Loading...
03-17-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 39-2020 Jeffrey Godnick 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 289.9-1-84 Area Variance No. 15-2021 Joseph Leuci 2. Tax Map No. 290.-1-48 Area Variance No. 14-2021 Robert McCormick 5. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-45 Area Variance No. 12-2021 Steve & Cathie Schonwetter 12. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-42 Area Variance No. 13-2021 Stephen Haraden 18. Tax Map No. 226.12-1-74 Area Variance No. 16-2021 Charles Carder & Caren Tucker 23. Tax Map No. 289.14-1-24 Area Variance No. 20-2021 Rockhurst, LLC (Christopher Abele) 27. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35.1 & 239.12-2-35.2 Area Variance No. 49-2020 Rockhurst, LLC (Christopher Abele) 32. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-35 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 03/17/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MARCH 17, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening, my name’s Mike McCabe, and I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the th Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Wednesday, March 17, 2021. If you’ve not been here before, our procedure is simple. We’ll call each application up, read the application into the record, allow the applicant to present the application. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, we’ll open the public hearing and seek input from the public. When that’s done we’ll poll the Board, find out what the feelings are among the Board members and proceed accordingly. So first we have a couple of administrative items. So, John, I’m going to ask for a motion on the meeting minutes for th February 17. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 17, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 24, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 17 day of March 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: TABLE AV 39-2020 (GODNICK) TO APRIL 21, 2021 MR. MC CABE-So we’ve had a request to table AV 39-2020 until the, is that the second meeting in April? st MRS. DWYRE-To April 21. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) st MRS. MOORE-April 21 is your first meeting. MR. MC CABE-So, John, could I have a motion there. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey Godnick. Applicant proposes to maintain a 188 sq. ft. shed that had been installed in 2019. The shed is located 3.9 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The existing home is 4,259 sq. ft. footprint with a site floor area of 5,962 sq. ft. which includes the 188 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and permeability. Site plan new floor area in a CEA and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 39-2020 JEFFREY GODNICK: Introduced by John Henkel, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe; stth Tabled to the April 21, 2021 Zoning Board meeting with any new information submitted by the 15 of April. Duly adopted this 17th Day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So our first application is Area Variance 15-2021, 277 Chestnut Ridge Road, and it’s Joseph Leuci. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOSEPH LEUCI AGENT(S): MATTHEW HUNTINGTON OWNER(S) JOSEPH & JILL LEUCI ZONING MDR LOCATION 277 CHESTNUT RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,796 SQ. FT. HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE AND TO CONSTRUCT A 750 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. THE SECOND GARAGE WILL ALLOW FOR THE STORAGE OF PROPERTY MAINTENANCE EQUIPMENT AS THE PROJECT SITE IS 34.2 ACRES. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR HOUSE PLACEMENT, DRIVEWAY AREA, SEPTIC AND WELL INSTALLATION. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF. SP 56-2020; AV 60-2017; RC 656- 2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2021 LOT SIZE 34.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-48 SECTION 179-5-020 MATT HUNTINGTON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2021, Joseph Leuci, Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project Location: 277 Chestnut Ridge Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,796 sq. ft. home with an attached garage and to construct a 750 sq. ft. detached garage. The second garage will allow for the storage of property maintenance equipment as the project site is 34.2 acres. The project includes associated site work for house placement, driveway area, septic and well installation. Site plan review for construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage in the Moderate Density zone - MDR. Section 179-5-020 –garage The project includes a new home with an attached garage and construction of a second garage. Relief is for having more than one garage where only one garage is allowed per parcel. 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. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the lot size and the applicant’s intent to use the garage for storage of property maintenance equipment. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief is for a second 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 to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a new home with an attached garage and also proposes a second garage. The applicant has indicated the second garage will assist with property maintenance as the parcel is 34.2 acres. The plans show the location of the new home and the proposed second garage.” MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, do you have anything from the Planning Board on this? MRS. MOORE-I do. The Planning Board, based on limited review, has not identified any significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was seven to zero in favor. MR. MC CABE-So do we have the applicant or his agent here? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I have Matt Huntington. MR. MC CABE-So, Matt, would you like to add anything here? MR. HUNTINGTON-Good evening, Board. Matt Huntington with Studio A representing Joe Leuci for this Area Variance. I will try not to reiterate because that was pretty encompassing everything that was read in. Really as I stated the second garage is for property maintenance equipment because there’s 34 acres there, possibly recreation vehicle to get around on the site. If you’ve been up to that area, Chestnut Ridge Road, we feel that the second garage fits within the character of the neighborhood as there are a lot of houses up in that area that have detached garages as well as an attached garage. Additionally you actually, the visibility from Chestnut Ridge Road is very minimal as to the house placement. We’re a considerable ways off of the road, somewhere around 300 feet or so, to even the front line setback to the garage and we have performed some stormwater analysis for the 25 year storm for the proposed development, and we were able to mitigate any impacts created from the new impervious areas from the house and driveway to pre-existing conditions. So in terms of environmental impacts, you know, I mean it should actually be a benefit runoff wise for construction here, created some swales and a small retention basin near the garage and that pretty much encompasses most of the project. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So pretty straightforward. So, Laura, we’re pretty close to Washington County here. Did we inform them of this project or are we far enough away? MRS. MOORE-We may be far enough away, but typically with the 500 foot notice that takes into account if that border was involved. MR. MC CABE-So does the Board have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I do. Obviously you’ve thought out the size of the garage for the equipment you’re going to put into it. I just don’t understand the small doors if you’re going to be putting tractors or something like that in there. Won’t that become a problem later with those size doors? MR. HUNTINGTON-We weren’t the architect on the plan, but I believe they’re a standard nine foot garage door on there. I think at the end of this it may be there. MR. HENKEL-It looks like it’s definitely made more for cars than, like I said, you know, a tractor with a bucket or anything like that. I would think that’s going to cause a little problem and it also has storage on top. I mean I understand that. You’d think you would want the height for the equipment not for cars, but like I said, I’m sure it was thought out. It’s a nice project. MR. HUNTINGTON-Yes, certainly I can’t speak too much on the overall garage’s design. We are responsible for the site. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. MC CABE-Okay. Other questions for the applicant? So hearing none, a public hearing has been advertised and so at this time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if anybody has input on this particular project either on the Zoom or is there any written communication on this, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So there’s no written communication and there are 19 attendees and if there’s anyone that wishes to speak, there’s a function for either a chat or a raise your hand function if you wish to speak. I don’t see any raised hands. There’s nobody that’s raised their hand. So I don’t think there’s anybody here to speak on this topic. MR. MC CABE-So at this 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 Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-Can I ask Laura a real quick question? Do you happen to know what the minimum lot sizes in this area? MRS. MOORE-So the MDR is four acres. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. That’s the only thing I wanted to know. I guess if four acres is the minimum. He’s got a lot of acreage there, but I wondered about future potential subdividing a large parcel, but if he’s going to be left with four acres we have allowed a second garage on that. We just did up on Lake George. I guess I would be in favor of this. It makes sense. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. I think it will have a minimal effect on the environmental conditions in the vicinity and I think it reflects the architecture of the new home that’s going to be there, too, so I’d be all for it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m all for it. It’s well thought out. It’s a big piece of property and I have no issues with it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Unfortunately our Code doesn’t take into account large parcels like this one, but I see no problem with the application. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-With it being 34.2 acres and it’s going to have very little visual effects to the neighborhood I would be on board with it as is, too. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. Even though it’s technically a substantial request, the size of the building I think is modest in comparison to the acreage. So I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I believe we had almost an identical application here last year or the year before just up the road. So in fairness I think it’s right that we allow this second garage. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here. MRS. MOORE-Just before you do that, I just want to correct myself. The acreage for MDR is two acres in size because it needs sewer and water. Otherwise it would be one acre. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, you know, on the off chance, I’ll take the risk. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joseph Leuci. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,796 sq. ft. home with an attached garage and to construct a 750 sq. ft. detached garage. The second garage will allow for the storage of property maintenance equipment as the project site is 34.2 acres. The project includes associated site work for house placement, driveway area, septic and well installation. Site plan review for construction within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for second garage. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a second garage in the Moderate Density zone - MDR. Section 179-5-020 –garage The project includes a new home with an attached garage and construction of a second garage. Relief is for having more than one garage where only one garage is allowed per parcel. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 17, 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. 2. We did not consider any feasible alternatives. It seemed like a reasonable and minimal request at that given the size of the property. 3. The requested variance would be considered substantial but again we feel it’s mitigated by the size of the property. 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. However, this is not a determining factor. 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. 15-2021 JOSEPH LEUCI, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 17 Day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. MR. HUNTINGTON-All right. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 14-2021, 18 Dark Bay Lane, Robert McCormick. AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROBERT MC CORMICK AGENT(S) JOSEPH J. BIANCHINE, PE OWNER(S) ROBERT MC CORMICK ZONING WR LOCATION 18 DARK BAY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 110 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION TO THE MAIN HOME AND A 116 SQ. FT. PORCH ADDITION ALSO ON THE MAIN HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 500 SQ. FT. CARPORT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING 624 SQ. FT. GARAGE AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,113 SQ. FT. 8-CAR GARAGE. SITE WORK INCLUDING A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM AND A WELL. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND PROJECT WORK WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF GARAGE, SECOND GARAGE, AND NUMBER OF BAYS. CROSS REF SP 13-2021; SP 15-91; SP 59-88 WARREN COUNTY 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) PLANNING MARCH 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 4.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-45 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-5-020; 179-13-010 JOE BIANCHINE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MRS. MOORE-I apologize. I’m going to interrupt you. There was a recent change to this application. And I’m just going to give you some numbers in reference to the size of the garage and the number of the bays. So the correction is the garage is being reduced to 1,995 square feet. MR. URRICO-What was that again? MRS. MOORE-So 1,995 square feet. And then there are four bays instead of eight. MR. MC DEVITT-Laura, just so I’m clear, we’re going from the 3,113 to 1,195? MRS. MOORE-1,995. MR. MC DEVITT-I’m sorry, 1,995. MR. HENKEL-What about the 500 square foot carport, is that still there? MRS. MOORE-That is still there. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. MC DEVITT-And again, how many bays? MRS. MOORE-There is now going to be four bays. MR. MC DEVITT-Four bays. Got it. MR. URRICO-Okay. I’ll try this and if I’m wrong you’ll let me know. Okay? MRS. MOORE-Yes. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 14-2021, Robert McCormick, Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project Location: 18 Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 110 sq. ft. porch addition to the main home and a 116 sq. ft. porch addition also on the main home. The project includes a 500 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing 624 sq. ft. garage and construction of a 1,995 sq. ft. 4-car garage. Site work includes a new septic system and a well. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure, and project work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for size of garage, second garage, and number of bays. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of garage, second garage, and number of bays in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-5-020 –garage The proposed second garage is to be 1,995 sq. ft. and to be 4 bays. Relief is requested for the second garage, garage greater than 1,100 sq. ft. and a garage with more than three bays. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to expand the existing garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for a second garage, 3 bays are the maximum allowed, 895 sq. ft. in excess. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage to store classic cars and antique boats. The new garage is to be 16 ft. in height and have 4 bays. The plans show the location of the garage in relation to the home.” MRS. MOORE-So I have from the Board, the Planning Board based on limited review has identified the following areas of concern: 1. The size and scope of the garage. 2. Addition of a second garage. 3. Added plumbing to the garage. 4. Conflict with neighborhood character. 5. Addition of a second curb cut. 6. Concerns about potential uses. And I apologize. The one additional correction is that there is going to be no toilet in this building now. MR. URRICO-Laura, can I ask if the Planning Board concerns were based on the new figures or the old figures? MRS. MOORE-The old figures. MR. URRICO-So their comments are not necessarily relevant to what we’re talking about now. MRS. MOORE-I would say not all of them, but I do think some of them are. Obviously the things that are not are the plumbing to the garage. The rest are still I think viable only because they’re still concerned with the size of the garage, the fact that there’s a second garage, and the number of bays, but that wasn’t identified as a concern in this one. MR. MC DEVITT-Laura, I’m sorry, I apologize. I kind of got everything relative to the Planning Board, but would you be kind enough, would you just summarize the stuff? What would be relevant at this time? MRS. MOORE-So the size and scope of the garage. It’s still larger than 1100 square feet. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MRS. MOORE-The addition of a second garage. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. MRS. MOORE-And then they have a concern with neighborhood character. They’ve identified the addition’s second curb cut. That’s typically a site plan review, but they did include it in the recommendation to you. MR. HENKEL-Is that a public road? That’s not a public road or a Town road. Right? MR. BIANCHINE-It’s a private road. MR. HENKEL-That’s a private road to all those residents. So that is still a concern with curb cuts? MRS. MOORE-With the Planning Board it is, but not. MR. HENKEL-Our Code doesn’t say that right, it has to be a Town road. MRS. MOORE-No, it doesn’t say anything about how many curb cuts can one applicant have on their property. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MRS. MOORE-It’s not part of the request. MR. MC CABE-So are we all clear here? Are we ready for the applicant? Laura? MRS. MOORE-I think so. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, continue. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. BIANCHINE-Joe Bianchine with ABD Engineers and I’m here representing Robert McCormick. First of all the McCormicks have just recently moved to this residence from their Clifton Park house so they are now residents of the Town of Queensbury. They own this site, which is about 4.7 acres, and they also own two vacant lots just to the south of this. To the north of their property it’s owned by Grande which had a similar variance request last month for a larger size garage, second garage. So that’s all along the north boundary. Along Route 9, just to the west, Route 9L, Dark Bay Lane which is a private road is to the south of us, and then Lake George is to the west of us. So they have frontage on Lake George. They have the dock on Lake George. Predominantly the entire 4.7 acres is wooded except for where the house is and the garage, and they do have a basketball court, but most of the rest of it is all wooded. The existing residence, since they’ve just moved here they would like to add two porches at their entrances. They’re small porches, about 116 feet, and 110 square feet to dress up the residence and to make a covered entrance, and then they do have an existing garage. It’s a two bay garage. It’s not attached to the existing house because of the grading on site and so forth. Typically most houses nowadays have an attached garage, but this one is a detached garage, 624 square feet. They would like to add a 500 square foot carport to that because they do have three family vehicles that they use and they would park those at the existing garage and the carport. They would like to add another garage to the site. We’ve reduced the square footage since last night from the 3100 square feet to now just less than 2,000 square feet and changed it from an eight bay garage to a four bay garage, and eliminated the bathroom, the septic tank, and the wells, which were changes just since last night. Mr. McCormick has a couple of classic vehicles that he would like to store here. He also has a gator and he also has maintenance equipment for 4.7 acres. So that would all go in the garage. He’s also a collector of antique like gasoline pumps, old gasoline signs, things like that, the older petroleum products, things like that. So that’s why he would like to have this garage for that. He’s not proposing to do any work on the vehicles. He’s not proposing, it’s not a commercial operation. It’s simply his hobby and the vehicles would be very seldom driven, only on a nice sunny day or something in the summer. It’s not a year round type operation. Very little traffic The garage is situated so that it’s not near really any neighbors. It’s 100 foot from the property, it will be over 100 foot now with the reduction. It would be about 120 feet from the property to the north. It’ll be about over 200 feet to the right of way on Route 9 to the east and it’s about 200 feet from Dark Bay Lane and it’s opposite land that he owns on Dark Bay Lane. There’s two properties that he owns just to the south on Dark Bay Lane. They’re vacant properties. They’re a total of about an acre. So all together he owns over five acres at this general location, and it’s several hundred, I think almost 300 feet from Lake George. You won’t be able to see it. We did do a cross section through the site. The site is all wooded and there is a mound on the Route 9 side that drops off towards the lake, but there’s trees everywhere, mature trees. So this being only 16 feet there’ll be very little visibility of this. So for that reason we don’t feel it will have any undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood because you barely will see it and it’s from a private road. You won’t see it from Route 9. Whether or not we can achieve it by any other methods, you can’t really expand the existing garage or put another garage on the existing house just because of the way the house is situated. It is on a slope, and just would be very difficult to do that because of the size of the garage that you would need. Is it substantial? Well, I think if the Code says 1100 square feet, we’re over that obviously, 1995 square feet, just under 2,000, but I think the Code also says that if you had a five acre lot you could have 2,000 square feet. So he does have five acres. It’s just not all one parcel. He has no intentions of developing those other two parcels. He just bought them for his own privacy. Again we don’t feel there’s any physical or environmental impacts to this site. It is in the environmental area because of the slope of the existing land around. The garage is over 15%, but by reducing the size of the garage there’d be less impact on that. We have done test pits at the site and basically there’s sand at the surface and then down to two to three feet and then it gets into rock. So the foundation for the garage will be on rock. Likewise we put on three sides of the garage the infiltration trench to get the addition stormwater into the ground by infiltration. So everything is graded so it’ll go into the infiltration trench and there’ll be no additional runoff. It’ll all be infiltrated into the sandy soil at the top. Lastly is it self-created. Yes, it’s his desire to build a garage here. He’s got, as I say, almost, he’s got over five acres up here. He’d just like to utilize his property and like to use it for his hobby as well as his residence. So I think that’s about all I can say at this point. I can answer questions. MR. MC CABE-Does anybody have a question of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Mike, you never said the dimensions. I know you told us the square feet, but what’s the dimensions of the new garage? MR. BIANCHINE-It’s 55 feet wide and depth is about 41 feet, something like that. MR. HENKEL-That’s the new dimensions. Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. HENKEL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So there is a public hearing advertised for this particular project. So at this time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody out there has input on this particular project or ask if there’s any written input on this particular project? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-At the moment I know I just let in Chris. If Chris Navitsky, the Waterkeeper. I know he has a written letter, and at the moment I have it looks like another person that wishes to speak. So I will take care of that after Chris speaks. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Is it okay to proceed, Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Yes, it is. MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I’ll preface this, my comments were drafted obviously before the change that was submitted. I’ll try to amend those on the fly here , but we did have questions and the intent and the extent of the project located within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. We had concerns about the potential negative impacts to the important natural resources and water quality, especially with the proposed mitigation measures. Regarding the proposed variance, that it would produce an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and would be a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed garage is a very large structure. It still could be considered that, to accommodate numerous vehicles, well in excess of the allowable size of an accessory structure, which itself is a change in character. We did have questions on maintenance activities and I think that was addressed a little bit by the applicant’s agent, but if there’s going to be gas motors, even if they’re going to be working on those old motors, just wondering if there was going to be any mitigation measures to capture any potential runoff or leaks, and we just wanted them to verify the need of the size of that structure. We think they have reduced that a little bit, recognizing that. The proposed variance would have an adverse effect and impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Due to the extent of the disturbance to accommodate the size of the structure and proposed access drive, a large stormwater management system is required. We did have concerns about the ability of the site to provide effective management and treatment. Numerous deep test pits that had bedrock down or rock indicated at six inches, at twelve, inches, so there is limited depth to handle stormwater. Also the project needed to be considered a Major stormwater due to the disturbance exceeding 15,000 square feet and it failed to meet that. We did suggest a reduction in size would allow that stormwater management to be reduced. We do not know how that was affected with this change. Additionally, the applicant should verify compliance with Section 179-6-050 which requires the undisturbed 75 foot vegetated buffer to regulated streams. There is a stream to the east of the structure and we just want that noted. It looks like it might be there, but that just should be recognized on the application that that will be a 75 foot undisturbed buffer. So we recommend that the ZBA table the application and have the applicant consider alternatives to reduce the size of the structure and extent of disturbance and improve the balance of the application. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So, next? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any other attendees. I have two phone call listeners. I’m going to bring them in, only because I’m not sure which project they are on. So I just brought in with the last four digits, 9786. Are you here to talk about this project, and currently you’re on mute. I see they’re not unmuting. So I’m going to move them back to attendee. The other one, I know have an 8818. Are you here to talk about this particular project? MIKE TUCK MR. TUCK-Laura, this is Mike Tuck. I’m here for a different application. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you. And then I have Jim Tobin, and he can unmute himself and speak if he wishes to. You’re all set, Jim, if you want to speak. You just need to unmute. JIM TOBIN MR. TOBIN-My name is Jim Tobin and I am a resident of 15 Dark Bay Lane and I have lived there for 35 years, and for 20 of those years the McCormick family have been my neighbors, and they’re very cordial neighbors. Also I am the President of the Dark Bay Association which is a nine member group of people that live on Dark Bay Road. I have informally polled all the neighbors concerning this project and there has been no opposition to this project in the neighborhood. I’ve seen that the building has been reduced in size. I’ve walked the site and the site is hidden behind a knoll that is a rocky knoll that’s not visible from Dark Bay Lane, and the building probably will never been seen. Maybe the ridge will be seen on occasion, but mostly the building is hidden. Also I believe that Chris brought up there’s a stream. There’s two streams on this property, one on the, I believe the east part of the property which is an active stream, probably a Class One stream. The stream that runs along Dark Bay Lane is road runoff from the highway and it would run in the springtime then stop and dries up, but the parcel is a large parcel, and having 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) ownership on the other side of the road also we feel it’s no detriment to the neighborhood. The people who live here feel it has no detriment. So I think we have a great say in this and we appreciate what the McCormick’s have done over the years on maintaining their property, and we welcome them as neighbors. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you, Jim. Laura, do we have anybody else? MRS. MOORE-I don’t see anybody else’s hand raised, and again, if people are wishing to speak on this particular project for the McCormick’s, there’s some tool functions that you can either raise your hand and I can let you in to speak and again I’m not seeing anybody raising their hand. 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 recognize that this is very environmentally insensitive. You’re talking about a parcel that’s heavily wooded at this time and they’re asking to place a second garage in the middle of that parcel which basically truncates the whole parcel. For environmental purposes I think the Waterkeeper was right on the mark when he talked about runoff effects on these very thin soils that exist in the area. As far as the project down by the waterfront where the home is, I would not have a problem with adding the extra bay on there, having an extra bay at that point, but for this project to proceed with a second garage, for us to even consider it, it’s way oversized. It doesn’t need to be in the middle of the parcel. It could be located much closer to Dark Bay Lane and we might consider something smaller, closer to Dark Bay Lane, but at this point, in time, I would not approve the project going forward. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Jim. I think this is, I think it’s too large. As the Waterkeeper referenced, the runoff effects are concerning to me, and while I do appreciate the size of the parcel, I do appreciate what Mr. Tobin indicates as President of the Dark Bay Association, and neighbors not being in opposition, I believe it’s overbuilt and I still believe that by going closer to the road and by continuing to tweak this, that there’s a project to be had, at least as far as I’m concerned, but as it is, I’m not in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think we’re heading in the right direction, I mean compared to what was originally proposed to where they are now, that’s a big improvement, but we’re still talking about a second garage, and I don’t think you get brownie points for making it smaller, with the idea that it’s still a second garage on the property, it only should take one. So if we’re going to make some movement in this area with a second garage, I think we need to be more cognizant of where we are and what we’re doing in terms of size. Neighborhood doesn’t necessarily mean just Dark Bay. It means Queensbury in general because when we give variances we’re giving variances beyond that specific neighborhood. So I agree with Jim and I agree with Brent. I think we need to see this cut down some more than it already has been. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members. There’s no doubt it’s a large piece of property. It could house a larger garage to take care of the property. I understand that, but I’d like to see it also be, if it’s possible, in that one location where the garage is already there instead of disturbing more land, even though the permeability’s good and everything, but Chris Navitsky brought out a lot of good points about the shallow soil and the absorption of it. So at this time I’d not be in support of the project either. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement with all of my fellow Board members. This is a Critical Environmental Area and especially today we need to be really aware of how our use of the slopes effect the lake, and we need to consider that stormwater runoff which the Planning Board will address, and our job is to grant the minimum variance necessary, and I appreciate what they’ve done so far, but together with my Board members I think we can go further. I’m not in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I don’t, I appreciate Chris informing us about the shallow soils and the streams and I would want to see more information supplied by the applicant with regards to that, and the meaning of 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) that 75 foot buffer. Also I agree with everybody else that we’re talking about seven bays here, and I know that we have approved things before, but I don’t think seven bays. MR. MC CABE-We’re down to four now, aren’t we? MRS. HAMLIN-We’re down to four, but when you add the two and the three, we’re talking a total of seven bays on the property. How many bays do you need? And I think I would like it in writing that this is strictly, well I think they did say that, it is strictly storage. I understand that, but the more you start multiplying cars being stored, you run the potential for leaks and things, so I think that there just too many bays. So however they want to do it, whether they want to expand the existing garage, something, but I think they need to cut down that number of bays to be more in line with previous variances that we’ve given along this line, and taking into account different soil conditions. So I would be opposed at this point, as presented. MR. MC CABE-I guess I’ve got to disagree with you guys because not too far up the road we just approved a second garage with I believe three bays for 3222. So I think to be fair to the McCormick’s here, because they’re asking for just about the same thing as the other project, that I would support this . They’ve gone through some reduction here to make it more palatable, and I believe what they’re ending up with, I think we okayed three new bays for the property at 3222 Route 9. So this is one bay over that, but unfortunately I’m only one vote here and there’s six others that go the other way. So at this particular time I need some guidance from the applicant as to how they want to proceed. Obviously at this point the project isn’t acceptable. So we can table this. You can withdraw the application, or we can take a vote. MR. BIANCHINE-I think at this time we’d table, if you could table the application until I have more time to talk to the applicant. MR. MC CABE-How much time do you need? MR. BIANCHINE-I mean we can talk to them in the next couple of days or so and see if we can come up with something by next week some time. MR. MC CABE-So I guess we’re talking about the April meeting time period. So do we have any openings in April, Laura? MRS. MOORE-I’m trying to figure it out. Right now all the April applications are in, and. MR. HENKEL-You know, Mike, comparing the other project that you were talking about, the square footage on this is a lot bigger. I know we’re talking about a four bay compared with a three bay, but it’s the square footage on this is larger than the square footage on that three bay. MR. MC CABE-Well the three bay had to be greater than 1100 because didn’t we okay a larger size garage? MR. HENKEL-I can’t remember exactly, but I know it was definitely not 1995 square feet. MRS. MOORE-Actually I have that information. I can probably pull it up here, but the upper level, the total square footage of that was 1,920 square feet. MR. HENKEL-It was? Okay. That’s right. It had that extra room on top of it. Yes. MR. MC CABE-All right. So we’re talking April, then? MRS. MOORE-Yes, you can do the first meeting in April and if I end up not being able to put that on, I’m going to talk to the applicant and make sure to be able to table it to May, but at this point I’m going to say yes for the first meeting in April for the ZBA. MR. MC CABE-So can I have a motion here, John. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert McCormick. Applicant proposes a 110 sq. ft. porch addition to the main home and a 116 sq. ft. porch addition also on the main home. The project includes a 500 sq. ft. carport addition to the existing 624 sq. ft. garage and construction of a 3,113 sq. ft. 8-car garage. Site work includes a new septic system and a well. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of a non-conforming structure, and project work within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for size of garage, second garage, and number of bays. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 14-2021 ROBERT MC CORMICK, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: stth Tabled to the April 21, 2021 Zoning Board meeting with any information submitted by March 24, 2021. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) th Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Actually I’m going to ask, you mentioned, Joe, that you can take that information and bring that to me sooner, by the end of the week maybe or early next week? MR. BIANCHINE-Next week would probably be the soonest, yes. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry, when? MR. BIANCHINE-Early next week. th MRS. MOORE-Okay. So we’ll make it until March 24 for information. AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 12-2021, Steve & Cathie Schonwetter. AREA VARIANCE NO. 12-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER AGENT(S) DEAN HOWLAND & JON LAPPER OWNER(S) STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER ZONING WR LOCATION 17 HOLIDAY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND SITE; EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINT IS 2,953 SQ. FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,233 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS 3,505 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT IS TO REMOVE A PORTION OF THE HOME (336 SQ. FT.) TO CONSTRUCT A 2 CAR GARAGE WITH A CRAFT ROOM/BEDROOM ABOVE (329 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT) INTERIOR WORK IS TO REDUCE THE BEDROOMS FROM 6 TO 4; EXTERIOR WORK INCLUDE A NEW ROOF, STONE VENEER TO BE ALTERED , FRONT ENTRY TO BE ALTERED. SITE WORK INCLUDES SHED REMOVAL, REPLACEMENT DECK, SHORELINE PLANTING, NEW PERMEABLE PAVERS REPLACING HARD SURFACING, AND REPAIR SEA WALL. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50’ OF A SHORELINE, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 12-2021; AV 33-2004; SP 58-99; SEP 88-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-42 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-050; 179-13-010 JON LAPPER & DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2021, Steve & Cathie Schonwetter, Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project Location: 17 Holiday Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site; existing home footprint is 2,953 sq. ft. with a floor area of 3,233 sq. ft. and proposed floor area is 3,505 sq. ft. The project is to remove a portion of the home (336 sq. ft.) to construct a 2 car garage with a craft room/bedroom above (329 sq. ft. footprint) Interior work is to reduce the bedrooms from 6 to 4; exterior work includes a new roof, stone veneer to be altered, front entry to be altered. Site work includes shed removal, replacement deck, shoreline planting, new permeable pavers replacing hard surfacing, and repair sea wall. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50’ of a shoreline, expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone -WR. Section 179-3-040 -dimensional; 179-6-050 shoreline; 179-13-010 expansion of a non-conforming structure The addition is to be located 14.8 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. .setback is required; then 29 ft. from the front property line where 30 ft. is required; and 41.4 ft. from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The deck is to be 5.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The proposed floor area is to be 3,505 sq. ft. where 3,158 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 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 addition is closer to the road and is to be two story where the remaining part of the home is one story. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to minimize the number of requests. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief for the addition 5.2 ft. to the north property line, 1 ft. to the front, 8.6 ft. to the shoreline; the deck relief is 44.5 ft., floor area relief is 347 sq. ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes rain gardens and a site and shoreline planting plan. The plans also indicate that the asphalt driveway is to be replaced with permeable pavers. The septic system has been recently upgraded. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes alterations to the site and an existing home. The plans show the new garage addition with a craft room/bedroom above and the interior arrangement of the home. The plans also show the site work with new permeable pavers, planting plan, and replacement of the deck. The applicant has provided photos that show the location of the work on the home and site.” MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board passed a motion, based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern: 1. The photos submitted do not reflect current conditions. 2. The proximity of deck to the lake. And that was passed with six yeses and one no. MR. MC CABE-So I assume Jon Lapper will be representing the applicant? MR. LAPPER-Hi, Mike. Yes, I’m going to get started. Dean Howland is on as well Steve and Cathie Schonwetter, the applicants. So obviously this is a constrained, pre-existing lot, but because of that, the applicants recently bought the property and they need to, they’re trying to improve it in a bunch of small ways but they understand the constraints and for that reason they already eliminated two bedrooms from the existing house, eliminated over 300 square feet. So what they’re asking for, the real change is to add a two car garage which is necessary here for year round use, but they come to you kind of hat in hand understanding that to add the additional square feet, and they’re proposing to go up to 24% approximately floor area ratio. So this is not drastically bigger than the 22%. They just need to have the garage, but because of that they’re taking off two bedrooms and taking off square feet from the house. Everything else that’s proposed, you know, the permeable pavers, plantings along the lake, berms, the Planning Board comment last night was just about they already within the last few weeks, because it was winter and this is the time to do it they replaced the seawall, which was concrete which is not good for the lake because it leaches into the lake. They replaced it with stone. So between when Dean prepared the application and we appeared, the seawall changed because they had the DEC permit. It’s separate from what we’re asking, the Town approvals. So it was correct on the plans but the photos were month old photos. So it’s not that anything wasn’t disclosed. It’s just that it changed and it was always part of the project. So that was the issue with just that minor change that the seawall was done, and we do, we did submit to Laura today pictures of the new stone seawall which looks a lot better than the old damaged concrete one, and I just want to mention, in terms of the deck which has been there for 60 years, that’s not changing. They’re just re-surfacing it because it needs to be maintained, but that comes off of the living room and the bedroom. It’s a small deck, but it’s important because of the grade there. So, you know, that’s nothing new. It’s just about maintaining it. So the project is really, besides the architectural stuff of stone and siding, it’s about adding a two car garage and being willing to give up two bedrooms and a bunch of square feet to justify that and just to improve this, but I’m going to turn it over to Dean and let him get into some more details before we open it up to questions. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. HOWLAND-Hi. I’m Dean Howland and I’m one of the agents for the owners and a couple of things. The property is a little unusual, quite obviously, but on the side yard setbacks, they’re going to from 17.8 I think to 16.8, something like that, on the north side. The Schonwetters actually are part owners of that piece of property. They own two tenths of that particular property on that particular side. The other 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) setback is to their property exclusive which is a driveway coming down, and that is, that goes with the house that’s next door. You can see at the top of the site plan he’s got another piece of property with their name on it, and along with moving the driveway further back from the water, the blacktop driveway that’s existing, I’ll go there first, they want to add a circular driveway so that they can get in and get out easier. On the other property they have regular pavers and they have an area that’s 20 by 20 for parking the cars that is to the left of the building, or the west side of that building. That’s going to be removed and re- planned. It doesn’t have anything to do with this application. I’m just telling you what’s going on. The new septic system was put in. It hasn’t been finalized because they have to turn the water on in this house and there’s no heat in it at the moment, and on that it’s all done. John O’Brien’s just waiting for the water to be turned on in the house. We eliminated a ton of space inside this house. They have bedrooms in the attics and all the attics will have new collar ties so it can’t be used as an attic anymore. Last night they were talking about the deck. I grew up with this property. My dad built this house originally. It was a duplex for housekeeping cottages and they built the other house on the corner all the way up the road. I was 15 years old when that deck was built. It’s been there a while, but I also mentioned in a lot of, I’m retired, but 90% of the time we use the bottom areas underneath the deck to collect rain gutter water, and I proposed that, you’ve got about four feet from the top of the deck to the existing ground level there, and they could certainly add a lot of Number Two crushed stone with some filter fabric and pick up the gutters which are needed on that deck side of the house. The house as it exists have gutters but what they did is they sent the gutter out into the lake let it exhaust into the lake. That gutter’s down at the moment because all the silt fences are up because of the stone seawall that was put in. We pretty much picked up stormwater wherever we could basically with all new permeable pavers, and with the two raingardens that’s where the, where they’re located, that’s where the existing water runs now. Again they have to come in, but to me that’s a big plus on this piece of property. Another thing about the deck, there was a site plan and area variance for the previous owners in 2004 and the deck wasn’t addressed at that point, even though it was there. I’m just pointing that out, but I can answer pretty much any other question. The new ridgeline is one foot six inches higher than the existing one that’s there now that’s part of the building that would be proposed for coming off and I can answer whatever other questions you might have. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-Can you tell me, are there any plans for maintaining the permeable pavers? MR. HOWLAND-The maintenance of the permeable pavers is blowing the pine needles off of it whenever they’re on. I mean permeable pavers last a long time. MR. URRICO-My understanding is that they have to be cleaned up, usually on a yearly basis to keep the sediment. MR. HOWLAND-Yes, and no. I’ve got done of these around the lake and you just don’t want the space th where the 3/8’s inch stone is between pavers to fill up with dirt and crap. You do want to clean that on a regular basis with a, it could be just a yard blower, you know, will do that, but there’s nothing, geez up north, I’m just thinking of one house, the first one I ever did of permeable pavers. The maintenance is you want to keep it looking nice and so if you see the Schonwetter’s existing property it’s stunning with all the plantings that they’ve done out there. So I don’t see that as being a problem. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody out there who would like to provide input on this project or see if there’s anything written on this particular project. Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So I’m going to let in Chris again. So Chris is getting on line right now, and if there’s other members that wish to speak in the attendees want to speak then please raise your hand to let me know that I should add you to the list of speakers. Okay. Chris, you’re all set. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. Thank you, Laura, and thank you, Board. Again, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. It’s our feeling that the application could improve the balance of impacts from increased building size on a very noncompliant project located along the shoreline of Lake George. We recognize the reduction of impervious coverage that can be attributed to the replacement of the existing driveway with permeable pavers and small stormwater management features. The one thing to remember is that the permeable pavers are only granted a 50% credit from impermeable surface. They’re not considered completely permeable. It’s our opinion the balance for the variance can be improved by eliminating the circular driveway and installation of pavement material within 8 feet of the lake. The environmental benefits and balance of the project on this difficult property would be greatly improved if this area was converted into a substantial shoreline buffering. So we recommend that the ZBA table this application and have the applicant consider the alternatives to reduce that setback to the shoreline for the hardening, increase the site permeability and improve the balance of the application. Thank you very much. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MRS. MOORE-Okay, and the next person I have to come in is Ian Rowlandson. IAN ROWLANDSON MR. ROWLANDSON-Well it looks very nice. The one thing would suggest, by the way, and I don’t know if you can do this, is this home is right below a slope of hard surface pavement, and the water runs down into this house and actually the road that they’re considering. I’ve often thought if you had a speed bump right where the road meets this driveway to divert water onto the common property then it solves two problems. The ice won’t form on the driveway and you won’t have people having a hard time or worrying about the car going into the driveway too fast. The other thing is it would divert water onto the common property which is just grass. I mean all that water, instead of going down the driveway, could go onto the common property and sink in there, which has no septic, nothing there. I just think it would solve two problems. It would make access to the driveway easier I think, safer I think, and divert water onto that common area that is zoned to not have anything on it and the water would be diverted there and just sink in. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Is that all? MR. ROWLANDSON-That’s all. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Laura, anybody else? MRS. MOORE-So there’s no other hands raised in the attendees. MR. MC CABE-You do have a letter. MRS. MOORE-But I do have letters. So I’ll read this first one It’s addressed to myself. “I would like to take this opportunity to provide a letter of support for the Schonwetter proposed alterations and associated zoning variances that are up for public hearing later today and at future Planning Department meetings. I have reviewed the documents and feel that the project will benefit the Lake and the community as well as enhance property values in the Town of Queensbury. The Schonwetters have taken the opportunity to discuss the project with their neighbors and we look forward to a speedy construction period. Thank you and should you have any further questions regarding our support for this project please don’t hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Gerard Bielak 99 Seelye Rd.” This next one is addressed to the Zoning Board members and Planning Board members. “We write today to express our enthusiastic support of Steve & Cathie Schonwetter’s project at 17 Holiday Pt. Rd., Queensbury (Tax Map No. 227.17- 1-42). The improvements they have already made in the past several months (with the proper permits in hand) to the property they purchased in September 2020, have already enhanced the neighborhood, both with respect to water quality and aesthetics. More specifically, their significant upgrades to the septic system (replacing an outdated system with a state-of-the-art oversized system) and the sea wall (which was crumbling into the lake and no longer an effective erosion control), ensure the quality of the lake in Warner Bay and Katskill Bay will be elevated because of their careful and thoughtful pre-planning to maintain and preserve Lake George’s precious ecosystem. Additionally, they are reducing the impact of the property on the neighborhood and the Lake by reducing the number of bedrooms from six to four. Their request for an additional approx.. 300 sq. ft. will provide a better living situation for them with a 2- car attached garage and a craft room/bedroom space above. Moreover, their design plans for the exterior of the home will greatly enhance the beauty of the property with a new roof, natural stone veneer, deck replacement, new permeable pavers and extensive landscaping to limit erosion, as well as upgraded doors and windows, to create better energy efficiency. (The original owners had lived there for 50 years and had made only modest improvements over the years.) By every measure, this renovation project stands as a significant improvement to the Seelye Road neighborhood and we enthusiastically encourage both the Zoning Board and Planning Board to approve their thoughtful renovation plans at your scheduled meetings on March 17, 2021 and March 23, 2021, respectively. Sincerely, Jim and Beth White 104 Seelye Road (Residence) 97 Seelye Road (Dock) Queensbury” MR. MC CABE-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-Okay, and I don’t see any other hands up. Again, if people are in the attendees, if they are interested in having a say in this particular project, there’s a function on the Zoom to raise your hand if you wish to speak, and again I don’t see anybody at this point. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to just ask a question of Mr. Howland. What about the suggestion of the speed bump on the driveway? MR. HOWLAND-Okay. That’s not a problem. What builders try to do is never put water that you own on somebody else’s property. That’s why we were trying to take the water down to the retention pond on the south side of the house and utilize that for runoff. A speed bump would be great, but I think there’s, I believe it’s 10 shares in the shared property, and I know the Schonwetter’s have two of them. That would 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) be no problem but I would prefer to speak to everybody else, or maybe he has already. I understand what he’s saying, but before it came down the blacktop into the dirt. Well that’s not going to be dirt there anymore on that south side of the property. They’ll be seeding it and everything, but absolutely no problem with that. That’s a good idea. MR. HENKEL-Also, Mr. Chairman, what Chris Navitsky said about the turnaround driveway. How about that? Can that be changed, too to get the permeability up? MR. HOWLAND-The non-permeable pavers that we’re doing on the other piece of property being removed and the parking area be removed is more than that little area of the circular driveway. The circular driveway is so that they can come in, turn around from right to left, and then back in to park. Because where the driveway is right now you’re about two feet off the seawall. It’s not a problem, but if you were up there Sunday and you saw the wind blow from The Sagamore, it’s a problem. So that’s a big part of that. I’m older, but they’re getting older, too. So I’m just saying it’s for ease of it. If you want to do anything I would, where the shed is, I would just add another silt pond right on the right hand side just right next to the shoreline. Silt ponds near the shoreline work better because it’s something that people don’t alter and that’s always been a problem with stormwater management. You want to put it where people are going to walk and you want to put it where people don’t falter. When you see a silt pond with all the native wildflowers in, they’re just gorgeous, and they collect everything. You could do that. I would prefer to do something like that then to take their ease of getting in and out of their other property. That’s what it’s really for. You could certainly put something on the inside of the circle, too, to negate some of that, but again, we reduced everything on this particular property. MR. HENKEL-I understand that. I went to the end there and it’s going to be about a seven point turn to turn around. MR. MC CABE-Yes, that was my comment, too. So I support the roundabout there. MR. HENKEL-I understand. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-This is a complicated project. I think the reliefs are kind of misleading. So I think the plans have accommodated the property very well and I think they’ve factored in all the possible objections that I might have. So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-The square footage over the FAR variance is a little bit much for me because of the size of the property, but I understand it now. I understand that there really is a need for a two-car garage there instead of having the cars outside it’s to be a year round residence . So I’d be for it as is. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I am in favor of this project. I think they’ve done a very good job ameliorating any of the impacts of the really severe setback requests. 5.5 feet from the lake, that’s pretty substantial, but it’s going to be a nice project, and I really hope that, they could add Mr. Navitsky’s suggestion that they could add even more buffers to protect the lake. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-So I had a question for Laura. So why, because we are still in non-compliance with regard to the permeability, even though there’s some slight improvement. Why is that not also a relief request? MRS. MOORE-Because they’re improving it. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Even though they’re in non-compliance? Okay. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. It’s better than it was. MRS. HAMLIN-Well it is better than it was, but I like that suggestion of the silt fence, and I think I’m not really having problems, I mean, yes, they’ve reduced what they could in order to add, they’ve done a lot here to make it work, but I would like to see if they could do just a little bit more in terms of stormwater runoff. If that suggestion is something they’re willing to do, then I would be in favor of that. Maybe if it was a 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) condition or if they chose to come back. I’m a little, I’m okay with everything but the permeability, and I know it’s slightly improved, but it can be improved more. This is the lake. So that’s where I stand. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to be sensitive here to both the fact that this was built years ago and it’s very close to the water, and at the same time I think when we consider the fact that the new construction really is going to occur where the garage is going to be built farther away from the lake, I don’t think that’s really going to impact the lake negatively with the fact that they can handle the stormwater runoff at that end of the building, but I do think that the circular drive up on the front there, you know, if this were a property that had nothing on it I don’t think that we would even look at putting a circular drive that close to the lake, and I think that we have to be sensitive to the effects on the lake and I think that that could be redesigned with a “Y” or something like that, you know, we could keep it the way that it is. It’s been used that way for years it hasn’t been a real negative as far as I’m concerned. So I wouldn’t be in favor of it unless you removed the circular drive. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’ve got to echo that. While I can appreciate this is pretty well thought out and when I first read it, you know, I had to read it a couple of times. We’ve got a lot of things going on here, but that circular drive, you know, after the Waterkeeper brought that up and then listening to Jim as well, that is where I’m kind of having an issue here. So as it is with that in play I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So from my standpoint I think that the applicant has done a commendable job here and is giving up quite a bit to basically install a two-car garage, and so I’m going to support the project. I think that, again, Mr. Howland has built a number of projects, or been involved in a number of projects on the lake and knows what he’s doing and I guess I trust his judgment here. So we’ve got four yeses which is what’s required. So I’m going to do the motion here. MRS. MOORE-Before you do that, I just want to offer, you have Ian Rowlandson, that I just wanted to explain that the public hearing is closed and in response to information about stormwater, typically that is handled as a Site Plan Review item. I understand Cathy had brought it up in reference to this driveway area and the other Board members in reference to the concern with that hard surfacing near the lake. The Planning Board could potentially take a look at that. Just so that Mr. Rowlandson understands that that is something that the Planning Board will probably take a look at and there’s no opportunity to speak anymore at this particular hearing, but at next week’s meeting that the Planning Board has there will be another opportunity for folks to speak at that public hearing for this project. Does that make sense? MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to make a motion to approve. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve & Cathie Schonwetter. Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site; existing home footprint is 2,953 sq. ft. with a floor area of 3,233 sq. ft. and proposed floor area is 3,505 sq. ft. The project is to remove a portion of the home (336 sq. ft.) to construct a 2 car garage with a craft room/bedroom above (329 sq. ft. footprint) Interior work is to reduce the bedrooms from 6 to 4; exterior work includes a new roof, stone veneer to be altered, front entry to be altered. Site work includes shed removal, replacement deck, shoreline planting, new permeable pavers replacing hard surfacing, and repair sea wall. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50’ of a shoreline, expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone -WR. Section 179-3-040 -dimensional; 179-6-050 shoreline; 179-13-010 expansion of a non-conforming structure The addition is to be located 14.8 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required; then 29 ft. from the front property line where 30 ft. is required; and 41.4 ft. from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The deck is to be 5.5 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The proposed floor area is to be 3,505 sq. ft. where 3,158 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 17, 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: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the improvements made to the property, as pointed out by some of the neighbors, will greatly enhance the look of the project and thus improve the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but don’t meet the needs of the applicant. 3. The requested variance, although it appears substantial, is not really substantial because much of what is there has been there for a long time, and so we feel the main thing we’re affecting is the floor area ratio and that’s basically designed for properties with larger acreage. This property has a very small lot size, and so as a result floor area ratio is somewhat distorted when compared to what is allowed. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we expect that there’ll be an improvement to the environmental conditions. 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. 12-2021 STEVE & CATHIE SCHONWETTER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 17 Day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So congratulations. You have a project. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 13-2021, Stephen Haraden. AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEPHEN HARADEN AGENT(S) DEAN HOWLAND & JON LAPPER OWNER(S) STEPHEN HARADEN ZONING WR LOCATION 334 CLEVERDALE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING HOME AND OUTBUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3 BEDROOM HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,052 SQ. FT. AND 222 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK. THE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS 4,312 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES PERMEABLE PAVERS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FAR IN CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FAR. CROSS REF SP 11-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-74 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2021, Stephen Haraden, Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project Location: 334 Cleverdale Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing home and outbuildings to construct a new 3 bedroom home with a footprint of 2,052 sq. ft. and 222 sq. ft. porch/deck. The proposed floor area is 4,312 sq. ft. Site work includes permeable pavers, stormwater 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) management, and shoreline plantings. Project subject to site plan for new FAR in CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and FAR. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area ratio in the Waterfront Zone –WR. Section 179-3-040-dimensional The new home is to be located 16.3 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for floor area where 4,313 sq. ft. is proposed and 3362.7 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. 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. The new home is set further back from the shoreline than the original home. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce the floor area; this may minimize the setback relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief for the home side setback is 3.7 ft. Floor area relief is 950.7 sq. ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The project includes installation of a new septic system. 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 home and to complete associated site work. The site work includes the new septic system, permeable paver driveway, rain gardens, and a shoreline-planting plan. The plans show the elevations and floor plans of the new home.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board passed a motion that based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed seven zero on March 16, 2021. MR. MC CABE-So it looks like we have the same team presenting this project. MR. LAPPER-Yes, you do, Mike. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dean Howland. I’ll get started and then hand it over to Dean. This is a very different application from the last one, and I want to remind everybody about the Bill Bosy application that you handled in the fall because that was on Assembly Point and we wanted to maintain the existing setback in that one, and here we’re doing the opposite. The existing house is 22 feet from the lake where most people that buy a house on the lake ant to take advantage of that because you certainly can’t do that anymore, and here the applicant realized that the right thing to do was just move the house back to 50 feet. In this case it’s 53. So everything that’s there could have been maintained and somebody else might have come back and asked for a variance to go back away from the lake and make it bigger, but here the house is being completely demolished and the lake setback, which of course is the most important, is going to be complied with. So, you know, not what your typical applicant would ask for. The north side setback is essentially what it is now, but Dean was able to make it slightly better, and the only reason, so that the main variance here of course is floor area ratio, and we’re asking for approximately 28% which is obviously a bunch more than 22, but not what some people have asked for, and Dean will go into some detail explaining this, but it’s really because once they’re building the basement they’d like to have a rec room, and that’s what, we eliminated the rec room, it wouldn’t change anything visually upstairs when you drive by or when you look from the lake. It’s just what’s underground that you can’t see, and that’s really what accounts for the additional floor area here, but it’s, as Roy read, new septic, new stormwater, a lot of plantings. They’re trying to do everything right with a brand new development and of course most importantly move this away from the lake. So that’s the big picture and I’ll let Dean talk about the details. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. HOWLAND-Okay. Well as you know when you design a house in the Town of Queensbury you can’t be any higher than basically 27 feet 4 inches from existing grade. That gives you the 28 feet. So we’ve designed, the shape of the house is designed to meet that and still give it a somewhat Adirondack appearance. The garage, I found out over the years that if you don’t have 36 feet from the garage door to the back of your permeable pavers, you’re going to have to do a three point turn. I mean you can’t get away from it. So that’s how we ended up being 1.2 inches better on the north setback than exists. I think it’s a nice looking house. I like it. The owner likes it, and to build this type of house, the foundation wouldn’t change whether we had a room downstairs or not. It’s just the lay of the land. I’ve got to tell you, you have to do the concrete the same way. One thing that’s besides the retention ponds that we have, and this one if you read the plans, all the eaves are guttered with copper gutters, and everything goes to underneath the front porch and the front deck. What I’ve done over the years is we backfill with a lot of extra crushed stone and we run, besides our perimeter drain, we come up three or four feet and you’ve got a second drain and a gutter. I’ve done this for so long because there’s no maintenance and the customer doesn’t have to think about it . I mean we to put leaf screens on and all that, but that’s fairly normal. So not only are we picking up water and the rain, we picked up every bit of the house water even though nobody considers that a stormwater management. I do, but any water to my neighbor and I don’t put any water to the lake. I’ve always done it this way. I’ve been doing this system since 1985 and I love it because there’s no maintenance for the owner. Other than that I can answer any other questions that you have. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So no questions, so a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody out there who has input on this particular project or see if there’s any written information on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So we have Chris Navitsky. He did write a comment and I believe he’s going to speak as well. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Chris, are you there? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. Thanks. Back again, everyone. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We just feel that the FAR variance is substantial, and, again, we think that it fails to meet the balance for this property located in the CEA. As you know the FAR calculation is really an important planning tool to balance the site with the proposed structure with the land that’s available to mitigate the potential impacts from that and to really put it in character with the size of the other buildings in the community. It’s our opinion the proposed project could be more compliant and provide additional benefits, such as stormwater management and create a compliant permeability coverage. I understand Dean’s comment on the stormwater. However what was sized on the project is much less than what would be required to manage the whole building. So we do feel the variance would produce a change in character. The building will exceed the allowable FAR by 28% which can be considered substantial and can be excessive on the property we feel that to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts. We recognize that there are the two small raingardens, but that doesn’t balance the request for the exceedance in the allowable FAR. We recognize that there’s a shoreline buffer proposed, but the project, the majority of the mature vegetation that’s on the site will be removed or has been removed already which provides important water quality benefits through interception uptake and evapotranspiration. So we think the application could better balance with additional stormwater management and some more mature vegetation and replace what would be proposed.. That existing vegetation is or was to the north of that house. So we just feel that that would balance out and if there was a reduction in the Floor Area Ratio. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So, again, at this point, there’s no one raising their hand, and if folks in the attendees, if they wish to speak on this application, for the Haraden application, if you’d simply raise your hand. There’s a function on the tool bar that will allow you to raise your hand or ask a question or in chat. At the moment I don’t see anybody. So I’m going to read this public comment in. “We live at 336 Cleverdale Road, property adjacent to Stephen Haraden. We have no objection to replacing his old house with a new residence as proposed which includes trees planted as per our agreement with Mr. Haraden and indicated on the project plan. Karen Azer Helene Horn” MR. MC CABE-So that’s it? MRS. MOORE-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Howland, would you like to address? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. HOWLAND-Yes, I e-mailed back and forth today with Chris. As of yet there’s no trees that have been removed that I know of, but there will be a big maple tree in the back because that’s where the septic system has to go, but I think what they’re missing here is that there’ll be no water from that house, that roof that’s going to go anywhere but in the ground and be stored. It just doesn’t happen. The runoff that you’re going to have, the reason for that, one, there’s again, at the top of the driveway before you go down just to catch any water that might, again, one of those 50 year storms we get a couple every year, and the rainwater is just the water that’s going to fall on the lawn that’s going to go down there. So, to me, I think when I mention about the gutters and my son builds a house he does it the same way. We collect everything and again we’ve been doing it for years. We know how it works. We recognize the fact that that is stormwater and it is. We’re doing exactly what you’re supposed to do. MR. HENKEL-Mike, I was there on Monday and there was a tree service company there trimming trees to the north and it looked like they were doing some removal on Monday. MR. HOWLAND-I have no idea. I haven’t been by it since. MR. HENKEL-I was there on Monday. There was a tree service there. They were removing stuff to the north. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. MR. LAPPER-This is Jon. I’d also like to point out that this site is directly across the street from the Sans lower parking lot. So just in terms of the character of the neighborhood, that’s the parking lot where people park two deep to be able to accommodate them. I’m guilty as charged for dong that as well, but just in terms of the Floor Area Ratio, we, as Dean explained, it’s really in the basement. It’s not going to be any impact on the character, with what’s there with the commercial use across the street. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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 Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve looked at this a couple of ways, but I am in favor of the project. One variable that’s important to me is that lake setback is being complied with, in addition the new septic and stormwater. So I am in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Brent. I’m in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. It looks nice on paper there’s no doubt. They would have to do new stormwater management and septic work if they were building a new house anyway. The FAR variance is a little bit steep for me, but I guess I could live with it. So I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with John.. My concern was the Floor Area Ratio, but I’m impressed with the improved setbacks, especially from the lake, so as far as the balancing test, I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Question again, I’m sorry, but this will go before the Planning Board, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-And they will address stormwater. Okay. So my only hesitation really was also the FAR, but in light of the fact that we’re fixing that setback from the shoreline and everything else, I think it’s reasonable provided the Planning Board takes a hard look at stormwater. It sounds like they’re proposing. So I’d be in favor as it is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we should be concerned with the Floor Area Ratio, but I think that they explained the fact that the cellar is what’s triggering the extra 1,000 square feet of relief that’s necessary 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) here. So I think the improvements to the lot, you know, with moving it further back from the lake is an improvement, the new septic and everything else. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think the applicant has done a very nice job re-siting the house on this particular property and I think what we gain far outweighs what we give up. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Michelle if she can make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen Haraden. Applicant proposes to remove existing home and outbuildings to construct a new 3 bedroom home with a footprint of 2,052 sq. ft. and 222 sq. ft. porch/deck. The proposed floor area is 4,312 sq. ft. Site work includes permeable pavers, stormwater management, and shoreline plantings. Project subject to site plan for new FAR in CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and FAR. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area ratio in the Waterfront Zone –WR. Section 179-3-040-dimensional The new home is to be located 16.3 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for floor area where 4,313 sq. ft. is proposed and 3,362.7 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 17, 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. Per our deliberations it’s been discovered that the home is going to be located in a compliant location away from the lake and the other setbacks are either going to be improved or remain the same. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as again deliberated tonight. Improvements were made overall except for the floor area ratio which we have decided is amenable. 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. 13-2021 STEPHEN HARADEN, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 17 Day of March 2021 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So I do have something for discussion on this. I would just include information about the actual setback and I can’t remember what property line it is, but there is a setback issue for the side. MR. HENKEL-The north side. MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, it’s 3.7 feet of relief is it? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MRS. MOORE-I’m not sure if it’s the north side. It may be the south side. I know that I made an error in one part of it. It is the north side? Okay. So it is. I just want to make sure you include that as part of your noted relief. I know you mentioned the Floor Area but I didn’t hear anything about the setback. MRS. HAYWARD-Well I mentioned in the motion that the home is to be located 16.3 feet from the north property line where a 20 foot setback is required. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That’s fine. I just heard more discussion about the Floor Area. Sorry. MRS. HAYWARD-I believe I read that in and also about the Floor Area Ratio. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So you have a project. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everyone. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So the next application is AV 16-2021, Charles Carder and Caren Tucker. AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2021 SEQRA TYPE II CHARLES CARDER & CAREN TUCKER AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL (RUCKINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS) OWNER(S) CHARLES CARDER & CAREN TUCKER ZONING WR LOCATION 93 FITZGERALD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A RESIDENTIAL ADDITION OF 765 SQ. FT. OF FLOOR AREA RENOVATION OF THE SECOND FLOOR CONVERTING ATTIC SPACE TO LIVING SPACE AND COVERED PORCH. PROJECT INCLUDES 142 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT ADDITION TO THE HOUSE FOOTPRINT FOR A COVERED ENTRY AND MUDROOM. EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,088 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 2,853 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 14-2021; AV 38-2000; SP 32-2000; AV 35-1996 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.14-1-24 SECTION 179-3-040; 179- 13-010 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2021, Charles Carder & Caren Tucker, Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project Location: 93 Fitzgerald Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a residential addition of 765 sq. ft. of floor area renovation of the second floor converting attic space to living space and covered porch. Project includes 142 sq. ft. footprint addition to the house footprint for a covered entry and mudroom. Existing floor area is 2,088 sq. ft. and proposed is 2,853 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks, height, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, height, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The proposed enclosed porch addition 16 ft. 6 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required and 16 ft. 9 inches from the side where a 20 ft. setback is required. The raised roof area for the second floor is located 27 ft. from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The height of the raised roof area is to be 31 ft. 2 inches as where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed. The site permeability is proposed to be 73.99% where 75% is required. The floor area is to be 2,853 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 2,683 sq. ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 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. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home and lot configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested enclosed porch 33 ft. 6 inches from the shoreline and 3 ft. 3 inches from the side; The home 23 ft. from the shoreline; height 3 ft. 2 inches in excess; permeability 1.01%; floor area 170 sq. ft. in excess. 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 will have minimal impact on the physical or environmental conditions. The applicant proposes a new septic system with the project as proposed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The existing home will be expanded with a new covered porch addition, a raised roof for second floor and a new mudroom entry area. The existing shed is to remain and the new plantings for the shoreline are to be added. The project includes a new septic system. The plans show the improvements to the site and the home.” MR. MC CABE-So do we have Ethan Hall here? MR. HALL-Yes, you do. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, I’m Ethan Hall. I’m with Rucinski-Hall Architecture, principle here. I’m representing Chuck Carder and Caren Tucker. MR. MC CABE-Laura, did you have anything to add from the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the Planning Board based on limited review did not identify any adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Sorry about that, Ethan. MR. HALL-Not a problem. Not a problem. So spoke with the Planning Board last night. There was nothing that they felt they couldn’t handle. The project is expansion of the existing building. This is on Fitzgerald Road. It’s actually in the private section of Fitzgerald Road where the Town road ends, and this is private property. It has a right of way that runs right behind the buildings, and the right of way actually is access to the remaining, I think there’s either three or four lots that are beyond the Carder/Tucker house. So the main entry to the current house comes right out the back of that building and right out onto the access way. So what we’re proposing to do is to renovate the main floor of the house. There are currently two bedrooms downstairs that are very small bedrooms and we’re going to move those upstairs into what is now the attic space which, in order to do that, we have to raise the roof up in order to get those two bedrooms upstairs. That’ll allow us to put the mudroom on the east end of the building and thereby get the entryway off the right of way so that kids don’t run out into the road if there’s cars coming. It’s not heavily traveled. It is for all of the neighbors that go back and forth through there, but they just feel it’s a better option for them to go out the east end of the building and not out into the road. We are proposing to put in, we’ve been to the Town Board. We’ve gotten the variances for the new septic system. It will be a Norweco Singulair system. It’s an on-site treatment package. The existing septic system, for what it is, is basically a hand built septic tank made out of cinder blocks and a dry well that actually is 36 feet from the lake right now. They’ve done dye tests on it. It does not leak, but we’re going to take all of that out, put in this new enhanced treatment system with a force main that’ll go across the access road to a raised sand filter bed that’s on the kind of southeast side of the road. It’s a very steep bank that goes up that side of the road and we’ve done the measurements to make sure that this sand filter bed will fit in there. They’re going to have to put in some new concrete walls. The existing walls that are in there right now are stone walls. They have to replace the stones fairly often. The stones keep falling 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) down into the road. So this’ll actually take care of a good share of that as well. As far as stormwater management, they are adding an eaves trench along the Fitzgerald Road side that will pick up all of the eaves water that comes off from that part of the roof. As far as our setback variances go, the existing footprint, the only change to the existing footprint will be on the east end of the building where the new mudroom is going, and all of those will be compliant. All of the variances that we’re asking for are for existing setbacks that we can’t meet. They’re already there. The other two, the percentage of permeable, we just miss it by 1.1%, and the Floor Area Ratio, again. we’re just barely over. Most of that is due to the covered front porch. That’s an existing deck that’s there now. It gets very hot and they just want to have a place where they can get in out of the sun. So they’re asking if they can just cover that porch up. That’s really the variances that we’re looking for. The 31 feet 2 inches is to the existing ridge. That’s the high point of the house. We are tying into that for a portion of it, but the other portion on the south end of the building, the ridge is actually lower than the existing ridge. So the 31 feet 2 inches is the existing height and we’re just asking for that, just to pick it up, this is pre-existing of the Code. The building does not have a basement in it. It is just slab on frost wall. So all of the downstairs, all of the main floor of the house is at road level and then the upper portion of it is, there are two existing bedrooms upstairs and we’re just taking the existing attic space, raising the roof, and moving the two bedrooms from downstairs to the upstairs. So that’s, in a nutshell that’s kind of where we’re at with the building. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So do we have questions of the applicant? It’s pretty straightforward. A public hearing has been advertised. So at this time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody out there that would like to provide input into this project, or see if there’s anything written. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I’ll ask anybody that’s an attendee that wishes to speak to use the function in Zoom to raise your hand or do a chat so that I can know that you wish to speak and at this time, Mike, I don’t see anybody raising their hand, and I do know that Cathy just sort of jumped in to find out if she could speak. So I don’t know if you want Cathy to speak while we determine if anybody else wishes to speak at the public hearing. MR. MC CABE-So, Cathy, did you have a question? I’m sorry. MRS. HAMLIN-I just wanted to ask Ethan. Is there any other stormwater type management or anything else that you could suggest that might help with this permeability? MR. HALL-As far as taking anything away? Most of what we’ve got here, Cathy, the reason that our coverage is so high is that driveway is the main right of way that runs through the lot. Obviously if we had something we could do with that, yes, I would say we could take some of that away. Otherwise we really don’t have, I mean it’s basically the footprint of the house. It’s a relatively small footprint on a relatively small lot. It is just over a quarter of an acre and the back portion of it, on the south side of Fitzgerald Road, there’s about a 40 foot embankment there. So there’s not really a lot we can do on that side of the road. MRS. HAMLIN=It is a very small amount that you’re asking for. MR. HALL-Yes, I mean we’ve tried not to enlarge the footprint of the house as much as we could. We’ve really only added the 147 square feet for the entry way and the covered, the mudroom and the covered entry way. The rest of it is, the Floor Area Ratio is, like I said, due to the covering of the deck which is currently not covered. MRS. HAMLIN-Gotcha. MRS. MOORE-Nobody’s raising their hand and there are no written comments. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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 live down the road and I’ve been past it many times. I think that we have to recognize the current conditions on site versus what’s being proposed here. I don’t think there’s going to be any grand change. I think there’ll be a plus change because of the fact they’re going to have a state-of- the-art septic system where as the one that they have now is probably inadequate. As far as the amount of relief, almost all those setbacks are currently pre-existing on the property and I don’t think we’re going to be changing it that much. The height variance I think because it’s at the base of that great slope there, these homes don’t loom large and ominous over the top like the ones on the other side of the lake on the north side. So I think we can live with what they’re proposing here. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I think it’s well thought out. I give Ethan and his team credit and I am in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’ll concur with my other Board members, I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s a strange piece of property. It’s really not a large buildable lot because of that big hill behind it and they’re just utilizing the footprint. It’s 170 square feet over the FAR. It’s not a big deal, and I agree with my Board members also and I think Ethan has done a great job with this and I’d be on board, yes. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in agreement in support of this project. I think moving the entrance from the street literally to the side is the best option for this family. So I’m in agreement. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I think they’re making a vast improvement to the layout of the home, more usable, more modern, and asking for very little here I think. So I would be in favor as is. MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, support the project. I think what we’re giving up here is basically nothing ad we’re gaining a much better septic system and an improved looking dwelling, and so I think this is a good project. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Brent if he’d do a motion here for us. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Charles Carder & Caren Tucker. Applicant proposes a residential addition of 765 sq. ft. of floor area renovation of the second floor converting attic space to living space and covered porch. Project includes 142 sq. ft. footprint addition to the house footprint for a covered entry and mudroom. Existing floor area is 2,088 sq. ft. and proposed is 2,853 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks, height, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, height, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The proposed enclosed porch addition 16 ft. 6 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required and 16 ft. 9 inches from the side where a 20 ft. setback is required. The raised roof area for the second floor is located 27 ft. from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The height of the raised roof area is to be 31 ft. 2 inches as where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed. The site permeability is proposed to be 73.99% where 75% is required. The floor area is to be 2,853 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 2,683 sq. ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 17, 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 good essentially is outweighing the bad in terms of state of the art upgrades to the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, looking at the totality of the project and the upgrades being made to the project, 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) we would move that there is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. While the alleged difficulty is self-created as described before many of the improvements are upgrades to the property and the neighborhood. 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. 16-2021 CHARLES CARDER & CAREN TUCKER, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 17 Day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. MR. HALL-Excellent. Thank you very much for your time. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application is AV 20-2021, Rockhurst, LLC. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROCKHURST LLC (CHRISTOPHER ABELE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) ROCKHURST LLC (CHRISTOPHER ABELE) ZONING WR LOCATION HOLLY LANE & ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PARCEL 35.1 TO HAVE ACCESS OVER PARCEL 35.2 TO ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. THERE IS A NEW PROPOSED HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK FOR PARCEL 35.2 THAT INCLUDES A NEW DRIVE AREA 13 FT. WIDE FROM 35.1 OVER 35.2 TO ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING HOME ON THE PARCEL 35.1. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ACCESS ON PUBLIC/PRIVATE ROAD. CROSS REF AV 49-2020; SP 57-2020; AV 22-2020; SP 81-2011 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES & 1.13 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-35.1 & 239.12-2-35.2 SECTION 179-4- 050 GAVIN VUILLAUME & JOHN ALLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2021, Rockhurst LLC (Christopher Abele), Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project Location: Holly Lane & Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes parcel 35.1 to have access over lot 35.2 to Assembly Point Road. There is a proposed new home and associated site work for parcel 35.2 that includes a new drive area 13 ft. wide from 35.1 over 35.2 to Assembly Point Road. There are no changes to the existing home on the parcel 35.1. Relief requested for access on public/private road. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for access on public/private road in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. Section 179-4-050 – frontage The lot (Main House) has approved frontage on Holly Lane and the applicant requests that the lot to have access to Assembly Point Road through the adjoining lot. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the lot is part of a pre-existing subdivision where 17.01 ft. of road frontage exists on Holly Lane. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is 50 ft. of physical access where 13 ft. wide access is proposed. 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 impacts 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 access Assembly Point from the adjoining lot through a proposed 4000 sq. ft. gravel driveway dedicated easement to this lot. The applicant has explained the access on Holly Lane would be abandoned and agrees to waive/terminate the previously granted variance for Holly Lane as part of the project. The plans show the location of the driveway area to be used on the adjoining lot.” MR. MC CABE-Do we have the applicant, Gavin? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So, Gavin, do you have anything to add here? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Sure. Do you also have John Allen available? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I do. MR. VUILLAUME-Okay, great, John. I wanted to make sure he was able to get connected. Okay. Well good evening, everyone. The last couple of projects for the night. Again, Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design Partnership. I’ll just give you a brief description of what we’re actually proposing as far as improvements to the site and talk a little bit about the variance, and then I think John would like an opportunity to go through the balancing test and the criteria for the variances. So as most of you are aware, we currently are in front of this Board and the Planning Board for two lots owned by the Abele’s. One is being referred to as the main residence lot which is the one in front of you at this time, and then after this presentation or this application we’ll be talking about what we call the cottage lot, and both of these two lots have been in front of the Zoning Board. The main residence lot was in front of the Board last year I believe for the usage of the 17 feet frontage on Holly Lane. Since that time the owners have received a lot of concerns from neighbors on Holly Lane with regards to providing access off the end of Holly Lane. So with that the applicant is now proposing to not connect to Holly Lane and utilize a new gravel driveway, 13 foot wide gravel driveway, you can see it on the plan. That would be on the adjacent parcel which he also owns. To legally make that possible we would also have an easement so that way access could be gained through that lot over to Assembly Point. As far as the improvements, again, the driveway is really the only improvement that is associated with this variance. If you look at the drawing you can kind of see now where the existing driveway comes off of Assembly Point and kind of circulates just to the west of the existing structure. The existing structure, again, is more towards the point of the lot. That existing gravel driveway also would be eliminated, as well as any potential access to Holly Lane. So this would be the single access to the parcel, and it should be noted that this existing driveway that does circulate onto the main resident lot is approximately 20 feet from the lake. So we are taking that driveway, eliminating it, pushing it further back away from the lake and providing access to the main resident lot. Other things to note on the plan would be the installation of a septic system. The septic system, the new septic system associated with the cottage lot would be the Pur-A-Flow system. You can see that it is kind of right now proposed to straddle the two property lines. The applicant, as part of the cottage lot project, would be doing a lot line adjustment to make sure that the septic system would be on the property for the cottage lot. Temporarily Mr. Abele would like to utilize that septic system, again, only on a somewhat seasonal basis, and to provide a better septic system for the existing main resident structure that at this time is proposed to remain. So those are the physical changes to the plan. John, if you wouldn’t mind going through some of the criteria. Now would probably be a good time. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. ALLEN-Thank you, Gavin. As the Board may well be aware, when the variance for use of Holly Lane was granted back in August there was a lot of objections coming from the residents on Holly Lane because of its limited size and they just don’t want more traffic coming by them. One of the neighbors was so concerned that he has brought an Article 78 proceeding which is presently pending. So we are trying to address the concerns that the neighbors have expressed, the access to what’s called the main residence lot has come over the cottage lot for at least 30 or more years. We simply want to re-locate the access, keep it away from the lake, move it slightly to the south as it comes in from Assembly Point Road so that it does not interfere with a building envelope on the cottage lot. So we think we’re helping the situation in the neighborhood. We think we’re avoiding what would be from the Holly Lane neighbors’ perspective an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. We really have no other way of doing it other than to use Holly Lane which is now in litigation and will not make us friends with any of the folks who live on Holly Lane. I understand how the variance may be seen as substantial because there’s no frontage on Assembly Point Road that the main residence lot has, but Assembly Point Road has historically been the means of access to the lot. Again, we’ll acknowledge, I think that the variance is, the need for the variance is self-created, but I think we would argue not only is that not a basis by itself for denying an application for a variance, but we will, as I say, make a number of the neighbors happy because we’re not going to impact the lives of those who live on Holly Lane. So we think if the balancing is looked at, the benefit to the applicant far outweighs any detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood and community. So we would respectfully ask that the variance be granted. We’re asking for this now because if the Board sees fit to act favorably on the variance application pertaining to the cottage lot, which is before this Board after the conclude this application, we would then be going to the Planning Board and I don’t know that the Planning Board could approve the site plan that shows this driveway when the driveway needs the variance unless we’ve already been to this Board to get that variance. So that’s part of the reason for the timing here. So with that I’ll thank the Board for its attention and try to answer any questions if the Board members have any. MR. MC CABE-Is that it? MR. ALLEN-That’s it for me. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So does the Board have any questions for the applicant? MR. MC DEVITT-There was just an Article 78 reference there. Is that having any impact on anything we’re doing here, or is that outside of the scope? MR. MC CABE-Well I think if we approve this, that will go away. Right? MR. ALLEN-That’s correct. The party who brought the Article 78 proceeding has said that he does not have a problem with the main residence lot as it’s been called tonight being accessed from Assembly Point Road. He’s fine with that. He has no problems with that at all. So we have reached agreement with his counsel and counsel to the ZBA that we would apply for this variance, the one before you right now, and that if it is granted, the Article 78 proceeding will be dismissed. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you. MR. ALLEN-You’re welcome. MR. MC CABE-Are there any other questions of the applicant? So hearing none, a public hearing has been advertised, and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek any input on this project, either from people listening or by way of written correspondence. So, Laura, do we have anybody? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any written correspondence for this particular project, and so Chris Navitsky is wishing to speak. So I’ll bring him in, and then at some point Cathy had a question. So I don’t know if you want to listen to Cathy’s question. MR. MC CABE-Let’s get Cathy’s question out of the way. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-Sorry, I had myself muted again. Anyway, this old driveway that you’re eliminating, how are you going to treat that? I mean what is the plan for that? MR. VUILLAUME-Sure. I can answer that. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design again. That area would be the gravel would be removed to the greatest extent possible. Again, it’s been there. It’s rubble that’s been there for quite a while. So we don’t want to really dig it up too much since it’s so close to the lake, but it certainly will be topsoiled over the top and it would be returned to either vegetative plantings or a small lawn area. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right, and did anybody consider, okay, how wide is the actual access on Assembly Point? You said the road is 13. What is the actual access point? MR. VUILLAUME-Again, the access point would be 13 feet wide. That’s it. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. Did anybody consider any way of merging the driveway to the home with this access road in some way to cut down on some of that pavement? MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, we did look at that. There are opportunities to potentially do that. The way that the house has been designed with the driveway facing I guess would be to the west, it just doesn’t give you a lot of room to turn around, and again you’ll see in this next presentation for the cottage lot we’ve really pushed this building as far back as possible. So it really doesn’t give us a lot of room for maneuverability around that garage. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Well I’m just wondering, even if you still had two access points, if they could somehow be joined, you wouldn’t need that bump that you have, that I’m assuming you’re doing to get into the garage. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, that’s obviously where you would come into the garage, and again, these are two separate structures. We would like them to kind of operate independently. Again, at this time they’re owned by the same property owner, but someday if they were sold, it would be preferable to really have individual driveways. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So, at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input from the public. We have Chris Navitsky. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. My preference on this would be to go with the previous request to have the access off of Holly Lane. I think there would be less disturbance. However I understand the residents’ concerns and therefore I would support their variance application, but following on the previous commenter, I believe this should be combined into a single access. I think it would help improve the next variance application. I think it would reduce the impervious cover. I think it would reduce the covering of that stream and I think it would be a better project. I think they could improve their shoreline setback. So I would support their variance request, but support it if it was a single access cut onto Assembly Point Road, and I think it would reduce the disturbance of the cottage lot. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Laura, is there anybody else out there? MRS. MOORE-I don’t see anybody else’s hand up. I don’t see any comments or questions. I know a few people that are in the attendees list, but I don’t see them raising their hand. The opportunity is there if they wish to comment they can. I just, I’m not seeing it. MR. MC CABE-Do we have written comment? MRS. MOORE-I don’t have any written comment. I have I believe written comment for the next application. MR. ALLEN-Mr. Chairman, if I could just make a quick comment relative to the one from, that was just made. It is important from the client’s perspective to try to have each of these lots which have existed for almost 30 years be as independent from each other as possible. If there’s a shared driveway, there’s shared maintenance. There’s all kinds of issues that can arise over a period of time, and the other thing I just wanted to mention relative to that is as we’ve discussed with this Board before and will discuss again in the other application, despite the fact that this is a one acre lot, it is much longer west to east than it is north to south and with the shoreline setback requirement and the fact that if you impose that and a side yard setback along the southerly boundary of this property, there is a lot smaller building envelope than one would expect with a one acre lot. So we can’t really do a lot in terms of moving the proposed structure to go on the cottage lot further south because we will be potentially getting into the side yard setback. So we think with all due respect to the prior speaker, we would like to very much maintain the separate driveways. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Is there a single access driveway? What you have now is a single driveway access. How would that be different? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. ALLEN-Well the existing driveway is not in the best position for the re-development of the cottage lot. First of all, there are a couple of structures on it that are 38 and 40 feet from the lake. We need to move that driveway further south to allow us to build a house that will be setback further from the lake than are the existing structures which are to be demolished. Also that existing driveway, as Gavin mentioned, has a loop, if you will, once you get onto the main lot, and that loop gets very close to the lake and it’s, you know, it’s just not ideal. So we need to do a new driveway kind of no matter what, but we really would like, as I said before, each of these lots to function as independently of each other as they can and having a driveway that would be shared in part but not fully it’s a potential problem if you look down the years if there’s some lack of, if there were two property owners and some issue arose between them, it’s just not the best situation to have to deal with. 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 John. MR. HENKEL-I think it makes sense that it’s pre-existing, it’s the way the lot has been utilized all these years with that access road. I agree with Cathy and Chris about eliminating that curb cut and connecting it to the other easement road, but I agree with the main lot having the easement. So this particular application I agree with. So I would agree with it as is. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I do appreciate what Cathy and Mr. Navitsky said about having one access and a shared driveway. I think that would benefit the lake, which is what we’re here for. So I’m just going to say I’m in favor as proposed, but I think it could be better. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m going to vote in favor, to say what Michelle just said. It could be better. They are before the Planning Board. Maybe they’ll take a harder look at these ideas. I’m never comfortable with easements anyway. I’d like to see 15 foot where it meets the drive so it’s compliant with State regs. Other than that, we’ve got to eliminate the situation with Holly Lane. So I’m going to vote in favor. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to be a no on the project. I’m sorry I think there’s potential to eliminate a curb cut here and I think we could work on that a little harder. I’m sorry. I’m going to say no. MR. HENKEL-Could that be addressed in the next application, the driveway thing? I mean we could accept this one, but can’t that be accepted in the next one or the proposal for the next application? MRS. MOORE-So in reference to, I’ll chime in here. In reference to site plan, the driveway itself going to the main residence lot did not trigger a site plan review. So the driveway itself for the variance didn’t trigger it, but in reference to site plan arrangement when the, if the Board receives the cottage lot information from the Zoning Board, then that could be discussed further at the Planning Board level because they do discuss site arrangement. I’m going to see if I can get a hold of Jim again via e-mail. So give me a second. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I still think when we started this whole review of this whole area project with both projects and the Holly Lane project I mentioned the fact that I thought we were doing a segmented review and I think it’s coming back to bite us now with this project here because we’re kind of always putting the cart before the horse, you know, trying to do one thing before sequential order. I think this is the wrong way to do the project. So I agree with Roy. I’m against this as it is proposed. MR. MC CABE-Okay, and so I’m going to support the project. And the reasons are, one, it’s not unusual, particularly in this area, to have access over another lot, and I also agree with the applicant that if you try to tie this driveway into the other driveway, that could create problems if there were two separate owners here. I guess I favor everything separate. So I’m going to support the project. So it looks like we’ve got five to two here. So at this particular time I’m going to make a motion. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Rockhurst LLC (Christopher Abele). Applicant proposes parcel 35.1 to have access over lot 35.2 to Assembly Point Road. There is a proposed new home and associated site work for parcel 35.2 that includes a new drive area 13 ft. wide from 35.1 over 35.2 to Assembly Point Road. There are no changes to the existing home on the parcel 35.1. Relief requested for access on public/private road. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for access on public/private road in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. Section 179-4-050 – frontage The lot (Main House) has approved frontage on Holly Lane and the applicant requests that the lot to have access to Assembly Point Road through the adjoining lot. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 17, 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 access to the main residence lot always did come along a single driveway here. All we’re doing is separating that driveway from the driveway to the cottage lot. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, but are deemed not reasonable because they don’t fit the needs of the applicant. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. We can find numerous examples of access to residences across other properties. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We feel that it’s an improvement because the driveway is being moved further away from the lake. 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. 20-2021 ROCKHURST, LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 17 Day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So let’s move on, and so our next application is AV 49-2020, Rockhurst, LLC. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ROCKHURST LLC (CHRISTOPHER ABELE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) ROCKHURST LLC ZONING WR LOCATION ASSEMBLY POINT RD. (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2 STORY HOME 2,300 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 3,822 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND EXTERIOR PATIO AREAS. PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK (FILL, GRADING, 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE LANDSCAPING, NEW SEPTIC & WATER SUPPLY FROM LAKE). PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR 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 & JOHN ALLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2020, Rockhurst LLC, Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project Location: Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new 2 story home 2,300 sq. ft. footprint with 3,822 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 and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for shoreline setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for shoreline setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements 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, today’s code would be 50 ft. setback from the shoreline. Note – the applicant has revised the application and reduced the height to 28 ft. 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 the shoreline setback 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. The project includes a new septic system, stormwater management, site plantings and shoreline plantings. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. 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 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 plans have been revised to show the height area at 28 ft.” MR. MC CABE-So do we still have Gavin here? MRS. MOORE-Yes, Gavin’s here. MR. VUILLAUME-Laura, there was another plan that we submitted that I think might read a little better. I know this is from the site plan package. MRS. MOORE-The site plan is the only one that I have. 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. We’ll use that one. That’s fine. MRS. MOORE-All right. Sorry. MR. VUILLAUME-That’s all right. Okay. John, you’re still with me? MR. ALLEN-I’m still here. MR. VUILLAUME-Okay. All right. So like the previous application I’d like to just again give the Board the changes that were made since our last meeting, and then John can talk, again, a little bit more about how the project meets the criteria for the variances. So as you recall from the last meeting, the two variances that we were seeking were for the shoreline setback and the building height of 28 feet. So we went back, the architect Mike Tuck who is also on the Zoom meeting this evening if you have any more specific questions on the building. He went back and modified the structure and lowering it. Laura had the one sketch up there earlier. I don’t know if we need to see it again, but essentially we’ve reduced the height of the building from approximately 30 feet down to the 28 feet that’s required. So, again, as part of this initial presentation, again, I can’t stress it enough. This project now meets all the current zoning criteria in front of, that is established for this zoning district. In other words, we meet all the shoreline setbacks, all the side yard, rear yard setbacks, all the permeability, the square footages of the buildings, green space. Everything is met exactly to the way it is currently in the Code. The only reason, and John will get into this I’m sure, that we’re in front of this Board is because this project was subdivided back in, what was it, 1993. So again this is, you know, just the way that the Town looks at their projects and establishes criteria. As we stated last time, in a lot of instances that sometimes would have helped the applicant with some of the setbacks, but in this particular case the setback criteria changed from 75 feet to 50 feet. So we do meet the 50 foot criteria for the shoreline setback with this application, as well as all the other setbacks and permeability and square footages. So as far as the site plan goes, we did make some additional changes besides the building, and I’ll just quickly go over those. As you know we just talked a little bit about the driveway. Now that we have clear access to the main resident lot, I just want to, again, give more information on how this driveway now meets the criteria for the project and how it protects the lake, which is obviously what a lot of people are interested in when considering these types of applications. So we are providing numerous means of stormwater management and protection for the lake. So this one reads a little bit better. Again, getting back to where I was with the driveway, you can see now where the stormwater basin area in the center of the lot. You’ve got two small depressions. These are going to be infiltration swales and basins that will handle all the stormwater from the building and from the driveway. It’s located right at the center of the property. Along the driveway that we were just speaking of, the new driveway for the cottage lot, there’s also some stone infiltration and gravel diaphragms along all the edges of the driveway. The driveway would be proposed of bituminous driveway, and again, this could be porous pavement. If there’s more concerns we can always add porous pavement to it. The patio areas, all the pavers and walkways also would be porous pavers, and to help address some of the concerns by some of the neighbors just to the south of us, we’ve included two larger culverts taking drainage from the property along Assembly Point Road. You can see the two dashed culvert pipes that are running parallel along Assembly Point Road. That would take drainage not only from our project but also from other areas just to the south. So none of the drainage from this project impacts any of our neighbors. It’s their drainage from their property that’s actually coming on to our property, and we are, in fact, handling that stormwater, passing it underneath our project, and bringing it to a safer discharge location. Getting back to the variances, again, John will go into this a little bit more in detail, but as we stated a little bit in the last application, currently the existing cottage buildings that are proposed to be removed are approximately 38 feet or 40 feet from the shoreline. The new structure now would bring it back to 50 feet, which is what is currently required for the shoreline setback. So we are improving the setbacks from what the existing conditions currently are. The next thing I just want to quickly point out is, again, where John was talking about the minimum area in which we can put the structure, you can see the area highlighted in red. It’s a very narrow lot. It’s very linear. The lot itself obviously only has one real general location where you can put the new building and that would be into the space in which we’re currently showing it. We can’t move it back any further because we really have to be able to provide access into the structure and also to the main residence lot. The only other alternative would be to really push the building completely all the way almost touching all the other setbacks, and completely re-designing all the driveways towards the front of the lot, which would obviously impact the lake more than the porous patio that’s currently being proposed. So those are some of the new changes. Again, we decreased the, I believe the square footage went down approximately 500 square feet from what we had before. So not only the square footage but the actual footprint of the building has been reduced by eliminating a screened porch and also making the garage a little bit smaller. So we have also increased our permeability, and again I think that 75% is currently permitted, and we’re at 80% permeability. So we meet all the other criteria with regards to the application. John, I guess if you want to go into a little bit more detail on how we meet the balancing test. MR. ALLEN-Thanks, Gavin. I’d be happy to do that. Gavin’s given you a very good explanation of how the project has changed from what was presented to this Board in January. Although we’re still at 50 feet, the first floor of the structure is in fact 53 feet from the lake, but there’s a cantilever of about two and a half 35 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) feet for a portion of the second floor that makes the measurement, we’ll call it 50 feet, it’s more like 50 and a half, but I don’t think a half a foot is making a big difference here. I don’t know if the Board members have studied the general area, but there are 10 lots beginning at the southerly boundary of this property, the east side of Holly Lane, running down to Brayton Road. Those lots, based on our investigation, all are in violation of the current 50 foot shoreline setback. The houses have been there for a period of time, but we will have a shoreline setback larger than any of that, and we have a lot that is about twice the size of the biggest one of those lots and about three times the size of most of the residences. So we’re looking at a neighborhood where the waterfront lots range from about 7500 square feet up to 22,500 and we have an acre. As Gavin mention, I would refer to the need for the variance as an unintended consequence in the Town Code. The Town back in I believe it was 2009 changed the number of requirements for the Waterfront Residential district in terms of setbacks. The fact that there’s a provision in the Code that basically says if you were a subdivided lot you are, I’m going to say, stuck with what the requirements were at the time of the subdivision, notwithstanding that those requirements wouldn’t be imposed today on a lot that hadn’t been part of a subdivision in that period of time. So it’s clear, this issue with the shoreline setback for this particular lot is one which any lot in the Town that is in the Waterfront Residential area and was a product of the subdivision before 2009, they would all be stuck with this problem. It was not that the Town fathers and mothers on the Town Board looked at this particular property and said we’re going to impose a greater setback on this property than anything else in the Town. We have done our best to come up with a house design that is now limiting us to one variance not two as were discussed at the prior meeting, and as Gavin has said, we will be fully compliant with all of the current setbacks. If a 75 foot setback from the shoreline were required here it would either necessitate other variances that this Board would have to grant or it would not leave the applicant with the reasonable use of his property. Again, I think we’re improving the situation. The existing structures are closer to the lake, will have a new state-of-the-art septic system for this new building as opposed to the rather poor systems that existed for the two cottages that are to be removed. In fact those septic systems, as I understand, have been removed because they just were, from a practical position, just not useful or functional, and we want to improve conditions at the lake as opposed to making them worse or continuing unacceptable conditions, and we feel with everything we’re doing we’re not going to have an adverse effect or impact on the environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district, and Gavin talked about that a lot. There’s no need for me to go over it, and we do acknowledge that the setback or there is a self-created hardship here, although it’s largely due to this one provision of the Code rather than our not meeting the current Code requirements. So we would respectfully ask the Board to approve the application for the shoreline setback variance. Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Hearing none, there is a public hearing advertised this evening. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask that anybody who has input on this project provide it. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So I think Chris is on. I don’t see any other hands raised at the moment, but I know Chris wants to speak on this one. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Laura and thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will preface I did submit a letter and I will apologize that some of that focused on the height variance that I misinterpreted in the application. So I appreciate the applicants’ efforts to reduce that and eliminate that variance, and I apologize for any confusion that that may have produced. The variance that remains is the shoreline setback. Obviously the concern with that is the reduction of impervious cover, especially in that Critical Environmental area. You take a look, there’s still a proposed patio. It’s not tied to the shoreline setback, but that is as large, that’s actually larger than the existing porch of the existing cottages. That is as close to the lake as the existing cottages. Doesn’t require a setback variance, but again I think they’re still encroaching in that area that we need to protect the lake. This is in the area that we’ve had the harmful algae bloom. So I think any alterations that we do to the natural environment in the area. They’re bringing in four feet of fill. This isn’t a Zoning Board issue, but that clearly is something to address at the Planning Board. I appreciate the discussion on reducing impervious. Maybe this could be combined driveways. They talk about the benefit of the stormwater management. When they’re bringing in four feet of fill, I find it hard to capture all the runoff from this . So I don’t think that the environmental benefits that are claimed are as good as they’re claimed, especially when the patio that they’re proposing is closer to the lake than their stormwater facilities. The septic system that they discuss, that is irrelevant. Under the Town Transfer law they had to put in a new septic system. It didn’t matter what they did on this property. So that’s irrelevant to any decisions as well. So again I feel that there’s more that can be done to reduce the impervious in this area, and create a site plan and a development that will be more lake friendly and reduce the impacts they will have to the lake. So thank you, again, very much. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So, Laura, is there anything written? 36 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MRS. MOORE-There is another one written. I’m not quite certain if it’s relevant, but I will provide th information. So it was submitted the other day, being in March, but it has dates of February 17, 2021, rd and February 23, 2021, and it’s from Lorraine Ruffing at 66 Bay Parkway, Assembly Point, and some of th these items were already read at the January 20, 2021 meeting and I’m just trying to sort of compare the two documents and they’re fairly similar in the fact that she’s concerned with stormwater management on the site, concerned if there’s wetlands, and I think those are the primary things that have come out of that letter, and I don’t know if she’s on line or not to speak, but I just wanted to make sure that you know that there was another letter but it has dates in February, not necessarily March. MR. MC CABE-So those would have been read during our last. MRS. MOORE-Not necessarily. There was comments read in January by the same speaker because she thth did speak on Zoom, but the letter in January was dated January 20 and 26, and I’m assuming that’s for th the Planning Board and the Zoning Board, and in this case they are in reference to the February 17 and rd February 23 meeting which this application was moved to March. MR. MC CABE-But they sound like the comments that were made the first time that we listened to this application. MRS. MOORE-Correct. That’s all I have. So I have Mr. Abele that wishes to speak. He’s the applicant. I don’t have any other public comment or people raising their hand to speak. So I’m not quite sure what you want to do, Mike, if you want to let Mr. Abele speak. He’s the applicant himself. MR. MC CABE-Sure. CHRIS ABELE MR. ABELE-Thank you very much. I want to thank the Board for hearing this application, and I also want to compliment my attorney, John Allen, and Gavin Vuillaume and I do want to address a couple of specific things relative to Chris Navitsky. Chris was kind enough to come to the site. I think I might have mentioned that in the previous meeting, and I also had the fellow from the Lake George Fund as well, and I actually made contact with Walt Lender today or actually excuse me, two, three days ago. So I’ve reached out to the environmental community. As I’ve said before, this is a residence for me and my family and I have roots on the lake back from the early 60’s when we used to go to Hearthstone. So I have a tremendous amount of love for the lake, and I would never want to do anything detrimental to it, and as far as specific comments relative to what Chris said, and I don’t want to assume here that I can match what Gavin did th very, very well, but, you know, I took possession of this property on October 5 of 2020. Within two to three weeks, I had the three septic systems totally pumped and dismantled. Now he made reference to an algae bloom. That algae bloom was in November and it was all over the Adirondacks, but trying to see what was down the pike, I hired a hydrologist to test the water that comes not from me but from properties to the south of me. I can produce that report and it showed no ingredients that would cause anything close to an algae bloom. I can produce that documentation. As far as the stormwater, okay, currently there is no stormwater protection on this site, and I respectfully talked to Chris and say this. Yes, we are bringing some fill and the grade will be raised, but that will be sloped somewhat back away from the lake, and the water will then go into the grass swales and the detention and infiltrators that Gavin mentioned, and I want to say this with all due respect because we’re all here trying to do the right thing, have a beautiful home, enjoy it, and not do anything negative to the lake, but in my humble opinion, it defies logic that this is not an environmental plus for Lake George. So I would hope that this will come in my favor. Because this is a net gain to the lake for everybody around it, including my family. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. So is there anybody else out there, Laura? MRS. MOORE-No, I don’t see anybody raising their hand. There’s no one doing any chat or anything like that, so I believe there’s no more folks involved in the public hearing. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-I just, this is one of the ones that the numbers sometimes don’t tell the full story. I’m having problems with the setbacks, and I’ll be honest with you. I appreciate everybody’s comments on this and what’s being done, but to me the setbacks still need to be scaled back. So I’m going to be a no on this. MR. MC CABE-John? 37 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. HENKEL-I mean I’m kind of in agreement with Roy, but looking at some of the other projects we did tonight with their setbacks, I’d have to disagree with that, just with this one setback. At least it meets the Code that we work with with the 50 feet setback from the shoreline, and they did reduce the height. They did that for us. It’s a large piece of property. The only problem I’m having is still with the driveway. I kind of understand what they’re saying, that it causes problems when you have a shared driveway, but I still think that that driveway can be incorporated with that easement and so I’d like to see that done. So I would not be in favor of the project as is with that driveway entering on Assembly Point with two driveways. So I would not be on board as is, with that driveway the way it is. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-John, you took the words right out of my mouth, but looking at this property with the new driveway for the adjoining parcel, I see an opportunity to join these two driveways in a small way near the Assembly Point Road and that would help eliminate some of the permeability issues, not that it’s a real issue, but whatever we can do in this incredibly critical environmental area. So if we could have them join the driveways and accomplish improving the permeability, I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-But the permeability is not an issue here. MRS. HAYWARD-I know, but I think it could still be improved. MR. MC CABE-What we’re passing judgment on here is the setbacks. So both John and Michelle, you’re saying that the setback is inadequate? MRS. HAYWARD-The setback is, to me, 50 feet versus 75 feet, I’ll use your word, inadequate. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I mean personally I think the setback it’s something, it’s a throwback to previous subdivisions. So if 50 is what would be good for any other project, I think that it’s satisfactory here. I do take note of what Chris said about the pavers, that they don’t count in the setback but they probably should . Permeability is technically not an issue, but there’s no reason why we can’t continue to try to do a better job with these driveways, and I don’t think the applicant understands what I’m saying. I’m not necessarily saying I want you to move the driveway so you can move the house back. I mean they’ve moved it back. They’ve lowered the height. They’ve done a lot and I appreciate that, but there’s a State law that says you can’t provide access with an easement. So I don’t know how the Town handles any of this. There are shared driveway agreements. There are ways to remedy these issues. I get that they want to have their own access, but, you know what, towns have the right to say we want you to do something different here., and I would love to vote for it, and based on just what we’re looking at as a ZBA, but I really hope that the Planning Board can work with them and that the applicant will be open-minded about making something happen with those driveways. I guess I will vote for it. I just want to have my say that I do have a problem with the driveways, but I think that’s beyond our purview at this point. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I still think we’re being disingenuous here, because I think if we were actually going to look at the subdivision regulations as they exist today, even though it’s a 50 foot setback now, it was a 75 foot setback when they subdivided this property in ’93. Also you have to keep in mind the fact that, you know, we wouldn’t have two, one acre lots here today in a subdivision because it’s two acre zoning is the smallest lot you could have on Lake George. So I think that I would still like to see this thing moved further back from the lake. I don’t think it’s met the test. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I agree. I want it moved a little bit further back, and I can appreciate, I want the applicant to know and counsel to know and everybody that’s involved, and there’s a team working on this, that I think you guys are going to get there. I think you’re going to get something that everyone can live with, but that’s my issue still and I just am, I was having a tough time with this a few weeks back and I still am, but I do believe that there is a project to be had. It’s just that issue with proximity to the lake. MR. MC CABE-So you’re a no? MR. MC DEVITT-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. The public hearing is closed. This is just discussion among us. When we get done here then we’ll let you have a chance to speak. MR. ABELE-Okay. That’s fine. Thank you. 38 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. MC CABE-So, Brent, you’re a no? MR. MC DEVITT-As it is I am a no, correct. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So first of all the way I look at this, I’ve got to support the project. I think that, you know, the applicant came before us before with two very serious requests, a height, which we’ve always been pretty stringent on, and setback from the lake, which we’ve also been pretty stringent on. He’s reduced the height. So we’re down to just the setback from the lake, and I believe, as pointed out in the drawing, that if we follow the 75 feet, then, you know, he’s pretty restricted in the size of the house that he builds here and the configuration of the house that he builds, and I think that you do have to look at the fact that this is a one acre lot in an area where a one acre lot is pretty rare. So I certainly will support the project, but unfortunately there’s not enough yeses here. So I think we’ve got to give the applicant a pretty clear picture of what’s required here. So is it just the permeability of the second driveway, or is it indeed the setback from the lake? So I’ve heard permeability from a couple of people. Is that the real concern or is it setback? MRS. MOORE-Can I just say, so, Mike, you mentioned that the issue for the Zoning Board is the setback variance. Permeability is not part of this, the relief being requested. So I’m not quite certain, I mean you have to be pretty specific to identify your concerns and the only relief that’s being requested is setbacks at this point. So I just wanted to make sure that the Board is aware of that. MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, allow me to be clear. I have nothing, I’m not talking about permeability. I’m not talking about driveways. MR. MC CABE-You’re pure setback. MR. MC DEVITT-I’m setback. MR. MC CABE-Roy, you’re setback? MR. URRICO-Yes, I am. MR. MC CABE-Okay. John, you’re pure setback? MR. HENKEL-I really didn’t have a problem with the setback. I just have a problem with the driveway, but I guess that’s something we can’t do anything about. MR. URRICO-But the setback affects everything else. So let’s, yes, we’re talking about setbacks, but this is a little bit more complicated than that. So if you want to start breaking it down, then we’ll get back to what Jim said earlier about segmentation and what’s happening. So we need to look holistically at the project, not just. Setbacks is the variance, but the variance is setting off other alarms. I’m against the setbacks. I want the project scaled back. MR. ABELE-May I speak, please? MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I indicated I’d give you a chance to talk here. So go ahead. MR. ABELE-Okay. I do hear the Board, obviously. It’s not a pleasant situation. Look it, if a home, if I have to comply with that 75 foot setback it basically renders the property useless, and I don’t want to cry poverty. I paid a lot of money for this land, and I’m complying with every regulation that is currently in the Town Code, and as my attorney said, basically everybody on Holly Lane is in violation of the current setback. So I just cannot believe I’m in this situation. Now in terms of specifics, although what my attorney and consultant said, yes, just for practical reasons we wanted to keep the driveway separate. We didn’t want shared maintenance agreements. It basically does create issues that we want to try to avoid, but if that would secure some favorability, I would concede on that and I would re-design it and have a common driveway, but, and we were talking about permeability. I think Gavin said I have 80% permeability. So in every which way I’ve complied with the laws and the regulations and we still, remember, we’ve still got to go through the planning process, but if you hold to that 75 foot setback, you’re basically taking my lot away from me and I find it despicable and I cannot believe that, it’s almost like I’m being singled out for this because you go all around Assembly Point, the neighborhood, Holly Lane. If they’re at 50 foot they’re lucky and I did everything in my power to try to build a very nice house as you’ve seen the depictions, the elevations. I paid a lot of money for the lot. I’m proud of that, and this is going to be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood, but if you hold on that 75, you’re basically taking this away from me and my family, and I find that totally, totally ridiculous, and I don’t say this in a personal way, but I cannot believe I’m in this situation. So I implore you people to hear what I’m saying. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I haven’t really heard from Michelle and Cathy there. So are you guys definitely 75 footers? 39 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MRS. HAMLIN-No, I said I was happy with the 50 because it’s kind of compliant with. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. MRS. HAMLIN-I just have the driveway issue and, I mean, personally, I mean I get it. MR. MC CABE-Yes, you were a yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m a yes, but I really hope that the Planning Board can do something to address, I mean even the layout of the house. I’m sorry, if it makes some compromise you have a very long, skinny lot. Maybe take advantage of that in some way. Architectural plans cost a lot of money, but we don’t always get what we want, but I would vote yes today simply because he’s right. With the exception of the 75 he is compliant, and if he were building it today he’d be compliant. Yes, I’m yes, but. MR. MC CABE-So, John, you’ve indicated that the driveway is a concern. MR. HENKEL-I agree. He’s definitely compliant with every setback rule. I mean that’s my only concern is the driveway. I wish there was something they could do about the driveway and just make one curb cut. MR. ABELE-The driveway is a non-issue. I’ll concede on that. I’ll make it one. MR. HENKEL-That would be great. I’m all for the project, then. MR. MC CABE-All right. So that’s still not enough votes. MRS. HAYWARD-May I speak? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. Like I said, I agreed with John. My concern was the driveway, and if Mr. Abele is willing to merge the two driveways, that would be a compromise that I could live with. MR. ABELE-I will do that. MRS. HAYWARD-So I would be in favor of the setback as proposed. MR. MC CABE-All right. So then I’ve got John is a yes. Michelle is a yes. Cathy is a yes and me as a yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Can I ask one question, though? Can we make that a condition? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’m going to make a motion. So I’m closing the public hearing. I did that, right? MRS. DWYRE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to make a motion. MR. URRICO-Basically I’m doing the previous variance, then? MRS. MOORE-No, the previous variance was simply to allow access. MR. URRICO-That’s going to change that, right? That’s changing that access? MRS. MOORE-No, but it’s simply allowing access. It didn’t describe. MR. MC CABE-I guess you’ll have to answer that question, Laura. Did we destroy the other variance by combining these driveways? MRS. MOORE-That’s not accurate. You didn’t destroy it. The previous Area Variance was simply for access. You granted access. MR. MC CABE-Okay. All right. 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 Rockhurst LLC. (Revised) Applicant proposes to demolish existing buildings to construct a new 2 story home 2,300 40 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) sq. ft. footprint with 3,822 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 and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for shoreline setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for shoreline setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements 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. Note – the applicant has revised the application and reduced the height to 28 ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 16, 2020 & Wednesday, March 17, 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 variance will allow the construction of a new property and greatly improve management of stormwater runoff in this particular area. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are deemed not reasonable because they don’t allow for the needs of the applicant. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Although it appears substantial, it really meets the present criteria of the Town Code. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We believe that granting of this application will actually improve the environmental conditions. 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) The driveway to the main residence lot must be combined with the driveway for the cottage lot. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2020 ROCKHURST, LLC (CHRISTOPHER ABELE), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 17 Day of March 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So you have a project. MR. ABELE-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. VUILLAUME-Thank you very much, everyone. 41 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’d like to make a motion to close tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 17, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 17 day of March, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Thank you very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 42