays code would be 50 ft. setback from the shoreline. 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. The applicant proposes a new single family home and removing two existing camps. 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 configuration of the parcel along the shoreline. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for height is 1 ft. 10 inches and the shoreline setback relief requested is 25 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. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new single family home with 2,400 sq. ft. footprint and 4,300 sq. ft. floor area. The project includes site work, fill and grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic and water supply from Lake George. The plans show the height area that is above 28 ft. The shoreline setback is due to subdivision of 1993 and the code requirements for setbacks at that time. The plans show the work to be completed on the site and the new home to be constructed. The applicant requested to be tabled at the December 2020 meeting as there was not a full board” MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, just for your information, this application has already been read into the record. So is the applicant here? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So have there been any changes since our last meeting? MR. VUILLAUME-Well, we actually tabled the application at the last meeting. So we did not have an opportunity to present it. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to present it now? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. I’d like to also try to make sure that the rest of my design team is on the Zoom and as a panelist, please. MR. BROWN-Who am I missing here? MR. VUILLAUME-Well, we’ve got John Allen and we should have Michael Tuck, the architect, and Chris Abele. CHRIS ABELE MR. ABELE-And Phyllis Abele. MR. VUILLAUME-And Phyllis Abele. MR. ABELE-My better half. MR. VUILLAUME-So it sounds like we have everyone. John, are you there? He’s muted. JOHN ALLEN MR. ALLEN-Can you hear me now? MR. BROWN-Yes, we’ve got you John. MR. VUILLAUME-Great. Okay. It looks like we have everyone. Laura, do you have a copy of the existing conditions? MRS. MOORE-Is it in this set? Let’s see. MR. VUILLAUME-It should be in there. There we go. Okay. I don’t know what all the yellow things are, but don’t get nervous. That’s nothing. That’s all right. I think I can start with this particular map. So again my name’s Gavin Vuillaume. I’m the project landscape architect for the project. For tonight’s meeting I’ll give just a brief description of the project, and then I’d like to have John Allen have an opportunity to talk about some of the area variance criteria and how this project meets those criteria. So starting with the existing conditions survey, this is the two parcels that Chris and Phyllis Abele have recently purchased . There’s two parcels and there’s three buildings on these two parcels. The parcel that is under consideration for this evening is the parcel that is located adjacent to Assembly Point and the parcel that is not under consideration is the parcel that has the point, we call it the point lot, that has the main structure on it as it sits today. It also has a very small amount of frontage along Holly Lane. So we won’t be discussing it. You’ll see some drawings that show some conceptual ideas of how that parcel might be developed in the future, but we aren’t considering that parcel, but again focusing mainly on the smaller, we call it the cottage lot. You can see that the parcel has approximately, a little over 100 feet of frontage on Assembly Point Road. We’ve got about 272 feet along the shoreline. There’s two docks and 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) two existing cottages on the property. These cottages are in quite disrepair. So obviously we would be removing these two buildings along with the outdated septic systems and wells that are associated with it. The two docks would stay that you can see a dashed line that kind of traverses across the property. That’s an existing gravel drive and we would be re-locating that. So I think now would be a good time, Laura, if you could go back to the first sheet that you had. Okay. So then with the site plan as I guess most of you are aware this project is going to require a couple of variances, and John will get into more detail on those. The two variances that are required would be for the building’s height and for the building’s location in relation to the shoreline. So if you remember from the drawing that we most recently looked at, you should be able to kind of see the existing cottages underneath the proposed building. The new building is going to be located further back than the existing cottages. The existing cottages are about 39 feet I believe it is from the shoreline. We would be proposing this new building at 50 feet from the shoreline. Unfortunately, because of the way the property is looked at through the Town and through the original subdivision that these lots were created, at that time the existing zoning required a 75 foot setback and that’s what we are to adhere to with this project. I’m not sure if many of you are aware of it but the current shoreline setback for this particular zone sits at 50 feet. So we do meet that current zoning 50 foot setback but we don’t meet the 75. John can get into a little more detail on that. You can see the house where we’ve proposed it. It adequately fits on the property. To really push it back any further from the shoreline would be very difficult in order to get access to the building not only for the proposed driveway but also for the shared driveway that comes off of Assembly Point and leads out towards the main parcel. As far as improvements to the site, we are also proposing a couple of patio areas with generous landscaping. I can show you some of the landscaping if you’d like to see it. I believe that’ll be mostly something that the Planning Board would be reviewing, but I would also like to point out that these septic system, and it’s very important that these septic systems be re-located 100 feet from the shoreline, and the current septic system does not meet that setback and we will be going to great lengths to put the septic system at 100 feet from the shoreline. The septic system kind of straddles the existing property line the way we have it proposed. If you look towards Holly Lane you can kind of see where the two septic systems for the two buildings would be and a portion of this septic system would straddle that property line. So as part of this project we will be re-configuring that property line so that it sits on the parcel, the cottage parcel and meets all the setbacks required for the septic system. Another improvement that we’re making for the project is stormwater management. Currently there’s a lot of standing water on the property, drainage not only from this parcel but also from the parcels to the south of us. So we’ve again made a lot of improvements to the stormwater management. We’ve created several stormwater management areas that the Planning Board has been reviewing. We’ve even added additional culvert piping along Assembly Point Road in order to adequately accept drainage, not only from this parcel but also any drainage that comes off of the parcels to the south of us. So that’s a brief description of the project. Again, I don’t know if I got into detail with the building itself. It’s a two story building. The footprint is approximately 2400 square feet. We don’t exceed any of the impervious areas for the project so we meet all the setbacks as far as the building except for the shoreline setback and the height of the building, and Mike Tuck, the architect, can talk to you a little bit about how that is going to be very close to meeting the criteria. We have another drawing, Laura. I don’t know if it makes sense to quickly put that up now or? MRS. MOORE-The roof drawing? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, we had those roof plans. I don’t know if we need that now, but it wouldn’t hurt to just show it real quick. There you go. Great. Thank you. I appreciate it. MRS. MOORE-No problem. MR. VUILLAUME-So you can see the very small amount of roof area that would exceed the height limit. The height limit is at 28 feet and we’re proposing it 29 feet 10 inches. So it’s a very small amount of the roof that would exceed that height. Also if you go to the next page there may be a section that shows up. There you go. You can see it’s very minimal. So majority of that structure really sits below that 28 foot criteria. Okay. If you want to maybe just go back to the site plan I guess now’s a good time to let John talk a little bit about the Area Variance criteria. MR. ALLEN-Gavin, thanks very much. I just want to make sure people can hear me. I’m unmuted, but I just want to make sure that you can hear me. MR. MC CABE-I can hear you. MR. ALLEN-Okay. Thank you. As the Board is well aware, having watched the December meeting and listening to the applications before this, there’s a balancing test that the ZBA applies to compare the benefit to the applicant if there’s grant of the requested variances, and the detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community if the variances are granted, and the State of New York goes through five factors for consideration. We have a situation here where there are two rundown cottages on this particular lot that would be replaced with a new single family residence. The overall lot size is one acre. It is substantially larger than lots in the immediate vicinity which have frontage on Lake George on the east side of Holly Lane. Most of those are between a half acre and a third of an acre, and the setback, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) the shoreline setback, as Gavin said, will comply with what is required under the current Code, and if any Board members have had a chance to visit this area and look at the neighborhood along Holly Lane, I think you will recognize that our setback is equal to if not better than most of the setbacks that exist along Holly Lane. The building height variances, as Gavin has mentioned, is pretty minimal, 1.10 inches, and it’s caused in part because the test under the Queensbury Code is existing grade rather than final grade. There is a high water table in this area, which is part of the reason why there’s going to be a major effort on stormwater management to improve conditions in the neighborhood, but there needs to be some fill in the area where the house would be built and quite frankly even though the lot is an acre, you can see it’s shape is very irregular and without the shoreline setback variance if you combine the 30 foot front yard setback with the 75 foot shoreline setback and the 20 foot side yard setback along the southerly boundary of the property, the building envelope in which a house could be built is really very small and very unwieldy because the lawn part of it is no more than five feet wide by the time you comply with the 75 and the 20 foot setbacks shoreline and side yard. So we’ve tried to design a house, and Mike Tuck can address this certainly when he speaks, that at 2400 square feet ground floor area which includes plus or minus 500 square feet of garage area, it’s really only a 1900 square foot ground floor area residence. So we’re not trying to build a mansion here. We’re not trying to overly pack the site. We believe it’s a reasonable house, but to build even a reasonable house we very much need a shoreline setback variance because of the anomaly that, although the current standard is 50, when these properties were subdivided back in 1993 the setback for the zone in which this property was then placed was 75 feet. So that’s really why we need that variance. Given what’s going to be done with replacing the existing septic system, given what’s going to be done to manage stormwater runoff, we believe that we are going to produce a benefit rather than an adverse impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and while we certainly have to acknowledge that this is a self-created difficulty, as the Board well knows that is not a bar to the grant of an Area Variance and again given the configuration of the lot, given that by virtue of the 1993 subdivision, we are, without the variance, held to a shoreline setback that is 50% larger than what would otherwise be required. We believe that when the Board applies the balancing test that it should come out in favor of the applicant and the requested variances should be granted. Thank you. MR. VUILLAUME-Thanks, John. So I guess now would be probably another good time to turn it over to the Board. Again we have both Chris and Phyllis Abele available to answer any questions, as well as Michael Tuck the architect. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, John, you have a question? MR. HENKEL-I’m kind of lost here. It seems like the project that was initially was presented has changed now. It seems like in the beginning they were going to give us easement. They were going to give us a turnaround. They were going to give us a dry well, a dry fire hydrant. What happened to all that? And they said they were going to do away with the easement road after they built the house on Lot 2. What happened to that project? MR. ALLEN-Well, if I may try to answer that, Mr. Henkel, you’re talking about a variance for the use of Holly Lane as ingress and egress to what you refer to as Lot 2, or what’s labeled on there as the main residence lot. As you may or may not be aware, the grant of that variance, which was sought by the prior owner of the property, not by Rockhurst, produced an Article 78 proceeding. MR. HENKEL-Right. I understand that. MR. ALLEN-And having read the record from the ZBA meeting in August when that variance, the road frontage variance for the point lot was granted, there were many residents of Holly Lane who complained, were concerned about any kind of traffic coming to this lot via Holly Lane and quite frankly my clients want to try to be good neighbors, not bad neighbors and given the reception that we read about after the fact if you will, we decided to see if we could not work out access for the point lot coming in from Assembly Point Road. That is not really before the Board tonight. That would be the subject of a future variance application that we would make for the point lot, but it would be our intention, just so this is clear, that if this Board were to approve a road frontage variance when applied for for the point lot so that access would come from Holly Lane. We are willing to withdraw, rescind, waive, terminate, however you want to describe it the rights which the property has under the August 2020 variance to use Holly Lane for an ingress and egress. MR. HENKEL-Didn’t we grant a lot, and I don’t remember this perfectly, but didn’t we grant a lot subdivision based on what Mr. O’Connor had said about the turnaround and the drywell? MR. ALLEN-No. These have been separate lots since 1993. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Then maybe it was the, okay. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. ALLEN-The only thing we would do now as Gavin mentioned would be a lot line adjustment so that the septic system for the westerly lot, the cottage lot as it’s labeled on here, would be fully on the cottage lot and not straddle the property line. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. MR. ALLEN-You’re welcome. MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-This is Cathy. I just want to clarify. I have it in writing in two places, and the gentleman mentioned, is it 10 inches, is the relief for 1.10 or 1.9? I just want to know. It’s not a big difference I know, but. MR. VUILLAUME-One foot ten inches. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. MR. ALLEN-And I think we rounded it up to 1.9 feet, rather than say 1.83. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So now you just said 1.9. Which is it? MR. ALLEN-It’s 1 foot 10 inches which is 1.833. It’s just a decimal versus, that’s all. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. It’s one foot ten inches or one point nine. That’s the difference. All right. No problem. Thank you. MR. ALLEN-You’re welcome. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised, and so I’m going to open the public hearing, and while we’re arranging for people to talk I’m going to ask Laura, do we have any written correspondence on this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do have written input. It looks like some of those that made public comments are also on the call. So I’m going to try to get through some of these people that are on the call so that I know that they can potentially read their own letter. So give me a second. I think most of the folks that have public comment are on the call now. MR. BROWN-So, Mr. Chairman, we have Lorraine Ruffing who’s in, and I would like to put this out to anybody who’s waiting. If you can just raise your hand so I’ll know that you’d like to speak and we’ll get you in in turn. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Laura, do you want to continue with the public comments? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Lorraine Ruffing, if she’s on, she’s written a letter. MR. MC CABE-I saw her name as wanting to speak. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So I think Craig has her on next. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Yes, she’s on. She needs to unmute. LORRAINE RUFFING MS. RUFFING-Okay. Thank you very much. Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Lorraine Ruffing. I live on Assembly Point and I’m making these comments on behalf of the Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition. With regard to waiving the 75 foot setback, as the presenters have said, you can see the lot is very small and a very weird shape and it really will not accommodate a large house, given the fact that it is a wetland. MR. MC CABE-Wait a minute. I didn’t see anything where this is wetland. MS. RUFFING-Well, if you had come up to Assembly Point in the last week you would see that this lot is surrounded on four sides by water. There is a ditch which is on the south side. There is a ditch on the 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) Assembly Point side and there is a ditch on the north side of the property, and then of course you have the shoreline of Lake George. That ditch is filled with water right now and is usually filled with water because it drains a wetland and I think one of the other persons who sent a letter, Florence Connor, explained that there is an underground pipe which fills this ditch and I think the developers even alluded to the fact that you will need quite a bit of landscaping or reconfiguring of this particular plot because the water table is so high, and I think it was mentioned in the Town Board meeting that the test for the hydrology of this area was done at a time when it’s the driest, in October, and it should have been done because right now I think everyone can see how high the water table is. Our main concern, that is the residents of Assembly Point, is the fact that the harmful algae bloom occurred right in front of this particular lot. Where you see the two docks, the harmful algae bloom was to the left. So we know that this area is impacted. Possibly the algae bloom could have been the result of tampering with the old septic systems. We’re glad they’re going to be removed, but since this area is, if you don’t like the term wetland, I’ll just say this area is inundated most of the time, where they are placing their septic systems, we really doubt that there is any absorptive capacity for a system such as the pur-a-flow system which they intend to use. They might be better off using holding tanks. The second objection to this particular development is the fact that it should be considered in total. You should really be considering the impact of the two large residences, the two septic systems that will be on this particular land area, and I think the Waterkeeper has also made that point. MR. MC CABE-Just a second. So you understand that the septic system isn’t part of our consideration. MS. RUFFING-I know, but the fact is, you know, they are asking for the setback variance. Instead of 75 feet they want 50 feet. I think this particular lot is very problematic from many points of view, and I don’t think you can just compartmentalize and look at one particular point of view. The last point that I would like to make is that quite a bit of development has already taken place on this particular property and that during the fall work was undertaken on the road, on the drainage system and the extensive removal of trees, some of which, I guess about 16 trees last time I counted, and some of those were within 35 feet of the lake, and this has reduced the absorptive capacity of this particular area. So my main point is this area is going to be really hard to develop, and you can’t say that it doesn’t impact the rest of the neighborhood, because if Assembly Point loses its drinking water, we are all in trouble. So I think there are neighborhood objections as well as environmental objections, and thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Okay. Laura, do we have our next speaker? MR. BROWN-We do. Amanda, she should be able to unmute and speak next. AMANDA KUKLE MS. KUKLE-Hello. Can you hear me? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MS. KUKLE-Great. My name is Amanda Kukle. I’m an attorney with Caffry & Flower. We represent John and Honey-Jo Kelly who are property owners on Assembly Point who oppose granting the variances th for this project. A letter was also submitted on their behalf by John Caffry on December 15. This project has not meet the required mins for either the shoreline setback variance or the height variance. Before going into why the variances don’t meet the criteria required by the Town Code, I would like to address how the application is currently incomplete. This project was improperly categorized as a Type II action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act and has not been reviewed under SEQR as it should. Although a single Area Variance for a single family residence is a Type II action, this exemption is not applicable here because this project involves two single family residences on two lots and will then require multiple variances, and I’m talking about the two lots that you can see on the site plan All aspects of the project should be reviewed in a comprehensive manner without being segmented into separate applications. So an environmental assessment form must be filed and a Lead Agency must make a determination of significance. Now back to why the variances should be denied. First the most substantial variance is that 33% shoreline, the setback variance. As pointed out under the Town Code there is the 75 foot setback that was in place when the lot was created. It still applies today, and the required variance is 25 feet, which is one-third of the required distance. That’s a substantial variance, and not only is the requested variance substantial, but there are feasible alternatives available that would allow the applicant to meet the shoreline setback and the height requirements such as moving the house bac, a building a smaller house or changing the pitch of the roof. There are also options that involve combining the driveways for the two houses, this house and the main house, and that would clear up more space towards the road, allowing for making a setback variance unnecessary and that would have the added benefit of reducing the amount of impermeable surface which has been a concern by neighbors. This and th other alternatives are detailed in our December 15 letter and because the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by another feasible method, the variance should be denied. As detailed by other commenters, this project would have an adverse impact on the neighborhood and also severe negative impacts on the environment specifically related to stormwater issues and water quality. As pointed out, 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) this is an entirely self-created problem and the solution is to re-design a house that would conform to the Town Code, and the Town Code requires the ZBA approve only the minimum variance they deem necessary, and here there is no proof that the requested variances are the minimum necessary or that any effort has really been made to minimize or eliminate the need for these variances, and for those reasons these variances should be denied. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Laura, do we have another one? MR. BROWN-Chris Navitsky. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. I hope you can hear me, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-We can. MR. NAVITSKY-Great. Thank you very much. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper, and before I make these comments I’d also like to state that I had the opportunity to meet the applicant out on site and talk about some of our concerns prior to this letter. So the Waterkeeper finds the extent of disturbance and development is not in balance for a project proposed within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George, especially with the site and dimensional constraints present such as limited property depth and wetlands, which are indicated on the National Wetland Inventory Map on the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The placement of fill is not necessary and creates the need for the height variance and would result in environmental impacts. So first an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood or nearby properties by the variance. The installation of fill to accommodate the building height will have an undesirable change by increasing surface runoff, altering existing water courses and affecting the wetlands. In light of the recent Harmful Algae Bloom, it is imperative to prevent alterations to natural conditions that will increase runoff and decrease the natural flowpaths that are vital for water quality protection. Also they claim a hardship because they take the building height from existing grade which is the way the law is. So that’s not a hardship. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by other methods other than an area variance. As was referenced by the previous presenter, the applicant could eliminate the need for the height variance by removing the fill, by re-designing the site, by using a common driveway, by changing the building shape. So really there are alternatives due to a shoreline setback variance, and it was stated by one of the applicant’s agents that they are compliant with the shoreline, but that’s the existing shoreline setback, not what they have to comply to. Thirdly, the proposed variance will have an adverse impact and effect to the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The placement of fill creating the height variance will alter the natural overflow from the existing stream and wetlands that is naturally filtered through the existing overland flow. When you start raising a site and altering grade, that natural pattern goes right to the lake. If they raise and mound that they will push water around. They’re talking about putting in a pipe. Piping will cause greater problems and actually increase runoff by creating the mound that they’re doing where that home is, and that’s actually pushing more stormwater to the lake. So really they’re creating a bigger problem. As we’ve said the placement of fill or increased runoff, the placement of fill will also alter and encroach into the existing wetlands, which again are on the National Inventory map. Additionally the shoreline setback impervious cover that will be unmanaged closer to the lake shoreline. Again they have a couple of patio areas that are claiming to be porous but they’re closer to the lake, putting them in that setback. The last point, they talk about, and the Chairman referenced that the septic system isn’t part of this, but that was part of their justification, and really that should be excluded because they have to put in a new septic system regardless because under the Town of Queensbury law, the Transfer Law, they have to put in a new septic system. So really that’s irrelevant. I recognize the benefit, but they have to do that anyway. So with that, we oppose these variances and request that you deny the application. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, let me just ask you. I saw no reference to wetlands on any of the data that I have. Is my data wrong? MRS. MOORE-You’re correct. What I have is information from Mary O’Dell from the APA. She says I reviewed the aerial photos for this lot as part of a jurisdictional inquiry J2019-0809 and determined there are no wetlands on this lot. Adjoining lot 239.12-2-37 was visited by Mark Rooks in 2001 and he determined that there were no wetlands on that lot either. So, the proposed septic is not within 100 feet of any wetlands subject to Agency jurisdiction. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Now how about the question of these two projects have to be coupled? MRS. MOORE-I’d have to look into that, but we’ve seen projects that develop a development one at a time where you don’t know what’s going to happen with that other lot adjacent to it. That may never occur. So you’re focusing on the project that’s presented to you. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-Okay. So who’s the next speaker? MR. BROWN-Ellen Wetherbee-McDevitt. ELLEN WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT MRS. WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT-Can you hear me okay? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT-I’ll just reiterate much of what’s been said before. MR. MC CABE-If you don’t have anything new, we’ve had quite a bit of talk here. MRS. WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT-Well I do want to add a few points. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So don’t repeat what we’ve heard. MRS. WETHERBEE-MC DEVITT-I will not. I would just like to talk about the harmful algae bloom that occurred earlier in the fall. We get our drinking water from the lake at least six months out of the year. Harmful Algae Blooms, or HAB’s as they’re called, stipulate that there should be no fishing, swimming or boating when there’s the HAB. That impacts the residents for drinking water and to recreate on that water. Also although Mr. Abele states he’s putting in a state of the art water drainage system on the property, it’s not known that that will actually take out nitrogen and phosphorus which fuels HAB’s. So I think that’s extremely important to consider. And one of the natural strategies to mitigate HAB’s is to preserve wetland and create natural buffers using trees and plants. There have been a huge number of mature trees that were taken down on that property. It’s not known what will be done to rehabilitate that in terms of natural buffers. When I looked at the map, the topography map on the Town of Queensbury’s website, there are two small APA noted wetland areas which are on the shoreline of the property. I noticed them. They’re very narrow and they’re right on the shoreline. So I’m a bit confused when people say that there’s no wetlands recognized there. I would just say that the variances for the proposed waterfront homes have been implications for all of us around the lake as well as people who enjoy a clean, safe lake in which to recreate and the decisions that the Zoning Board makes regarding variances such as the current proposal have implications for homeowners, people who want to enjoy the benefits of a safe, clean lake and the tax revenue that’s generated from property on clean waters. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Laura, the next person? MR. BROWN-Michael O’Connor. MR. MC CABE-Mike, are you there? MR. BROWN-We can see you and hear you now. MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. I have not looked at this plan before, Craig, but I do note that there was this main house that was on there and then there were cabins that were used on a regular, seasonal basis and with septic systems that were probably not at all adequate. I think that’s a great improvement what they’re doing with the septic systems and what they’re trying to do with the stormwater. That would be my comment. They also tried to accommodate the neighbors and have stipulated that they would give up the variance that was granted, which has been challenged, as far as using the existing roads for entrance to the point lot, which I think is significant. That was a big concern after the variance was granted or at the time the variance was granted , and they, from the earlier conversation, have stipulated that they will not use that road or they will abandon that variance. That’s my comments. MR. BROWN-Lorraine Carbognin MRS. CARBOGNIN-Good evening. I am a resident on this bay and I have concerns about this project for myself, my family and my neighbors who drink this water. Our concerns, some have been mentioned before. I will just briefly mention them. That is the timing of the soil testing. That was done after the extended dry season, as well as the quality of soil composition on this lot which lacks favorable absorbent properties, were all part of the site plan submitted. The addendum states that a SPDES permit will be obtained. This information is part of that application process and must accurately reflect the absorptive capability of this site. Will the soil testing be repeated at an appropriate time of the year? There was a request for the Town to view the development of the entire parcel at one time. I know that was already mentioned, but handling development of this property one variance at a time will lead to a complicated web of environmental concerns that will never be right. The septic was relocated to position it further 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) from the lake. What is its location in relation to the existing streams and wetlands on this site, as the streams did not appear on the site plan? With this lot hosting 2 small cabins, the yard, adjacent to the street side stream, it always appears wet, even before the removal of numerous large trees. An attached document states that there are no wetlands on this property, as viewed in 2001. Clearly conditions have changed over the past 20 years, and this needs to be updated. A variance is also requested for that setback from 75 to 50 feet. The applicant states that the new septic and leach field will have a positive rather than an adverse effect on the environment. We have the proposed construction of two 4,000 square foot homes on these wetlands. We have the loss of 16 trees, with more marked for removal, even on the very edge of a stream. I sent photos in to Laura. I don’t know if she’s able to share any of them on the screen. MRS. MOORE-Sent photos? I’ll have to look. MRS. CARBOGNIN-Okay. They were attached to my e-mail. There were three photos showing the trees and also the trees marked for removal alongside the stream. MRS. MOORE-Okay. I don’t have access to that at the moment. MRS. CARBOGNIN-Okay. Anyway, there was a photo showing very large mature trees. Can the developer possibly mitigate the total resulting negative environmental effects that he is proposing against even the most efficient septic systems? And all septic systems depend upon absorption fields to complete their task. Tis this land up to that task? Yes, the value of new construction will add tax revenue, but that benefit weighed against the negative economic impact of decreased water quality in Harris Bay is negligible. This extensive new construction, at the very spot where Lake George’s first HAB appeared waves a red flag. It is difficult to see the positive effects of bulldozers and backhoes pulling up to this Critical Environmental Area where the lake water in this shallow bay is already challenged. I understand the Board faces a veritable parade of variance requests. Some seem easy, this one does not. The applicant mentions hardship. The true hardship here is to the many waterfront homeowners whose drinking water is being threatened by extensive development such as this. Please consider our drinking water. Every site is not amenable to development and this plan does not merit approval. I thank you. MR. MC CABE-Laura, do you have another one? MR. BROWN-Lisa Adamson. MRS. ADAMSON- Can you hear me? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. ADAMSON-Thank you. This is a very delicate piece of property at probably the lowest point on Assembly Point and if you go to the west of that property, right across the street, they had to do remediation on the property across the street because the yard was always under water and then just north of Charlie Crew’s house my understanding is that it was formerly an APA jurisdictional wetland. So the whole area is very, very wet and very delicate, and it just seems that we’re in a period of time where we have to change our paradigm about how to develop properties and not move towards such large constructions and provide better alternatives that are going to preserve the properties that can’t handle these large constructions anymore, and I’ve swum in that bay. I’ve seen a large amount of algae there. It’s just a very delicate area. So lastly I wish they would just put the trees back. I mean that’s what we need on that property is a lot of infiltration from restoring the trees that have been taken down. So smaller development and a lot more infiltration. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Craig? MR. BROWN-Brian Hogan. MR. MC CABE-Brian? We didn’t get him, Craig. MR. BROWN-Yes, I put him in the meeting. It might take a second for him to get up. What he asked in a comment was that he would appreciate it if we could have his letter read. I don’t know, Laura, if you have the letter that was submitted by Jeff Meyer on his behalf. MRS. MOORE-I do. I have Brian’s letter and I have Jeff’s letter. MR. BROWN-Well, at some point. I think I have one more that’s looking to speak if Brian is not going to speak. There he is. BRIAN HOGAN 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. HOGAN-I can try to speak but I’d appreciate it if you guys would read the letter from me and then read one from Jeff, and then if you need me to comment I’d be glad to do that. It’s just I’m traveling right now and my internet connection is horrible. MRS. MOORE-I’m going to start with Brian’s letter first. MR. BROWN-Do we want to finish the speakers or have correspondence? Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Let’s go with the speaker. MR. BROWN-All right. And we have one more speaker. MR. URRICO-Craig, can I say something? MR. BROWN-Sure. MR. URRICO-I notice there are questions coming in from the Q & A. There are questions coming in from Chat, but everything has to be followed through the same places so we get the whole conversation going. MR. BROWN-So what are you missing? MR. URRICO-No, I’m not missing anything. I just noticed some of the conversation going on in the Q & A that hasn’t been addressed within the meeting itself and I just think it needs to. MR. BROWN-Right. So I read the Brian Hogan comment. I don’t know if you see that, and the other two comments I was going to ask if the Chairman wanted to have people have a second round of questions. JOHN KELLY MR. KELLY-This is John Kelly joining. I was on mute for some time. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, John. MR. KELLY-Thank you. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and I thank Amanda for representing me and I thank Chris for his comments as the Waterkeeper. So my name’s John Kelly. I’m a resident on Assembly Point, probably one of the largest property owners and taxpayers on the Point with over a dozen properties. I want to begin by thanking the developer and the owners for proposing to make the investment to improve this property. Like the developer, I, myself have removed many old, dangerous shacks and cottages. In my case I left it natural land. I want to put a personal note on this as a homeowner and taxpayer. I’ve been going to Assembly Point for over 60 years. Whether this land is classified as a wetland formal by the APA or not is interesting, but for anyone who’s been on the Point for any period of time, everyone knows that this land is barely, barely above water. The proposal earlier was stated that this is a high water table. I will tell you that that is an understatement. This land is barely, barely above lake level . From the previous speakers I just want to emphasize and I’m very knowledgeable in harmful algae blooms as many of you know. HAB’s are threatening this lake and Harris Bay, frankly speaking, was ground zero for this HAB. We do not understand what caused this HAB and we’re working very hard to understand it, and while it’s labeled a harmful algae bloom, it was certainly unattractive, but it did not produce toxins. Lord help us if the next bloom produces toxins because now we’re into a whole different place. We do know scientifically that these HAB’s are caused by nutrients, nitrogen and phosphorus, and there’s no question that runoff from the land and septics contribute to this. So from my perspective I think the previous speakers articulated technicalities of the variance, but granting this variance at this point in time, at this specific location is probably one of the worst things we can do for Assembly Point, for Harris Bay, for Lake George at this point in time. So I strongly recommend that the Board not approve the variance at this point in time. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, you have two more comments from the Q & A section, and I can read them to you, and if you want we can bring them back in to the public hearing for a second round of questions, because both have asked questions already. Chris Navitsky’s comment. There are wetlands on the National Wetland Inventory map, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. They are not APA jurisdictional but they are wetlands. A comment and then a follow-up from Amanda Kukle. What will happen with the second parcel and why is the driveway for the main house part of the current project and being approved now? And then she has a clarification. I appear to have encountered a technical issue. The first half of my question was cut off, but essentially was in response to the suggestion that you could not review both because it’s unclear what will happen to the second parcel, and I apologize for any confusion. So those are the comments that we have left in the Q & A section. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-Okay. That’s fine. So, Laura, you’ve got two other letters to read? MRS. MOORE-I’ve got other letters to read that I did not hear them speak on the public comment, but I’ll start with Brian Hogan’s letter. It’s addressed to the Board members. “This letter is submitted on behalf of me and my wife, Meredith Hogan, as owners of the two parcels comprising 95% of the southern border of the properties referenced in this Application for Variance and Site Plan Approval. We have reviewed the site plan as proposed by the Applicant as it relates to the treatment of storm water on the property. The plan calls for 2 feet of fill along our property line. The Applicant has indicated to us that this fill, in conjunction with his stormwater plan, would most likely raise or at a minimum maintain the water level of the wetlands on my property. When we moved to the lake 20 years ago, we realized that compromises needed to the made to support the lake and the source of our collective drinking water. However, maintaining a settlement/retention pond for the benefit of our upstream and downstream neighbors was not one of them. The wetland condition, now with year round flow, exists solely as a result of the action/inaction of the neighboring property owners, prior to the Applicant, in maintaining the flow of water to lake. For our part, we have taken action over the years so as to mitigate the impact of this additional water on our property as it was abutting our leach fields. But we cannot control the actions of those on adjoining upstream and downstream properties. In addition to the situation created on my property, there are wetlands on the northern border of the applicants property. The existence of which has been verified by the APA. While they would be considered non-jurisdictional by the APA, that does not mean that they do not exist. I believe that the Applicant can meet his stated goals for a new home as well as the proposed driveways necessary to service his properties. Additionally, I believe that with a proper plan, the water entering the lake could be treated in an effective manner, benefiting everyone. I would propose the following: - The Wetland area to the North on the property of the Applicant and that of Charles Crew be identified, improved and incorporated into the stormwater plan. - The wetland area to the South be included in a manner that encompasses my property, that of the applicants, as well as those of Michael Chrys. - The Fund for Lake George and the LGA be engaged as partners in a sustainable, though not overbearing design. - The plan Include the desire of the Applicant for a home and driveways. For my part, l would be willing to allow the continued existence of the wetlands, or possibly the minor expansion thereof on my property. As well as contribute, hopefully in combination with my neighbors, financially to the project. l do understand that this may be a bridge too far for all parties, in which case, there is the alternative. I would simply ask that the Applicant, as part of his plan, take what steps are necessary to eliminate the collection of water on my property. As a final note, whichever option is chosen above, we do not take issue with the proposed use of the property, provided that all ingress and egress to the properties be limited to Assembly Point Road as depicted on the proposed site plan submitted for both properties. Sincerely yours, Brian and Meredith Hogan” And this is a letter from Jeff Meyer. It’s addressed to Mr. McCabe. “We represent Brian Hogan. Mr. Hogan owns and resides at 33 and 34 Holly Lane, which adjoins the lands of Rockhurst, LLC to the south. And this is a letter from Jeff Meyer. It’s addressed to Mr. McCabe. “We represent Brian Hogan. Mr. Hogan owns and resides at 33 and 34 Holly Lane, which adjoins the lands of Rockhurst, LLC to the south. As the adjoining property owner, my client will be directly impacted by the proposed development as contemplated by Area Variance Application: 49- 2020. I apologize for not being able to attend the public hearing in person to express my client's concerns, but I hope this letter will be fully considered in my absence. The current application cannot and should not be considered in a vacuum . This proposal is a carryover from Area Variance Application 22-2020, as decided in August of 2020. Said approval created the "Cottage Lot" as depicted in the current Application. The Applicant has elected to segment the approvals into numerous applications, all of which will require a host of variances and numerous approvals before the planning and zoning boards. It is important to note at the outset that Area Variance Application 22-2020 is the subject of an Article 78 proceeding pending in the Warren County Supreme Court. The outcome of that litigation will have direct impacts on this, and all future applications, relative to the property. We are of the belief that the existing litigation and the current Area Variance Application can both be resolved amicably in a single omnibus action. Section 179- 14-040 (k) of the Code of the Town of Queensbury states – "Rehearing. A motion for the Zoning Board of Appeals to hold a rehearing to review any order, decision or determination of the Board not previously reheard may be made by any member of the Board . A unanimous vote of all members of the Board then present is required for such rehearing to occur. Such rehearing is subject to the same notice provisions as an original hearing. Upon such rehearing, the Board may reverse, modify or annul its original order, decision or determination upon the unanimous vote of all members then present, provided the Board finds that the rights vested in persons acting in good faith in reliance upon the reheard order, decision or determination will not be prejudiced thereby ." We are respectfully requesting the Zoning Board of Appeals to Rehear Area Variance Application 22-2020 and re-examine the conditions placed on the Applicant. The Applicant does not have any vested rights relative to the previous decision and the proposal 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) being offered by my client would be in keeping with the stated goals of the pending Area Variance Application. Mr. Hogan is in support of the concept of two access points on Assembly Point Road to the Rockhurst, LLC properties. My client has made it clear from the outset that all access to the lands of Rockhurst, LLC shall be exclusively via Assembly Point Road. This includes both the "Cottage Lot" and the "Point Lot". That was a condition of the Zoning Board of Appeals when they granted the Area Variance in 1993, as amended in 1996. These prior decisions apparently served as the basis for the 2020 application. However, this Board unilaterally removed those conditions without reason, justification, or support in the administrative record. Holly Lane is a highway by use. For those members of the ZBA that are not familiar with NYS Highway Law, that means the Town is responsible for keeping and maintaining the public highway, but said rights are limited to usage, similar to an easement. The Town only has rights to that port ion of the highway actually used by the public and maintained by the Town. This is different from a highway by dedication, in which the town actually owns the real property over which the highway is located. We have investigated the status of Holly Lane based on conversations with the Superintendent of Highways, a diligent search of municipal records, and conversations with certain property owners that are knowledgeable of the history of the area. Included with this letter is an affidavit of Brian Hogan, sworn before a notary public, which will be submitted as part of the pending Article 78 proceeding. The affidavit includes correspondence between Mr. Hogan and David Duell, as Superintendent of Highways, con finning that Holly Lane is not owned by the Town and that the Town has not maintained Holly Lane outside of the paved portion. Holly Lane does not abut the lands of Rockhurst, LLC. And, Rockhurst, LLC does not have the right to cross the lands of Hogan to access Holly Lane. Therefore, irrespective of the litigation concerning Area Variance 22-2020, neither the Zoning Board of Appeals, nor the Applicant, have the right to lengthen, improve, or otherwise expand Holly Lane, as contemplated by the conditions imposed by this Board Based on the foregoing, any site plan or area variance application concerning the "Cottage Lot" must include access to the "Point Lot." The pending Area Variance Application , 49-2020, does just that by providing for two points of access on Assembly Point Road. The Board must review the proposed access points as permanent, knowing that all future access to the "Point Lot" will be via the ingress and egress shown in the current application materials. We respectfully request the Zoning Board of Appeals entertain a motion to hold a rehearing on Area Variance Application 22-2020 and reinstitute the 1993 conditions, thereby mandating the sole point of access to the point lot owned by the Applicant, Rockhurst, LLC, be as shown on the current Application. The Applicant will not be harmed or prejudiced in any way by holding the rehearing and it will affirm the current status of Holly Lane. Stormwater and surface water runoff must be addressed on site. Mr. Hogan detailed his concerns relative to the potential stormwater impacts in his December 14, 2020 letter to the Board. These concerns were also raised by the Town's Engineer in their December I 0, 2020 correspondence from Chazen Engineering. Specifically, Point 16 16. The subcatchment boundary is shown lo terminate at the southern property line; however, the topography provided does not extend beyond the southern property boundary so subcatchment limits cannot be verified at this time. The overall watershed boundary should not be limited to the subject property line; it shall include the entire watershed tributary to each Subcatchment/Design Point. Pursuant to this the Applicant should revise the boundaries appropriately. USGS topographical information can be used for offsite areas. This is not the first time that my client has raised concerns about stormwater and surface water drainage problems in this area. There is a wetland complex that is was created and is presently expanding as a result of mismanaged stormwater. The Applicant's current proposal would only compound these problems because it does not take the present conditions into account. The proper handling of stormwater on the Rockhurst, LLC lot requires examining and addressing the entire watershed. This area serves as a sink for numerous properties located to the south of Rockhurst, LLC's property line. As proposed, resulting stormwater and surface water runoff would be prevented from flowing in its natural course, flood my client's property , and exacerbate the existing problem. It is imperative that this Board also takes a hard look at the surface and storm water concerns noted by Mr. Hogan. The Applicant specifically notes that the current request for a height variance is due to the shallow depth to ground water. This is evidenced in the roof height diagrams submitted by the Applicant. Additionally , the Applicant is proposing the placement of fill and significant grading modifications in order to further develop the property as intended. Groundwater, surface water, and stormwater runoff on this property are inextricably connected as part of the watershed tributary feeding the waters of Lake George. Al l modifications must be inclusive of existing surface water and stormwater flows that are entering the property from the south and the existing boundary wetlands. Failing that, all properties to the south will be flooded and negatively impacted. In his December 14, 2020 letter, Mr. Hogan proposed a couple of alternatives for addressing the stormwater and surface water runoff in the area. Those alternatives remain as practical solutions to this complex problem. To the extent the stormwater issues cannot be resolved and the access to the Point Lot is somehow limited, we will be submitting additional substantive comments as the existing proposal is excessive for a confined, environmentally sensitive area. Thank you for your consideration of the above materials. Very truly yours, Jeffrey R. Meyer, Esq.” Then I have Florence Connor. Is she entered on the call? I don’t know, Craig? Did you see her? MR. BROWN-She’s here but she didn’t put her hand up. MRS. MOORE-Okay. All right. I’m going to read her letter that was received today. “This letter is in opposition to the request for a height variance. This desire for a variance is self-created. This variance request refers to the shape and size of this house. This shape and size is a choice, not a necessity. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) Obviously this particular plan is too much house for this property. Therefore, Rockhurst, LLC is required to ask for two variances. I have chosen to speak against one of them. However, the size of this building does require both variance requests. That is a red flag. At the last Zoning Board meeting, ground water level was given as the need to request a variance for 1’ 10” over the height limit. If the ground water level is the driving need for this height variance, it is obvious this house plan is not appropriate for this sensitive lot. Rockhurst LLC, (Mr. Abele) is a builder. I am sure he understands a ground water table. This is not his first house. He has chosen this house design knowing it would need variances. It is not Queensbury’s obligation to adjust requirements for his benefit. Two variances would not be needed if the house design was an appropriate choice for this property. There is a solution – build a smaller house, or one with a different foundation that does not necessitate a height variance. I say, “It is not Queensbury’s obligation to allow an investor to make the rules for their own profit.” Please refuse this height variance so Rockhurst LLC can choose a more appropriate house for this property. Sincerely yours, Florence E. Connor, 6 Holly Lane, Lake George, NY 12845” I’ll read this last one. This is addressed to Craig. “I met with Chris Abele this week to review his property plans on Assembly Point. I fully support Chris’ plan. I have lived on Assembly Point for 19 years across the street from the Polk property. I believe having an experienced builder like Chris redevelop the property for his personal use is a huge win for the neighborhood and the Town of Queensbury. His plan for a new :”state of the art” septic systems is also very important to help preserve the quality of the Lake. I know the importance of this all too well as I am a Board Member of the LGA. I trust the Town will embrace the plans put forth and approve Chris’ requests. If I can answer any further questions, please let me know.” Charlie” This is I believe Charlie Crew. And that’s all the public letters that I have. MR. BROWN-So we have new people in the lobby wishing to speak. Bob Carbognin. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, Bob. BOB CARBOGNIN MR. CARBOGNIN-Can you hear me? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. CARBOGNIN-This will be a quick one. My name is Bob Carbognin. I’m an Assembly Point resident, and my comment is variances need to be tempered depending on the magnitude of their impact on the safety, aesthetics and environmental impact among other things to the site and the neighborhood. Polk Road is a high impact parkway that should be made to strictly comply with the regulations. Development as proposed minimizing the setback to the lake to allow for a 4,000 square foot home and multiple driveways will impact an environmentally sensitive bay and our lake. Not all properties are suitable for development and Polk Road is case in point. I respectfully request the Board deny this application to protect the neighbors who drink, cook and bath with this water. This lake is our reservoir. It must be given the same protection as any reservoir would receive. Thank you. MR. BROWN-So, Mr. Chairman, we have two people in the lobby who wish to speak again. Mike O’Connor and Brian Hogan and Lorraine Ruffing is asking if the photos that she submitted to you, Laura, can be shown. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BROWN-So are we going to go through the people in the lobby again? MR. MC CABE-So they’re the only two that want to re-speak? MR. BROWN-So far. MR. MC CABE-Is what they have to say new? MR. BROWN-I couldn’t tell you. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Well let’s hear Brian. MR. BROWN-Well I’ve got Mike O’Connor queued up first. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Mike? MR. BROWN-You’ve got to unmute, Mike. MR. O'CONNOR-My comment is to Jeff Meyers’ comment or letter asking the Board to re-consider the variance that was granted 22-2020. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-We’re not going to do that. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well my comment was the applicant by his plan has actually shown that he is not intending to use it and he has also indicated that he is willing to do whatever is necessary to abandon it. MR. MC CABE-Good. Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Brian? MR. HOGAN-Can everybody hear me? I’m on a really bad internet connection tonight. MR. MC CABE-Yes, we can hear you. MR. HOGAN-Great. I apologize for the length of the letters that my lawyer wrote as well as mine, but there’s a lot of detail I suppose that goes into it. The three brief comments I’d like to make are, one, the comment on wetlands. We did have Mary O’Dell review photographic evidence and she did indicate that there were wetlands in the south of the property, and that they overlap with my property. The second two have to do with a letter that was written by the Town Engineer to you folks. I’m not sure if you’ve had a chance to review that, but it goes back to a couple of comments that have been made earlier in the evening. One is that your Town Engineer needs to bond the review of the site plan, and he has made a determination that it falls under a category that should be reviewed in total, which means both properties should be reviewed together, and that’s from your Town Engineer. The second one that he mentioned was the stormwater plan. The stormwater plan does not include anything to do with my property. I have wetlands on my property now that did not exist when I purchased the property, but they are there nonetheless, and your Town Engineer has recommended that those be incorporated into whatever stormwater plan is developed, and the third point that I will make is the stormwater plan itself. The Town Engineer has indicated on multiple occasions that there are errors in the stormwater plan which tend to indicate that it should be looked at and re-done appropriately. So while I don’t disagree with Chris being able to develop the property, I would like to see it be done right, and that is one of the reasons that I suggested that this is an opportunity for the Town and the developer to work together with the two bodies on the lake that know the most about this stuff and that would be obviously the Fund for Lake George and the LGA, and if you could start to do something like that, I think we could all work together and mitigate a lot of these issues. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So do we have anybody else? MR. BROWN-That’s all we have with hands up other than the Lorraine Ruffing photo question. MR. MC CABE-Laura, do you have the photos? MRS. MOORE-And I just want to say I do have one more comment that I didn’t read into the record, but I don’t know if you want Lorraine to speak on these photos that she provided to us? MR. MC CABE-She’s already spoken. We can see the photos. MRS. MOORE-Those are it. I’ll scroll back up. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So let me read in this last one that I didn’t read in. This is from Linda Boden, the associate broker. “My name is Linda Boden from Leavitt Real Estate, and I represented Chris Abele in the purchase of 3 and 10 Polk Drive. I was also the listing broker and the property was on the market for 3 years. Most buyers wanted to create their own home or two homes, as was grandfathered in this case, because the plot of 2 acres could be subdivided into 1 acre parcels with a home on each 1 acre parcel. Although the homes were charming, they were not winterized or to code. So it took a while to find a buyer who had the knowledge and capital to develop the land. We had many showings over the years, but only Chris understood the complications of developing the property to the town of Queensbury’s standards and zoning laws. Chris also had the capital to take on such a massive project. Chris spent a year looking into the process of developing this land with the various agencies at his own cost, he then made the offer, and the sellers accepted the terms and price. Chris’s plan to complete the project include state of the art septic systems, storm water treatment through rain gardens and detention ponds, bigger setbacks to conform to new rules, and positive redevelopment. The Queensbury town board voted to allow Chris to have access off of Holly Lane to further divide the two properties with its own ingress and egress. I have received a letter from concerned neighbors, and also was told that Brian Hogan is fighting the driveway off of Holly 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) near his property. It should be noted that Brian at one time wanted to purchase the Polk property himself. I am writing this letter to defend Chris and his efforts to develop the land he now owns according to the by-laws of the Town of Queensbury. The town has given Chris Abele and his family certain rights and specifics regarding what he can and can’t do on Polk Drive, and it is disturbing that the neighbors are trying to control and prevent him from doing so without ownership. I would also like to point out that Chris and his family are well known on Lake George—they are well respected and have many friendships. This un- neighborly treatment is uncalled for and self-serving. Thank you for all consideration given this letter.” MR. MC CABE-So is that it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. ABELE-No, I want to speak. Mr. Chairman, this is Chris and Phyllis, and we would like to speak. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So what I’ll suggest, Chris, is you’re a presenter. So at this particular time I’d like to close the public meeting so that we don’t invite more conversation because we’ll be here all night, and I actually have a couple of questions of you. MR. ABELE-Okay. Fine. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And the first question that I have of Chris is where will your drinking water come from? MR. ABELE-Lake George. MR. MC CABE-So you’ve got skin in the game here. MR. ABELE-Yes, Mr. Chairman, and what I would like to say is first I want to thank the Board for hearing this application and I actually want to reach out to my neighbors and say that we want to be a neighbor and I want to build a family retreat for my family, and I took note of Mr. Kelly when he spoke. I’m 64 years old. I remember when I was five and six years old going to Hearthstone. In the early 60’s my dad owned a property on Rockhurst in the early 60’s. My roots are deep in Lake George. When I owned a home on Rockhurst I put in a new home and I did a state of the art septic system. When Steve Seaboyer who’s currently trying to get a low pressure sewer on Rockhurst, I was the first one to sign up to support it, even though I had spent a huge amount of money to put in a state of the art system in a home that I owned. When I’m out in my boat in the lake and when I see a can or a piece of paper or a hat, I turn around and pick it up. I drink the water in the lake. I boat in it. I hope to have grandkids that swim in it. I’ve been in the building and developing business for about 35 years. Never have I not honored a commitment and done the right thing. I would like to address some specific comments. Someone had made the assertion that I would work on the property. I want to say this. I went to the Town of Queensbury and I got a highway permit to re-do the culvert. I also met on the property several times with Craig Brown, Bruce Frank. I met with Chris Navitsky, as he did indicate. I also met with Randy from the LGA, and I want to say I called him Lisa Adamson and I asked her and Carol to come meet me. They never showed me the respect to do that. I want to do a beautiful project. I want to replace systems that are antiquated and just for the record there was a leach field on the big point house where it was 30 foot from the lake. That is no longer there, and I showed the Town officials that. This was a leach field done God knows when with cinder blocks, railroad ties on the top stone. Totally, totally bad for the lake. In terms of the stormwater, and I want to say this, too. I’ve been in this business a long time. This situation is not a business for me. This is for my family, but I’m smart enough to know, defer to people that are smarter than I am. I’ve hired excellent consultants to do the right thing. I fully intend to comply with every regulation that the Town of Queensbury puts in front of me, and in terms of trees that were cut down on the property, I want to make note, someone must have trespassed on my property to county them, and I also want to say that I had that surveyed and staked out. Any tree I took was behind the 35 foot setback that the Town requires, and I had Bruce Frank out there several times to confirm all that. The last comment I would say is this. Everybody that spoke tonight, I don’t want to have ill feelings towards them because I’m sure in their heart they’re not bad people and they want to do the right thing by the lake, but so do I, and I want to make one other note. I think every person that spoke here tonight has an existing property on the lake that at one time or another probably had a variance or two, and you’ve got to remember this, and I don’t want people to feel sorry for me. I paid a lot of money for these pieces of property on Lake George. You can imagine what 2.2 acres cost on Lake George, and that property was for sale to everybody, and I kindly suggest this. A lot of people are trying to control something that they don’t own or didn’t pony up to do what I did, but with that said, I want to become a neighbor. We’re very good people. I stand behind everything I’ve said, and I respectfully request that the Board grant these variances. Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-So is Gavin still here? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. I’m here. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Gavin, do you have anything significant to add to what Chris has said? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Chris did a great job. I’ll also put my hand out to John Allen to see if there’s anything else that he would like to speak about. Most of the information that we’ve provided you, as Chris has mentioned, does meet all of the Town Code requirements. We are in the process of going in front of the Planning Board for a lot of these more site plan specific items such as stormwater management. MR. MC CABE-Right. So a lot of the issues here are issues that will be resolved at the Planning Board, not with us. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. So I don’t want to take a lot of time preparing responses to each and every one of the comments. John, is there anything else that you have? Is John on mute? MR. ALLEN-Thanks, Gavin. I just want to make one observation for the Board. There was what sounded to me like an attempt by some of the speakers to place the blame for the algae bloom on some tree removal from this property or the dismantling of a septic system from this property. I’ve known Chris a long time. He’s a very straight shooter who will do what he says he will do. I’m absolutely confident of that, and Lake George is not the only body of water in Upstate New York that had an algae bloom in the fall. So did Mirror Lake up in Lake Placid. Presumably nothing Chris did on the property he bought on Lake George caused the problems up at Mirror Lake, but I think people were trying to imply that Chris was the source of the algae bloom. I don’t think there’s anything that is supportive of that. Just because it happened near his property doesn’t mean he did it, was the cause of it, and I regret the fact that people felt the need to try to put that on Chris’ back, but I support very much what Chris said. I don’t want to belabor this anymore. I think the Board understands what we’re trying to do and that it is, as I said when I started a while ago that I think that the balancing test definitely weighs in favor of the applicant and I thank the Board for its time. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time the public hearing has been closed, and I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Thanks for being so patient with everybody. My concerns are slightly maybe different than what we’ve heard, or some of it overlaps. First of all I think the height variance, when we talk about the lake, height carries a harder measurement for me. Because height at the lake, even though it’s only one foot ten inches, it’s still something we’ve dealt with on a regular basis, and height carries a lot of weight in terms of concern. I’m also concerned about the size of the house compared to what the variance allows as far as the 50 feet, and my third concern is are we dealing with a segmented project that eventually we’re going to hear the second part at a later date and then realize that the first part does carry some weight, more weight in terms of impact on the entire neighborhood. So those are my three concerns. I’m on the fence right now. I’m not sure if I would approve it tonight. MR. MC CABE-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-I also have some concerns. I think what Roy says makes sense. I don’t really have a problem too much with the height, but those three driveways there, I think they could incorporate for now having the one driveway, re-design the house, get it off the lake a little bit more, use the driveway for the egress going to the other property for the new house. Therefore if something happens where they can’t get that Holly Road extension there to the other property, that way we wouldn’t have so many, because right now we’re going to have three driveways entering onto Assembly Point and that does concern me. I think they can re-design the house a little bit so they can get it off the lake more and just use one driveway. So the height variance doesn’t bother me. The variance for the setback from the shoreline does bother me a little bit, even though most lakefront properties are 50 or less even. The other question, this has nothing to do with this per se, but all these people that have this problem with the lake, I wonder if they’ve ever had their septic tanks checked or their stormwater management checked. They could all be contributing and they’re going to blame it on this one piece of property, and I don’t think that’s fair. That’s my concerns. I would say I’m not really ready to vote also to grant this variance right now. So I’d have to re-think it or they’d have to come back. MR. MC CABE-Let’s just clarify something here, John. I believe that there’s only one curb cut on Assembly Point Road. I believe the other is just designed as a turnaround, isn’t it? MR. HENKEL-Yes, you’re right, but like I said, that concern still, there’s two curb cuts there because what happens if that other property doesn’t get the approval to extend Holly Lane into that other lot, the main residence, that would, you know, I’d rather have them just have that one driveway as access to their house plus to the main residence. That’s what my concern is. Now when you bring that house back away from the lake, too. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MRS. MOORE-Can I interject, Mike? Just to make sure that folks understand that we’re not considering the main residence lot at this point. MR. HENKEL-I realize that, but we might have to. MRS. MOORE-At a later date you will. We review projects on a case by case basis, and they’ve identified a potential area in the first lot, being the cottage lot, as having some hard surfacing included, and they’re not requesting a permeability relief. So they can include hard surfacing if they wish to and we look at it at a later time. That’s up to them, but there’s no variances at the moment that we’re reviewing for the main residence lot. MR. HENKEL-I understand that. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. I have some concerns as well. A couple of them, I agree with Roy. Just the two projects together. I understand they’re separate and they need to be. I get it, but I’m concerned about the consequences of our action tonight and the impact on that. The other issue I have is it’s a good sized lot but it’s just so irregular. It just doesn’t leave a lot of room to improve the setback from the lake, and that’s a big concern for me. My last concern is the impact on the environment, and I know that the Planning Board has yet to hear the rest of the plan, and I need to trust the Planning Board, but those are my concerns. So I’m not in favor at this time. I may change my mind based on the conversation tonight. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to first say, you know, wow we went through a lot of information here, and I fully appreciate Mr. Abele and his positions. I certainly appreciate the neighbors’, the discussions and overall the care and concern for Lake George. I love that lake. I boat on the lake, and we’ve got to be really, really careful what we’re doing with Lake George. With that said, you know, the concerns that I share I believe that the variance appears to be substantial. I believe that potentially with consideration, I do believe there’s a project to be had here. I do believe that giving consideration to potentially the house moving back a bit, a bit of a smaller home, that that would help me in this process. There may be alternatives which could be considered here. So I will say that, as presented, I would not be in favor of this project, but I want to stress that, you know, in many cases this Board sees situations of which individuals go back to the drawing board, they look to change some things, they come back and we find something that will work. So my suggestion for myself, from myself to the applicant and its agents is my being against it as presented, but not to otherwise suggest that there are not mechanisms or ways to find, to put a successful project together. That’s all I have, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have several points I’d like to make here. Who’s going to tell us when it’s too late, you know, and what are we going to do at that point in time? I don’t believe that this project in itself is going to be the king point here that’s going to trip the lake turning to full algae blooms or anything like that. I think it can be a solution, but at the same time this original subdivision was created in 1992. That’s almost 30 years ago with a 75 foot setback, and I think it was done with a 75 foot setback for a specific purpose. That purpose was to make sure that when the re-do was done at some point on this property it was going to be setback more appropriately based on the wet soils and the wet conditions on that lot that have been pointed out by many of the neighbors and also by the lake associations along with the same board. I think that the fact that the septic system straddles both lots means that we’re segmenting this project, if we look at just the one part of the project that we’re looking at. The road crosses over both properties. I think it should be reviewed as a full project in its totality, including both residence and the guest cottage, and until such time we should not review it and we should not approve anything on it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Hi. Yes, I pretty much agree with everything the Board members have said. As far as segmentation under SEQR, two lots, I don’t know, that’s kind of really cutting it close, but then again, a question for Laura. Is this in a CEA by any chance, a Critical Environmental Area? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MRS. HAMLIN-It is. Okay. So that raises SEQR expectations shall we say. As a single family residence, absolutely it’s a II, but, you know, it could possibly be a segmentation here. I do think, obviously the gentleman has every right to build on his property. So a little re-configuration, maybe something to do with the drives. He might be able to push that back and reduce the amount of setback that he needs. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) Height, again, it’s a very minimal amount of height, but at the same time, as was mentioned, this is on the lake, so that becomes a bit of an issue, but perhaps in the re-configuration something could be done with the height as well. So where I stand right now as presented I would not want to move forward with this at this time. MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, let’s just be clear here. Is this a Type II SEQR? MRS. MOORE-Yes, it is. MRS. HAMLIN-As presented. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Yes, if I could just add a little bit there, Mike. These are individual lot line setbacks and dimensional relief, height relief, on single family dwellings. Clearly Type II SEQR projects. I think the applicant’s gone to the next step of showing you, hey, in the future we’d likely come back and develop the, it’s labeled as main residence lot, and in doing that, we’re going to plan for a driveway across the cottage lot. So we’d like to show you that we’re calculating the permeability and we’re still staying under the threshold that we can. So I think they are trying to show you the whole project. I don’t want to speak for them, but I’m not sure that they have the main cottage or the main residence lot plan finalized, but I think you’re seeing something that’s probably pretty close to what it’s going to be, and again, Type II.. You’re only looking at the cottage lot, and I think they’ve shown you everything that you need to make a decision. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So my input is at this particular time I can’t really support the project either, and the reason is that taken one at a time the setback I could understand, and the height, particularly the fact that it’s just a small percentage of the overall roof, I could understand, but setback from the lake and height are two of our most sacred variances, and so we’re asked to provide relief on both of these. I could do one or the other, but I can’t forgive both. So the applicant here can see that he’s not getting a lot of support from the Board here at this particular time. However I think everybody has, or most of us have indicated that we would consider, you know, it’s not a dead project. We would consider the project with some changes here. So your choice as an applicant is to have us take a vote and obviously it’s going to get turned down, or you can ask that the project be tabled and you can come back to us at a later time with possibly some changes that might be a little bit more palatable. MR. ABELE-Yes, I would like to speak. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. ABELE-Okay. I do hear the Board and I respect their comments and I think we can go back and possibly mitigate some of the issues and put a good faith effort into a little bit more of a compromise. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. ABELE-So we will look at it again, take the input that we received tonight and go forward. MR. MC CABE-How much time will you need. We could postpone this. Let’s see. Laura, do we have any room in the February calendar or are we talking later than that? MRS. MOORE-We’re talking later than that. We’re talking until, well, I haven’t completed my review yet for February’s, and we could potentially put it into a February meeting, but we’re past the deadline. So I’m concerned about getting information in in a timely manner. So I would prefer that it be moved to a March meeting. MR. MC CABE-So would our first meeting in March with your information being submitted by the middle of February, would that be okay? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, I’ll speak on behalf of Chris. We would have plenty of time to gather the information that you’re requesting. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John, I wonder if you could provide us with a motion to table this application th to the first meeting in March with information being submitted by February 15. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Rockhurst LLC. Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new home 2,400 sq. ft. footprint with 4,300 sq. ft. floor area and exterior patio areas. Project includes site work (fill, grading, stormwater management, shoreline landscaping, new septic & water supply from lake. Planning Board: site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for height and shoreline setbacks. 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Tabled to the March meeting with submittal by no later than the 15 of February. th Duly adopted this 20 day of January 2021, by the following vote: MR. ABELE-Can I make one more comment, please? MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MR. ABELE-To kind of wrap up everything, I want to make one comment. I think that we can adjust the height possibly to avoid the variance, the height variance. We’ll really work on that. I do think if I don’t get relief on the shoreline setback, it’s going to make my property basically, not worthless because it’s on Lake George, but severely impact me. I think the height we can work with. We possibly can combine the driveway so there’s one curb cut, but the setback variance is critical, and we possibly can reduce the size of the structure, but keep in mind that footprint outside the garage is I think only about 1400 feet. So we’ll definitely put our heads together. We’ll try to make a good faith effort. I have one other very small comment, and I know the Board I tired of h earing me talk, but I want to make this one comment on stormwater. When I got the highway permit to do the culvert, what I found was a totally blocked culvert so when water came from the south and I want the Board to really understand this because I know this property like the back of my hand. I’m dealing with stormwater that has come from properties not mine. I want to treat that water. With that culvert blocked the water could never go through the culvert and it basically flooded the property and never got treated and went into the lake. When my, if my project is approved, my stormwater plan will significantly improve the stormwater that enters Lake George, and I just want the Board to really think about what I’m saying. The way this is configured now, there is no stormwater treatment. If I get approved, it will significantly improve that. Again, thank you all for your time. MR. MC CABE-So let me make a suggestion. Why don’t you point this out to Chris Navitsky, and if you can get him on board, then you’ve got a big alley there. MR. ABELE-And you know what, Mr. Chairman, I will do that, and I’ve got to say when I had Dan Davies, Chris Navitsky, Randy from the LGA, when they left that property, I’m not saying they were jumping for joy, but I think they understood I have a real desire and effort to do the right thing, and I’ve got to say I was a little bit disappointed in how Chris characterized it. I know Randy was very happy, and I just want to make one more comment. I did reach out to that group on Assembly Point and I was never shown the respect for them to come and meet me and that should not have happened.. Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So we have a motion, we have a second. So call the vote, please. AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. ALLEN-Mr. Chairman, if I may, what is the date of that March meeting? MR. MC CABE-It will be the third Wednesday in March. th MRS. MOORE-It will be March 17. You said the first meeting. th MR. MC CABE-Yes. Isn’t that the third Wednesday, the 17 is the third Wednesday in March, right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MC CABE-St. Patrick’s Day. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. ALLEN-Thank you. MR. VUILLAUME-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So our next application AV 2-2021, which is Jay and Kim Ogden. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JAY & KIM OGDEN AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL – RUCINSKI HALL OWNER(S) JAY & KIM OGDEN ZONING WR LOCATION 17 FITZGERALD RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME TO INCLUDE A GARAGE WITH SECOND FLOOR LIVING SPACE AND TO ALSO CONSTRUCT A 1,500 SQ. FT. POLE BARN. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,286 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 336 SQ. FT. DECK/PORCH AREAS. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,626 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 5,770 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES TWO PARCELS TO BE MERGED. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACK OF THE NEW ADDITION, THE POLE BARN FOR HEIGHT AND SECOND GARAGE AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 2-2021; AV 28-1995; AV 33-1995; P2002463; 95376; 95407; 95408 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.41 ACRES (13); 0.3 ACRES (15) TAX MAP NO. 289.18-1-13; 289.18-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MICHAEL O’CONNOR & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 2-2021, Jay & Kim Ogden, Meeting Date: January 20, 2021, Project Location: 17 Fitzgerald Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a two story addition to the existing home to include a garage with second floor living space and to also construct a 1,500 sq. ft. pole barn. The existing home is 1,286 sq. ft. footprint with 336 sq. ft. deck/porch areas. The existing floor area is 2,626 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,353 sq. ft. The project includes two parcels to be merged. Relief requested for setback of the new addition, the pole barn for height and second garage and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback of the new addition, the pole barn for height and second garage and site permeability. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, Section 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of a non- conforming structure The applicant proposes two garages where only one is allowed. Relief is requested for the pole barn height where an accessory structure is limited to 16 ft. and proposed is 18 ft. 11 inches. The residential addition relief is requested for side yard setback 16 ft. 1 inch is proposed on the south side and 7 ft. 5 inches is proposed on the north side where a 20 ft. setback is required. Permeability is proposed to be 70.36% where 75% 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 minimize the pole barn request. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the side setback to the north 12 ft. 7 inches and to the south 3 ft. 11 inches. The permeability relief is in excess 4.64%. The relief is also for proposing more than one garage. 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 on 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 site has an existing two story home on an irregular shaped parcel. The project includes a 2 story addition to the existing home and construction of a new pole barn with an upper story portion for a 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) workshop storage area. The two story addition includes a two car garage on the lower level. The pole barn includes a portion of the upper level to be a workshop and storage loft.” MRS. MOORE-I apologize, Roy, can I interrupt you? So the pole barn is no longer part of this project. MR. URRICO-What is not part of the project? MRS. MOORE-The pole barn. MR. MC CABE-I forgot about that, yes. Did I mess up here? Is the Ogdens one of Mike O’Connor’s projects? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Then, Roy, we’ve got to move on to. MR. BROWN-Well I think he’s here. MR. MC CABE-Is it all right if we start this one, then? MR. BROWN-I just need to know which one to bring in. He can’t answer you because I’m not sure which project we’re doing so I can bring him into the room. MR. MC CABE-Let’s hold off. Let’s do AV 3-2021. MR. BROWN-We’re doing Walker. MR. MC CABE-Jason Walker, right. AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JASON WALKER OWNER(S) JASON WALKER ZONING MDR LOCATION 3 WEST MOUNTAIN RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 40 FT. BY 80 FT. (3,200 SQ. FT.) ENCLOSED POLE BARN TO STORE FARM EQUIPMENT, MATERIALS, ETC. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING RESIDENCE OF 1,128 SQ. FT., BARN/GREENHOUSE OF 3,648 SQ. FT. AND A GREENHOUSE OF 3,768 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES ON THE SITE. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A PRODUCE STAND GREATER THAN 100 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 6-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2021 LOT SIZE 3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.10-1-52 SECTION 179-3-040 (PRODUCE STAND USE) JASON WALKER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2021, Jason Walker, Meeting Date: January 20, 2021 “Project Location: 3 West Mountain Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 40 ft. by 80 ft. (3,200 sq. ft.) enclosed pole barn to store farm equipment, materials, etc. The site has an existing residence of 1,128 sq. ft., barn/greenhouse of 3,648 sq. ft. and a greenhouse of 3,768 sq. ft. There are no changes to the existing structures on the site. Site plan review for a produce stand greater than 100 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant request relief for setbacks. Section 179-5-020 The new pole barn is to be located 18.7 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback 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. 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 limited due to the location of the existing home and similar structures to the barn on the property. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 6.3 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 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 applicant proposes a new pole barn on the property to store equipment and materials that have been stored outside. The plans show the location of the barn and other structures on the parcel. The doors shown on the building elevations are to be relocated to the side of the building facing the north to assist with maneuvering the equipment into the building.” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board did offer a proposal, they made a motion and they recommended on behalf of them, based on its limited review they did not identify any significant impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. MR. MC CABE-So is Jason Walker here? MRS. MOORE-Yes, he is. MR. MC CABE-So, Jason, would you like to add anything to what Roy has already read into the record? MR. WALKER-Good evening, Board. MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MR. WALKER-I’m just looking to build a pole barn to keep my equipment in. It’s pretty simple. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So does the Board have any questions of Jason? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I do. I mean you’re only talking about a three acre lot. Why do you need so much equipment? I mean I live not too far from you, it just seems like that’s a lot of equipment and it’s not that big of a piece of property. I mean you already have a barn. I just don’t understand the need. What equipment do you need for that property? MR. WALKER-If you’d like to come up I’d like to show it to you. I’ve got the excavator. MR. HENKEL-I’ve been up there. I’ve bought pumpkins from you before. MR. WALKER-No, I just have a lot of stuff, hydroseeders, tractors, I have a lot of stuff and a lot of money invested, and I would like to keep it out of the weather is my goal. MR. HENKEL-I mean would you be willing to move that building back so you didn’t have to have a variance? I mean you’ve got enough property there. MR. WALKER-I’m asking for the variance because I’d like to go in from the north side of the building, so I can have an entrance on the north side of the building, is what I’m asking for. MR. HENKEL-You wouldn’t be able to have an entrance on the north side if you moved that off the property line the required 25 feet? MR. WALKER-It would just be tight. So I was trying to go after the variance. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. WALKER-:Laura actually has a letter from my neighbor, if she would like to read that. MR. MC CABE-We’ll do that later. First I’m going to see if any of the other Board members have questions. MR. WALKER-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any other questions? 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MRS. HAYWARD-Quick question. You’re a barn per se. Is this equipment used exclusively on your farm or are you using it for other projects outside of that? MR. WALKER-I do landscaping out of the farm, and then also I have farm equipment on the farm. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised. I’d like to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this matter, and so, Laura, you have a letter to read. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do. I’ll start with this one. It says To Whom It May Concern, Queensbury Zoning Board, “As a forty-five year friend and neighbor to the Walker family, (3 West Mtn. Rd., Queensbury, NY 12804) I can say with confidence that they are good and honest people. In reference to the pole barn building permit, and zoning variance requested by Jason Walker, to be built along our adjoining property line, Jason Walker and I have discussed at length the positioning, size, and look of the building he is proposing. I fully understand the variance he is requesting, to have his building set 1.7.25 ft. off our shared property line, versus the standard 25 ft. I am writing today to assure you that I have NO concerns or reservations about this proposal. I feel that the 17.25 ft. variance still leaves plenty of room for snow removal, vehicle maneuvering, and respect of our shared line. Sincerely, Frederick S. Joslyn” MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody lined up to speak? MR. BROWN-Not at this time. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-I think I would vote in favor of this as it is. MR. MC CABE-And Brett. MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, thank you. I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Nineteen feet, close to nineteen feet back from the twenty-five foot setback is close enough for me. MR. MC CABE-And Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. That’s minimal setback. MR. MC CABE-And John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree. They’re looking for 6.3 feet of relief. I’d be on Board with that. MR. MC CABE-And, Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think the relief requested by the applicant is basically minimal, and so at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion from Jim. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jason Walker. Applicant proposes to construct a 40 ft. by 80 ft. (3,200 sq. ft.) enclosed pole barn to store farm equipment, materials, etc. The site has an existing residence of 1,128 sq. ft., barn/greenhouse of 3,648 sq. ft. and a greenhouse of 3,768 sq. ft. There are no changes to the existing structures on the site. Site plan review for a produce stand greater than 100 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. 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. This barn is set well back from the road. No one is really going to notice it. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered by the Board but the applicant has expressed his desire to load and store equipment from the north side of the building so that’s why it’s going to be slightly inside the setback, 25 foot from the south side of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it’s 18.7 feet from the property line where a 25 foot setback is required. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not note any. The next door neighbor is on board with this request. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2021 JASON WALKER, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So congratulations. MR. WALKER-Thank you, Board. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 2-2021. AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2021 JAY & KIM OGDEN (CONT’D) MICHAEL O’CONNOR & ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. URRICO-Now what’s the new proposed then? Without the pole barn, is that the same or changing? MR. HALL-Fifteen hundred square feet less. MR. MC CABE-Will the permeability change? MRS. MOORE-There’s no permeability and there’s no height. MR. HALL-No permeability, no height. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MRS. MOORE-And no second garage. MR. URRICO-So you’re talking about 4,270 square feet. Is that right? For the floor area. MR. HALL-With porches and decks, the total floor area is 5,353 square feet. MR. HENKEL-It’s under the allowable. MR. URRICO-Okay. So the applicant is seeking relief for the setbacks of the new addition, and a second garage and site permeability. Right? We’re not dealing with the height anymore MR. HALL-No second garage. MRS. MOORE-So there’s no issue with the permeability. MR. URRICO-All right. I need somebody to help me out here, because I’m not sure what we’ve got. MR. O'CONNOR-All we’re looking at are the side line setbacks. That’s the only thing we’re looking at is the two side line setbacks. When they withdrew the request for the pole barn it brought them into compliance with the permeability, non-permeability and all the things that go along with that and eliminated the height variance. MR. URRICO-So we’re looking at relief for the side yard setback at 16 feet 1 inch. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. URRICO-And on the south it’s 7 feet 5 inches is proposed. MR. O'CONNOR-Eight feet ten inches. MRS. MOORE-Eight feet ten inches. I just put up a revised site data sheet. I don’t know if you’re able to see that. MR. URRICO-And that’s where a 20 foot setback is required. MR. MC CABE-Right. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. URRICO-I guess we got it. MR. MC CABE-So if I could summarize it, on one side they’re looking for 16 feet 1 inch where 20 feet is required. So they’re looking for 3 feet 11 inch side setback relief, and on the other one they’re saying that they’re going to be 7 feet 5 inches. So they’re looking at 12 feet 7 inches relief from the other side. MR. HALL-Mike, the existing side yard setback is 7 feet 5 inches to the existing house. The proposed addition is 8 foot 10 inches. So we’re actually farther back with the addition than the existing house is. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So 8 foot 10 and. MR. HALL-16.1. MR. MC CABE-16.1. Okay. MR. HALL-Correct. MR. MC CABE-All right. MR. O'CONNOR-The addition on both sides provides more setback than the existing house that they’re adding on to. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-And I think on the north side the measurement is from the staircase that comes down from a deck from the house. So it’s a setback on the north side that allows that staircase coming down from their deck. I think Staff said there’s nothing here that’s substantial. 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-Yes. Okay. So anything to add? So, Board, do we have any questions of the applicant? I think it’s pretty straightforward. So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised, so I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s any public comment on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-I don’t have anybody looking to speak in the lobby. MR. MC CABE-Laura, do you have any written comment? MRS. MOORE-I do have written comment and I think some of it’s related to the pole barn. So I’ll read through it. This first one is from Susan and Michael Martin of 29 Fitzgerald Road. “We are writing this letter with concerns about the proposed pole barn to be erected on the property of Jay and Kim Ogden. As a lake community, we share new and old properties, large and small properties and many right of way roads and driveways. It is all a part of lake living. Our concern is with the construction of the proposed pole barn in our residential area. , Besides being large and out of place, what would be housed in it? How will it be used now and in the future? I can’t imagine the necessity for this on Fitzgerald Road. We welcome new neighbors and new homes all the time on Fitzgerald Road but a pole barn is something that we are completely opposed to. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Susan and Michael Martin 29 Fitzgerald Road, Queensbury, NY” And then the second one is from Barbara Milne at 25 Fitzgerald Road. “With regards to the variance application for Jay and Kim Ogden, I am strongly opposed to this project for multiple reasons, the size of the house/garage relative to the size of the lakefront property and its encroachment on the neighboring properties, and the enormity of the proposed pole barn in this residential area, as well as the numerous variances required for this project. I kindly ask that you review this application carefully and take into consideration my above concerns. Thank you for your time and your service on this Board. Sincerely, Barbara Milne, 25 Fitzgerald Rd., Queensbury, NY” So we know that the proposed pole barn has been removed, but they are concerned about the size of the house and garage relative to the size of the lakefront. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I live two houses over from the project. I think it’s a good project as envisioned by the Ogdens and I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. The setbacks are improved. All those houses are squeezed in together. So I think it’s an improvement. So I’m for it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Obviously, yes, they’re still combining the properties. So it’s making it a .71 acre, pretty good size piece of property. The two setbacks are very minor. I’d be on board obviously with it, too. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of what’s left of the project. MR. MC CABE-So, I, too, think that what’s being requested here is minor and so I’ll support the project. So, Cathy, I’m going to ask you for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jay & Kim Ogden. Applicant proposes to construct a two story addition to the existing home to include a garage with second floor living space and to also construct a 1,500 sq. ft. pole barn. The existing home is 1,286 sq. ft. footprint with 336 sq. ft. deck/porch areas. The existing floor area is 2,626 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,270 sq. ft. The project includes two parcels to be merged. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setback of the new addition, the pole barn for height and second garage and permeability. 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for two side yard variances: 16 ft. 1 inch proposed where 20 feet is required for Side Yard 1 and 8 ft. 10 inches proposed where 20 feet is required for Side Yard 2. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. 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 Board has reviewed all of the criteria and has determined this. 2. Feasible alternatives were really not considered as they don’t appear to be needed at this time. 3. The requested variance is not considered substantial despite the fact that Number 2 is 50% more than what is required. It actually increases the conformance of the lot with existing zoning. So therefore it’s an improvement over existing noncompliance. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty should be considered self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2021 JAY & KIM OGDEN, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So the next application is AV 1-2021. AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID R. WHITE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID R. WHITE TRUST – LAKE GEORGE QPRT AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, JOHN MASON & HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 5 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 471 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXITING HOME ON THE UPPER LEVEL OF THE HOME, NO INCREASE IN BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,575 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 431 SQ. FT. DECK AREA. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 4,198 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 4,669 SQ. FT. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTUREIN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT, SETBACK, 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 5-2021; AV 37-2002; SP 10-2002; AV 6-1990; SP 1-92; P20020068; 92068 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-13-010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2021, David R. White, as Trustee of the David R. White Trust – Lake George QPRT, Meeting Date: January 20, 2021 “Project Location: 5 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 471 sq. ft. addition to an existing home on the upper level of the home, no increase in building footprint. The existing home is 1,575 sq. ft. footprint with 431 sq. ft. deck area. The existing floor area is 4,198 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,669 sq. ft. Project is subject to site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of the nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief requested for height, setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height, setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement, 179-13-010 expansion of a non-conforming structure The proposed addition will have a height of 32.5 ft. where the existing home is at 34.5 ft. and 28 ft. is the maximum height. The setback to the shoreline is to be 35.5 ft. where a 75 ft. setback 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. 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 limited due to the location of the proposed addition on the upper level. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The height relief is 4.5 ft. in excess. The setback is 39.5 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 project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The site has an existing 2 story house and a detached garage. The project includes 471 sq. ft. addition to the existing home on the upper level. The project includes a new septic system. The addition includes a bedroom, bathroom, access to the balcony, access to the dog run, access to the exterior walkway to the driveway area and access door to home.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board met and based on a limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And they approved that. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-Mr. O’Connor, do you have anything to add? MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the site data, you’ll see that the proposed setbacks and what not are pretty much just what the addition which is on the upper level, not very noticeable to anything. Some of them are actually, the proposed setbacks are improvements over the existing house that’s there. They purposely put the addition so that it didn’t extend out beyond the footprint or expand the house basically other than the bedroom and the bathroom area that’s going to be built on the upper level. The shoreline existing was 20 feet. The addition is going to be 35 feet. One side yard is 14 feet now. It’s going to be 30 feet, and this is from the addition part, and the second one is now 45 feet and it’s going to be 70 feet. The height existing is 34.5, and the addition is only going to be 32.5, and they’re going to raise the roof but not over the full length of the house. It’s only a portion of the roof that gets raised. So they’re still within what is existing 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) there and probably is not going to be noticeable to anyone. There were some sketches and elevations that we’ve submitted and there were photographs that we submitted. When we were before the Planning Board the only question they had is that there was some type of air conditioner or air handler that was on one of the flat roof areas and they asked whether or not, was there any intention to relocate that, and the answer is no. They’re going to accommodate it either internally in the house or use a smaller system to do what they have there. That was the only question that came up that I’m aware of. I guess there was a question about the buffer at the front of the house and the lake and if you look at some of the photographs, particularly the one from the west elevation, you’re going to see that there’s very extensive plantings between the house and the lake, both on the west elevation and even on the east elevation, and I think somebody had talked about, because of the 30 foot buffer they’re talking about 7 three inch trees being planted, was the suggestion, and I think there were 14 or 24 shrubs that were suggested, and in all honesty this is an area that is like rock ledge. I don’t know how you would plant that without causing more disturbance than benefit. These people have taken great care of this property. If you take a look at the photos that we submitted, I think you’ll see that, and they have not cleared the area between the house and the lake. So I would just ask that it be approved as submitted.. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward. So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised so I’m going to open the public hearing and seek comment from anyone who would like to provide information on this particular project. So, Laura, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody, it looks like we still have 15 participants out there. MR. BROWN-Nobody waiting to speak. Fifteen is the total including you guys. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Essentially infill. It’s not going to be any higher than what previously exists on the lot. I don’t think it’s going to have any negative impact. I think the positive on this one is putting in the new septic system which is going to be a plus for the lake. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Jim. I don’t view any negative impact. I do like the new septic going in. Frankly you could argue the proposed setbacks are frankly improvements. So with that said I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, it looks as though everything proposed is as good or better than what exists. So there’s really no added encroachment anywhere. So I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I think the addition really will be hardly noticeable based on the elevations that we were provided. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’ve been to John Kelly’s house next door and none of those houses can be viewed from the road. So any kind of height would not really hinder anybody’s view or anything. The only place you’d see it is from the lakeside. So what they’re doing is very minimal, working on the same footprint. So even though it sounds like a big height variance it really isn’t because of the location. So I’d be on board also with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement with everybody else. It’s an improvement to the property and I’d be in favor. 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. MC CABE-So as I view it in reality what’s being asked for here in terms of variances is minimal. It’s better than what exists and for doing this we get an upgraded septic system. So this is a winner as far as I’m concerned. So, Brent, would you feel comfortable making a motion? MR. MC DEVITT-I should be fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman MR. MC CABE-Okay. So if you’d give us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David R. White, Trustee. Applicant proposes a 471 sq. ft. addition to an existing home on the upper level of the home, no increase in building footprint. The existing home is 1,575 sq. ft. footprint with 431 sq. ft. deck area. The existing floor area is 4,198 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,669 sq. ft. Project is subject to site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of the nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief requested for height, setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height, setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement & 179-13-010 expansion of a nonconforming structure SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. 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 the proposed setbacks may well be improvements and no negative impact regarding that. 2. Feasible alternatives could be considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because there’s no negative impacts regarding that. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty while it could be suggested is self-created, it does not appear to give any real negative impacts. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 1- 2021 DAVID R. WHITE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID R. WHITE TRUST – LAKE GEORGE QPRT, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: th Duly adopted this 20 Day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So congratulations. 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So are we done? I make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 20, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: th Duly adopted this 20 day of January, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 41