Loading...
10-27-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING TH OCTOBER 27, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 57-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Main House) 1. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Area Variance No. 58-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Guest House) 9. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 Area Variance No. 71-2021 Jesse Hayes 10. Tax Map No. 295.15-1-10 Area Variance No. 72-2021 Brett Streeter 14. Tax Map No. 307.-1-9 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 10/27/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 27, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL CATHERINE HAMLIN JACKSON LA SARSO, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRENT MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of th Appeals, October 27, 2021. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is relatively simple. We’ll call each up. The case will be read into the record. The applicant will be allowed to present his case. The Board will question the Board. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we’ll open the public hearing, seek input from the public. We’ll close the public hearing. We’ll poll the Board, see where stand on the issue and proceed from there. Just from a safety standpoint, there’s doors to our north that you came in from. There’s two exits to the east here on either end of the room, and there’s an exit in the far southwest portion of the room. So our first case is AV 57-2021, 106 Bay Parkway, Brett & Pamela West, and so we’ve listened to this case for quite a while last month. So, Roy, if you’d read in any changes. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) BRETT & PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY (REVISED 10/4/2021) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A 5,004 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT (BUILDING FOOTPRINT OF 4,628 SQ. FT. AND PORTE-COCHERE OF 376 SQ. FT.) AND A PATIO AREA OF 825 SQ. FT. (1,649 SQ. FT. x 50% FOR PERMEABLE PAVING). THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,764 SQ. FT. INCLUDING A DETACHED 500 SQ. FT. BARN, THE PORTE-COCHERE AND A COVERED WALKWAY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, DRIVEWAY AREA, A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE MAIN HOME AND A PROPOSED ON HOME ON THE ADJOINING PARCEL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, ADDITIONAL GARAGE, SIZE OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURE TOTAL, AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 51-2021; SEP 342-2021; PZ 210-2016 ; PZ 95-2016; PZ 89-2016; SP 37-2009; AV 47-2007; SP 39-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2021, Brett & Pamela West (Main House), Meeting Date: October 27, 2021 “Project Location: 106 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: (Revised 10/4/2021) Applicant proposes to demo existing home and construct a new home with a 5,004 sq. ft. footprint (building footprint of 4,628 sq. ft. and porte-cochere of 376 sq. ft.) and a patio area of 825 sq. ft. (1,649 sq. ft. x 50% for permeable paving). The new floor area will be 8,764 sq. ft. including a detached 500 sq. ft. barn, the porte-cochere, and a covered walkway. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, driveway area, a covered walkway between the main home and a proposed home on the adjoining parcel. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, additional garage, size of accessory structure total, and floor area. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home, barn and associated site work needing relief for setbacks, permeability, height, second garage, sheds size total square footage and floor area for a new home and associated accessory buildings. Project is in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Parcel is 0.91 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 sheds, garages The new home is to be located 35.5 ft. to the east shoreline, 31 ft. to the west shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The covered walkway is to be 0 ft. from the west side setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. The project proposes two garages where only one is allowed – the porte-cochere is considered a garage due to width of open sides allowing vehicles. The project proposes two accessory buildings one is an existing 75 sq. ft. pump storage shed and the other is a new 500 sq. ft. barn, where relief is for exceeding 500 sq. ft. maximum size for sheds. Relief is also requested for floor area where 8764 sq. ft. 22.2% is proposed and 8,687 sq. ft. 22% is allowed. Permeability 77.9% is proposed where 75% is required- noting no permeability relief is requested. 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. 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 overall size of the home and shed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested to east shoreline 14.5 ft., west shoreline 19 ft. The covered walkway 20 ft. Relief for an additional garage. Relief for accessory buildings 75 sq. ft. in excess. Relief for floor area is 0.2 % in excess. No permeability relief is requested. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The applicant has included new stormwater measures that did not exist prior and proposes a new septic system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing building to construct a new home. The first floor plan shows living room area, kitchen, dining room, the porte-cochere, media room, small office, game room, and a two car garage. Note the area labeled wet bar will have no kitchen elements. The second floor plan shows bathrooms, closets, bedrooms, and a loft area above the garage. The covered walkway extends to the adjoining property also owned by the applicant. The plans show the location of the new home, driveway area, shed location, plantings, patio areas and holding tanks. The plans also include elevations and floor plans. The plans also show a lot line adjustment with the adjoining parcel where no changes to lot size occur for either parcel.” MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Chris Keil from Environmental Design Partnership. We were here last month and you guys all gave us a bunch of instructions, and even more than usual we tried to be very responsive and to modify the project to address the issues that you raised. So in the interim, in general, Chris will go through the specifics, but in general they moved, I’m going to talk about both to start with, and then we’ll talk about them separately. We moved the main house farther away from the lake and we moved the guest house closer to the main house. That served to reduce the floor area ratio, shortened the length of the covered walkway. We also made the covered walkway narrower, which reduced the floor area ratio. We eliminated a bunch of pavers along the lake, made those patios smaller so they’re farther from the lake, eliminated the structure over the pump house. As a result we were able to get the floor area ratio on the main house down to 22.2 which is a few square feet over what’s permitted, extremely minor, compared to what your used to seeing, and the guesthouse, it’s 23.5. We were over 25 last time. So we were able to get it down to almost a 22. So these are, you know, what I would consider and I hope you would consider very minor variances. The permeability is no longer an issue. We’re over what’s required on the permeability, and if you look, just to start with, the red line shows the lake setback. I mean the constraint of these lots, of course, is it’s a peninsula and you have water all around. So obviously an oddly triangular shaped lot could go much closer to the lake on the 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) west side than it is, but because we don’t build houses that way there’s a little bit of the structure that’s outside of the setback, but in every case the house is farther away from the lake than the existing house that’s there and that’s grandfathered and that’s with conforming stormwater infiltration on everything and as we talked about last time, both homes will have separate holding tanks which are great for the lake but make an expense and inconvenience for the property owner, but that’s the right way to re-build on this site. So, you know, done with modern engineering, stormwater and septic and as a result we moved the guesthouse away from the southern property line a little bit farther from the neighbors and that’s already planted very densely with a hedge and by using one driveway allows nice vegetation along the road in front of the guesthouse. So this is private and the neighbors aren’t looking at this. So in terms of the benefit to the applicant, I’m trying to come back a second time after we were here a few years ago with a different plan. So again they purchased the second lot so they could make this all work with more land to have a guesthouse and the main house for a family compound. The covered walkway is an important architectural and practical feature in inclement weather, but based upon your comments we’ve made everything smaller almost completely conforming for floor area ratio and, you know, we were already conforming for stormwater. Yes, there’s some stuff the Planning Board will deal with. We’ve got the landscape plan. I’m sure that they’ll look carefully at that, but in general it’s as small as we could get it and still make it work for the applicant and very close to conforming. So with that I’ll ask Chris to go through it in a little bit more detail. MR. KEIL-Laura, could you bring up that presentation. I’m Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership. Perfect. Thank you. So this is just to piggyback on what Jon said. This is just a quick summary table showing sort of how we changed the design since we were here in September. So on the table on the right there, the image, it’s hard to see the red, but basically that bowl column is where the main house is now and where we were in September and then similarly for the guesthouse, those two columns there. So you can see permeability, we’ve gotten to the point where we no longer require a variance. FAR, you know we’re requesting 22.2, as Jon said, for the main house 23.5. The square footages are below there you can see, and then the shoreline setback, we were able to get another foot for the main house and then the side yard setback what we were able to do is get another four feet from the guesthouse moving it from that southern lot, and then the image on the left there you can sort of see those kind of changes in the plan where increase that distance from the lake to the north there, removed that shed in the northeast corner, increased the distance from the lake there west of the main house, reduced the square footage in both structures and in the paving area as well, and then if you go to the next slide, please. Thanks, Laura, this will show you, this overlay, like that magenta color is where the house was in September. So you can see just generally speaking it’s, I mean, the changes in size are hard to pick up, but you can see that it’s kind of gotten tighter together and moved away from the shoreline. Next slide, please. And then, similarly, this is showing paving. So that blue is where paving was when we were here last time in September and where it is now. So you can, again, see, especially the north there, it’s moving back quite a bit from the shoreline and it’s been reduced as well. And the last image is just sort of a composite. So, again, showing that shift in the paving and the structure, again, just a quick diagram that we were really serious since we were taking the comments to heart and try to modify the design based on this.. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I assume, we left the public hearing open from the last meeting. So at this particular time I’m going to ask if there’s anybody in the public who would like to make comment on this particular project. So you were first, ma’am. So if you’ll identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-My name is Lorraine Ruffing, and I live at 66 Bay Parkway in Lake George, and I think you consider this a Major Project since it is in a Critical Environmental area, and I think it deserves your close scrutiny. Two houses, a covered walkway, a very large circular drive, two garages and a barn is really too much for this property, and if you consider the two lots together it’s 1.25 acres. The main house and the attached garage and the second house will tower above the surrounding cottages of the O’Keefe’s on the east and the Golds on the west. According to my calculation, there will be a 59% disturbance of the main parcel during the new construction, and I think we appear to be witnessing the miracle of pavers. In the most recent site development plan, impermeability has been reduced from the September figure of about 30% to the October figure of about 24%, which is within the allowable 25% for impermeability. However, I explain in my letter how they probably achieved this. So I’m going to spare you the math. I believe that according to the DEC stormwater design manual, pavers in heavy rain area, and just above the water table, should not be given a 50% credit. So please do check the calculation for impermeability. I think it is higher than 24%. And another aspect which concerns impermeability, I’m concerned about the removal of mature trees which do not figure in the landscaping plan, and the replacement by shrubs. They will do little to mitigate a water table which is two feet below the surface, and lastly the request for the setback variance is significant, 38% from the required 50 feet in the Town Code, and so given all this, I ask the Zoning Board to reject the current application, verify the reduction in the size of the impermeable area, require a more detailed plan for landscaping. I realize the Planning Board will also pass on that, and limit 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) the removal of mature trees, require the applicant to re-consider where he is placing the house on the property in order to meet the required setbacks. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Okay. Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper has concerns that remain about this project. The Town established Codes to limit the impacts of land use to the community and the environment and based these limitations on the size and constraints of a property. When relief is granted to these Codes, it must be demonstrated there is a balanced approach without negative impacts to the community and the environment. In my opinion this application fails to provide that balance for the following reasons. The property has extensive shoreline whose protective setback will be encroached upon by a structure and the hard scape patio The disturbance is proposed to extend well into the shoreline buffer restoration area. The application contains no detailed information on the mitigation measures on how this protective buffer will be established and falls well short of the requirements for shoreline buffers. There are alternatives such as reducing the size of the structure to fit this unique property that provides character to the southeastern part of the lake. There is concern regarding the extensive use of permeable pavers to circumvent the permeability calculation. Permeability is defined as ability of fluids to move freely through media and in land uses, this focuses on vegetative surface cover. It should be noted the project proposes significant reduction in the site vegetative cover and the soils to mitigate the increased stormwater runoff from the increase of impervious surface, really a 10% decrease in the surface vegetation cover on the property. The site design fails to meet the requirements of the New York State Stormwater Management Design Manual for permeable pavement and pavers which requires a three foot separation to groundwater, and I did attach the section of that in my letter. Therefore we don’t think this project should get credited for the permeable pavers because they don’t meet the requirements on how permeable pavers will actually function. The application fails to detail the impacts from the extensive disturbance and building size by excluding the tree removal as well as the encroachment into and reduction of the intermittent stream corridor by grading and removing important protective buffer material, and we’re looking at the eastern side of that project where there is that stream that goes through there, that drainage area and they’re really encroaching into that, removing the important vegetation. These impacts will be further exacerbated by the site constraints, depth to groundwater, that will reduce the effectiveness of the proposed stormwater mitigation measures, the rain gardens and the permeable pavers, leading to more runoff. The site’s limiting constraints are further demonstrated by the applicant’s previous application to the Zoning Board in March 2016 when their agent stated if they built a much larger structure than what was previously proposed, it is actually more detrimental to the water quality than if they kept it to the existing encroachments, and that was the previous application. They’re admitting that this will cause water quality problems. In summary, the proposed variances will have an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, be a detriment to nearby properties, have an adverse effect on the physical and environmental conditions and there alternatives exist. A couple of the quotes from last month that the Board had, the eco system is changing, far too much hardening, protective CEA is more important than building and lots of building on a prominent point So we recommend that you deny the application as proposed. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-You’re not required to answer, but a Board member would like to address you on this. MR. HENKEL-You talk about this groundwater that’s going through his property. Where is that groundwater coming from? Is it from him or is it from the property in the middle of that island? MR. NAVITSKY-The intermittent stream and the surface runoff? MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. NAVITSKY-I think it’s a drainage channel, stream from that area. So some of his property and some of it along the roadway and upland. MR. HENKEL-So he can’t get blame for all. MR. NAVITSKY-No, I’m not saying, that’s not his fault that the stream’s there. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. NAVITSKY-But by him reducing it, you know, he’s constricting that flow path and it’s going to cause bigger problems. That’s what my point is. So by having a much larger building and expanding that, he’s reducing that existing natural drainage way which will cause more problems. I’m not saying he’s the cause of that drainage way. MR. HENKEL-I understand that. Couldn’t there be something done on the other side of that road to trap some of that water so it doesn’t go into the lake and go across his property? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) MR. NAVITSKY-I would imagine. MR. HENKEL-So that’s something that the Town would have to do. Right? MR. NAVITSKY-I don’t know. You’d have to take a look at that. All I’m saying, obviously the road is a problem, or it causes runoff. I think it’s vegetative across, in the middle. I don’t know that area that well. MR. HENKEL-I’m just trying to say that he’s not all to blame. MR. NAVITSKY-No, he’s not to blame, but he’s not going to make that better. MR. MC CABE-That’s fine. Thank you very much. Okay. Ma’am? PAM LESTER GOLDE MRS. GOLDE-My name is Pam Lester Golde. I’m a registered landscape architect, as Pamela Lester, and I am the neighbor to the south of the parcel. I would like to note that even though he has the ability to do this design, he is not proposing any alternatives, not showing an alternative that meets the zoning requirements. If he pulled the house back about 15 feet and rotated it less than 90 degrees, it would all be within the 50 foot setback. Yes there would be some modifications to the building, but if you pulled, if you rotated it 90 degrees, if you pulled it back along that diagonal where it is highly pointed, you could get it out and then modify the connection between the garage and the house. The barn is two and a half cars. That’s what 500 square feet equals. That garage that he has, has six to eight feet in front of the cars and over three feet on either side. Which is more storage in any garage than probably most of us have. The other thing is that the 108 Lake Parkway, not 106 Bay Parkway, because legally it is Lake Parkway, the garage is listed garage/barn. They are showing four cars for that lot versus only four cars for the main lot when they actually have six, two on the surface of the permeable paving, two in the garage and two under the porte-cochere. The other thing is there is at least a four foot crawl space under the guesthouse that will be accessible by a staircase for storage. So the fact that he needs all of this extra storage by adding 500 square feet to this seems a little ludicrous. In regards to the permeable paving, permeable paving not only is used in green infrastructure for stormwater management, not only storage, but also for water quality. As Chris indicated, there’s supposed to be three feet between the cross section of the permeable pavement of dirt between that and the water table. The water table is 24 inches down based upon their 2016 test pit that they had done on the previous application, and the other thing that the stormwater manual indicates is that permeable pavement will be 100 feet away from a public drinking source. Lake George is a public drinking source. They are going to get their water from it, I get my water from it, and most of the people on the lake do as well. So this is closer, his permeable pavement is less than the 100 feet required. The pavement is 13 feet wide. He could reduce his permeable pavement down to 10 to 11 feet wide for a single lane driveway. It’s 13 now. You cannot pass two cars on 13 feet, and so this would allow for also a reduction in pavement in regards to the pervious surface. CAROL COLLINS DR. COLLINS-Good evening. My name is Carol Collins resident of Assembly Point. We have an extraordinary group of talent here tonight. I want to say that the engineering aspect that Chris has brought to the table, the landscape architecture aspect that Pam has brought, is critically important when we look at the pollutant that is most destroying Lake George right now, and that is the phosphorus load t that comes from stormwater runoff. I think we all know that now as demonstrated by all the algae blooms we have. So what’s happening here is when we put stormwater treatment in the groundwater, you’re not getting any of the absorption of the phosphorus that you should have in a normal soil base that’s not saturated. So this is not occurring. Permeable pavers are not acting as treatment. There’s no way this could be considered in the permeability calculation. It doesn’t exist. I’ve done enough calculations on these kinds of things and how soil reacts to the phosphorus compounds that we’re looking to stop and mitigate. We’re not mitigating anything here, and it just really, we could solve this problem by not pushing the envelope as this applicant has. We can pull back. We can size things appropriately for a 1.25 acre site. I mean this is a compound that’s on the site that’s really, a one acre site is really what is a conforming site for Lake George, and this is two sites put together. So I just hope you realize you guys are the front line, you’re the mid-line, you’re the back line of lake protection. This is what we have. It all stops with you guys. I’m so proud of the work you do, but boy this one is really, it just points the way to the future. It shows why we’re at 60% load now, where we were 30 years ago, of phosphorus. This is the reason. We can’t keep letting this happen, and I really implore you to look at these numbers. Don’t just believe that this is going to work. The soils can’t do this. Thank you. I appreciate it. By the way, you’re not supposed to change a stream with DEC. You can’t, you don’t modify streams or impinge on them. The only, is a wetland that’s, you know, part of the being of Lake George. It’s part of the goodness of Lake George. This groundwater is there because that’s where the lake water table brings is up to. That’s why that ground is saturated. It’s probably not really a buildable site, but, you know, but of course you’re going to allow them to do something, but it’s not the kind of site that can handle this, not especially in the most prominent spot in Lake George. Let’s do what we can. Thank you so much. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) MR. MC CABE-Anybody else. Roy, do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-Yes, that’s one letter from somebody who hasn’t spoken. “I am writing as a property owner and a seasonal resident on Bay Parkway on Assembly Point. Although the project has been modified a little bit since it was last before you, the variances are still substantial, will still harm the lake, and are still self-created. It appears that the applicants have not addressed many of the concerns and suggestions th raised by the ZBA members at the September 29 meeting. An alternative exists: the project could easily be redesigned to not need any variances, if the buildings and other improvements were somewhat reduced in size and number. The applications should be denied. The variance applications should still be denied. The fact that each of the two houses proposed by the West family still requires multiple variances shows that the houses are too big for the lots. The rules from which variances are sought – shoreline setbacks, permeability, size of accessory structures, and floor area ratio – are there for a reason, to protect the water quality and scenic beauty of Lake George. The proposed main house appears to be at least twice the size of the existing year-round house. The private desire of the property owners to build two oversized homes should not be allowed to override the important public purposes that are intended to be protected by the Town Zoning Law. The present plans require variances that would be substantial and would adversely affect the environment. The hardship is self-created, as a matter of law. There are still alternatives that would allow the property owners to achieve their apparent goal of expanding their housing. The plans could be revised to make the houses and other structures smaller, move the paved areas away from the lake, and rearrange the layout, all of which should allow for a project that does not require any variances. The “barn” could be eliminated by providing storage in the main house, or the garage. The lack of suitable conditions for a basement for storage is not unique or a hardship because the entire area is subject to similar water table conditions. The circular driveway is unnecessary, and could be shortened, thereby reducing the paved area. The project is still improperly classified as a Type II Action under SEQR For the reasons th stated in my letter to you of September 29, these applications are SEQR unlisted actions, not Type II actions, and a SEQR review is required. Conclusions. The applications should be denied and the applicants should be invited to submit plans that comply with all requirements of the Town Zoning Law, without any variances. Thank you for your consideration of these comments. Sincerely, John w. Caffry” MR. MC CABE-So a number of questions have been put out here. So I guess the first thing that we ought to talk about is buffering. There were some complaints about buffering and it seemed like you guys could answer that fairly quickly and easily. MR. KEIL-I mean I think right now along the shoreline, I wish I had an aerial image. I mean there’s mature trees that will remain kind of on that point. In our proposed landscape plan there, I mean there’s new vegetation that’s proposed around the house, and for stormwater, raingardens proposed as well. Generally speaking we’re proposing to re-vegetate. Obviously to build a house some of the more mature trees need to be removed, but as Jon said earlier, the whole house is within the footprint or further back than the existing house there. MR. MC CABE-So the second major issue here are the permeable pavers, and so in other applications the question is, well what happens if you have runoff from the permeable pavers and we’ve seen where kind of a trough has been created around the permeable pavers to kind of recycle runoff back down into the ground. Are you planning to do anything like that? MR. KEIL-Definitely. That’s something we’ve done on other projects where doing like a stone trench. To be frank I haven’t gotten into some of those details where there’s hydrologic connectivity between that sort of perimeter of stone that commenced taking water and putting it back into that reservoir beneath the pavers, beneath the predominance, so to speak. A lot of places that we do have the permeable pavers, I mean there is landscape area beyond that. So it’s not like we’re going directly into a water body. There’s a pretty good distance outside, we can pull that even further away from the lake, and then we do have the raingardens. I know there were some comments about groundwater and that’s definitely something that we’ll have to do, to do updated test pits on the site. Again, to be honest, it’s like we were trying to wait for approvals for zoning, because as the applicant lives in the house it would be pretty disruptive, given the current configuration, to do those test pits there, but once we do verify that, we’re happy to manipulate the elevation, the bottom of the raingardens to accommodate that separation to groundwater. MR. LAPPER-That would be Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-Absolutely, but the issues were raised. So, do you have other comments? MR. LAPPER-So, to begin with, the neighbors dislike of this I think is disproportionate, I think, to what we’re asking for now because we’re reduced these to pretty minor variances. Granted the setback to the lake for the house, you know, isn’t nothing but it’s better than what’s there now. What we’ve got now is a house with absolutely no stormwater maintenance facilities at all. So everything’s sheet flowing into the lake, and, you know, as I understand the neighbors’ properties are all grass without any stormwater facilities. So they’re worried about this but it’s really, it’s the new development like this that conforms to the stormwater, that infiltrates, that has holding tanks for septic. So this is making the whole situation dramatically better than what’s there now, dramatically better than many of the neighbors’ properties, and 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) in terms of, somebody made a comment that this towers above the surrounding houses. So we showed last time, and I know the Chairman wasn’t here last time, that this is really built into the roof gables It’s not like two stories plus a roof. It’s a John Witt roof, a very nice house, but it’s a little bit subtle in terms of, it could have been a bunch higher and still conform to the Town height restriction. So the goal here wasn’t to make it, it’s cottage style. It’s a large cottage, but it’s not as big as it could be in terms of towering, and the issue with permeability, we completely conform. The Town Engineer and the Planning Board will review that, but we’re not here to ask for a permeability variance. MR. MC CABE-And I understand that. MR. LAPPER-And pavers are a better way to go than concrete or asphalt. The issue with storage is that the garage does have to have some storage and there is no possibility of doing a basement here. It’s a year round house. So they do need some storage. It’s only, you know, when you look at floor area ratio on the main property, it was 77 square feet extra floor area ratio that we’re asking for, which is really, really minimum and on the south I think it’s 225 square feet. So these are not something you would notice driving by or boating by or from the neighbors. I mean these are really minor changes just to make it work for the site and for these applicants who’ve lived there for a while, and we really tried to take into account everything you said and to make it a better project than it was a month ago and to move it away from the lake, but we are constrained by the location and this lot with the lake on a bunch of sides, but we’re proud of where we’ve gotten and we think this is, on balance, going to be much better for the lake and the neighborhood than what’s there now. MR. MC CABE-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 John. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, could I just ask the applicant? MR. MC CABE-Absolutely. MR. KUHL-There was reference to 2016 test pits. The deepest one was 24, 27 inches or the shallowest one? MR. KEIL-I don’t have that in front of me, but if we do look at the lake elevation and just look at the grading plan and sort of extrapolate that continues, which isn’t always the case when you do test pits. I mean we’re having anywhere, currently the bottom of our basins right now is between four feet to about three feet. One is a little bit shy, but again we’re verify that once we get to, three feet from that lake level elevation. MR. KUHL-I’m sorry. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-No problem. John? MR. HENKEL-This is a large piece of , and unfortunately the shape of it is what’s creating a lot of this problem. We’d probably allow this on a normal property that’s not sticking out like a triangle. I think there’s definitely a project to be had here. I really don’t have too much problem with the floor ratio, but I do have problems with the connections of the two properties with a walkway, a covered walkway. I do still have a problem, as some of the neighbors have said, you could probably change the angle of the house a little bit and get it farther away from the lake, which probably wouldn’t be a bad idea, and I do still have a, your permeability is not a problem. I still have a problem with the amount of permeable pavers that you do have there. Like I said, I really don’t have a problem, I think the FAR variance is, you know, you’re only asking for 77 feet above. I do have a little bit of a problem with the size of the barn, with the size of the garage you do have there. There’s some large spaces there for storage. I mean I think it’s a beautiful, beautiful plan, but there are some things that can be done to make it a little bit better, I thought. So I’m not totally on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think that this is a good project, but I think that you can make, you can change some things you have here to get it more in compliance and with that said, I’m against it as presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think sometimes we start out with a project that has so many variances to begin with, and then we start whittling it down and whittling it down, and we think that’s an improvement over what was originally presented, but I have to stop myself and say, now if this came before us right today and we started from scratch with this, this wouldn’t be a good project. We wouldn’t think about it, or we would 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) have some questions at least, and I still do. I’m having trouble even counting the number of variances you’re asking for. I don’t know if there’s seven or six. There’s still quite a number of variances that are being asked for and some of them are substantial. Some of them are not, but there’s still quite a number of them, and when you have alternatives and feasible alternatives to consider, and you’re creating this project from scratch basically, I don’t want to say it’s time to go back to the drawing board, but I certainly think we need some more work on this. So I would be against it as it is now. MR. MC CABE-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-I definitely don’t have any issue with the floor area ratio. That’s not really a problem. The barn, as some other folks have said, I do have an issue with it. Also with that kind of being made that it could be moved, kind of rotated 15 feet, 90 degrees. I definitely see that, so at this point I’m kind of a no without those minor adjustments being made at this point. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I want to say I do appreciate that you did listen and you made alterations, but I do feel as though they are minor and this project is oversized for the area that you have. Some of the public’s comments are very useful. I had recommended maybe you don’t need this huge, circular driveway and that allows you to bring that building back and you rotate it as they mentioned. If it’s two separate driveways, I’m sure it’s serving the purpose of having the guesthouse and having a unison entertainment area, what have you, but for future sale of the lot, were it to happen, and we have to care about that. It doesn’t matter what the current owner wants to do. We have to care about the future of this lot. Two separate driveways may allow you to do more adjustment. We have no say over the Code and what is allowed, permeable pavers or anything, but, that being said, I just think there’s a lot on that lot that can be cut back in many ways. I almost would say the walkway could be re-designed. I don’t see the necessity for a covered walkway, quite frankly, and maybe consider infiltration systems under the permeable pavers, and under the raingarden if that hasn’t been considered, but as presented I’m against it at this point, and I will say once we eliminate the building that’s there, we no longer have a grandfathered project here. So we are starting from scratch. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think I still have concerns. Last time I asked you that I thought you could reduce some of your common areas by a third to a half and I still think you could take the garage and re-design with the garage as part of the main house without a separate structure. I think that you’re trying to fit too much in here. Even though we have a 22% floor area ratio, most of the time on the lake we’re dealing with maybe 100 feet of waterfront. You’ve got hundreds of feet of waterfront and you’re at a prominent position at the end of the point. I think there’ve been some valid concerns raised by the public and I think at this time the permeability issue, you know, if the State has a ruling that says you have to have three feet of permeable soil, I think that’s a valid concern also. So I’m not going to be in favor of your project. I think you should re-design strictly within the 22% floor area ratio and I think you should combine that garage with the end of that structure and that would eliminate and get you underneath what relief you have. MR. MC CABE-So the numbers aren’t coming out very well here. MR. LAPPER-So clearly we have to table both applications and see if we can go back and cut it down some more. MR. MC CABE-So, John? MR. HENKEL-When do you want to table it to? MR. LAPPER-As soon as possible. MRS. MOORE-So if you table it to November. Actually, I can’t. I apologize. You’d have to table it to December’s meeting. th MR. HENKEL-Okay. There’s only one in December. It’s the 15. th MRS. MOORE-It’s the 15. MR. HENKEL-So that’s it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. st MR. HENKEL-Okay. With any new information by the 1 of December? th MRS. MOORE-November 15. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) th MR. HENKEL-November 15. MRS. MOORE-Yes. nd MR. HENKEL-Another week would be November 22 Right? nd MRS. MOORE-The 22 is okay. I’ll discuss it with them and see if we can get enough information prior to that. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett & Pamela West. (Revised 10/4/2021) Applicant proposes to demo existing home and construct a new home with a 5,004 sq. ft. footprint (building footprint of 4,628 sq. ft. and porte-cochere of 376 sq. ft.) and a patio area of 825 sq. ft. (1,649 sq. ft. x 50% for permeable paving). The new floor area will be 8,764 sq. ft. including a detached 500 sq. ft. barn, the porte-cochere, and a covered walkway. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, driveway area, a covered walkway between the main home and a proposed home on the adjoining parcel. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, additional garage, size of accessory structure total, and floor area. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE), Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Tabled to the December 15, 2021 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, with any new nd information by November 22, 2021. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MRS. MOORE-You should say that you’re going to leave the public hearing open. MR. MC CABE-I’m going to open the public hearing for AV 57-2021. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) BRETT & PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 108 BAY PARKWAY (REVISED 10/4/2021) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITH 3,437 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND 2,250 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE HOME IS TWO STORY WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A COVERED WALKWAY FROM THE HOME TO THE PROPOSED ADJOINING HOME. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH A RAIN GARDEN, NEW SITE PLANTINGS, NEW SEPTIC, AND NEW LINE FOR DRINKING WATER. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND ACCESS FROM ADJOINING LOT. CROSS REF SP 52-2021; SEP 343-2021; AST 433-2020; DEMO 803-2019; PT 802-2019; AV 52-2009; SP 54-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-4-050 JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett & Pamela West. (Revised 10/4/2021) Applicant proposes construction of a new home with 3,437 sq. ft. floor area and 2,250 sq. ft. footprint. The home is two story with an attached garage. The project includes a covered walkway from the home to the proposed adjoining home. Site work includes stormwater management with a rain garden, new site plantings, new septic, and new line for drinking water. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and access from adjoining lot. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE), Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Tabled to the December 15, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information by nd November 22, 2021. th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-And so at this time I’m going to open the public hearing for AV 58-2021. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-So we’re all set. MR. LAPPER-We’ll see you in December. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our next application here is AV 71-2021, 22 Sherwood Drive, Jesse Hayes. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JESSE HAYES AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL OWNER(S) JESSE HAYES ZONING MDR LOCATION 22 SHERWOOD DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 998 SQ. FT. ATTACHED GARAGE TO THE EXISTING 2,100 SQ. FT. HOME. THE GARAGE ADDITION WILL HAVE STORAGE ABOVE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES ADJUSTING THE DRIVEWAY AND REMOVAL OF BASKETBALL COURT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A REAR ADDITION THAT DOES NOT REQUIRE A VARIANCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC 682-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.15-1-10 SECTION 179- 5-020 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JESSE HAYES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 71-2021, Jesse Hayes, Meeting Date: October 27, 2021 “Project Location: 22 Sherwood Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 988 sq. ft. attached garage to the existing 2,100 sq. ft. home. The garage addition will have storage above. The project includes adjusting the driveway and removal of basketball court. The project includes a rear addition that does not require a variance. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a garage addition needing relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The addition is to be 10 ft. 3 inches to the north side setback where a 25 ft. setback is required. The addition is to be 13 ft. 9 inches where a 30 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home and lot size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 14 ft. 9 inches and the front setback relief is 16 ft. 3 inches. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add 988 sq. ft. addition to the existing 1200 sq. ft. (footprint) home. The addition is for a garage with storage above. The applicant has an existing project that is under review for residential addition to the back of the home – does not require a variance only the garage addition requires a variance. The plans show the elevation views and floor plans for the home.” MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records, my name is Ethan Hall. I’m principle with Rucinski-Hall Architecture. With me tonight is the owner, Jesse Hayes. The project is as described. It’s a garage addition off the front of the house on Sherwood Drive. The setback relief from the front yard is requested based on the property line. It was a little strange when we got the survey that we thought that the property line was much closer to Sherwood Drive. Sherwood Drive is not from the center of the right of way. It’s farther off to the side than what would normally be considered. When we got the survey and looked at it, then we realized, we need a variance for the front yard. We knew that the side yard was going to be lining up with the existing house. It’s not encroaching any farther than the existing house encroaches into the side yard setback, but we didn’t figure with the driveway as long as it is it was going to be a front yard issue until we got the survey pulled together. So that’s where we’re at. So it appears as though we’re asking for a lot and technically I guess we’re asking for a moderate front yard setback, but it’s not going to be as close to the road as what you would think it was because the property line is so far back. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’ll open the public hearing and I’ll seek input from the audience. Is there anybody that would like to speak on this issue? Sir? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED FRANK WALTER MR. WALTER-My name is Frank Walter. I’m a licensed professional engineer, although I have not practiced for some years since my retirement. When I received notice of this project a few things caught by eye. Maybe more than a few things, since I live right across the street. It’s just the size of this proposed garage was the crux of the matter. It has a footprint of roughly 1,000 square feet, which is half the footprint of the existing house. So it’s quite large. It’s also very tall. I think the height is given at 20 feet. The house is only 16 feet. So this garage would rise four feet above the top of the house. Architecturally, I don’t know, all that is very questionable. I don’t know what the heck it would look like, although I did review the elevations, the site plan and the application. Setbacks. The house currently enjoys only a 10 foot setback from the northerly property line. How that happened 45 years ago I don’t know. This project proposes to extend that setback at 10 feet off the property line from the house on out to the street. So the garage would be only, would have a setback of only 10 feet from the northerly property line. And then for us more important, the front yard setback. Regulations currently impose a 30 foot setback. If you should go to Sherwood Drive and look up and down the street, you will notice that all the houses are set well back. I would say at least 30 feet, maybe more. My house is 35, and it presents a nice community. This garage proposes to push on out with a setback of only, I guess I’ll say 14 feet. So they’re looking to use 16 feet of that setback area for this garage. That’s one big bite, and it pushes the garage way out towards the street, beyond all the existing residences. Essentially to my way of thinking it would just be a great big sore thumb sticking out over there. Sixteen feet, that’s a long ways to push into the setback area. We’re not talking a foot or two. There’s a proposed new driveway which is an asset. There won’t be much front yard left with this new driveway. I can only presume that that’s necessary to back trailers and trucks and whatever into that garage. So I think perhaps we’re dealing more with a commercial garage, not a normal residential garage. The size of the garage, the size of the driveway. It dominates the area. So I think in summary, to use a phrase that’s asked in the application, a project such as this would certainly change the character of the neighborhood because it is more commercial than residential, I think, garage. I think that’s basically my concerns. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this matter? Is there any written communication, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, there is not. MR. MC CABE-So if you guys would come back here. So do you have any response to the public comment? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) MR. HALL-Sure. Laura, do you have the elevations there? So the height was brought up about the garage. There’s no variance being sought for height. MR. MC CABE-No, right. We understand. MR. HALL-The front of the garage. MR. MC CABE-Nor the size of the garage. MR. HALL-Correct. And so it does stick up. You can see the front sticks up. It does have a dormer over the top of it. It’s slightly higher than the top of the existing ridge. This was a ranch house with a very low pitch on it. Obviously no second floor on the existing ranch. So having the storage above the garage is a necessity. There is no garage there now. The original garage was one car that was converted into living space at some point. So that took care of that. So now there is a need for a garage. Everything parks in the yard right now. Nothing gets under cover. The existing driveway is coming out. So all that blacktop that’s there goes away. The proposed driveway is less flat topped than what’s there currently. Obviously the garage sits on top as part of that blacktop. So that takes care of that. The size of the garage, it’s basically an oversized two car garage. So it’s the vehicles that Jesse and his wife own and then there’s some storage space within the garage for things like garden things and mowers and things of that nature. So it’s not super big, and yes, 16 feet of the front yard is a moderate request, but again we’re a lot further away from the street than we thought, and there are some of the places in the neighborhood that are already closer. I think 10 Pinewood is like five feet from the front yard setback. Again, they’ve got some distance. MR. MC CABE-So just one more question. Are you planning a commercial operation? MR. HAYES-No. MR. MC CABE-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 when you talk, take your mask off because we were having trouble hearing you before. So I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it’s a modest home to begin with as many of them are on that street there. The anticipation of a two car garage is something we should all digest as they come before us. In this case here even though you’re going to be intruding into that space out front there, you’re still substantially setback from the actual pavement on the road. So I don’t really think it’s an extraordinary request. It’s a moderate request. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I know it’s not time for questions, but we were introduced to some new information. So I was just wondering, and there’s obviously no way you can put this in the back. You just don’t have the room to do it, but is it possible to do some sort of a shed and be able to reduce a little bit of the oversizing of the garage. MR. HALL-Only to be able to get into it, to make the turn to get into the garage. I mean if it was a front load garage it wouldn’t be a problem. We could reduce the depth of it, but in order to get in the side load and not see the garage door, and that’s kind of the reason. MR. HAYES-I’d like to add that the reason that we did it this way, the truck that I currently own is 22 feet long. So honestly, at 10 feet, if we were to do it the other way, which would be my truck and my wife’s vehicle, it would actually encroach into the center of the house more than, I mean it’s already taken. MRS. HAMLIN-Taken a chunk out. Yes. MR. HAYES-We definitely took that into consideration. MRS. HAMLIN-So it’s just leftover space regardless of what. MR. HAYES-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, again, I think that we’re maintaining a lot of the existing setbacks and other houses in the neighborhood have garages and this is just the way the property is laid out. So I would be in favor of granting this variance. MR. MC CABE-Jackson? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) MR. LA SARSO-Yes. I would vote in favor of this. I have no problems with this as it is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application as presented. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think the size of the lot with the location of the house where it is, this seems to be a good project. It’s kind of like a minimal request. I appreciate what the neighbor said, but there’s only so much you can do on a lot this size. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with my Board members. I’d be on board with it as is. MR. MC CABE-And I also support the project. I think in the Northeast you’ve got to have a garage. So the question is how do you orient the garage, and you could say various things, but really what we’re trying to do here is suit the needs of the applicant and that seems like what we’re doing. So I’m going to ask Ron if you’d configure us a motion here. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jesse Hayes. Applicant proposes to construct a 988 sq. ft. attached garage to the existing 2,100 sq. ft. home. The garage addition will have storage above. The project includes adjusting the driveway and removal of basketball court. The project includes a rear addition that does not require a variance. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a garage addition needing relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The addition is to be 10 ft. 3 inches to the north side setback where a 25 ft. setback is required. The addition is to be 13 ft. 9 inches where a 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 27, 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 as this addition is moderate. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the location of the home on the property and have been considered by the Board and they are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Just adding to the existing house, if you will, just a garage. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created, but that’s only due to the location of the house. 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. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2021 JESSE HAYES, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Jim Underwood: Duly adopted this 27th Day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. HALL-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 72-2021, 33 Tuthill Road, Brett Streeter. AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT STREETER ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 33 TUTHILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF A 520 SQ. FT. DECK AND TO CONSTRUCT A 104 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION. THE OPEN DECK IS USED AS THE FRONT ENTRY AREA TO THE HOME. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SITE OR EXISTING HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 783-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-9 SECTION 179-9-040 BRETT STREETER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2021, Brett Streeter, Meeting Date: October 27, 2021 “Project Location: 33 Tuthill Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete replacement of a 520 sq. ft. deck and to construct a 104 sq. ft. deck addition. The open deck is used as the front entry area to the home. There are no changes to the site or existing home. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for reconstruction of deck replacement needing relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant has replaced an existing 520 sq. ft. deck and a 104 sq. ft. deck addition for a total deck of 624 sq. ft. The deck is to be located 67 ft. from the property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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 remove the new portion of the deck. The existing home and deck was constructed in 2002 when the setbacks for the zone were Front 50 ft. Rear and Sides 30 ft. setbacks. The setbacks for RR was changed in 2009. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 8 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: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) The applicant requests to maintain a rebuilt deck of 520 sq. ft. and the deck expansion of 104 sq. ft. The project was identified by the Building Department requiring a building permit, it was then determined the project would require relief. The applicant wasn’t aware of the requirements when the project started. The applicant has indicated the deck was in need of replacement.” MR. STREETER-Hi. I’m Brett Streeter, property owner. MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward. MR. STREETER-The deck was deteriorated and needed to be replaced and extending out toward the front property line, there was a question on, because the property line on the side of my house doesn’t run perpendicular. So I had a survey done. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing. So is there anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No comments. MR. MC CABE-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 Roy. MR. URRICO-I think this is a pretty straightforward application. I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I’d be in favor of it. It’s straightforward. These projects like this I’d say, why does the applicant have to go through this expense. I’m sorry, but it’s part of the process. So I’d be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s a large piece of property. It’s five acres. Unfortunately it’s the shape of the property that’s creating the problem. It’s very minor. So I’d be on board with this. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD- from the 8 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement isn’t very much. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-So, yes, it’s a minimal request. It’s out of necessity. It’s almost a replacement in kind. So I would vote in favor of the variance. MR. MC CABE-And, Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Of course I’m in favor. It’s a great project. It’s unfortunate that you folks have to come here and deal with this stuff, but it is what it is. MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, support the project. The request is minimal. There’s not many people who are going to observe this calculation here and so I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett Streeter. Applicant proposes to complete replacement of a 520 sq. ft. deck and to construct a 104 sq. ft. deck addition. The open deck is used as the front entry area to the home. There are no changes to the site or existing home. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for reconstruction of deck replacement needing relief for setbacks. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021) Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant has replaced an existing 520 sq. ft. deck and a 104 sq. ft. deck addition for a total deck of 624 sq. ft. The deck is to be located 67 ft. from the property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 27, 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. It’s pretty much a replacement in kind. 2. Feasible alternatives, we did consider them, but this seems to be reasonable as is. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s only, as was mentioned, eight feet out of the seventy-five foot setback. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. As it’s all pretty much pre-existing. 5. The alleged difficulty would still be considered self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2021 BRETT STREETER, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 27th Day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. STREETER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TH OCTOBER 27, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 27 day of October, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 17