Loading...
AV 29-2021 Flynn Minutes(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 1 NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DANIEL GRASMEDER ZONING WR LOCATION 3222 ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT AN 884 SQ. FT. LIVING ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO THE WEST OF THE EXISTING PRIMARY DWELLING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A 436 SQ. FT. BREEZEWAY ADDITION TO THE SOUTH OF THE PRIMARY DWELLING, CONNECTING THE STRUCTURE WITH AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE AND REPLACING THE ROOF ON THE GARAGE. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DETACHED GARAGE OF 1,152 SQ. FT. WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TWO LEVELS (STORAGE OF VEHICLES ON THE LOWER LEVEL AND A WORKSHOP ABOVE). SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND MAJOR STORMWATER. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACK, HEIGHT OF DETACHED GARAGE, HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATIONS TO THE MAIN HOME, NUMBER OF GARAGES, AND SIZE OF GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 9-2021; AV 8-2021; AV 76-2002; AV 43-02; AV 27-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179-13-010. JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TREVOR FLYNN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2021, Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 3222 Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct an 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to the west of the existing primary dwelling. The project includes construction of a 436 sq. ft. breezeway addition to the south of the primary dwelling, connecting the structure with an existing detached garage and replacing the roof on the garage. The project also includes construction of a new detached garage of 1,248 sq. ft. floor area with a 672 sq. ft. MR. LAPPER- workshop which would include two levels (storage of vehicles on the lower level and a workshop above). Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and major stormwater. Relief requested for shoreline setback, height of detached garage, height of the alterations to the main home, number of garages, and size of garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home and the new garage, number of garages, and size of garage. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure, 179- 2-010 garage, private parking The single-story addition to the main home is to be located 56.6 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The two roof dormer additions of the home are to be 33 ft. 6 inches where 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. The new garage is to be 21 ft. 4 inches in height where an accessory structure is limited to 16 ft. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and size of the garage 1,248 sq. ft. floor area where maximum size allowed on lot would be 1,100 sq. 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to orientation of the existing building on the parcel, parcel shape and parcel topography within 75 ft. of the shoreline for height and setback. The second garage may be eliminated to reduce the number of garages; although the second garage is storage and workshop for classic vehicles. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor for the residential requests and substantial for the second garage request as relevant to the code. The relief for the single-story addition to the main home is 18.4 ft. The relief for the tw o roof dormer (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 2 additions is 5 feet 6 inches in excess. The new garage relief is 5 feet 4 inches in excess. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and size of the garage. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes residential additions to the main home, alterations to portions of the three floors, connecting the existing detached garage with a new roof orientation, then constructing a detached garage. The project includes new stormwater controls, site work to reduce runoff, and landscaping for the site. The plans show the additions and the portion of the dormer roof additions that are above the 28 ft. but match the existing structure height. There are elevation views and floor plans for the proposed work on the home and the new garage. The second garage is presented as a workshop for antique vehicles.” MR. LAPPER-Again, for the record, Jon Lapper. The Grasmeders are here. So even though you’ve heard this before, our goal tonight is to re-present the whole thing so that the record is complete. When we were here the first time, I think the Board was more focused on the garage because that was what you were more concerned about. MR. MC CABE-That’s other people’s view. So I think, to straighten this out, I think we should go through each of the variances to make sure that we understand everything as well. MR. LAPPER-So I’m going to just make some general comments and I’ll have Trevor go through exactly so it’s complete for the record. In terms of the improvements to the house, under the standard of practical difficulty, this is taking a 1920’s design home to turn it into a permanent year round structure for their family. So architecturally significant and the goal here is to enhance the architecture in keeping with the original design. The constraints as Laura mentioned in the Staff Notes because the lake is on two sides of the house, in terms of the setbacks when it was buil t there wasn’t a 75 foot setback. The constraints are to make this a livable living space that works within the layout of the house itself, but we think that what’s being requested for the house is extremely minor. The dormers are just to bring light in obviously. We’re going to 33 feet just to match what’s already there. So it’s just to make it architecturally correct and it’s not like we’re talking about 33 feet for the whole structure. It’s little tiny dormers and the inside living space addition is just to make space that’s usable and there’s nowhere else to put it because of the grade in the back and where the lake is. So again we think this is very modest and just that, obviously we need a thorough record, a thorough resolution on this. So I’m going to ask Trevor to come up and go through the math so it’s all on the record. MR. MC CABE-So, just for the record, what is the setback of the house right now? MR. FLYNN-56.6. MR. MC CABE-So that’s not going to change. Okay, and what is the height of the house right now? MR. FLYNN-Existing you said. Sorry. Currently shoreline setback. BRANDON FERGUSON MR. FERGUSON-Brandon Ferguson from EDP. The current shoreline setback is 59.1 feet and we are proposing it to be decreased a little bit to 56.6. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. FERGUSON-And just one corner of the house, just because of the position of the, where the lake kind of wraps around there, that corner of the house would have been closer to the lake than what it is. MR. MC DEVITT-So it’s 59. what? I’m sorry. MR. FERGUSON-59.1 is what the existing is. MR. LAPPER-And in terms of the height? MR. FERGUSON-The height is, existing is, well it’s still less than the existing. The proposed dormers are less than the existing. MR. MC CABE-Okay. That’s fine. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 3 MR. LAPPER-Less than the ridge. MR. FERGUSON-And you’ll see that in the diagram when we get to that. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. FLYNN-Trevor Flynn with Balzer & Tuck Architecture representing the Grasmeders at 3222 Route 9L Queensbury. I’d like to thank you guys for your time in advance. Our goal is to be through and precise yet detailed, but really walk you through all six variances related to the house and the garage. MR. MC CABE-Yes. Okay. MR. FLYNN-We’re here based on the APA variance reversal determination letter memo dated March 26th, 2021 recommending in their conclusions section reversal of the variance granted by the ZBA for expansion of a non-conforming dwelling, February 24th, 2021. We’ve already discussed the six variances and I’ll walk you through each one. So just to re-acquaint you with the project, as you’ll see this first area, the shaded area is for the additions. This is the existing house as it currently exists, the detached garage, the proposed mud room link from the attached garage to the living quarters and then the kitchen/living room/dining area off to the west, and as mentioned, the house is a unique house, built in the summer of the 1920’s. Since then the detached garage was built in 2003 and the proposed project involves turning that existing garage into an attached garage with a mudroom link between the two structures. Another addition to the main residence is proposed to provide more living space for the residents to make it a year round home. As aging in place requires more adjacency to programs and a possible, in the future, first floor bedroom as well. As mentioned, the detached garage is also being proposed as the existing is being connected to the house to more afford their everyday vehicles where the detached garage is for the storage of classic cars, property maintenance and also the restoration of some of the vehicles as well. So we don’t believe this is an undesirable change and will not produce, in looking at the context of the existing neighborhood and properties in the surrounding neighborhood. The residence will be expanded to meet the needs of the client which could not be achieved in the existing footprint and I’ll walk you through that in detail. The exterior of the home was updated and provided a visual improvement to the neighborhood as seen from the lake and we’re tying the structure in to the existing roofline in keeping with overall existing form and geometry. We’re removing impervious areas that currently exist where the proposed addition is. So we’re kind of swapping out the impervious area of the roof for current impervious driveways which run down into the lake right now. So we’re almost blocking that and I’ll detail that as well and we’re trying to stick with the harmonious historic architecture of this 1920’s home. The variance sought for the detached garage will not cause a detriment to the neighborhood has it cannot be seen from the road and I have a view shed diagram to show you that as well, and it cannot be seen from neighboring properties as it’s surrounded by woods on both sides. All neighboring property owners have submitted letters of support for the project and the requested variances we are seeking for both the residence and the detached garage. In reference to Variance One, modification of a non-conforming existing structure, again it is a unique home built in the 1920’s where they didn’t have the setbacks that we do today. For the year round addition, currently the existing garage or existing driveway turnaround is right here and there isn’t a very proper kitchen, dining room or entrance for the seasonal winters that we get in Upstate New York. So the mudroom addition is off to the side to connect to the garage as well, and re-orient some of the additional spaces, existing spaces. The proposed addition was studied at length. We are removing some of the older non-historical additions, the one off to the back and off to the side, off to the south I should say, and we currently do not have the mudroom. So you’re every day pulling into the garage, walking into the mudroom and then allowing yourself to get into the main space and into the kitchen, living area. The addition you’ll see this dashed line. That’s the 50 foot and then the 75 foot setbacks. We held the addition back from the lake façade as best we could, as tying into that existing form of that existing roof, but we’ll show you that in the addition slides, but the location of the addition is driven by tha t historical geometry of the original home. So this is the existing home. You can see it’s a unique roof structure and this is the addition as it ties in and the view from the lake. So in general the proposed addition is smaller in scale and volume than the current existing home. So you see the addition to the south, and this is the proposed dormer up on the third floor and that gets to the height variance. The view of the home from the south per the driveway. This was also that impervious driveway that we were discussing earlier where the truck and cars currently park because that’s where the addition is going. So right now all the sheet flow and rain and water runs down the site. This is all ledge rock. So it doesn’t really percolate into any of these areas and runs right down into the lake. So we’re proposing to remove a lot of these impervious areas as we’re putting the addition in there, re-locating the driveway further to the south and east areas. MRS. HAMLIN-That’s one of the additions in the back there that you’re removing. Correct? MR. FLYNN-This portion? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 4 MR. FLYNN-That is being removed. That’s where the new front entry is proposed. Next slide, please. So as you notice from the previous image, that is the existing roof form and we’re tying into that and then turning the structure sideways in an effort to pull it back from the lake. If it weren’t for the current zoning, the entire roof would most likely have been extended. So that entire volume, as we saw from the lake would have had a larger impact on the views from the lake and from the road, but this was, in order to do it more discreetly and tying into that existing structure. So we made an effort to keep this addition as far away from the lake as we could in those efforts. So I wanted to go back to the first floor plan, I think, Page Three. Thank you for everyone’s patience. So we explored, Page Four, sorry, Laura. We explored three options. The first is the expansion to the west. As proposed and mentioned, to the east and to the south there other options. Of the three options studied, two of the options are not feasible due to the existing geometry of the house and site restrictions. The second option of extending the addition to the east would infringe on the side yard setback requiring an addition variance requested which would require substantial removal of existing trees, existing utilities, including underground septic, generator and A/C units of the eastern side of the home, all of which we’re proposing to remain, would have to be re-located and would cost the client additional monies as well. The third option of expanding the addition to the south where the current proposed entry is would mean that the existing impervious driveway that we previously showed in this area would exist and remain and during our studies we realized as we tried to pull back and expand this volume, the main entry would have been on this portion, on the western side of the house. So we would have most likely kept and proposed to keep that circular driveway. The area of the south addition is also known for bedrock and so more excavation, blasting would add major cost to the client and more disruption to the site as well. Architecturally in addition to the south it would also interrupt the historic roofline and as seen from those previous images we’re tying into that roof, trying to stay in keeping with the historical nature of the house. From a Code perspective, as the roof ties in, if you go to the next sheet, please, there’s bedrooms. Tying in on that side would require these bedrooms, would block the egress windows, the light and the vent to those spaces, further enforcing our position that the addition to the south of the existing residence is the most viable option. Then just going back to Page Four, I think, Laura, as mentioned to the closest point, which is here, the existing building is 59.1 feet from the shoreline. The proposed design to this corner is 56.6 feet from the shoreline. The requested variance for this additional 2.5 feet is not substantial. I believe the APA was wondering how much of the additional proposed square footage is within that setback. So inclusive of all the proposed patio and new build floor space, 52.5% of that area is within that 75 foot setback. We would also like to address the re-configuration of the existing stair. So currently there is a step down from an existing lakeside porch down to a landing and then a couple of steps down to grade, which grade is higher at this point. With the addition, we still need to provide egress out of the dining room and onto the porch and then with careful study of the existing structure, we wanted to emulate that existing curve and provide the stair, and in doing so we did not encroach further than the previous existing distance from the lake. Page Ten please, Laura. I just want to discuss the building height. This is another area that we do not think is also substantial. So as noted we’re requesting 5.5 feet relief of the 28 feet max. So we’re at 33.5 feet proposed to this dormer on the lakeside. The two dormers, none of which are overpowering to the existing main residence and gabled. So from this diagram you can see the darker shaded areas are, one, the proposed addition, and, two, a re- configuration of the existing addition, which is all within the existing roofline and less than the existing ridge. The lake northern dormer provides Code required light and ventilati on for the bedroom up on the third floor. The floor area of this new dormer is also not encroaching on the 75 foot shoreline setback. The driveway’s southern dormer is being re-configured to correct poor snow and water conditions. Right now there’s a lot of water and damage that’s coming up into that room. So we’re essentially re-building that in place, but since we’re reconstructing it, it requires a variance for that dormer. I believe that’s it on the height. So if you want to jump to Page 19, please. So next discussion is the variance for the second garage. The proposed second garage space is for the owner to have a place to store and restore classic cars. There is no commercial intentions for this detached garage, no rental intention as well. You will note a couple of comments that they couldn’t square some comments. There is a wood stove that’s mainly for heating the space and there’s also an oven. This oven’s for curing pyro coated car parts. As he sprays smaller pieces for the engines, he puts them in the oven and heats it up and cures it. So in reference to could the benefits of the detached garage not be met without the required variance, a smaller, at the house, a smaller attached garage would not be feasible or would provide insufficient storage for the property maintenance equipment, the current everyday vehicles and proposed classic cars that are being restored. This is an important hobby to the owner and I’m sure he’d be willing to stand up at the end of the presentation as needed to discuss his hobby in more detail, and we also have this slide to demonstrate what it looks like when he takes apart one of these cars and puts it back together. There’s a lot of space that is required for that. The garage area, we’re requesting 148 square feet relief. Eleven hundred square feet is the max. So we’re proposing 1,248 square feet. The attached garage is 148 feet over that. This variance could not be seen as substantial as it’s 13.5% greater than 1100 square feet. We did explore multiple options with the garage as well due to the site and the topography. We explored a single story three car garage with the addition, but what happened with that is the footprint got even larger. If you can imagine this space being turned up here, it created a 2,000 square foot footprint. So we would have been asking for a larger variance. So the space needed, we thought it was a clever way of addressing that with the bank. So tucking the lower portion into the side of the existing topography with a driveway from the west and a driveway from the south, more shop space and mechanical space with the storage down below. So we think we did our due diligence in creating a smaller footprint for the program that was asked by the client. Would you go Page 21 I believe, or 20. Start with 20. Thank you, Laura. This is just a quick (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 5 diagram of the view shed of where the garage placement is, and you’ll see it’s quite wooded in all directions around the proposed detached garage. These two dots represent views as seen from the road and once this garage is built, we do not see that there will be any visible appearance from the road. Next sheet please. As for the height variance, you know, we did a lot to keep the height of the garage down. Again, tucking the garage into the side of the hill with that bank barn technique and also sloping the roof away. That workshop area, in plan there are some unusable spaces as the roof is sloping and creating almost knee walls in the space. So there was a lot of effort and care taken in trying to slope the roof away, follow the topography, yet also speak to the existing historical nature of the home. I also wanted to also bring up the height that’s needed up on the first floor. Even if this was a one story garage with the car lifts, the car lifts go up 12, 14 feet with the car on top of that. The structure still needs to clear the top of the car. The client, as he’s moving into his retirement age, is sick of kind of rolling aro und under the cars. So the car lift is an easier way for him to work on the cars more comfortably for longer extended periods of time. So that height of the ridge we believe would be required whether it was a two story garage or not. So that’s an important feature, and also we’ve done as much as we can to minimize the height of that garage height on the first wall as well, but we’re also tying in to the existing topography. So these two floor levels are set at existing grade, and that’s how we got that. I’d like to jump back to just the site plan overall. So overall we think the project will also have a positive effect on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. As the site exists the driveway has a large area of pavement, imperviou s area that slopes directly towards the shoreline. The surface water runoff is currently untreated and we’re proposing to treat it. The project involves removal of this paved area and in its place the addition will be built. There will no longer be any impervious pavement within that 75 foot shoreline setback. The addition actually acts as a buffer as the water is coming down the driveway and we have one raingarden to the west, southwest and then the addition blocks where all that runoff is currently running down into the lake. So we’re treating it within that area to pervious pavers. The project also includes additional stormwater measures that do not currently exist. There is a shoreline buffer, but we’re also suggesting to improve it and enhance it, adding more plantings, along with providing permeable pavers on all pathways around this. There’s also grass swales throughout the site to direct the water. I think that’s it for now. MR. MC CABE-You’re all set? MR. FLYNN-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Well, a couple of things came to my mind. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MRS. HAMLIN-So in previous discussions, you’re asking for a whole lot of variances here, and things get a little confusing. When somebody says, okay, here’s the existing setback right now, to be very clear, the addition is new and when you build new onto a non-conforming structure you need to comply with the latest. So you’re not producing anything, and the way, our numbers, it almost looks like you’re saying well here it’s 59 and now it’s 56. You’re requesting 56 which is still significantly less than 75, and grant it a good portion of the back is within the 75, but still I really think it’s gorgeous, the work you’re doing is gorgeous. I’m into historic preservation. I appreciate this, but that 75 foot shoreline, I think you need to figure out a way to do that. MR. MC CABE-We’re just asking questions now. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. We’re just asking questions. MR. FLYNN-Yes, I would like to mention it is in a unique part of zoning for the Town of Queensbury along the lake here. This is one of the only areas where it’s rural and it’s a 75 foot setback compared to the more typical 50 foot setbacks that you see, and that was in our first design efforts. We did not want to encroach towards that 50 foot setback at all and that was kind of the holy grail. We didn’t want to cross that line. So when we’re studying those roof lines and still trying to get the floor plan to work within that geometry, that’s why the 2.5 feet additional relief that we’re requesting we don’t think is a big ask as it relates to other projects on the lake. We think we’re still within the spirit and intent. MR. MC CABE-We’re just asking questions. MRS. HAMLIN-Well then one question. Why is it that the macadam driveway that you have there can’t disappear regardless? MR. LAPPER-Part of the project is replace it with a house, and also the raingarden which stops the water, but Trevor’s point was if you compare the existing to the proposed we’re fixing stormwater problems where it’s running untreated into the lake. So there’s actually an advantage to the lake of putting a building there to stop it and also raingardens. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 6 MRS. HAMLIN-So if you pushed the addition back to some degree. MR. LAPPER-You still have to have a driveway. MR. FLYNN-And it would have tied into the structure differently. MRS. HAMLIN-But do you need that much driveway? MR. LAPPER-So the real answer is that when you’re trying to enhance an existing building and you have constraints because the building is not built 75 feet back because that wa sn’t the law, and this was, as Trevor said, just a few feet to pick it up to make it make sense architecturally. That’s really what this is about. He really went through the program. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. MC DEVITT-You mentioned the word rural. Explain that a little more to me, what you mean by that. MRS. MOORE-So the zoning in that particular area has an APA land use classification of Rural Residential, I think it’s Rural Residential. I could be wrong, but in that particular area of the Town there’s a 75 foot setback and it’s part of the APA land use classification versus the Town’s, where the main portion of the Town, going from Bay to the east side is the 50 foot setback. MR. MC DEVITT-Interesting. Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing, see if there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project and invite anybody on the outside who would like to call in and express a view on this project, give us a call at 518-761-8225. So do we have anybody in the audience? Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. The Lake George Waterkeeper supports the determination by the Adirondack Park Agency that the encroachment into the shoreline setback is substantial and excessive. Additionally we feel there are alternatives available that would reduce the overall disturbance and the increased impervious surface within the shoreline setback and Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. Furthermore it appears that the project creates redundant features such as a second main entrance, a second garage, as well as the concrete steps off the lakeside porch where development considerations should be minimized. An undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood. The proposal will increase the existing non- conformity as well as increase the structure area within the shoreline setback, as has been stated, and increase impervious cover around the residence. There’s potentially going to be more driveway, albeit on the one side. I don’t know if a building is going to buffer that from the lake. And there’s limited mitigation measures, all within the CEA surrounding Lake George. The benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by another method other than an area variance. The applicant could reduce and re-locate the proposed addition to the south, which would eliminate the apparent second main entrance on the western side of the addition. It seems there’s a mud entrance, and then there’s that large real entrance which is just off the driveway that appears it’s going to be a second entrance where right now there’s actually only one entrance to the house on that side. The proposed detached garage could be eliminated and incorporated into the existing garage, which could be expanded and have the entrance doors face west. This would eliminate the probable blasting and concrete work for the detached garage that would reduce disruption to the natural site conditions, which the application material actually states is a concern of the project. It is also said that they couldn’t put the garage on one level because it would increase the square footage, but I think you actually increase the square footage of disturbance more by putting in two driveways. So by having it on two levels you actually, in my opinion, have more disturbance because now you have two driveways instead of one. The proposed variance will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions. The proposed addition will result in increased impervious surfaces near the lake with limited mitigation measures. Additionally the proposed detached garage will result in blasting, excavation and disruption to the natural site condition. It’s more of a planning issue, but again some considerations for what materials are going to be used in that garage with the items necessary for the hobby that would be used. A couple of comments on the, it was said that the practical difficulty was because of the lake. Now that’s the first time I’ve heard Lake George referred to as a practical difficulty. I think the difficulty’s from the proposed addition. It can’t be seen from the road, they showed all that, but obviously it can be seen from the lake, and that’s the main concern on the shoreline setbacks. More than (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 7 half of this addition will be within the shoreline setback, 52%. So to me that appears to be substantial. That should be reduced. And those are my comments. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? KATHY GRASMEDER MRS. GRASMEDER-I’d like to speak. I’m Kathy Grasmeder and I am the homeowner, and I wanted to just make a couple of comments that Dan and I are lovers of the lake. We are very much interested in the preservation of Lake George, but we also really appreciate old architecture. I think some of the points made by Mr. Navitsky are not, he may not be as familiar with the layout of the current house that we are, that there are some structures of the house that we would like to keep in place. You saw the pictures that there is a very old stone porch, that it would be a shame to have to try to modify that for living space. So there’s a bit of a pinch point in that living area in the front. There’s also an incredibly beautiful old staircase that when people come in and see it they say they just don’t make things like this anymore. The center of the house has a fireplace in it which is unique in that it has a fireplace into the dining room as well as the living room, and those structures, the porch, the fireplace and the staircase, that is somewhat of a pinch point requiring the addition. So in bringing the house up to date from the 1920’s to the 2020’s it’s our opinion that the variance is not substantial. Also I just want to point out that the new stormwater measures that we’re proposing that currently don’t exist, but the plantings, etc., I feel that our team has done a great job from an architectural standpoint as well as from a stormwater standpoint to both protect the character of the building as well as protect the lake. Thanks very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? So I think our two minutes is exceeded here. MR. URRICO-I have some letters. MR. MC CABE-We do have some letters. MR. URRICO-There are four letters in support of their project. I’ll read the basis of one of the letters and then read the names in that support it. It says, “My property is located adjacent to the Grasmeders on the East side of their property. I have reviewed the plans for the proposed renovation and addition to the home as well as for the second garage/workshop. It is my understanding that multiple variances are being requested and I wanted to provide this letter in support of the variances requested by Mr. & Mrs. Grasmeder.” And that’s Diane Matthews, 18 Cedar Point. A very similar letter from Jeff and Deborah Myers, 16 Rocky Shore Road, Lake George. Another similar letter from Robert McCormick and Lynn McCormick, 18 Dark Bay Lane, and another letter in support from Lester Cha se and Thalia Chase, 3219 State Route 9L. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-This is a long one. This is a lot of thought into this. A lot of individuals. A lot of moving parts, if you will. I guess what I come back to is the meat of this is you’re working with a 1920’s home that is trying to be framed into a 2020 home and there’s some things that have to be worked around and t here’s some considerations that have to be given to that. So I’m in favor of the project The dormers aren’t of concern. They bring in light. I don’t have a big problem with that. So the project, again, is an interesting one, has some complexities. I do follow both sides of the equation here, but I am going to land with what I believe will be a good project in totality once it’s completed. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think the size of the property supports what they’re doing, I think the improvements to the lakeside. I understand and I hear Mr. Navitsky the Waterkeeper talking about the addition, and the size of the addition being within the 75 feet. I don’t know how else you could have placed that to stay out of that 75 foot buffer, but again, the way the property is laid out, I am in favor of it. The second garage, where it is and what it’s going to be used for, again, three acres supports that. Should that 1248 square foot garage, should that be 1100 square feet, they could knock 100 square feet off of that really easy, but what’s the 100 square feet going to do? If in fact it hinges on that garage, but as I said, I’m in favor of the project. I think the property can support it and I think it’ll be a good addition. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt it’s a large piece of property. It does support a second garage. The height on the house is questionable but I understand what they’re trying to do, keep the character of the old house. The first, I did pass this the first time that it came in front of us, but I also said that I thought maybe they (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 8 could put a lift in the existing garage which would eliminate the height variance on the second garage. I think they deserve a second garage, detached garage because of the size o f the property. So I’m going to change my vote now and say that I do not approve this as is for the second garage, the height, that bothers me. I think they can put the lift in the garage closest to the house and still get what they want. Otherwise I approve this as is except for the height of the second garage. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to agree with John almost entirely. I think, I know it’s hard taking a 100 year old home and trying to update it to today’s standards, but we have a chance to create some relief in some areas where things are, especially in that second garage which is new. I think we can reduce the height as well, and I would like the shoreline setback to be greater, but I don’t think that’s going to be a possibil ity, but I’m going to say the size of the property supports most of the other changes. So it doesn’t have to be mitigated, but I do think the height of the second garage is a problem and I would want that reduced. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree. I think that the alterations to the main home seem reasonable to me. I think the one question would be the addition on the side, you know, whether you should go south with it or not. I think that still can be a consideration, but I’ve always been against the second garage from the beginning. I think if the second garage were just going to be for storage or for cars or boats or whatever it happened to be, but I think the fact that it’s going to be for restoration of vehicles, it’s a residen tial area. Even though it’s a large substantial residential area, at the same time I don’t think we would allow this on any other residential lot in Town as proposed, and I think that’s still a sticking point for me. So as long as you have the second garage I’m not going to be in favor of the overall project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Well the last time I also had the same reservations as Jim in regards to the garage, but I do believe we made a condition. I’m not so sure how that condition is enforced, how much beyond our purview it is. It’s not so much the size of the garage it’s the use. As he says, it’s not technically commercial, but it’s a commercial like activity. So I’m against that, the use of the garage particularly. The breezeway’s great. I have no problem with the height issues with the dormers or any of that, but it is a large lot, and they’ve been very creative. I think they just need to get a little more creative with the addition. There’s a lot of room in that house actually and there’s more storage being added and I don’t know I think just because it’s a year round doesn’t necessarily need all that much space. MR. MC CABE-So you’re objecting to the whole project? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m objecting to the 75 foot. I’d like to see if we can’t get it to 75, something that can be downshifted. There could be some play here. I’m not an architect, but I see a lot of room in places where things could be re-positioned, and I’m opposed to the use of the garage, the commercial like activity. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So you’re not doing real well here. So let me say my piece and then we’ll give you an opportunity. First of all, the house isn’t 75 feet now. So to get the 75 feet you’d have to tear the house down. So we’re not going to ask, in my opinion, we’re not going to ask the applicant to tear the house down and build a new structure. I think it’s admirable that they are attempting to re-build a beautiful old building like this. So I certainly would support the shoreline setback. The height of the main building we said the dormers aren’t any higher than what exist right now. So approving the construction of the dormers doesn’t really violate height. It’s just because the height’s greater now than, it’s a non-conforming structure. So then it gets down to the second garage. It’s not unusual for us to approve a second garage on a location where the lot size is four acres. We understand that’s a good sized property and that it warrants a second garage, and I don’t have a problem with the size of the second garage, 1278 square feet versus 1100 isn’t a game changer. So it sounds like with several of the other Board members it’s the height of the second garage that’s the problem. MR. LAPPER-So we hear that and we’ll have to ask for it to be tabled. MR. MC CABE-So you’re going to request a tabling here, until when? MR. LAPPER-Next month. We’ll just look at the garage and see what we can do. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So the rest of the Board, did I summarize the feelings? Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-Actually I want it for the record. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I understand you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 9 MRS. HAMLIN-No, I don’t want the house torn down. I’m not talking about the setback from the existing house. This is new construction. It’s an addition to a non-conforming use, and therefore I would somehow. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John. MR. FLYNN-Can I put something on the record? Just to note the differences between the garages. When you state that we could bring the lifts into the garage that we are attaching to the existing structure. However there is not enough space in that garage. There were points that we could expand that existing garage that’s currently there to add additional bays, but we’d be adding more bays which would trigger another variance by the Town for a garage. So we can’t have the lift down at that existing garage where there is not enough room to store all the parts and pieces and workshop to work on these cars. So the lift is required in that detached garage if that is going to be a component of the master plan. MR. HENKEL-How big is it? How big is the garage that’s attached? Isn’t it 1900, or is it 13? MR. MC CABE-It’s 1248. MR. KUHL-1248 is the new one. MR. FLYNN-Is the new one. MR. HENKEL-Right, the one that’s attached. MR. MC CABE-No, that’s the detached. MR. HENKEL-’Right, but I’m talking about the attached, because he’s talking about putting the lift into the attached. MR. FLYNN-No, that’s what, you guys mentioned bringing in the lifts. We wouldn’t need a height variance for the detached garage. MR. HENKEL-Right, and that’s what I asked you, the first time you said it couldn’t be done because you said that there wasn’t enough height in there. That’s why one of the questions I asked you way back in the beginning. MR. FLYNN-So there’s one, not enough height in there and, two, the use and function. So putting a lift in that garage wouldn’t be acceptable because there’s, the use needs to be in the detached garage, all the car storage, all the work on the cars. You can imagine the distance between the attached garage and detached garage on this site would outweigh carrying the pieces and the workshop working back and forth. The height in that detached garage is a function of the lifts. MR. MC CABE-So, John, could I have a motion to table this application. MRS. MOORE-I just want to know if this information that’s going to be updated can be provided to our office by next Thursday. MR. LAPPER-Let’s commit to that and if we have to ask for an extension we will. MR. HENKEL-All right. So it’s the first meeting, second meeting? MRS. MOORE-It’s the first meeting in June. MR. HENKEL-All right. MRS. MOORE-Just to confirm that it’s the meeting of June 16th. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture. Applicant proposes to construct an 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to the west of the existing primary dwelling. The project includes construction of a 436 sq. ft. breezeway addition to the south of the primary dwelling, connecting the structure with an existing detached garage and replacing the roof on the garage. The project also includes construction of a new detached garage of 1,152 sq. ft. which would include two levels (storage of vehicles on the lower level and a workshop above). Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and major stormwater. Relief requested for shoreline setback, height of detached garage, height of the alterations to the main home, number of garages, and size of garage. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2021 TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 10 Tabled to the June 16th, 2021 meeting, any information submitted by May 27th, 2021. Duly adopted this 19th day of May, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-We’ll see you next month. So next application is AV 27-2021.