Loading...
AV 74-2021 Minutes 11.17.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH JR. OWNER(S) FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH, JR. ZONING WR LOCATION 211 ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO RAISE AN EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME TO INSTALL A FULL BASEMENT WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,550 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING REAR DECK OF 444 SQ. FT. TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A 356 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING FRONT DECK OF 220 SQ. FT. TO BE REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH A 458 SQ. FT. DECK. THE SITE HAS APPROVAL FOR 154 SQ. FT. ADDITION. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 1,949 SQ. FT. IS INCREASED TO 2,786 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA, AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 70-2021; SP 15-2020; SP 38-1995 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO 226.19-2-18 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-13-010 FRANCIS STEINBACH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 74-2021, Francis & Erin Steinbach, Jr., Meeting Date: November 17, 2021 “Project Location: 211 Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. (footprint) home to install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq. ft. The existing rear deck of 444 sq. ft.to be removed and replaced with a 356 sq. ft. deck. The existing front deck of 220 sq. ft. to be removed and replaced with a 458 sq. ft. deck. The site has approval for 154 sq. ft. addition. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. is increased to 2,786 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure for construction of a basement area and deck areas. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 9,138 sq. ft. parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The front deck is to be 7 ft. 10 inches where a 30 ft. setback is required, 3.2 ft. to the south property line and 2.4 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The proposed permeability is to be 67% where 75% is required. The floor area is to be 30.5% (2,786 sq. ft.) where 22% is maximum allowed (2010.36 sq. ft.) Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the relief requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief for the front deck 22 ft. 2 inches, south side is 16.8 ft. and the north side is 17.6 ft. Permeability is 8% more hard surfacing than allowed. Floor area is 8.5% more than allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home where the home is to be lifted to install garage/storage area underneath the home to convert a crawl space to a basement. Relief is requested for three sides of the home as there are new foundation walls. The decks proposed to the rear and the front of the home will also need setback relief. The plans show the location the decks and the new basement area. The project includes new entry steps that are to have stormwater infiltration as part of the design.” (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 2 MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted seven, zero on November 16th, 2021. MR. MC CABE-Please identify yourself. MR. STEINBACH-My name is Francis Steinbach and my wife and I own 211 Assembly Point Road. Now you want a description of the project? MR. MC CABE-Well, I guess probably the most pertinent thing would be there are quite a few variances asked for here. How many of these are new because of what you plan to do? MR. STEINBACH-They’re all just modifications to what was pre-existing with the home. Primarily what has happened is the foundation on the home has failed and there’s water infiltration. The back wall to the house collapsed and the previous owner built a wall inside the wall. The back of the house does not have foundation under the sill plate. It’s actually floating, and the water is coming in to the basement through there. So that’s one of the reasons why we’re requesting this to lift the house and get a foundation under it because my wife and I plan on retiring there and we’re not getting any younger, and of course as I explained to her, you know, I can’t continue on maintaining a structure as is. There’s other variables that have come into play. The parking situation. There’s not a lot of parking on Assembly Point Road. The house, with the proximity to Assembly Point, there’s really only two parking spots. So that’s why we’re requesting the full basement so we can have parking underneath the house. There’s also no real storage in the house. That’s why we’re requesting a full basem ent, so we can have storage. We are not making an entryway from the first floor to the basement area. I know that’s one of the concerns, that it would be converted into living area. It will not. It’s for storage only. And also, Sunset Lane only h as parking six months out of the year because of snow removal, and when we have friends and family over, of course that’s why we’re looking for additional parking so we can pull our vehicles in under the house and then we would have that parked in front of the house. Other than that, if there’s any questions. MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a few questions. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, John. MR. HENKEL-I know this is a very difficult piece of property because you’re so close to the lake and it’s right on the road there, but this permeability is getting to be quite a problem on Assembly Point because you’ve got a lot of problems with algae blooms and that and permeability is a big problem. I see you’re going to pave the apron in front of your garage. You probably should go to permeable pavers, although that’s not going to help a lot with relief there, but it still would help. I know there’s not a lot you can do. Like you said, there’s no way of accessing that property back or the sides. So you’re in trouble there. MR. STEINBACH-Especially, if I can interrupt you for one second, if that’s okay. MR. HENKEL-Yes, go for it. MR. STEINBACH-We can’t really access it from the rear any longer. One of the problems that we faced when we first purchased the house is we had to get the septic re-done and we went for an enhanced system. We went for the Claris system, with the septic. That being said, we have the Claris tank, we have the septic tank, and the leach field and with this excavation, Larman Builders is going to do the lifting of the house. Chris Crandall’s going to do the excavation. So we have to go in from the fron t now because we can’t disturb what has already been built in the back. MR. HENKEL-You definitely have a good guy there. That Crandall does a nice job. MR. STEINBACH-Yes, he does. MR. HENKEL-But like I said the main problem is definitely try and ge t some more permeability there if you can possibly. I don’t know who you’ve talked to about that or not. Definitely the permeable pavers would help. It’s not going to help a lot, but it would help a little bit. MR. STEINBACH-And we’re not opposed to that. And we actually discussed that. MR. HENKEL-The FAR variance is a little bit sketchy, but the permeability probably is more of a concern because like I said Assembly Point has been having a lot of problems with the algae. If there’s any way you can reduce that deck a little bit, coming out of the front of the house, too. That’s my concern. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 3 MR. UNDERWOOD-I had a question on the garage. Are you going to come in at grade level or are you going to drop down? MR. STEINBACH-No, we plan on coming in at grade level. If we go down, we’re going to end up with flooding of the basement area and then we’re back to the same situation that we were in, or that we’re currently in. It’s going to come off the road. MRS. HAMLIN-When it was read in, there was mention of the various stormwater provisions. What do you know about those, and can you expand on that? MR. STEINBACH-Well, in speaking with Chris Crandall, he’ll do, when he excavates around the house, before putting the foundation in, we will put in drainage around the house. We’re also going to have gutters put on the house and any type of, you know, pavers we can put down that will allow or provide additional permeability, we’ll make sure to do that as well. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, that is also my concern and I think there’s opportunities for some sort of provisions on this, because you’re so close to the road and pitch all the way down to the lake. MR. STEINBACH-Right. And when we purchased that house, the driveway was paved as it is now. We didn’t pave that after we took possession of the house. MRS. HAMLIN-But you are dropping the permeability further down from what it was and that’s a concern. MR. URRICO-Is there any way to reduce the size of the front deck? You’re more than doubling the size. MR. STEINBACH-I mean we’d like to keep it as is if possible. MR. URRICO-It says it’s going to be removed and replaced with a deck. MR. STEINBACH-Correct. Yes. MR. URRICO-Is there any way to reduce the size of the replacement deck? MR. STEINBACH-What size are you looking for us to bring it back? MR. URRICO-I’m just saying it’s more than double the size of what’s there now. That’s a problem for me. MR. STEINBACH-Is that something that the? MR. URRICO-That’s just me. MR. STEINBACH-That the Board could make recommendations on? MR. MC CABE-We look to you to say what you need. MR. STEINBACH-Okay. Well, I mean it’s something that my wife and I discussed it. I mean that’s the focal point of the house. The house isn’t a large house. It’s only the two of us. It’s a retirement home for us. We’re hoping to have family come and visit us, and when they come and visit us it would primarily be in the summer months, I would think, and that’s where, you know, most of the gatherings are going to be held, and that’s the reason that we had the deck at the size that it was. MR. URRICO-See when we consider a variance, we’re not trying to put a noose around your neck and say this is what it has to be, but we’re also supposed to provide you only with minimal relief, not the most you can get out of us. We’re trying to give it a fair balance. MR. STEINBACH-Right. I understand that. MR. MC CABE-Brady, go ahead. MR. STARK-Well my question’s regarding the primary residence have kind of been answered, but, Frank, are you a home inspector? MR. STEINBACH-I am. MR. STARK-Did you inspect the home that I sold a few months back? MR. STEINBACH-Yes, I did. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 4 MR. STARK-I knew you looked familiar. That’s all the questions I had. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak with regards to this particular project. So I see somebody. So if you would give up your seat. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS CARTE MR. CARTE-Chris Carte again, and I did provide written comments. I’m not sure if the Board received them. MR. URRICO-I have it. Would you rather me read it, or would you rather speak in person? MR. CARTE-I can read it. That’s fine. My name is Chris Carte and I’m representing the Carte family, neighbors of the Steinbach’s. We’re at 213 Assembly Point Road, and our comments are as follows.. While increasing the size of the existing nonconforming structure, in any way, on such a small parcel of land, seems somewhat inappropriate, we have no strong objection to the proposed plans for the back of the house, provided that, if possible, a stipulation is recorded that there will be no cutting or trimming of the natural tree/hedge buffer that exists between our properties. Nor do we have any objections regarding the raising of the house for the installation of the basement. I have no problem with that. The proposal to more than double the size of the deck on the front of the house, however, is very concerning. To take an already nonconforming structure, with respect to the 30 foot setback from the front prop erty line, and greatly reduce that setback even further, seems somewhat inappropriate, especially given the lakefront setting. I believe some of the criteria for considering variance include matters such as negative effect on the character of the neighborhood, adverse impact on neighboring properties and whether or not the relief sought is substantial. As much as we wish to remain good neighbors with the Steinbachs, this request to enlarge the front deck checks all of those boxes, and we request that th e Board consider denying that portion of the plans. Thank you for the opportunity to provide input. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Is there additional written comment? MR. URRICO-Is Chris done? MR. MC CABE-He’s all done. MR. CARTE-All set? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. URRICO-“I am a homeowner on Assembly Point, and I have reviewed the plans for the Steinbach property. It is my understanding that a variance(s) is required for this project. As a previous adjacent landowner and still a neighbor, I suppor t the project. It is an existing building and appears to request minimal modifications/additions but needs the replacement of a compromised foundation. Based on the plans and discussion, I support the variance (s) requested by Frank and Erin Steinbach. Thank you and if you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. John Graziano 195 Assembly Point Rd. Formerly of 2 Sunset” “My name is John Owen. I live at 202 Lake Parkway Lake George NY 12845. I have lived on Assembly Point, where the subject property is located, for over 50 years. I have seen camps torn down with mega mansions appearing. It’s nice to see someone taking an older camp, updating it, and giving it a fresh start in life, with a few modifications. This will be a gre at example for the rest of Assembly Point. John H. Owen” “I live seasonally at our home on Assembly Point, Lake George, just a few houses from Frank and Erin Steinbach who reside at 211 Assembly Point Road. They have been good neighbors. They have shared with me their 8/21/21 site plan application submitted to the Town to make additions to their home. I understand this matter may be heard by Queensbury next week. I have no objection to the plan or the Town approving a variance to allow them to improve their home as provided in the plans. Sincerely Yours, Scott B. Dubin” It says his seasonal address is 11 Sunset Lane. And his winter address is 341 Glen Avenue, Lawrenceville, New Jersey. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing, well, actually, Frank, I’ll let you make comment to the public input there if you have any. MR. STEINBACH-The only input that I would have is that, you know, we continue, or will continue to be good neighbors. It’s just my wife and I living in the house. The house will not be turned into a party capital, as some people refer to it. It’s our residence. The people that will come and visit will be our sons. We have two adult sons, mother and father in law and our own family, sisters and brothers. Basically that’s it. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 5 PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t really have a problem with what you’re requesting to do as far as raising the house and putting a garage underneath it. I think, you know, as far as the floor area ratio goes, we wouldn’t really consider garage space to be living space. So I think I can allow the excess that’s been proposed here as far as that goes, but I would be in agreement with John and some of the other members of the Board as far as the deck on the front of the house. It’s a busy street there. I see no reason why you need to have such a large deck. You could build a deck half the size of that and it would be reasonable and it would give you enough room to allow you to use the outdoor facilities. So at this time I’m not going to approve it unless you change the deck. MR. MC CABE-So I’ll put a yes with condition? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-As far as the deck is concerned, I appreciate the fact that you have a beautiful piece of property and you want to be able to enjoy it. If there wa s a way to scale it back and still get more than what you have now but without going maybe quite so far, but I also think that that married with some more stormwater. I notice you have lawn behind the wall. There may be something that could be put in there that could help mitigate some of the permeability issues. I would like to see, I personally wouldn’t vote tonight to approve it. I think you need to go back. MR. STEINBACH-Just so I understand, you’re saying lawn behind the wall? MRS. HAMLIN-You have lawn behind this new wall you’re putting in. Right? The retaining wall, there’ll be lawn there? MR. STEINBACH-No. MR. HENKEL-What wall are you talking about? MRS. HAMLIN-I thought you were putting a retaining wall. MR. STEINBACH-No. MRS. HAMLIN-I see a picture of a retaining wall. MR. STEINBACH-On the font of the house? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. STEINBACH-That’s like a planter box. MRS. HAMLIN-So behind it, I’m thinking that some sort of stormwater mitigation could be put in there that would take some of the. MR. STEINBACH-Well that will be taken out when they put in the new foundation, and that’s where the second garage door would go is in, you’ll enter underneath the house. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I think that more stormwater mitigation needs to be added. MR. MC CABE-So you’re a no? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m a no at this point. MR. MC CABE-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-I’m kind of with the fellow Board members at this point. I’d like to see that hard surfacing brought down a little bit. You’re at 30% right now. I think you can bring that down pretty reasonably. I don’t think that would be too hard for you. I think obviously if you brought that deck back closer to what it was, that 220 square feet number, you’ll probably get closer to the 75% there. At this point without those I’m a no until this changes. MR. MC CABE-Or are you a yes with conditions? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 6 MR. LA SARSO-If those could get changed tonight, then I would be in favor. If not, then I’m a no. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John? MR. HENKEL-There’s definitely a project to be had here, and I understand there’s not much you can do, especially with that caving wall there. So it definitely makes it a good idea to put a new foundation under there an raise the house, but with the information we have here right now, I think you have to come back to us with a better project that shows the permeability and also the deck change in the front needs to be changed a little bit, and the permeability of the pavers in the front. So I don’t think you have a project tonight that we can really work with. So I’m not on board with it as is. I think there’s a project to be had here. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m basically in agreement with everybody else. The only stop for me is the size of the deck really changes the complexity of the project and the amount of, the size of the variances that we have to provide as a result. So I think if we can scale that back everything else would look much better, too. I would be in favor of that, at that point. MR. MC CABE-So, Brady? MR. STARK-Like my other Board members said, I don’t have an issue with any of the other elements of the project. It looks like everybody has an issue with the size of the deck. The other parts of the project seem pretty straightforward. Would there be like an option to table this and then have them come back but with a reduced deck? MR. MC CABE-That’s up to him. So are you a no, or are you a yes with a condition? MR. STARK-Yes with a condition. MR. UNDERWOOD-How wide is your deck you have right now? MR. STEINBACH-Because of the way that house is shaped, it comes out seven foot and eight foot. MR. UNDERWOOD-And you are proposing 14 feet? MR. STEINBACH-I believe 15 foot out from the house. MR. MC CABE-So I think that, you know, I’m definitely for raising the house and replacing the foundation, but you’re kind of asking for a lot here in terms of variances. So if we could half the deck and replace the, and put in permeable pavers, then I would be in favor of the project. So the permeable pavers would be. MR. STEINBACH-Put down where the pavement is presently. MR. MC CABE-Right. MR. STEINBACH-I’m not opposed to that. MR. MC CABE-So if we conditioned half the deck. MR. STEINBACH-Half the deck size. MR. MC CABE-And add permeable pavers where the. MR. STEINBACH-The asphalt is. MR. MC CABE-Right. MR. STEINBACH-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Then would that be acceptable to you? MR. STEINBACH-Yes. MR. HENKEL-But don’t we need to have the numbers. He would have to come back to us with the exact numbers. We don’t know what the permeability is going to be. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 7 MR. MC CABE-But he only has so many options here in terms of improving permeability. I mean unless he wants to take the whole, or else your other option here would be to table this, go back and study a little bit, and so you know what several of the Board members are looking for, come back with a more positive proposal. MR. HENKEL-We really don’t know what the setbacks are and everything unless you get exact. MR. UNDERWOOD-Plus you’re going to have to let the public comment on it again, too. MR. HENKEL-So I think it’s got to be tabled. Well, that’s his choice. MR. MC CABE-That’s his choice. So you don’t have enough yes votes here. It sounds like a number of votes will turn yes if we improve permeability and cut back on the deck size. So what we can do is we can table your request until you get a chance to take a look at those things and make some changes. MR. STEINBACH-Sure, yes, we’ll do it. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’d make the recommendation that we have seven and a half feet now, that we go to ten feet or eleven feet on the deck, as opposed to fifteen. MR. MC CABE-Yes, well we’ll let him come up with that. As John said, without hard numbers here we’re really just shooting in the air. So could we get a proposal here for a tabling. MR. STEINBACH-Well, can I ask the Board, would it be acceptable if we were to cut it back to around 11 feet? MR. HENKEL-I’d like to know the exact numbers. MR. MC CABE-Yes, and I think John’s right. We really need to see the numbers. MR. HENKEL-As Jim was saying you’re going to have to have it open to the public again for those changes. MRS. MOORE-So I’m just going to jump in reference to tabling and the date to table it to. At this time I have very limited room in the December agenda. It would most likely be tabled to the January timeframe. My concern is that I know you have people on retainer for lifting the house, and granted we’re not supposed to take that into account, but I’d rather, if you can tell me, is it imminent that you’re in the process of raising that house? MR. STEINBACH-Yes, I mean I have contractors that are lined up and ready to go, and we were hoping to start in September, but that was held up with getting all the paperwork in, but, yes, I mean, that’s where we’re at. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t think there was any outcry from the public as far as raising the house goes. Is there any reason why we couldn’t approve the house without the deck and the deck would come back later? MR. HENKEL-Is that possible? MRS. MOORE-If the applicant wants to remove that portion of the project from the agenda, or from your application, you could do that. I mean it does not change the permeability at this time because again, that deck is over the existing pavement. So the permeability would remain, or the relief requested for the permeability would remain the same at this point, but the applicant would come back with a new proposal talking about the deck and my guess is that at that time they could offer the information about the permeability, but that would mean this Board would be granting the permea bility relief. MR. HENKEL-I’m not really comfortable doing that. I can understand his problem with wanting to get that raised. MRS. HAMLIN-Can I ask Laura a question? MRS. MOORE-Sure. MRS. HAMLIN-Is there any type of, because it does seem to me like the raising of the house and fixing the basement is imminent. I mean it has to be taken care of obviously. Is there any type of emergency authorization for him to do that part and still table this? MR. MC CABE-It’s not just us. I assume that after this he’s got to go to the Planning Board. Right? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 8 MRS. MOORE-Correct. Yes. So if the applicant, if you remove the deck situation, that would be off the table for both projects in that sense. So you wouldn’t be, the Board could do that. The applicant could say I’m removing the deck from this project and if I come back and the deck is still an issue, then I have to come back before the Board. MR. URRICO-Well, what part of raising the house really triggers these variances? I mean he’s n ot going to be installing the basement with the FAR ratio. MR. MC CABE-Well it’s a non-conforming. MR. URRICO-He’s not installing anything yet. He’s just raising the basement. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So it’s not only raising the basement. It’s the actua l new foundation wall. So that new construction is what’s triggering all those variances. MR. URRICO-A wall, though, is not a basement. Right? MRS. MOORE-As soon as he put the two new bricks on it, then it triggers that variance. So, yes, it’s a technicality, but that’s the way it’s worded for being compliant with the Code. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t see any reason why at this late time of the year that we need to be concerned with doing construction. It’s going to be December in a couple of wee ks and I think that with the way you have a full project completed, you know, even though we were trying to give you some tentative approvals, we know where the Board is at right now at the present time. So if you come back I think at a later time. MR. STEINBACH-So basically I’m telling my contractors no go until January. MR. MC CABE-Right. MR. URRICO-If they can get into the ground in January, hopefully we won’t have a freeze before then. MR. STEINBACH-So there’s no way that this can be approved for the foundation part of it if I were to pull back on the deck part of it? MR. MC CABE-No, because you’re still over on the permeability and the floor area ratio, right? MR. URRICO-You want to get it done right. MR. HENKEL-If the basement has gone this long like that, what’s going to be one more winter? MR. STEINBACH-Okay. MR. HENKEL-It’s better to have a good project. MRS. MOORE-Yes, I wanted to provide those opportunities. So the other option is re-evaluating your December agenda. Right now you’re up to six items. If you tabled it and gave the applicant a little bit of opportunity to turn the information in, because we’re past our deadline for December, that’s seven items. That’s a lot of items for your agenda. MR. MC CABE-Well it would be easy for me to say yes because I’m not here. I think it’s fair to put it off until January. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-So you want to go January the first meeting or the second? The 19 th or the 26th? MRS. MOORE-So you’re going to table it to the January 19th meeting with information due by December 15th. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Do you want to table it? Is that your decision? MR. STEINBACH-I don’t have a choice at this point. MR. HENKEL-Well, you do. MR. MC CABE-You can ask for a vote, but you’re not going to make out well. MR. STEINBACH-Right. I have no choice. I have to table it. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/17/2021) 9 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Francis & Erin Steinbach, Jr. Applicant proposes to raise an existing 1,352 sq. ft. (footprint) home t o install a full basement with a footprint of 1,550 sq. ft. The existing rear deck of 444 sq. ft.to be removed and replaced with a 356 sq. ft. deck. The existing front deck of 220 sq. ft. to be removed and replaced with a 458 sq. ft. deck. The site has approval for 154 sq. ft. addition. The existing floor area of 1,949 sq. ft. is increased to 2,786 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 74-2021 FRANCIS & ERIN STEINBACH, JR., Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Tabled to the January 19th , 2022 meeting with any new information by December 15th, 2021. Duly adopted this 17th day of November, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt