Loading...
Meeting Minutes 2.17.2021(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; LITTLE & O’CONNOR PC; WINTERGREEN LANDSCAPE STUDIO OWNER(S) MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER ZONING WR LOCATION 12 SHORE ACRE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A MODIFICATION TO AN APPROVED PLAN TO INSTALL A POOL AND PATIO AREA (1,405 SQ. FT.) INSTEAD OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED WATER FEATURE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE HOUSE AND GARAGE (4,915 SQ. FT.) PORTE COCHERE (360 SQ. FT.), BUNK HOUSE (500 SQ. FT.), PATIO, SPORT COURT, AND OTHER ASSOCIATED SITE WORK (8,860 SQ. FT.). SITE PLAN FOR MODIFICATION OF AN APPROVED PLAN. CROSS REF SP 8-2021; AV 60-2019; SP 81- 2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.71 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-11 SECTION 179-5-020 (POOL); 179-4-070 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 6-2021, Meghan & Daniel Frazier, Meeting Date: February 17, 2021 “Project Location: 12 Shore Acres Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a modification to an approved plan to install a pool and patio area (1,405 sq. ft.) instead of the previously approved water feature. There are no changes to the house and garage (4,915 sq. ft.), porte cochere (360 sq. ft.), bunk house (500 sq. ft.), patio, sport court, and other associated site work (8,860 sq. ft.). Site plan for modification of an approved plan. Relief requested for pool location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for pool location. Section 179-5-020 pool, 179-4-070 lots bounded by two roads or road and shoreline The pool is to be placed on the shoreline side of the home that is considered a front yard location. 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 as each yard is considered a front and would require a variance for either location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Pools are to be located in the rear yard and as noted the project site would not have a rear yard. 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 to install a 20 ft. x 50 ft. pool and include a spa patio area adjacent to the pool area. The project site is currently under construction for a new home and association site work. The plans show the location of the new home and other features of the project (i.e. the bunk house received a variance in 2019). There are no other changes to the project.” MR. MC CABE-So is Mr. O’Connor here or Mr. Hutchins? Is anybody here to represent this project? MR. BROWN-Lucas Dobie’s here from Hutchins. I see Mike O’Connor’s in. Mike, if you can hear this, I think on your phone if you do *6 you’ll be able to speak because that will unmute you, but Lucas is here, and I think he’s ready to roll. MR. DOBIE-Okay. I’ll go with it. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. So, good evening, Board, and thank you for having us, representing Dan and Meghan Frazier at Shore Acres on (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 2 Cleverdale. As you may recall we received our approvals from the Boards last winter, mid dle to late last winter, and then due to the shutdown we weren’t able to get out of the ground until June of this year. Since then the project’s going along very well. The bunkhouse is weather tight, being finished out and the main house is being framed right now. So it’s really taking shape, going along really well, very proud of the project. Why we’re here is to, how we came to this point is as the site took shape and we saw where the walkout basement would be, my clients realized it’s an excellent opportunity for a pool at that walkout level, Infinity Edge pool. Because they have six children. They’ll get a nice usage out of it during the season when the lake is too cold. So we propose a 20 by 50 foot Infinity Edge pool. What that means it’s a disappearing edge pool as it’s also known as where on the lakeside the water spills over a spillway and is collected and re-circulated. So it’s a beautiful, beautiful feature and as Staff described by the Zoning Code this parcel does not have a rear yard in which to situate a pool. The lakeside is considered front as well as Cleverdale Road is a front. So any swimming pool on this parcel would require a variance. So that’s why we’re here tonight, and as Staff noted, the previously approved water features, which was a series of spas and a creek, has been eliminated from the project. The roadside of the project has not changed. Neither have the northerly or southerly parts and with this pool it allowed us to re-shape the lakeside yard further to enlarge our stormwater areas to make them all the more gentle, which will promote more natural infiltration, and the patio around the pool is permeable pavers. So they would see, the runoff from the lakeside of that house and the patio will be infiltrated. With that we’d also like to note for the record that as part of the previous project there was a boundary line agreement with the northerly neighbor for a conveyance and to construct an access driveway over the northeast part of the parcel, and that has not changed, that proposal, that agreement. The pool is situated 65 feet from the northerly property line where the setback requirement is 25 feet, and it’s 110 feet off of the shoreline and 110 feet from the southerly property line. With that, I’d be happy to answer any questions. I believe Mr. O’Connor is on the call with us, the project attorney, and I believe the Fraziers are on the Zoom call as well. Thank you for having us, Board. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I do, Mike. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. HENKEL-This is probably going to be a stupid question, but on the Infinity pool, obviously it’s using a wall that’s not in the ground. Right? Is there going to be glass towards the lake or is it actually a concrete wall? Or how is that wall, like I said, an Infinity pool looks like you’re in the lake. Right? MR. DOBIE-That is a concrete wall. It’s basically a dam to hold back the water which has a tremendous load on it. MR. HENKEL-How deep is that pool there on that side? MR. DOBIE-The exposed Infinity edge is three foot six inches is my understanding above the trough. And then it’ll have a deep end on the southerly end of the pool to eight feet and then the shallow end is on the north is my understanding, Mr. Henkel. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I was just wondering, because you talk about a 20 by 50 pool which is a lot of water. If that was a big exposed wall and if it cracked or broke, you know, that could be a lot of water that could be going towards the lake especially chlorine water. That was my concern because I’ve seen Infinity pools where it’s all glass or, you know, it’s a lot of exposed. MR. DOBIE-No, that’ll be a super reinforced concrete wall to hold that water, and the exposed part is three foot six above the trough. MR. HENKEL-Okay. That’s not very much then. Yes. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Do we have other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, kind of along that line, maybe it’s a silly question, but if we had a major, major storm event, would there be a spillover? MR. DOBIE-The trough, Mrs. Hamlin, is the full width of the pool. So it’s 50 feet long. It’ll have a tremendous amount of storage to it. So to your point, that heavy rainfall event, say a five inch rainfall, it’ll be designed to retain that, and there’s also, below it is our stormwater management treatment area, the bio retention area if you will. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. Well thank you. MR. DOBIE-Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 3 MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So hearing none, at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody who would like to provide us with information on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. BROWN-So I’ve added Robin Inwald. She’s the first on the list. I’m just going to go down alphabetically how the hands are raised, and she’s first and she’s in. MR. MC CABE-Robin. ROBIN INWALD MS. INWALD-Yes, hi. I’m Robin Inwald. Our home at 38 Gunn Lane has been tucked away along the border of 12 Shore Acres, 100 feet from the lake, since 1960. This is my home. This is where I eat. This is where I sleep. This is where I spend time with my family. Just feet away I’ve been confronted with the biggest land alteration and new construction build this area has seen in decades. I’ve tried to ignore the constant chatter of construction workers walking up and down the side of my home. I’ve tried to ignore the constant blasting, building and machinery buzzing. I’ve tried to ignore the destruction of the natural landscape and the erosion of our peaceful surroundings. I’m very saddened by the planned layout of the tall arborvitae hedge that will bring us the complete opposite of the natural Adirondack lakeside landscaping we’ve enjoyed on this property since 1980. I’m even more devastated by this proposal to install a 20 by 50 foot Infinity Edge pool, one that is definitely not allowed by the Town Code and one that will set a major precedent for all of Lake George and negatively impact our collective quality of life. This new structure and everything it will entail and the precedent it will create will exist less than 65 feet from my bedroom window. That’s the measurement we just heard. I thought it was a little bit more. The conversation going on among construction workers I’ve endured for months will turn into conversations and splashing from congregation around this pool. There’s a reason why pools have not been built close to the lake. We live here. Our homes are right next to one another. It’s dense habitation. Any pool built within close proximity to the homes on the lake would be a detriment to every dwelling on the lake, to every family that has enjoyed generations of nature, the peace and quiet at the lake. The background is the view from my bedroom. You can just see how close the proposed pool will be to me. Ultimately the resulting noise at all hours of the day and night and increased light at night will cause significant harm to my property and enjoyment of it. I’m amazed that this is even being seriously considered when the Town denied by request for handicap ramps several years ago. Moreover, the proposed pool will be the first lakeside pool in Harris Bay, Sandy Bay, Kattskill Bay or Warner Bay. Over 20 lakeside neighbors have signed a letter indicating opposition to the proposed variance. This is the response with less than a week’s notice of this variance request during the Pandemic. Many families in this area are concerned that this will significantly and permanently alter the character of our shared lakefront communities and it will create a precedent that will forever change the Adirondack Park. I can’t emphasize this enough. The community is overwhelmingly against this. The applicants have provided no assessment of the environmental impacts posed by this pool, and before such a pool is approved a new precedent is established, the aggregate impact of lakeside pools needs to be properly studied. Furthermore the proposal does not take into account the increased runoff caused by the proposed pool and patio that will flow into a drainage stream that naturally crosses downhill into my family’s property. Above all for me it’s about the proximity to my home. I am begging the Board to reject this variance for my family and me, for our neighbors and for the wider Adirondack Park community. Please carefully review all the letters and additional comments signed by nearby owners and residents opposed to this variance. Thank you for taking my concerns and those of my family and Lake George neighbors into account. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So, next person. DANIELLE SARNO MRS. SARNO-Hi. Good evening. I’m Danielle Sarno, owner of 23 Gunn Lane. My attorney Claudia Braymer of Braymer Law has submitted a letter to the Zoning Board on behalf of the Inwald family. Since she had another meeting to attend, she may not be able to join us tonight. Mrs. Moore, is attorney Braymer on the call? She is? So she’ll be sharing the main points of her letter, but until then I’d like to share a few points. Along with the 24 delivered and/or e-mailed signatures from concerned neighbors, mostly owners in the area, the letter submitted to the Zoning Board tonight includes all owners representing the five closest properties to the immediate north of 12 Shore Acres. These five closest north side addresses are 183 Cleverdale Road, 23 Gunn Lane, 32 Gunn Lane, 34 Gunn Lane, and 38 Gunn Lane. The immediate neighbors to the north of 12 Shore Acres who are most likely to be impacted by the granting of this variance are united in the request that the Zoning Board deny a variance for building a swimming pool at the lakeside front yard of 12 Shore Acres. I’d like to read the letter that was signed by our 24 neighbors. “To Whom It May Concern: As a current and/or full or part-time resident or annual visitor/renter on shoreline property located on Harris Bay, Sandy Bay, Kattskill Bay, or Warner Bay, I object to any change in the current Town of Queensbury Code §179-5-020, or any Zoning Board/Planning Board-approved variances, or site plans, that would allow swimming pools to be built on the lakeside of homes facing Lake George frontage. I understand that, currently, there are no swimming pools located on the lakeside of any (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 4 lakefront homes on Harris Bay, Sandy Bay, Kattskill Bay, or Warner Bay, and object to any precedent being set that would allow, approve, and/or potentially encourage such additional development in this area of the Adirondack Park. Next my husband has a few words as well, Asaf Sarno. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. ASAF SARNO MR. SARNO-Peaceful, calm, nature, that’s Lake George. Imagine your favorite pastime no or in the lake. Maybe you’re fishing, sailing, or just taking in the sunrise or sunset or just enjoying nature with your family. You’re enjoying the peaceful calm of the lake. You’re enjoying the serenity and beauty of our majestic lake. Now imagine what will happen when pools are built on the shores of Lake George. I used pools in the plural sense, because if you allow this variance, the flood gates will open in Harris Bay, Sandy Bay, Warner Bay, Kattskill Bay, and all of Lake George will be littered with swimming pools on its natural shores. If you are a homeowner of lakefront property, would you want your neighbor to have a large noisy lakefront pool infiltrating your home and your property? Absolutely not. Members of the Board, this is Lake George. If you allow this variance, you will establish dangerous precedent that will allow anyone with lakefront property to build a pool on Lake George’s beautiful shores. If you allow this vari ance, the aesthetic beauty of our lake will be altered forever. The peaceful, calm and natural sounds at the lakefront will be muted and altered forever. My neighbors and I strongly oppose this variance application. Lake George is Queen of the American Lakes. Lake George is God’s country. Lake George is beautiful and I urge you to please keep it that way. Thank you for your consideration. Thank you so much. MR. BROWN-Claudia? CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Thanks, Craig. Thank you so much, Board members. My name is Claudia Braymer. I’m the attorney representing the Inwald family, and I wasn’t sure I was going to be able to make it tonight because I had a prior engagement conflicting with this meeting, but I did send in a letter to the Boa rd, and asked Laura to send it out to all of you. I hope you’ve had a chance to receive it, maybe not read through it all. So I’m going to try not to read the whole thing, especially so that Laura doesn’t have to do that or Craig, but I do want to cover some of the main points. So if you’ll just bear with me, I’ll go as quickly as I can. As you heard tonight the applicants do already have a project that was approved last year along with a variance that this Board granted, and the project includes a 14,000 square foot, seven bedroom residence and now the applicants want to construct a 1,000 square foot swimming pool in addition to a “spa” that is on the lakefront side of the property, and that spa is still shown on the plans. You can see it right there on your screen, that little circle below the pool. So I think it’s insincere for them to say they’ve eliminated all of those prior elements that were on the last plan, and as we know we’re here for a zoning variance because the Zoning Code does not permit swimming pools to be located in the front yard of properties, and according to your Zoning Code lakeside yards are considered the front yard. I do need to point out that the Zoning Code also says both areas or sides of the lot adjacent to each road or shoreline shall be considered the front yard, and the remaining areas shall be considered the rear yards. So in these cases there are only front yards and rear yards for zoning purposes. So the assertion that this property does not have a rear yard is legally incorrect. The parcel does have rear yard space and the swimming pool would have to be placed in one of those remaining rear yard areas for it to be permissible without a variance. I also want to pose to you my position that the Zoning Code’s prohibition of swimming pools in the front yard is a restriction related to the use of the property. The restriction against swimming pools in the front yard is not simply a dimensional requirement related to the distance of the pool from the property lines. A variance from a dimensional requirement, as I’m sure you know, would be considered under the area variance criteria. However, since this is a restriction against the use of the front yard portion of the property for a particular use, namely a swimming pool, a variance from that prohibition against swimming pools in the front yard must be evaluated pursuant to the criteria for a use variance. And we’re asking that you apply that use variance criteria to evaluate this request. If you do that, I am sure that you will find that this request needs to be denied. The applicants cannot demonstrate that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. Even if the applicants could demonstrate financial or other hardship relating to the use of the property, the front yard for a swimming pool, the alleged hardship would still have been self-created, thus precluding the grant of a use variance pursuant to your Code as well as case law, and I won’t get into that w ith you now. However, I know that that’s probably maybe not a direction that this Board wants to go, finding that a use variance would need to be considered, in this case, but even if you consider this under the area variance criteria, the request should be denied because there will be adverse impacts to the neighboring property from the use of the pool, as you’ve already heard from the Inwalds. The benefit sought by the applicants are already available. I want to remind you this is lakefront property on Lake George, so there’s plenty of natural water for swimming. The requested variance is substantial in that it requests a complete avoidance of the Zoning Code's prohibition of swimming pools in the lakefront yard of properties. The granting of this variance would have adverse impacts by changing the character of the neighborhood, and the requested variance was entirely self-created by the applicants' change in their desire to have a swimming pool in front of their lakefront property, and I do finally want to make the point that this would be a precedent setting variance (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 5 for the Board to grant to a lakefront property on Lake George. We know, and I’ve looked at satellite maps, and we know of no other existing swimming pools on lakefront yards in Queensbury in the surrounding bays of Lake George that were already mentioned. This is not a unique situation that has arisen due to special circumstances associated with the layout of the applicants’ property or the discovery of some geologic problem with the site that might require the need for a variance. No variance here is reasonably needed to alleviate a tricky or unforeseen implementation of the Zoning Code. There are, or certainly there will be if this is granted, other property owners who would also be interested in constructing swimming pools on their lakefront yards. If you grant this variance, we expect a tidal wave of similar requests from other property owners who would also desire to avoid the implications of the Zoning Code so that they, too, can have lakefront swimming pools. In conclusion we ask that you deny this variance so that the prohibition against swimming pools in front yards along Lake George remains in effect in the Town of Queensbury. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. BROWN-Mr. Inwald. MICHAEL INWALD MR. INWALD-Hi, I’d like to share my thoughts. My name is Michael Inwald. This is my wife, Tanya. We’re at 183 Cleverdale Road which directly abuts 12 Shore Acres for about 200, 250 plus feet along the north boundary. I’ve been a member of the Lake George community my entire life, and I’m speaking today not only in support of my own family who have been and continue to be negatively impacted by the Fraziers’ development, but also in support of two of many things that I’ve come to love about Lake George for almost 40 years. Its nature and its community. First we’re all blessed to be surrounded by such amazing landscape filled with large mature trees and dense woodlands, the lakes, the streams, the wildlife, the quiet most of the time when the lake isn’t buzzing with tourists. Every moment that I spend at our property or at Double H camp where I volunteer, I feel a sense of gratitude that I’m so lucky that my mother was born in this area and my grandparents thought to bring their family to the Lake George region. I also love the community that I believe makes Lake George so unique. I’ve enjoyed decades of nothing but positive and respectful interactions with families all along Cleverdale peninsula, and many of my best friendships were molded here. As a property, resident, member of the community for my entire life I never encountered any disagreements or issues with neighbors. I never fought with anyone here. I’ve never questioned variances. I never disagreed with other people for making changes to their own property that had no bearing any anyone else or the environment, but until now I never had to defend that privilege of nature, of quiet, of privacy and community. This past summer my family had to watch quite painfully as the beautiful mature trees and shrubbery that lined our two properties and that we enjoyed for decades as a natural division between us, were brought to the ground by the Fraziers. They might have had a right to remove that natural fencing, even if we can’t understand why they needed to remove it with two and a half acres to work with, but in taking that unilateral action without discussing it with us first and respecting their community, they’ve now removed a key sound barrier and opened up 12 Shore Acres to greater influence on all of us and we can now see and hear everything next door. What was once a complete nature scape and a sound suppressing feature for anyone who walks on Cleverdale Road or who spends time on the other side of the lake, is now a large opening into a 30,000 square foot, 9 bedroom complex and a resulting broadcast of sights and sounds that will never be properly insulated like it was by new arborvitaes and landscaping plan. Now, after eroding the privacy between our properties in sight and sound the Fraziers are asking to build an outdoor sound generating congregation feature that isn’t allowed by Code. I want the Fraziers to know this and everyone to know this, that I honestly take zero pleasure in speaking against my neighbors’ desire to enjoy certain luxuries, especially since our families will be neighbors for many years to come, but this luxury comes at our cost, in addition to the costs that we’ve already incurred. An outdoor pool feature will result in an invasion of our property with sounds of congregation, whether small gatherings or large, sounds of splashing, sounds of maintenance. This proposed change in their plan is highly undesirable and it will have a substantial impact on us. Unle ss and until, from our perspective, there’s full re-growth of the original thick Adirondack woodland boundary that would create a proper sound barrier between our properties, we strongly oppose any new sound creating feature, including a pool, that is not explicitly allowed by current Code. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? STEPHANIE SCHNEIDER MS. SCHNEIDER-Good evening. I’m Stephanie Schneider and I’m the owner of 38 Gunn Lane where my mother, Robin, resides. This is the house directly adjacent to the Fraziers’ property and I’ve spent every summer of my life in Cleverdale with my mother, my grandmother, my family. Now I can share the joys of Lake George with my own daughter. I look forward to meeting my neighbors the Fraziers and to future years when my family and theirs will be able to enjoy a shared part of the lake together. However, I am concerned about the impact of the proposed pool. I’d like to briefly address the factors the Board will take into account in evaluating this project and explain why I think it is in the best interest of our community for this to be denied. First the proposed pool is located about 75 feet or possibly less from my mother’s (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 6 bedroom window and the same distance from our kitchen, living room and two bedrooms on that side, often used by my daughter and my six young nieces and nephews. This pool will indeed create undesirable change, including unrestricted noise and light and will significantly impact our ability to enjoy our property. It also will create an undesirable precedent for the wider community. There’s been an outpouring from our neighbors expressing their concern for this proposal for a lakefront pool. Second, the Fraziers have not demonstrated that this is their only option to obtain the benefit that they seek or that the lake itself does not provide such benefit. They failed the burden to identify alternatives if any exist that will not infringe on their neighbors, will not impact community and do not violate zoning rules and requirements. Third the proposed 20 by 50 foot pool is significant. The precedential effect is also unmistakably substantial, made clear by 24 residents and nearby lakefront property owners who have signed a letter and made comments asking the Board to reject the requested variance. Fourth, it does not appear that the Fraziers took into account that the proposed pool and patio will likely increase runoff or spillover into a drainage stream that crosses into our front lawn, potentially eroding areas of the lawn that I played on as a child and which my daughter now enjoys. Fifth, the Fraziers need for a variance appears to be entirely self-created. In fact we’ve been confused as to why they have exclusively referred to water features during hearings on the original designs to obtain earlier approvals, but then they built these two structures as pools on the actual 2020 site plan. Regardless of these issues, I hope the Fraziers know that this isn’t personal and we are just genuinely worried about how this will impact us and our community and hope that our families, as close neighbors, can be friends for generations to come. Thank you for taking these concerns into account. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Next one, Craig. MR. BROWN-I don’t see any more interest in the lobby. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, Laura, other than the letter that Braymer concisely presented, do we have any more written correspondence? MR. BROWN-You’re muted there, Laura, if you’re talking. MRS. MOORE-So, yes, there’s a letter from the Lake George Waterkeeper, and I’ll just note that there is another letter, however those people have spoken so far and this letter is signed by five families opposed to the project, The Sarno family at 23 Gunn Lane, the Schneider family at 38 Gunn Lane, the Inwald family at 183 Cleverdale. The family I don’t think I did hear was the family at 34 Gunn Lane and the family at 268 Cleverdale. So that was one letter. Claudia’s letter that she spoke of and then the pet ition that was read into the record. So I’ll go back to the Lake George Waterkeeper. “The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Water keeper. The Waterkeeper is opposed the referenced variance application since it will be setting a precedent for shoreline pools in the Town and continued removal and alteration of vital natural features along the shoreline, which is not harmonious with the intent of the Town. The extensive alteration of the natural landscape, soils, and tree removal already proposed will have environmental impacts that will be exacerbated with another large structure. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-080 Variance Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The proposed variance will produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and will be a detriment to nearby properties. To my knowledge, the Town has not approved a swimming pool along the shoreline of Lake George so this would be a precedent setting decision, which would be a change in the character of the neighborhood. There is subjectivity whether the proposed structure would be a "very attractive structure" as it would be out of character for the neighborhood. Additionally, the installation of the pool on the lakeside/recreational side of the property, 70 feet from the neighboring house may be considered detrimental. There are alternatives to the applicant that would eliminate the undesirable change in character. Although a variance would still be required by placing the pool on the roadside of the house, it would be further from the public right of way . It may also result in a reduction of driveway surface and a reduction in impervious cover, which would be an overall benefit. The proposed variance would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neigh borhood. The pool structure, associate patio and wall, which is nearly 2/3 acres of additional hardscape, replaces important natural landscape necessary for the protection of water quality along shoreline, which is the intent of the Town Code. The amount of permeability of the proposed patio material is questionable. There is also concern about the amount and type of chemicals that would be used and that would enter the groundwater through the permeable pavers and overflow from the infinity pool. This reaso n alone should be enough to prevent the variance. There is also a concern of the impact on the physical environment with the proposed 10 foot cut for the structure and impacts to infiltration and reduced treatment capabilities of the deeper soils. This water quality impact from runoff and chemicals will increase with the proposed underdrains in the biofilter down gradient from the pool. It is the recommendation of the Waterkeeper that the Zoning Board of Appeals deny the requested variance due to change in character of the neighborhood and adverse impacts to the environment. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed . Thank you for your consideration.” And then I’ll just note, according to the Planning Board, on behalf of (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 7 their recommendation they, again, did not see any significant adverse impacts with the current project as proposed. That was recommended seven to zero. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask Hutchins Engineering if they would like to reply to anything that they heard from the public. MR. DOBIE-Could I ask Staff, is Michael O’Connor on the call? MR. BROWN-He is. Can you speak, Mike, so we can see if we can h ear you? Did you have something, Lucas? MR. DOBIE-Yes. I don’t want to get into arguing with the neighbors. It’s a little bit further than the 65 feet to Mrs. Inwald’s actually structure. It’s 65 feet to the property line. I’m not sure where her bedroom is in the house. S it’s a little bit further than that, and we discussed some of the over spillage during storm events with the trough being able to capture that, and the additional stormwater management below that as well. So it would handle any overflow from the permeable pavers. I guess at this time if the Board has any further questions, or we could get the opinion of the Board so we could make our decision here so my clients could advise me on how to move forward. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-In most cases when we’re considering a pool in two front yards or the situation when there’s two front yards, it’s usually a corner lot where the applicant does not have an option and we have to decide whether it’s reasonable for them to have a pool. In this case I think this is the first time, I’ve been on the Board for a long time, that I’ve ever seen one where a pool is adjacent to the lake, in one of the only front yards that’s available, one of the only two front yards that’s available. So I would have to consider what kind of variance we might be offering and to me it’s a very substantial variance. I think it also could set a dangerous precedent for that area. We’ve seen areas, other areas of the Town where they were granted variances for pools. Usually it’s bordering a buffer zone or it doesn’t have a really good setback, and the result was that everybody in that neighborhood, in that subdivision came for a pool at some point. So eventually he whole neighborhood had pools that required variance. I think this would be dangerous for this area against Lake George to offer a pool. I think you’re supposed to provide minimal relief and in this case, it’s all or nothing, and I think nothing is the safer option from the Town perspective, and I would be against any variance for this location that involves a pool. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think any waterfront property owners, whether they live on Glen Lake, Lake Sunnyside or Lake George would be concerned with the aspect that this project has presented here this evening. I think that we have to remember that the foreshore of the lake is where the action begins and where the action ends and by creating a pool situation 75 feet back from the lake closer to the housing where people are used to peace and quiet is the wrong direction that we’re going here. I think pools d o not have a place on Waterfront Residential property unless they were located in the back where the current on their plot sport court is located. So I would not be in favor of this application. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also not in favor. I think it’s an undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood as Mr. Urrico and Mr. Underwood have already explained, and I just agree with Jim. It should go in the back where the sport court is, but this is a self-created difficulty and I think this particular piece of our test has bearing here, where there’s no need for this except for their enjoyment, which is great, but the bottom line is we have to grant the minimum variance necessary and I couldn’t, in good faith, do that with this application. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree with everybody. It is a front yard, and it would set a terrible precedent, in addition to that fact that, I mean I don’t think of this as use. It’s a residential use. It’s an accessory use to a residence. So I wouldn’t even go there. It’s in the front yard. We’ve heard testimony here that there aren’t any, we’ve heard Board members who’ve been on for a long time say that there haven’t been any other pools in front yards granted. It would mar the beauty of the lake, not to mention I don’t think we have enough information in our packet about what the real environmental impact would be, especially with my question that I asked, okay, so it will absorb it, but where’s the information on that, and I wouldn’t expect that information to be given to us. I think we just have enough here in terms of precedent, in terms of self- created, and as far as need, you know, benefit to the applicant, it does not outweigh the potential impacts, (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 8 particularly to the character, I mean it’s the character of the lake, the character of the neighborhood. I think this is not worthy of a variance. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-In defense of the Fraziers a little bit, I’ve been on the lake for about 50 years, and the boat traffic and the personal watercraft, if any of these people that were talking had a personal watercraft, they go zooming around in front of properties all day long, creating noise. If we’re talking about noise, that’s where the noise is coming from, not from pools, but I agree with all my members that it shouldn’t be permitted on the lakeside like that. If they wanted to put one maybe in the back, well there’s not really a backyard, but closer to Cleverdale Road or they could maybe re-design that spa to make it a little bit bigger and get some enjoyment out of it that way, but the idea of putting the pool by the lake, I would not be agreeable with that at all. MR. MC CABE-And my feelings are that indeed we would be setting precedent if we allowed the pool on the lakeside. We understand that whichever side of the house the pool goes on, we’d have to grant a variance. They’re both considered quote front yards, but the lakeside is a little bit more critical front yard, and so I, too, cannot support the pool on the lakeside. The arguments about the noise are ridiculous. You’ve got a lake right there, but the pool in the front yard, or excuse me the pool on the lakeside as mentioned would be precedent setting for us, and I’m not comfortable with that at this particular time. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, it looks like Mr. O’Connor has finally been able to connect, if you want to give him a few minutes. MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. MICHAEL O’CONNOR MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This property went through an extensive review when the house was being built and if you have in your packets or your old files, you’re going to see the maps that show the landscaping that the Fraziers are doing. They in fact they’re planting not only ground plants and shrubs, but a substantial number of trees with three inch roots and I think it’s 15 to 17 feet in height throughout their property. It’s on Map L-3.10 and L-3.11 of the original zoning application. That may not be in your packet there. As far as the spa, if that is still shown on the site plan, that is, they have agreed that that comes off in lieu of the pool. As far as affecting the landscape from the lake, the front wall of this pool is three feet six inches high and will be well landscaped lik e the rest of their site. It probably won’t be noticeable from the lake that there is in fact a pool there because the landscaping can be brought to a height where it’s a little bit above the pool edge. As far as lighting goes, if there’s any lighting on the site, and I have not seen a lighting plan, it would all be downcast. We went through much of the same items that we’ve heard tonight with the Inwald family before with regard to the sports court that’s in the back of the property, and part of that was the reason why the shrubbery was planted along the edge of the property to give us privacy from the Inwalds and to give the Inwalds privacy from us and it is a substantial hedge that was planted there. So I know that we’re talking about something a little bit different, a little bit new, but we’re really not talking about anything that has significant impacts on people except by speculation that it would. The pool is 110 feet from the lake. The activities I would think they’re still going to be taking place on the front part of the property. I call it the front part, the lakeside of the property. I don’t think it’s going to have that significant impact on the Inwald residence which is right on the property line along the adjoining north boundary of this property. I don’t think there’s much of a setback there at all, as I recall from the prior zoning application, and I pointed that out before when they were complaining about the sports court. So I don’t think that, if you take the totality of the plantings that the Fraziers are doing, the efforts that they’re doing as far as the stormwater, I don’t think you have any significant impacts that are prohibited or should be prohibited. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay, that’s it, and thank you for allowing me to speak. MR. MC CABE-So right now we have six noes. We are short one person , but that person only gets one vote. So I guess I need some guidance on how you want to proceed here. Do you want to table this application and give it some more consideration? Do you want us to take a vote or? MR. O'CONNOR-I would like to table it because the one thing that was suggested, although I think it’s really contrary to the applicant, was that perhaps if the pool was back where the sports court was or is, it would not be objectionable to the neighbor, but I would like to explore that with my client and have the opportunity to do that. MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 9 MR. O'CONNOR-And also I would like to have Hutchins give us more information as far as stormwater. I heard a couple of questions as to whether or not we would be creating something that would go to the lake or go to the neighbor’s property from our site, and that’s not going to be the case. MR. MC CABE-We discussed that, and I really don’t think that’s an issue, at least from our standpoint. MR. O'CONNOR-Okay. Well I’d appreciate the tabling. MR. MC CABE-All right. Sure. So, Laura, do we have openings in, Mr. O’Connor, how much time do you need? MR. O'CONNOR-I could probably make it in the next month. MR. MC CABE-I don’t think we have an openings in the first meeting. Laura, do we have any openings in the second meeting? MRS. MOORE-We might have openings in the second meeting, but please note I just received other applications for the March meeting, I mean I know April’s agenda is open for the first meeting. I just have to go through the application materials that have already been set up for the March meetings. I would prefer if you tabled it until April, but we can adjust things if that’s how the Board wishes to proceed. MR. MC CABE-So I’ll ask Mr. O’Connor, would you be willing to wait until the first meeting in April? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. I’d rather not, but I know we’re asking the Board’s consideration, so we’ve got to be considerate also. MR. MC CABE-So, John, could we have a motion? MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Meghan & Daniel Frazier. Applicant proposes a modification to an approved plan to install a pool and patio area (1,405 sq. ft.) instead of the previously approved water feature. There are no changes to the house and garage (4,915 sq. ft.), porte cochere (360 sq. ft.), bunk house (500 sq. ft.), patio, sport court, and other associated site work (8,860 sq. ft.). Site plan for modification of an approved plan. Relief requested for pool location. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 6-2021 MEGHAN & DANIEL FRAZIER, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the April 20th meeting with any new information submitted by the March submission deadline. Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 2021, by the following vote: MRS. HAMLIN-Can I say something? If the proposal is still to put a pool in the front yard, if they’re going to come back with that, I would be interested in more environmental information about that pool and major storm events. So just putting that out there. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MRS. MOORE-Mr. McCabe, you have closed the public hearing. Are you going to re-open that public hearing. MR. MC CABE-At the next meeting, yes. The next time we get together for this particular application. MRS. MOORE-Okay.