Loading...
Meeting Minutes 8.18.21AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DARK BAY LANE, LLC AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP, LLP OWNER(S) DARK BAY LANE, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 40 DARK BAY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES SEVERAL RENOVATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND TO CONSTRUCT AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,067 SQ. FT. INCLUDING A DECK. THE NEW FOOTPRINT IS TO BE 2,658 SQ. FT. WHICH 653 SQ. FT. IS THE NEW GARAGE FOOTPRINT. EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,650 SQ. FT. AND NEW FLOOR AREA IS 4,378 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF EXISTING HARD SURFACING AREA FOR A TOTAL OF 4,842 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES PLACEMENT OF ROCK RETAINING WALLS, A NEW WELL AND A NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES A NEW SCREEN PORCH AREA, DECK REPLACEMENT, NEW RAISED ROOF AREA AND NEW UPPER LEVEL. SITE PLAN FOR HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, HEIGHT, RAIN GARDENS WITHIN 100 FT. OF SHORELINE, AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 48-2021; SEP 298-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-37 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-010; 179-6-050; 179-6-065 BRANDON FERGUSON & TREVOR FLYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 56-2021, Dark Bay Lane, LLC, Meeting Date: August 18, 2021 “Project Location: 40 Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes several renovations to an existing home and to construct an attached garage. The existing home is 2,067 sq. ft. including a deck. The new footprint is to be 2,658 sq. ft. which 653 sq. ft. is the new garage footprint. Existing floor area is 2,650 sq. ft. and new floor area is 4,378 sq. ft. The project includes replacement of existing hard surfacing area for a total of 4,842 sq. ft. The project includes placement of rock retaining walls, a new well, and a new septic system. The project also includes a new screen porch area, deck replacement, new raised roof area and new upper level. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, height, rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline, and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, height, rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline, and expansion of a non-conforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR. Section 179-3-040, Chapter 147 supplemental minor project The rebuilt deck is to be located 22.8 ft., from the shoreline and the main house improvements proposed to be 31.3 ft. setback where a 75 ft. setback is required. Screen porch renovations 19.4 ft. and main house improvements on the other side with a proposed 16.5 ft. setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. Floor area is proposed to be 4,378 sq. ft. or 22.75% where the maximum allowed is 4,233 sq. ft. or 22%. Rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 reduce the floor area request; the existing home location may limit the alternatives to the improvements to the shore side of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is for the shoreline 52.2 ft. and the home is 43.7 ft., floor area is 0.75% in excess, side setback for the screen porch of 0.6 ft. and the house improvement side setback of 3.5 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 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: There are several upgrades to the home proposed. The north elevation facing the shore –basement area façade change, exterior deck reduction to 208 sq. ft. +/- from 296 sq. ft. per RPS, improvement of screen porch to 180 sq. ft. +/- with deck entry area was about 168 sq. ft. +/ per RPS. The main floor interior is adjusted to include an expanded kitchen, living area, new laundry area, mudroom entry, main house entry, stairway to new upstairs area. The west elevation shows the new garage addition, the new living space above, the new living space over the existing home, the new entry area to the existing home portion. The east elevation shows the new raised roof area, the new dormer areas and a portion of the covered porch (the covered porch facing the lake), also the new addition of the garage and living space above roofline. The south elevation shows the new roofline with a dormer and the roofline of the new attached garage with living space. The orientation of the fireplace appears to be changed – or may be a new fireplace.” MR. URRICO-The Town of Queensbury Planning Board based on limited review identified the following areas of concern: The FAR variance from three members of the Board. And that was adopted unanimously by a six zero vote on August 17th, 2021. MR. FERGUSON-Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. Trevor Flynn with Balzer & Tuck. The applicant, Michael Chase, is here as well tonight. I want to start off with when we first started looking at this project and Mike first approached us with it, his plan was to take an existing old property, and to remodel it and turn it into a year round residence. We first looked at it and the site restrictions on there, in conversations we had with Craig Brown we were looking at seven variances. We worked with Mike to reduce those variances, eliminate as many as we could, and reduce the ones we were asking for as much as possible. So I think when we look at it we have five variances we’re looking for tonight. Four of those variances we feel are driven mostly by the existing house and are pretty much unavoidable in any modifications we made at all, and the fifth one, FAR, we feel like we’ve reduced to the maximum setback. So starting with the existing conditions on the site, it is a .44 acre parcel. The existing home right now is located about 21.8 feet from the lake. So the plan is to save this existing house foundation and the exterior walls on the first floor and then to expand upwards and then add a garage off the rear, but as the ho use exists now, the whole house is within the 75 foot setback to the shoreline. It is also 19.4 feet to the side yard back to what I’m calling the north here and then to the south it is 16.1. So it’s already, the existing house is legally non-conforming. All the restrictions are, there is a common driveway that provides access to the house to the north, as well as access to the house to the west to add permeable area on to this site are for their access, mostly for the adjoining landowners and not for this landowner. If we go to the proposed variance plan. So the first variance we’re asking for is modification and expansion of a legally non-conforming structure. That’s because we’re proposing to modify the house as it is instead of a teardown, re-build. We feel that trying to tear down and re-build on this lot would be very costly and it would still end up with numerous variances and it would be a waste of energy really. This is a good, solid structure that’s there now. There’s no structural issues. It just needs an update and expansion to make it a year round home and tearing it down, re-building would be a big impact on the neighboring properties, a bigger impact than keeping this existing home and modifying it for their means. So Varia nce Two is for the shoreline setback. So right now, there’s a red dotted line. That’s the existing house structure. That shoreline setback is driven by the existing deck. So right now it is 21.9 feet off of the shoreline. So they’re actually re-constructing that deck on the lakeside and it’s actually going to increase the setback slightly, a slight improvement over what the existing condition is now. Variance Three is the setback to the I’ll call it southern property line. Right now it is at 16.1 feet. However, that’s largely driven by again this deck which has a narrow section that extends down on the shoreline of the structure towards that property line. That section of the deck is going to get removed. So then we go off of the existing house foundation and what’s going to be proposed as well. Here we’re at 16.5. So once again a slight improvement from what is existing. The fourth variance is the side yard setback on the north. Right now it’s 19.4 feet to that screened in porch. The plan with that screened in porch is to essentially re-build in place. So it’s still going to keep the same footprint as the existing. I believe the roof height is getting raised slightly in that area, but it’s not going to impede any further on that line. It’s a decent sized porch. It just needs to be re- made or re-modeled for their needs. So we’re holding that at 19.4 to match the existing. So before getting into the fifth variance, I’ll quickly talk about other things that we did on site to reduce the amount of variances we need. When we first looked at this, we thought we would need a variance for permeability. There is, because of this common roadway that comes through here, as well as some of the other impervious area that benefits the adjoining landowners on site, the permeability was already over, and now we were adding an addition to the home. However, we were able to reduce some of the pavement areas around the parking spaces and use permeable pavers in areas because that 50% credit actually reduced the permeable area on the site by 494 square feet. The other variance we were first looking at was a bui lding height variance, but Balzer & Tuck worked hard in using the existing topography of the land and really analyzing it they were able to keep the house, further reduce the height of the house to keep it under 28 feet. So with the FAR, too, I think we originally started out with .26 when we first looked at it. Instead of coming in front of this Board with a .26 and maybe get rejected, we said let’s look at what can we do to reduce that before going to the Town, and that’s where they kept coming back and coming back in areas and working with the owner to get it down to that .2 percent. So a lot of work has gone into this to real ly reduce the number of variances and try to minimize the ones that we’re asking for. With that I’ll turn it over to Trevor to talk more about the FAR. MR. FLYNN-As Brandon mentioned, we were at .26 and we’ve reduced it since that time 616 square feet. A lot of that was done in the garage, breezeway and entrance. So just to walk you through the existing structure, what is currently on site now, and re-iterate some of the points Brandon made. There’s an existing front entry porch without a roof. You walk into the living and dining room. This is more of an Adirondack camp great room, vaulted space, views out towards the lake. To your left this screened porch and the stairs and most of the deck we’re keeping completely intact. We’re really just reconstructing some of the walls of the screened porch and that roof as well, just from a massing standpoint and the way it ties into the new proposed roof. The same with the deck. We’re actually pulling that back to re-construct it, refinish the deck’s surface and add a couple of stone piers. From this point on we’re actually removing that deck. When Mike and Jen Chase first came to us they wanted to make this their forever home and the problem was the number of bedrooms and a smaller kitchen. They didn’t have a garage to pull down into a mud room, laundry room. So those were the main charges to try to find those spaces on the first floor, and in doing so we kicked the three bedrooms to an upper level and I’ll walk you downstairs as well in understanding what has encumbered us from using the space down there, a lot of ledge rock and foundation. So these three rooms got re-located to the second floor and under the roof line. So I wanted to point out, and I’ll show you on the first floor proposed plan as well. We’re really restricted to the site constraints of Brandon walked you through the septic, you know, existing drives, the driveway itself and then they have a lot of ledge rock, too. So we tried to squeeze the garage as close to the house as we could. I doing so there’s a lot of complicated roof volumes that have to come together to still make that space usable on the second floor for height clearances and Code issues, at the same time deflecting the weather off so they don’t get ice damage. So you’ll see a lot of these volumes are derived based on those constraints from an interior standpoint. And then the rest is all the existing footprint and we’re really just raising the roof for that second floor, adding knee walls to get in the master bedroom suite. . So as previously mentioned, this is the exterior footprint of the house as it stands. We’re leaving all those walls intact, the subfloor or basement, taking off the roof and then adding floor joists on top of those walls to stand as minimal as possible. We’ve worked with a structural engineer as well and we’re re-locating the stairs over towards the front entry to get down into the basement and up to the second floor level. As you look at the garage, it’s roughly 24 feet outside dimension by 26 feet deep. We had even looked at trying to reduce square footage in this area but what starts to happen is you’ll see we pulled back a front entry porch because that also adds FAR. We still wanted to give them enough space to enter under cover and under a roof and then enter into a small foyer. So this 26 feet was part of that, you know, evaluation and understanding that if we pull the garage out a couple of feet, normally it’s 24 feet we went to 26 feet. That adds other opportunities for the entry into the house, and again, we’re dealing with a lot of complicated volumes on the back side that we had these roofs come together. So we did look at removing FAR there. It was roughly 24, 48 square feet per floor. So that is one area we tried to reduce. We just couldn’t get that down as well, and prior we were out further with the garage as it helped originally with the grading of the site, coming down that steep hill. So you weren’t sliding down into the garage itself durin g the winter, and we worked with EDP to go as low as we can and pushed the garage as tight to the house. So again from this point back is all the addition and the second floor. I also just wanted to reiterate from an APA standpoint, all of our additions are to the rear of the structure and we’ve amended that square footage to 250 square feet. That 250 square feet is theirs to add on to the structure when you’re within the setbacks. The rest of the square footage falls within the 75 foot setback which you see here. So the basement, this is all existing. So an existing bedroom on both ends and an existing recreation room. The whole back side is all ledge rock. So again we’re keeping that foundation intact., The ledge rock goes from roughly one foot below the floor joists on the far side and slowly it slopes. It even technically goes underneath this bed in the bedroom as well, and it slopes down to about zero back in this area. So this entire area is all less than five square feet, which doesn’t c ount for its FAR, but the reason I’m bringing it to your attention is we studied, you know, trying to add bedrooms down into this space to see if that would help with the square footage and re-located some of the program and we just couldn’t get it to work, this and the existing ledge rock. So lastly I think it’s important to note, I did note on the first floor plan, but if you recall the existing living and dining room, and we’re stuck within that existing footprint for the most part. We also looked at taking a four to five foot swath out of that area, but what we would have had to have done was tear down that side of the house, build a new foundation and construct ta new. In studying that, we could have gotten for 150 square feet that we’re in here for tonight or asking for, for relief, but again that would have come at more cost to the client and again we wanted to keep that existing footprint intact and working to the addition. So up on the second floor you’ll notice there’s a lot of orange area. so what we’re doing is we’re fitting that second floor plan under the new proposed roof. All those areas are less than five feet in height. So the five feet in height is what triggers habitable space or usable space which triggers your FAR code. So that’s what you can see. What’s important to note on the second floor, and I think where we tried to reduce space, we got asked by the Planning Board, understanding this is called an exercise room, you know, what if it turned into a bedroom in a couple of years or another space. I think our reply was it doesn’t matter what it is. If it’s attic space, it still counts towards FAR. So anything over that five feet from this point on, the knee wall, counts towards FAR, and that all has to do with try ing to re-locate another bedroom to the second floor with windows and the master suite under the main roof volume and getting the height of the stairs to clearances and Code compliance. So this was our diagram and how we initially studied the height of the overall structure. This is an important image because you’ll see the existing roof and the proposed roofs. So from this point on that’s the existing top of plate height and we’ve added a floor structure. So that small distance, roughly a foot, two by twelve, we added a floor structure in and then from that point on we’re building our second floor walls and the roof. So that’s our max height that we could reach from the roof pitch as well, but as you look down to the lower left, we basically took the existing topography and all the points around the house and raised that 28 feet, and that was our zoning envelope. So every move we made and geometry that we studied within the roof was used to keep it under that 28 feet and that also resulted in some of our FAR struggles back and forth. So again this is that 28 foot line as you take the topography around the entire site and bring them up to 28 feet. Last we just wanted to show what the house looks like from the view shed of Lake George. So th e upper left hand corner is the existing house, and then what we’ve done is superimposed the proposed house on top of that and gave you the transparency, just so you can really start to understand what that roof line looks like. We feel this is not overwhelming as it sits on the lake. It’s really kept to scale of a lot of the homes in the area, even lower, as the whole second floor is within that roof line. Yes, on the lakeside it’s considered three stories, but what you also don’t see is this is an image taken in the middle of the winter where there’s not a lot of foliage, even some of those trees. So the vegetation in wooded areas actually come in and crop in the sides of the house so it’s not so visible and tucked into the site itself . This red dashed line is the existing eaves roof line. So you can see the house really falls away as it recedes and climbs up the hill. So from our perspective, head on from the lake, it’s minimal compared to the existing structure. Lastly is, so just to truly understand the site conditions that we’re contending with and trying to get the garage to fit in next to the existing house and then some of the areas where we’re trying to slip into that front entry. If you recall we pulled up the front of the house t o slip it in under the entry. We also are re-constructing the screened porch, but as you see on the right hand side is the ledge rock that we’re constrained by and this is that image, the existing house and that ledge rock, and then another view of it. So really constrained overall site wise. Again, the site is .44 acres. We’ve worked really hard to minimize our FAR impact and reduce overall square footage. We feel that we’re slightly encumbered where the hardship is that we’re working within the existing footprint of the house and we’re tied in to that square footage and then as you start to move around some of the spaces, add them to the second floor, that’s when the square footage increases. It’s coming as a great value to the owner. It cos ts a lot less to keep that existing foundation and keep the existing structure, first floor walls, and you’re not re-building. So you come to a higher cost if we were to tear it down, and I think that’s one of our points that we’d like to reiterate that due to the site constricts, the site size, if we were to tear it down, it comes at a cost environmentally, as well, and you could re-build. I think we would still be here for at least four of the variances and possibly the fifth one of FAR and I think our goal would not be for the FAR, but due to the size, it’s an undersized lot. Typically it’s two acres, typical size. So again I think we’re really trying to abide by the Codes that you guys have set forth and the spirit and intent of your zoning law. MR. MC CABE-So when was the original house built? Do you know? MIKE CHASE MR. CHASE-Hi. I’m Mike Chase, the property owner. The history of the property is that there was a summer home on the property in the 1950’s. There was a much larger structure. It was much closer to the lake. That burned down. When they re-built, they used part of that footprint to build a single room structure that is now our great room, and this particular structure was added on to in 1971. That’s when they built the foundation, adding in what was a set of stairs that lead outside, and enclosed the storage space that was underneath, built into the ledge rock, added on the second floor. So the structure as it is has not had any new construction since 1971 along with the pump up system and the septic system that’s there now. We bought it in 2011. MR. MC CABE-I think I have the picture now. Thank you very much. So do we have questions of the applicant here? MR. KUHL-I see in your application you talk about a new septic system. How many bedrooms are you sizing it for? MR. FERGUSON-I don’t have the plan in front of me. I believe it was four. We did get a Board of Health variance for that. MR. KUHL-You believe it’s four or you know it’s four? And the house has two bedrooms, right? The house has two bedrooms and an exercise room? MR. FLYNN-Right now the proposed house has four bedrooms and an exercise room. MR. KUHL-Really? MR. FLYNN-Yes. The existing house is a five bedroom house. I was going to reduce it to four. MR. KUHL-But the septic is four? MR. FERGUSON-Yes. MR. KUHL-I’ve got it. I see the other two. I missed them. I’m sorry. 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, Chris, are you still back there? So I’m going to seek input from the public. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. And I appreciate the presentation that was done. In our opinion the project proposes too much development and expansion for a small constrained lot within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George and fails to provide the balance necessary to grant the variances requested. Although mitigation measures are proposed, there are questions about the long-term benefits of those and they may actually result in greater impacts to Lake George and its water quality. Proposed variance will result in an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and a detriment to nearby properties. The proposed expansion of the non-conforming structure will increase the volume of the structure within the shoreline setback, creating a much larger structure within the protective shoreline setback. This structure will appear much larger since the structure’s setback is much less than adjoining properties, and I think if you compare to the adjoining properties, it’s about half of the setback of the other homes in the neighborhood. There is a question on how effective the claimed increase in permeability will be as the project proposes to actually have more pavement and building coverage and the effectiveness of the p ermeable pavers will be reduced by the shallow depth to bedrock as indicated by the soil test pits as well as the testimony that was provided. And as you all know permeability is tied to runoff and there’s only so much storage that will be under those permeable pavers, especially if they have to blast them in. Additionally, there is the question on how maintenance will be guaranteed on the permeable pavers. We’ve seen this come in a lot and the thought is great, but how will they be maintained long term? And there’s a question whether they will become ineffective without routine maintenance and will they actually become impervious surfaces if they’re not maintained yearly, and why not use reinforced grass pavers? Those are used around and you can really actually get more permeable surfaces. The proposed variances would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical ad environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The expansion of the non-conforming structure creates a low area in front of the garage where the applicant proposes to install a catch basin with a discharge which actually goes to the west of the house. Now that’s a low area. They’re going to excavate down two feet and try to infiltrate there, along where all that bedrock is. So our feeling is that that will actually become a direct discharge down significantly steep slopes to Lake George, and really that’s a practice that should not be encouraged around the lake. Again there’s a question on how effective the stormwater reduction can be in the area with the bedrock and with the excavation. Additionally the applicant fails to provide any information on the shoreline buffer requirement in the zoning code. I think they showed a picture of it. I think there needs to be a lot more work on that, especially if variances are considered. Furthermore, there is no information contained regarding the suitability for the infiltration devices that are required and requested to be put within the shoreline setback variance. What’s the soil information? Can they actually support infiltration? The applicant is requesting several variances on a property that has already received four variances for the septic system, which demonstrates how constrained the site is. Therefore the Waterkeeper that the Zoning Board of Appeals table the application and request the applicant to amend the design to reduce the number of variances requested and provide a more balanced design, especially for a project located in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. And I think those echo what the Planning Board’s concerns were. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else who would like to provide input on this particular project? Seeing nobody, is there anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-No. The only one was from Chris and he covered it. MR. MC CABE-So first of all I’ll give you guys a chance to respond. MR. FLYNN-Again, Trevor Flynn with Balzer & Tuck and Brandon Ferguson with EDP. I think we’d like to point out originally that this site is a lot of ledge and rock that currently exists and an existing driveway that slopes down towards the lake itself, and we’re introducing these permeable pavers and stormwater measures which don’t exist. We’re trying to put more into the site as we add to the building because we understand it’s a delicate balance around the lake. We do want to mention that we don’t think it’s a large expansion of the footprint by any means. The footprint extension is to the rear of the structure as previously discussed and we’re also reducing the footprint that’s towards the lake and towards the sides. So on that comment we think we’re actually, our addition is beneficial as it’s to the rear and we’re not adding to that overall expansion of the footprint. The roofs currently slope towards the lake and do not have gutters or any measures that are part of that. We are proposing g utters and adding to it, re-directing that stormwater that currently flows off the roof towards the lake. So that’s part of our suggestions and design moving forward. We do also want to note that, yes, there are a lot of permeable surfaces on the site itself. However, most of that is due to the existing drive, the lane that goes to other houses on the lake and the neighbor’s driveway as well. So anything that we are adding from our standpoint to the driveway is for stormwater with permeable pavers. Lastly I understand the maintenance of permeable pavers always comes up and also the pitch of this driveway. It’s a steep slope going down again, and typically you would add salt or sand to those areas. Our client’s willing to put a little more money into this project and budget and look into heating the driveway in that area so he’s not adding salts. So there would be less maintenance that would need to occur on the permeable pavers. Because that’s typically when you see it is in the winter when those sands and salts come down into the permeable pavers, and we understand that the ledge rock is shallow. However, I believe the minimal requirement for the permeable pavers, to get the percentage that we need is a foot. So we’re going to meet all th at criteria in those permeable paver areas. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-How about shoreline buffering? MR. FERGUSON-Shoreline buffering, I mean, that goes to the Planning Board, and we still have to go for Site Plan Review for that. We are maintaining the shoreline buffer that’s there. So there is a pretty densely wooded area on what I’m calling the northern end of the property along the shoreline. We’re maintaining that, and there are larger trees and encroachment on the southern end of the property as well. We’re also adding a raingarden on the lake side of the house to take some of that roof runoff and that will be planted up, to add some plantings and buffering as well. So we are doing some stuff, and when we go back to the Planning Board I know they have a lot of jurisdiction over that site plan and over the planting plan and buffering. We’re more than willing to work with them to make sure that that’s properly buffered. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you,. Mr. Chairman. I was glossed right over on how to maintain the pavers. Conversation you have is, well, we’re going to put the pavers in. Well what’s the underlayment going to be? I wish I would have a vacuum cleaner and be the guy to maintain these pavers, because they’re going to become ineffective as they get filled up with salt and sand. That’s my biggest itch. I understand that you’re coming in front of us with pre-existing, non-conforming. I got that. I understand that. I think you’ve done some good work with the FAR. You said you were going to have gutters, and yet you’re talking about a raingarden towards the lake. What are you doing with the gutters? Are you containing them? Again, that’s not our purview, right? That goes to the Planning Board. I think you’ve done a lot of good work. So I’d be in favor of this project, but I’m, it’s up to the owner to maintain the pavers. It gives you, as an owner, a right to do things on a small lot, but if they’re not maintained, they’re going to become ineffective. Okay, and I don’t know how we, as a municipality can police it, because we really can’t unless we require people or we have a gee whiz truck in the garage that has to go out to the houses every year, and again, I don’t know how we’re going to police that. I am on the fence with this, but I think you’re asking for, I mean, I take value in what the Waterkeeper talks about. I don’t agree that it’s a big, large structure because you’re going vertical within the 28 feet, anyway, enough said. I’ll be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m kind of in agreement. I think we’re pushing the envelope on a project that even though it’s trying to maintain the current footprint, it’s really expanding on that footprint, and that footprint, when it went in, was pushing the envelope. So are we going to still let them, looking at the prope rty as a whole, because that’s what we have to do is look at the property and what it’s going to be in the future, is this pushing it incrementally, and then, you know, if the pavers don’t work, does that make the impervious part of the site pervious, and does that create conditional, an additional way we’re overlooking something. So I really have a problem with the number of setbacks. I mean you keep bringing up what you would have had if you just re-built it, but that’s still up to us to decide whether you get those variances and our job is keep it as little as possible and I don’t think this does it. So I would not be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I have one question. I didn’t quite hear, what was the Planning Board’s comment that was read earlier? MR. MC CABE-They had issues with the Floor Area Ratio. MRS. HAMLIN-They did. Okay. So that being said, why is a raingarden a problem here? MRS. MOORE-So in our Code, you should be somewhat familiar. When we installed the stormwater code regs, there’s a section in the Code that requires infiltration devices down gradient to be greater than 100 feet from a water body and other, I can’t remember exactly the wording. MRS. HAMLIN-So a raingarden is considered a downgrade? MRS. MOORE-Something to that effect. I’m probably saying it wrong, but it’s the relief that is required based on that section of the Code. We rarely see it. MRS. HAMLIN-I thought raingardens were good things. MRS. MOORE-They are good things. It’s just the way the Code is written in terminology. MRS. HAMLIN-Well I agree with what’s been said so far. I mean I do see they’re doing their best to work within the existing footprint, and I agree there’s an environmental cost we have of doing that home. So an existing home, and you’re doing what you can, but I’d like to wait, as it is presented here, I would not be in favor. I would like to table and see if they can come back with some more mitigation practices and perhaps different pavers. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I guess the bigger ones sometimes, you know, there’s two sides to everything and it can get a little bit complicated or whatever you want to call it. I am concerned about how do we maintain permeable pavers? We don’t. That’s the answer, and we have to have faith that an applicant, a homeowner long term that loves the lake is going to do the right thing and I have to have faith that people will do their best to that end. I have some concerns, but those concerns are not outweighed enough to where I would not be in favor. So I am in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have concerns. I think you’re the ones that are caught between a rock and a hard place with the rocky substrate you’re dealing with on the site there, and even though you’re going to put a state of the art septic system in there, you’re located relatively close to the lake, the impermeable ground underneath that, even if it functions perfectly well as designed. At the same time I t hink, you know, like your depictions of the structure from the lakeside it does kind of loom over the lake. It’s larger than what’s’ there now presently. I think the roofline that you have on the present house fits a lot better. I think something could be re-designed to better reflect the fact that even though the APA says you can have a building 40 feet high, you know, our Code is 28 feet here in Queensbury which is reasonable and keeps the height of buildings down, but I still think it’s much too much on such a small lot. So I wouldn’t be in favor of it at this time. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with all of my Board members so far really. I think they’ve done a nice job of re- designing this structure and keeping it somewhat within the footprint. I agree that you need a garage, especially if you’re going to make it a year round residence, but I do have a little bit of a problem with the driveway with it being so deep. You’re going to have some runoff that goes into the lake during the winter. If you do use salt, heating the driveway would probably be a good idea if you could do something like that, but I do have a problem with the raingarden there. I realize you need to drain the roof and it’s too bad you can’t get that away from the lake. I mean obviously it’s on a hill so it would be hard to do that, but I have more problems with, even though you’re kind of reducing the front by the lake, I’d like to see that reduced even more if possible, that decking. So there’s pros and cons. I’m not totally in favor of it as is right now. MR. MC CABE-So you do not support the project? MR. HENKEL-No, not as is. MR. MC CABE-So the way I look at this, if we okay this particular application, we’re much better off. The alternative is to just leave it the way it is, and it’s a problem the way it is, and it doesn’t get any better by just leaving it go. So I do support the project. I think you guys have done a really good job of keeping the floor area ratio down and the problem is you just don’t have much area to work with, but the floor area ratio standards were developed generally for bigger lots and you’re working with a lot that’s less than a half-acre. So you really are going to have a small structure on a lot that size, but my vote isn’t enough here. So I’m going to need some guidance from you guys here to either call the vote, and it looks like you’re going to lose, or table this, come back and try to make some adjustments. It sounds like there’s a lot of problems with runoff. Maybe there can be something done in that particular area, but, you know, that’s kind of up to you guys. MR. FLYNN-Just to kind of get a better summary of the Board’s concerns, it seems like for the most part you guys are happy with side yard setbacks. There was a little bit of concern with the shoreline setbacks. We can increase that, and then a lot of it had to do with the permeable pavers as the stormwater control and for reducing the permeable area on the site. I guess that’s kind of the g ist of it, right? I mean there didn’t seem to be, the side yard setbacks, I think we’re really restricted by that existing structure with those as well. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, I think it was mostly the permeable pavers in the front, the maintenance of it. Just reiterating that we’re planning to use radiant heat in the driveway. MR. URRICO-Mr. Chairman, I think we shouldn’t be re-litigating it again. MR. MC CABE-Well, I think we owe it to these guys to let them know exactly what our problem is. MR. URRICO-We gave them almost 45 minutes already. MR. FERGUSON-Understood and I appreciate your time, Roy, but it’s at a cost to the owner of understanding do they have to go back to Square One and re-design the entire house. What I’m hearing tonight is I don’t think that’s what you guys are concerned with is the FAR. We did the one concern about the height, but I think we’ve done to the best of our capabilities to keep it as low as possible within those rooflines. So I’m just hearing from you guys it’s not as much the building but it’s more site mitigation is what we would need to come back to you with and re-vamp then we might get a more favorable. MR. MC CABE-So we can table this, then? MR. FERGUSON-Yes, we would table it. MR. MC CABE-So how much time do you need? MRS. MOORE-So this would be moved to an October meeting. So it would be the first meeting in October. MR. MC CABE-Is that enough time? MR. HENKEL-So we’re looking at October 20th. MR. FERGUSON-Yes, that’s well more than enough. We’d like it sooner, obviously. MRS. MOORE-I don’t have that ability. I just don’t. MR. MC CABE-John, can I have a motion then? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dark Bay Lane, LLC. Applicant proposes several renovations to an existing home and to construct an attached garage. The existing home is 2,067 sq. ft. including a deck. The new footprint is to be 2,658 sq. ft. which 653 sq. ft. is the new garage footprint. Existing floor area is 2,650 sq. ft. and new floor area is 4,378 sq. ft. The project includes replacement of existing hard surfacing area for a total of 4,842 sq. ft. The project includes placement of rock retaining walls, a new well, and a new septic system. The project also includes a new screen porch area, deck replacement, new raised roof area and new upper level. Site plan for hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, rain gardens within 100 ft. of shoreline, and expansion of a non-conforming structure. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 56-2021 DARK BAY LANE, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Tabled to the October 20th, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information by September 15th. Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-And just so, you closed the public hearing and I would recommend that you re-open it. MR. MC CABE-So I’ll re-open the public hearing for AV 56-2021. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. FERGUSON-All right. Thank you. MR. FLYNN-Yes, thank you for your time and patience.