Loading...
12-15-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH DECEMBER 15, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 62-2021 Antonio & Maria Civitella 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 239.7-1-20 Area Variance No. 57-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Main House) 2. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-17 Area Variance No. 58-2021 Brett & Pamela West (Guest House) 12. Tax Map No. 226.15-1-16 Area Variance No. 76-2021 Marc Awad 13. Tax Map No. 279.-1-52 Area Variance No. 77-2021 Justin Mootz 17. Tax Map No. 290.-1-69 Area Variance No. 78-2021 Albert Gjonbalaj 20. Tax Map No. 288.16-1-88 Area Variance No. 79-2021 Frank Sinatra 25. Tax Map No. 227.9-1-4 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 12/15/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING TH DECEMBER 15, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT JAMES UNDERWOOD, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL JACKSON LA SARSO, ALTERNATE BRADY STARK, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT CATHERINE HAMLIN MICHAEL MC CABE BRENT MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. UNDERWOOD-Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for th December 15, 2021. We’ll have a full agenda this evening. We only have six Board members sitting. So if anybody feels that they want to table to a later meeting, then they’ll have that option also, based upon how the Board is leaning later in the meeting. First up we have a couple of administrative items. We have th approval of meeting minutes from November 17, 2021. APPROVAL OF MINUTES th November 17, 2021 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 17, 2021, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt th MR. UNDERWOOD-And second we have the tabling of Area Variance 62-2021, Civitella, to January 19, 2022. They had new information that was submitted as of today, and so that’ll be done at that time. So I’ll need a tabling motion. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: TABLE AV 62-2021 (CIVITELLA) TO JANUARY 19, 2021 WITH NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY DEC. 15, 2021 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Antonio & Maria Civitella. Applicant proposes demo of existing home to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,924 sq. ft. and a floor area of 5,465 sq. ft. The project includes installation of patio area on the lake side, new driveway area of permeable patio product, new steps to future sun-deck and dock, a permeable patio with outdoor grill area, new fire pit area, new septic, new well, new site plantings and new shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, shoreline planting plan for vegetation removal, stormwater measures steep slopes within 50 ft. of new home, and work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, permeability, and infiltration practice. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2021 ANTONIO & MARIA CIVITELLA, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) th Tabled to the January 19, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting and any new information has been th submitted by December 15, 2021. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. LaSarso, Mr.. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Mc Cabe, Mr. McDevitt MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. First up this evening under Old Business, we’ll have Area Variance 57-2021. That’s the Brett and Pamela West project. That’s the Main House which we’ve heard on two previous occasions. 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 11/22/2021) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A 5,004 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF 1,649 SQ. FT. OF PERMEABLE PATIO AREA, A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A 500 SQ. FT. BARN. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8.764 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING SHORELINE AN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE SEPTIC, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT , DRIVEWAY AREA, A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE MAIN HOME AND A PROPOSED HOME ON THE ADJOINING PARCEL. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, ADDITIONAL GARAGE, 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, & JOHN WITT, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2021, Brett & Pamela West (Main House), Meeting Date: December 15, 2021 “Project Location: 106 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: (Revised 11/22/2021) Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new home with a 5,004 sq. ft. footprint with a garage. Also included is installation of 1,649 sq. ft. of permeable patio area, a covered walkway between the two properties, and construction of a 500 sq. ft. barn. The new floor area will be 8,764 sq. ft. 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. Project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. 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, 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 Revised December 2021. The new home is to be located 37.5 ft. to the east shoreline, 34 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. 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: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) 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 of 12.5 ft., west shoreline 16 ft. The covered walkway 20 ft. Relief for an additional garage. 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, and John Witt, the house designer for the new construction, is right behind us if you have any questions on the architecture. We just gave Laura some artist renderings of the house on the Point. She’ll put the up in a few minutes when we get there, but just to get started, a little background. Brett wanted to just give a little bit of history. You might have seen the obituary. His dad passed away last week. So some of the family history. His mom was a Seelye and the Wests and the Seelye’s owned, for generations have been on the lake. Brett grew up in Queensbury, was a Queensbury high school graduate. Went to Connecticut for business and would up selling his business and had the opportunity to move back and buy what’s really a dream piece of property on the Point on Assembly Point. Of course they started out thinking that they’d renovate the log cabin that’s there now, but it’s really dilapidated and doesn’t work. So they had the opportunity to buy the property next door and that’s why we’re here to try and use them both to do something really spectacular on the Point, but, you know, spectacular in design, but this is certainly not a mansion, and Phil Morse next door is a mansion. This is trying to be tasteful and fit in with the Point. So starting with, if you look at the mapping you see the red lines on the lake setback. Since we were here the last time the house was twisted and it was pulled back away from the lake another three feet on the north side. So the two areas that are outside the red line, because they can’t use that triangle piece because that doesn’t make sense for a home. So first if you look at the dark red line where the setback is and you see that there’s only those two areas where the house encroaches on the setback. That’s really just because of the constraints of this being a point. On the south side the guest home conforms to the setback. In terms of the variances, we’ve now, over the course of the last two meetings, reduced it even further. So the main house is at 22.2% FAR which is essentially conforming at 22%, and the guest house is 23.5. So these are now very minor variances compared to the Code. The way it works together with the driveway reduces permeability and there’s a large existing buffer which they planted on the south side a hedge to block the neighbor from the south. What’s most interesting about this is the covered walkway, and that’s, what they’re trying to build is a historic, great camp look and that’s why they have the barn, which is a historic looking barn, and the covered walkway, but we previously reduced the width of the covered walkway to reduce the floor area ratio, and I think this is probably a good time to show the perspective from John Witt. So that’s the lakeside and it’s worth pointing out here that this isn’t, and I mentioned this before, it’s not a two story with a roof. The second story is mostly built into the roof. So it reduces the profile a lot from what somebody else might do and still have the same floor area. So that’s the perspective looking from the road. You see the lake underneath the covered walkway. And the guest house on the left and the main house on the right with the circular driveway, and as John said, looking through, underneath the covered walkway this is the lake. It looks both ways from the lake. You see it through the trees. MR. KUHL-Could I ask you a question? Can I ask him a question, Mr. Chairman? MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. KUHL-I’m looking at the document that you submitted for 10/8 and the document you submitted nd stamped November 22 and it looks to me that the position of the houses and the outbuildings are all the same. What’s been changed? Because for the 10/8 admittance, you went back to do, what has changed? Am I missing something? To me everything looks the same. MR. KEIL-At this scale that we’re showing you it might be a little hard to decipher, but basically what has happened is the house has been rotated and pulled back, largely based on comments and suggestions by members of the public. MR. KUHL-The house has been pulled back? MR. KEIL-Away from the lake. MR. LAPPER-On the north side. MR. KUHL-Not by, I mean, to me these drawings look exactly the same. This one’s stamped November ndth 22. This was given with the 10/8 submittal. Unless this is received October 8. This is received nd November 22. And I don’t mean to be picky, but I can’t see any difference from the house, the main house, the guest house and the two outbuildings. I realize in some of the write up that the outbuildings I think you reduced something on one of the game rooms or something, but, am I wrong or am I right? MRS. MOORE-So I have the two drawings up here. There are two drawings up on display, and so the first drawing would be to my left shows that it’s 35.5. The new drawing that they recently submitted shows a 37.5 foot setback. MR. KUHL-Really? MR. LAPPER-Ron, if you look at where the red line is, you can see that it was pulled back away from the lake. MR. KUHL-I wish I could see it, but okay. MR. LAPPER-If you look at the maps on the wall. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. LAPPER-On the right side it’s right at the corner, and on the left side it’s down a number of feet. MR. KUHL-Okay. I’m sorry. Yes, I do see that. That’s the difference is on the lake side. Okay. MR. LAPPER-So in order to try and pull it away from the lake, we had to compress it more on the road side. MR. KUHL-Listen, I’m up here to only review what you submitted, but for me I would have moved the whole main dwelling, taken these two buildings and put them between the major house and the guest house and you could have moved it all away, but this is what you’re submitting and this is what you’re asking us to approve. I just didn’t understand, but I do see the difference now. I’m sorry. I mean I could be old and my eyesight is leaving me. MR. KEIL-Yes, and as I said originally, at that scale, when you’re looking at it, it can be hard to decipher that change, but again I’m just saying by pulling back it’s no small feat because you still have to accommodate the circulation for the drive. MR. KUHL-I understand. MR. KEIL-The stormwater, etc. MR. KUHL-I’ve got it. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-So, continuing, this is also a case where we’ve got septic holding tanks for both homes, which is the right thing to do on the Point, and conforming stormwater, which of course was never there, and many of the neighbors don’t have conforming stormwater or septic. So this is an improvement. When people talk about concerns with harmful algae, etc., this is doing the right thing especially on the Point, with stormwater and septic. We listened to the comments last time and we tried to make it smaller and pull it away from the lake and make a better project. Chris, is there anything you’d like to add at this point? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. KEIL-I don’t think so. Just one other statistic is, you know, we did decrease the amount of building outside the shoreline setback from about 850 square feet to less than 600. So I think, overall, we did kind of what we can with the constraints of the site. MR. LAPPER-And again the only house that doesn’t conform to the setback is the north one and that’s only at 22.2 FAR. So it’s essentially conforming and the constraint is just that shape of the Point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. STARK-I just have one quick question. Did you guys say that you reduced the square footage? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. STARK-I’m sorry. I didn’t catch that. How much by? MR. HENKEL-I’m down to 77 feet above the FAR variance right now. Right, is that what it is, 77 feet above? MR. KEIL-Right, I believe it is that covered walkway that is slightly compressed. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. If there’s no more questions from the Board at this point, I think I’ll open up the public hearing, and again, I would request that the public, if you’re going to speak, if you have something new to add, feel free to do that. Please don’t repeat. I think the Board is well aware of your concerns about what we had discussed in previous renditions of the meeting. Anybody from the public wishing to speak, raise your hand. Do you want to come up, ma’am. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PAM LESTER GOLDE MRS. LESTER GOLDE-The blue piece of paper with the blue heading is more for education for you later on. You don’t necessarily need to read that. My name is Pam Lester Golde. As Pam Lester I am a registered landscape architect in New York and I happen to be the property owner at the south side. The large drawing that I, the aerial photograph that I gave you, one of the comments that has been made in regards to a zoning variance is, is this in keeping with the existing residence. These are, you can see the original Ross house, that has been leveled, and you can see the existing log cabin that is the West house, in relationship to the O’Keefe which is to the right and my house which is to the left of the properties in question on the Point. This is not a small project. This is not in keeping with Assembly Point. Neither was Morse’ house. Neither was Cantanucci’s house, but we have taken a summer community and we are making it an urban dwelling area. The blue piece of paper, at the top basically is for your education in regards to stormwater management and why there is green infrastructure and the fact that thus particular green infrastructure in regards to stormwater drainage that the engineer has proposed, yes it deals with water quantity . It does not deal with water quality. I have also given you a detail that says Unilock permeable pavement. Unilock is one of the top manufacturers. They were one of the original manufacturers for permeable pavement, and as you can see, I have labeled on the left hand side of the detail, we have a 26 inch cross section between the gravel and the sub, set in beds, and the pavers itself. Compared to the 24 inches that we have before we hit groundwater. In order for you to have water quality, you need to have two feet of soil below the gravel sub-base material, and this we do not have. There will be no water quality. Which means all of the fertilizer, the oils from the cars, the salt from the road are all going to go right into the groundwater which goes into Lake George, and we have already had, Lorraine, how many HAB’s did we have this past summer, two or three? AUDIENCE MEMBER-In a one year period we had 14. MRS. LESTER GOLDE-And as a kid growing up here on Lake George, you couldn’t swim in the lake comfortably until the end of July. I start in May now by rowing, and I am in the lake by Memorial Day weekend. I didn’t even do that as a kid growing up here. So those are my comments in regard to storm drainage. His stormwater drainage does not work. In regards to water quality, the project is too big. In regards to impervious surface, and he should be required to have a variance for impervious surface coverage. The neighbor, Mary Helen O’Keefe, to the east of the property, had sent me an e-mail which I will read into it, the file. The O’Keefe’s and the Wests have had problems for the last, this year and continually. Either Brett or his landscaper were blowing the leaves into the drainage channel that separates the two parcels. To the point that water backed up into Otyokwa and then flooded the road and flooded neighbors farther down, the Sanders and basically Otyokwa itself. They then found out that there was an orange berg pipe and they had to replace it which took all summer to replace, and now the drainage channel is full again, and her handyman who was at the house today said there’s leaf collections at both ends of the drainage channel and her property is now being flooded out. So you don’t even have a garage and the barn there, and you have just eliminated, by this design, all of the impervious surface and coverage for it. Now they might turn around and argue saying, well, there’s a rain garden. The rain garden is good for a limited area. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) During the winter months it is not because you’re going to have rain storm, rain events when the ground is frozen, and all of that water is going to overflow and the one place it goes into is the O’Keefe’s property. So this overall project is just way too big and she wrote that Jim my handyman is up at the house right now and yes there is a new pile of fresh leaves in the ditches at both ends, by the road and down between our property. Yikes. Do you have a new lawn service because the Town of Queensbury talked to Brett, do not have the leaves and grass dumpings into the culvert. Thank you for going to the meeting. Mary Helen. Keep my posted. My lawn is flooded, but there is rain and snow melt, but this is an issue if he puts the garage next to my property line and takes all those trees down. Thank you for your time, and I hope you deny this project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Ma’am? LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Good evening. My name is Lorraine Ruffing. I live on Assembly Point, 166 Bay Parkway. As the Chairman noted, this is the third time that you’ve had this project before you. I don’t see any substantial changes in this project. Your previous comments I think were definitely relevant to those two meetings when you said the barn is excessive, rotate the house, and meet the setbacks. If you look at the setbacks that you’ve been shown tonight, you’ll see that they’re between two and three feet of a setback based on what you were presented with before, and as my neighbor has said, the project is oversized. The driveway’s too large. The covered walkway is unnecessary because this is level land. There is too much hard surfacing, and I think Mrs. Golde has given you the specifics on the pavers in relation to the water rd table and the last thing that you said, you need to really reduce this project by 1/3. This project has not rd been reduced by 1/3. So I see no substantial changes from the previous proposals and the basic facts remain that this project is in a critical environmental area with a high water table, which is two feet below the surface. The number of structures remains the same, two houses, three garages, a barn, a paved area for patios, a circular driveway which is too large, a covered walkway. It is just too much for this particular property. I think overbuilding and non-compliant setbacks from the lake would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood since it is in a critical environmental area. Alternatives exist and have been suggested by you which would allow the applicant to construct a new dwelling. For those reasons I ask you to reject the current application and ask them to re-design the project to conform to Town Code and your suggestions, to do a percolation test at the appropriate time of year, which has not been done. I think the last percolation test was in 2016, produce a more detailed plan for tree cutting and new landscaping, which conforms to Town Code. Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Thank you. Anybody else from the public wishing to speak? Roy, do we have any new communications? MR. URRICO-Yes, we do. “I live on Assembly Point next door to the West property to the east. Our property is divided by large mature trees. These trees are alongside the culvert that drains directly into the lake. The trees protect the lake by absorbing nutrients. My concern is that removal of these trees are being replaced by a large two story garage with a very small rain garden along the culvert. There will be run off from rain water directly into the lake from the garage roof and into the culvert and flooding onto my property. Sincerely, Mary Helen and Dan O’Keefe 102 Bay Parkway, Lake George, NY 12845” “I am a neighbor to the Wests at the end of Assembly Point; I live at 128 Lake Parkway, and I have been following the various Board reviews of this application and project. The basic plan appears to still remain too large and stressful for that particular fragile spit of land with its complicating high water table. Until the plan is mitigated to conform to Town Codes, in the best interest of the neighborhood and local eco system and to avoid probably resultant water pollution, please continue to demand the highest conformance to protective code and standards. Were I rebuilding on my property I would welcome strong input from my family, neighbors, contractors/designers, landscapers, and engineer to make sure I were proceeding with best sizing, setbacks and tree and permaculture installation; I would want to trust that my town review boards helped hold my construction/revisions to the highest standards so I could honestly tell my children and family I had done my best for the lake and land; I would want guidance to help me get my project appropriate. As residents in the neighborhood, standing by watching the many currently overly ambitious constructions, we have to rely on your (the ZBA) deepening understanding, sensitivity and awareness for ecosystem and water quality protection. Drive down Assembly Point, and all along the way to the end of the Point at the West project you will note many projects, overcrowding/overbuilding. When my ancestors first built out here, the standard for the neighborhood was the golden mean-nothing shabby, but nothing ostentatious. We are possibly in a world-wide ecosystem collapse and crisis that should demand radical conservatism in development, at very least a braver and stricter conformance to code; variances should no longer be the norm; are you willing to hold to a stronger standard as a matter of ethics? The terrible pollution we are seeing exponentially in our water right along our shores (HAB’s) is most likely exacerbated from nutrient loading stress due to inappropriate over-sizing and over-building and nowhere near enough trees and deep-rooted shoreline shrubs. Thank you for considering real protection. No one of us is any longer entitled to exceptions. Best, Lisa Adamson 128 Lake Parkway, Lake George, NY 12845” This is from the Waterkeeper. “The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper would 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) like to recognize the Zoning Board's deliberation over this variance application and dedication to the need for balance that is required for granting variances. It is our opinion the applicant's amendments to the application fall short of the Board's request to reduce the project's size to "make it better", "reduce the number of variances" and their concern regarding the amount of permeable pavers and protection of resources. The Waterkeeper remains concerned regarding the requested variances for Floor Area Ratio and shoreline setback, as well as concerns of site permeability, that are essential for the protection of Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. The application continues to propose too much disturbance and relies too heavily on permeable pavers, which can have questionable long-term benefits and may actually result in greater impacts to Lake George and its water quality. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-080 Variance Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The following are comments based on our review of the most current submission: There has been minimal improvement regarding the requested shoreline setback variance requests of 34' and 37.5'. It is recognized one shoreline setback was increased from 31' to 34', but the proposed disturbance will extend into the required protective shoreline buffer and the application fails to demonstrate how the protective buffer will be established to meet the requirements of §179-8-040. In addition, the application continues to propose extending pavers into the protective shoreline buffer, further reducing the ability for the site to provide mitigation. There has been no reduction in the extensive use of permeable pavers to circumvent the permeability requirement. Permeability is vital in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George to provide natural stormwater mitigation through vegetative uptake and natural soil treatment, which is not provided through gravel storage. The site vegetative coverage will be reduced by 10% within the CEA, which will impact water quality. As previously stated, the site design fails to meet the New York State Stormwater Design Manual requirements of 3-foot separation to groundwater for pavers and therefore, permeability credit should not be allowed. The extent of permeable pavers should be reduced by eliminating the combined driveways and circular driveway. The application appears to reduce the side yard setback from 21' to 20' along the eastern border which will increase disturbance of existing intermittent stream and buffer. This important vegetative buffer and intermittent stream continues to be sacrificed without any recognition or proposed mitigation measures for the extensive design. The application still has not detailed the extent of removal of mature vegetation and has not proposed any mitigation measures. It is important to restate the statements from March 2016 on the redevelopment of the property hearing when their agent stated if they build a much larger structure, it is actually more detrimental to the water quality. It is the opinion of the Waterkeeper that the applicant has failed to meet the balancing test, will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood and that alternatives exist for a more compliant proposal. As was stated in the October 2021 hearing, if the current application at that time was the original submission, the Board would not approve. The Zoning Board should deny the application as there have been no substantial changes to mitigate the requested variances within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” One more. “Two times you have done the right thing and refused to approve these variance applications without significant changes. Each time, including the current time, the applicants have made only minor changes, and have not addressed the issues raised by the public and by the Board. The latest plans are not significantly different than the last version. The requested variances are significant, and are unnecessary. I urge you to reject them. Thank you, John Caffry” MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Would you like to come back up and make some comments. MR. LAPPER-John Witt’s going to start it off. He designed the house. MR. WITT-The house is not as large as people say it is. The main house is one bedroom with a garage that’s attached and it connects to like a kid’s quarters which is two more bedrooms and a loft area. So to say it’s super large is just not true and the scale of this site is very similar to the existing house that’s there, and the existing house is actually closer to the lake. The house that was torn down is in the left on that picture was closer to the lake. The variances are not substantial. They’ve pulled back both houses inside of the setback, except for the main house which was pulled back but it’s still just outside of the setback. So I think the scale and the house really fits into the neighborhood. There’s many houses on Assembly Point, we did a house a couple of years ago that is much closer than 50 feet, and on a much tighter lot, a lot more environmental issues because it’s a sloped lot right to the lake. This being a flat lot we can control the stormwater and the one comment from the lady about the pavers, is totally false. We’ve done permeable pavers. We just did a site in Saratoga Springs with a brick paver, it’s beautiful, and it only had six inches of tamped gravel underneath. It had a mesh. So the mesh makes up the difference so it didn’t have 26 inches. So we’re not going into groundwater. So that’s totally false. And again, I really think, if you look at the scale of the project and you look at all of the elevations as you approach the lake, pulling the house further back from the lake which is currently there, and it’s not a towering house. It’s very elegantly designed and it’s all connected like a great camp, and I honestly think it’s going to be one of the nicest houses on the lake, and I think you’ll all be very proud to see this house and I understand there’s environmental concerns, and I think the engineers can speak to that, but we’re not allowed to build things that don’t meet New York State stormwater. So that’s just false. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. KEIL-If I could make a few comments just related to stormwater and some other landscape items as well. Since we met last, we performed test pits on site, five different test pits and groundwater range in depth from surface, from about two feet up to over four feet and unfortunately we got that information a little late. So we weren’t able to incorporate it into this last batch of comments, but there’s nothing there that we don’t believe at this point something we can’t solve through modifying the grades in our raingardens, etc., you know, to accommodate that separation which, you know, we know we would go through that process when we go through the Town Engineering review as it relates to the more detailed design on the stormwater. I think raingardens in particular are a really proven method for dealing with water quality as well as the issue of rain on frozen ground was brought up, but in my view any surface is problematic in those sort of situations. As it relates to the landscape plan, we’ve shown a little bit more detail. In the previous submission in October we had a landscape plan that we reference on Sheet Six where we show a pretty extensive tree planting to compensate for some of the trees that will need to be removed as part of the construction, as well as some shoreline planting, pretty robust planting, in two areas of the shoreline which is currently just turf right to the water’s edge. So we think that’s going to be a huge improvement. This intermittent stream has been brought up a few times, and we’re staying clear on that, on that northern edge. So I don’t know why that has been factored in. Also there’s been some comments about the maintenance practices and whatnot, but, you know, that’s something I can’t specifically comment to at this point, but, yes, I feel like overall the improvements to stormwater, you know, will be substantial. I mean our permeability is a reduction of the current, if you count the permeable paving which is something that the Town accepts as a practice. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you wish to add? MR. KEIL-I don’t think so. MR. HENKEL-Can I ask a question of Laura? Who do we believe on this permeability? One minute we’re talking, Chris Navitsky’s saying it’s not what we’re being told here with the 77, or we’re looking at, what, 77% permeability and he’s denying that, saying that it’s not true, and so who do we believe? MRS. MOORE-So that information is provided to the Staff. I reviewed that information. Their calculations indicate that the permeability is at 77.9. MR. HENKEL-So that’s who we believe? MRS. MOORE-Yes, because that’s what the applicant has provided to us. MR. HENKEL-We’ve got an expert, supposedly, like Chris Navitsky saying. MRS. MOORE-Well, you also have support staff. You’ve got support staff that has evaluated that. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. LAPPER-And we’ll go through a detailed review with Chazen Engineers when we get to the Planning Board, especially stormwater issues, buffering issues, that’s all part of the planning process. Chazen will look at all the numbers again, but Laura’s saying that Staff has passed on it and they’ve agreed with what Environmental Design did. MR. HENKEL-And that’s all we can go by. MR. KEIL-One other thing to add. I think the Town’s stance has always been permeable pavers count as 50% of that surface area. I know there’s a lot of criticism, generally speaking, about the fact that it can get clogged. So, yes, there are issues sometimes on certain sites where they don’t perform as expected, but I think we’ve done a really good job on projects, you know, creating redundancy where there’s like a stone diaphragm at the edge, making sure a maintenance plan is part of the application to ensure you’ll have that proper maintenance report in. MR. HENKEL-Do you know if there’s been any consideration, I know you’ve got a 20 foot setback with the garage and your shed here, your barn. That is a little bit of a problem. There is a little bit of a stream that goes through there. Was there any consideration of bringing that a little bit tighter towards the house, so that would give a little bit more space. MR. LAPPER-What’s funny there is that we’re trying to pull it away from the lake so it pushes on to the backside of the property. There’s a little bit of. MR. HENKEL-But if you’re pulling it back toward, you’re still farther away from the lake. I mean if you’re pulling it closer to the, you know, eliminating that hallway and bringing it, I know you’re already at the 20 feet setback. So you don’t really have to ask for that, but I’m just saying maybe it would make it a little bit 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) easier, a little bit better for the groundwater to be absorbed if there were more trees in between that area, more soil. MR. KEIL-That is a good point, and that is something we planned on buffering that zone, that edge, just for privacy of that neighbor as well. I mean, you know, as John mentioned there’s going to be gutters. We’re going to have to ask for that. So I think as we get more involved in the stormwater design and work with Chazen, you know, we have some flexibility where we can divert that water to make sure, one, we get the separation and, two, that, you know, we’re creating those areas in a place that supports the project in terms of staying away from those resources. MR. KUHL-May I ask a question? MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. MR. KUHL-I can’t talk for anybody else on this Board, but I’ve heard varying comments about, I mean this presenter, or the one woman today talked about 24 inches. Have you done any test pits on this property to tell us where the water table is at different locations of the property? MR. KEIL-Yes, we’ve performed five of them. MR. KUHL-Okay. But they’re not on this drawing, right? MR. KEIL-No. As I stated earlier, unfortunately we got that information, it was in process after we submitted this last. MR. KUHL-Okay. Of the five, give me a high to low. MR. KEIL-Yes. So it’s just over four feet for the high, that’s the greatest separation. MR. KUHL-Which would be close to Bay Parkway. Correct? MR. KEIL-Yes, and closer to the guest house, as you’d expect. I mean, down where it sort of parallels the surface largely. Right? MR. KUHL-And if we look at the area where the pavers are going, I’m talking about the main area between the portico and Bay Parkway, what are the depths around there? MR. KEIL-So we have a test pit that’s right in sort of the center of, it’s actually very close to the Porte cochre. It’s in the center of that drive turnaround, the existing turnaround. So that test pit, because obviously we don’t want to be too invasive. We had to place these in places which are soft scape currently, right? So at that location right there, we have waters at 36 inches. MR. KUHL-Okay. Well where are the 26 and 24 inch pits, test pits? I mean I assume they’re out towards the dock somewhere. MR. KEIL-The 24 inch actually interestingly enough was closer to that northern or eastern boundary line, where that intermittent stream has been referenced. MR. KUHL-So that’s the O’Keefe’s? MR. KEIL-And probably some sort of groundwater connection to that stream I would presume somewhat, but that raingarden area is the place where we will be guttering that water. So we have the ability to manipulate grade there. MR. KUHL-What do we lose as the water table comes up? Permeable pavers are, what, 55% effective at any good day? And as the water table goes up it loses its absorption value. Correct? MR. KEIL-Not as much, more of the treatment I think is the point there. MR. KUHL-Well, same thing, treatment, the water going down them, right, the volume going through the solid, or the permeable paver. MR. LAPPER-But the alternative is that it runs into the lake untreated. MR. KUHL-I’m not looking at alternatives. At this point I’m trying to understand, because there have been several depths that were quoted to, that I heard as a Board member. I can’t speak for anybody else on this Board, and I get a little leery of what’s the right number. Because what you presented doesn’t show me any test pits. Okay, and then we go to, okay, is 36 the good number, after that everything’s fine? Don’t talk to me as a lawyer. You’re not an engineer. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. LAPPER-Those are more issues that are reviewed not by the Zoning Board for the variance but by the Planning Board for stormwater and the engineer. MR. KUHL-Okay, but honestly, Jon, if you weren’t looking for variances, here, there would be no opposition, according to the people that came up to that table. Okay. MR. LAPPER-I heard a lot of discussion about global warming and the general condition of the lake, and this project is going to help stormwater from what’s there now, and have septic holding tanks, so I think those are more general statements than specific to this project. MR. KUHL-Okay. I think this is an outstanding piece of property, and when I’m on the lake I look at it in awe, and I also say why are they tearing it down. So the fact that they’re removing what’s there, now you’ve got the West’s looking for approval because it doesn’t fit. MR. LAPPER-Well it needs variances because of specific issues with the shape of this parcel, but as John Witt said, he’s trying to design something spectacular that will fit in, that won’t be too tall, that people will go by in their boat and say that’s really appropriate for this property for a spectacular piece of property. MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else from the Board? All right. At this time I’m going to close the public hearing. MR. WITT-Can I just make one comment on the planters. The site we did in Saratoga Springs recently, we did radiant heat permeable pavers, and this site is proposed for all radiant heat. So basically what’s going to happen here, you’re going to have less runoff. MR. URRICO-Can you identify yourself? MR. WITT-I’m John Witt with Witt Construction. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. WITT-The designer and the builder of the project. So when you have a course paver that water can go through, okay, what happens in the spring and fall, you have frost, and then water will run across the lawn, and that’s a big lawn, and this site has got a lot of green area. So there’s a lot of area to create raingardens. What I’m getting at with the heated pavers, in the spring and fall when you have the frost, the water still goes through. In the tests that we’ve done with this site, pouring rain the other day, the ground was frost. We had about two or three inches of frozen ground in Saratoga, and I went by the site when we had one of those pouring rains, and because of the frost, if it was just pavers they might just run across. Because they’re heated, the water goes straight in them and it’s actually a lot more, it works better than grass or anything else that you might put down is actually the pavers because they’re heated, and also even in the summer there are hose tests done after. We couldn’t put enough water into them. The water just goes straight into them. So in our practical experience it really works, and I think you’re going to have less, a lot less runoff on the lake after this project’s built than what’s happening now. The scale of this house, the main house is very similar to what’s there, and it’s just a rotten, it’s a rotting out log cabin and it’s not insulated, and that’s the reason they need to do something different. Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. At this point I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that before I poll the Board I just want to summarize a little bit of what I think here, as to what I think we should do here this evening. We’ve listened to a lot of commentary, concerns from the public at all three meetings that we’ve had. I think that new letters and new information have been submitted tonight from the public also and I think that that should have some pertinence in our decision making process here this evening. Even though there’s been some give and take here on this project, I think you need to think back to the previous two meetings about what we have asked, what our concerns were at that point, and balance and outline whether you think they’ve done enough to justify approval for this project or disapproval for the project. So at this point I’m going to start with you, Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that this project could be done without the variances you’re requesting. I’m not in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, as I stated in the October meeting that had this come before us just as it is right now I would not approve it. So we haven’t improved the original application by very much. Though we’ve incrementally improved it, I still see at least three fairly large variances that you’re requesting to be granted. I still think that’s too much, and we’re not even talking about the permeability, which seems to be the 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) question, but right now I’m not even thinking about that because that’s not on the table. So I would agree with Ron. I think there are still too many variances on the table and I would not be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-Personally there’s a lot of variances maybe, but they’re not asking for a lot in those variances. I mean they’re only asking 77 square feet over the FAR variance. I kind of would like to see that garage and that shed, the barn slid over away from that property line, even though you’re not asking for that. You’ve got the 20 feet there anyway, but I think you could take care of some of that problem of that water going through there. So I’m not really against it, although I’d like to see that garage, that barn moved over and the garage moved over. So as is I’d probably have to say I’m still against it a little bit, but the other variances don’t really bother me. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brady? MR. STARK-Well, I’d agree with what my fellow Board members said. I think there’s, I think you guys have done a good job in revising it at this point, but I think there is still a little bit of room for improvement. So at this point I would be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I think that that would really be the only variance at this point that I would really have a problem with are those setbacks, I think especially the walkway setback. I think the FAR and everything else is completely fine. You’re not even asking for a variance for permeability I don’t think, and the garage is fine, too. So really it’s just those setbacks that I would like to see it get to a point where they’re less, if you can, or at least closer, 40, 45 feet maybe, closer to the 50 foot mark is what I’d like to see before I could give it a yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. For my own commentary, I think we have to keep in mind here what you’ve done, and I asked you specifically to give up something, and I don’t think that you’ve really given up anything at all since the institution of this project at the first meeting here. I think, you know, when you look at the size of what you’re proposing to do here, even though we have esoteric numbers like 22% floor area ratio. We have permeability, like they’re magic numbers, if you meet them we’ll automatically get to wave the magic wand and make things happen for you. I think that, you know, if you compare this to the Morse project, which is a true abomination on the lake. It’s probably the worst case scenario, I think you’re working in the right direction here, but I think you still have a significant ways to go here. Your setbacks from the lake I think are reasonable at 37 and 34 feet. I don’t really see that that’s a big deal, but I think, you know, the fact that you’re on a piece of property with a high perch water table, you can’t dispose of your septic waste on site as most people do on the lake, you know, you’re going to have to remove that. I think you’re going to have to jump through hoops. The Adirondack Park Agency I’m sure is going to review this to the T. You’ve already been turned down previously for your Porte cochre project, even though this Board approved that project on previous occasions. So I think that you’re still going to have to go back and shrink this project down. I’m not a firm believer in the 22% floor area ratio, that it applies evenly to every single project. We have lots of small lots on the lake and there’s no need for anybody to maximally build all the time and expect that they’re going to get that maximum number. I think that you should go back to the table and I think that you should go back and combine your media room, your great room, your recreation room on the garage, remove something, make it smaller, make it fit, because it’s out of character with the neighborhood and I think that the comments that have been made by the Waterkeeper are especially pertinent to the project. So at this point I think you’re going to have to table and come back with something significantly different. I think if you’re going to come back again to us at that point in time you’re going to have to come back with something removed significant. MR. LAPPER-Okay. We will table it. I heard a mixed message that some people want significant and some people want minor changes, but we’ll come back with something better. MR. HENKEL-What do you have for a good time. MRS. MOORE-I would table to, depending on their schedule, to a February meeting. thrd MR. HENKEL-So February 16 or the 23. MRS. MOORE-So it would be the first Zoning Board meeting in February. I apologize, I don’t have my calendar with me. th MR. HENKEL-Okay. So it’s the 16. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re tabling them both? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. LAPPER-Yes. th MRS. MOORE-We’ll do them separately. The information would be due by January 18, simply because it runs into a weekend and a holiday. So the public hearing on both applications will need to remain open. 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 February 16, 2022 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting, with any new information th by January 18, 2022. th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt 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 AND INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVER AREAS. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH A RAIN GARDEN, NEW SITE PLANTINGS, NEW SEPTIC, AND NEW LINE FOR DRINKING WATER. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. 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 th MR. HENKEL-Okay. We’re going to table this one also to the 16, obviously. MRS. MOORE-Yes. 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 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. 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 February 16, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information by January th 18, 2022. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt MR. LAPPER-Thank you. We’ll be back. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Next up on the agenda is Area Variance 76-2021, Marc Awad. Project location is 936 State Route 149. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 76-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MARC AWAD AGENT(S) JASON PETERSON OWNER(S) MARY ANN AWAD ZONING MDR LOCATION 936 STATE ROUTE 149 APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 6.72 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT WITH THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS TO BE 2.04 AC. AND THE SECOND LOT OF 4.68 AC. IS TO BE SOLD. NO SITE WORK PROPOSED AT THIS TIME. SUBDIVISION FOR TWO LOTS IN THE MDR ZONE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT WIDTH. CROSS REF SUB 11-2021; SUB 12- 2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 6.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.-1-52 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-19-020; 183 MARC AWAD, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 76-2021, Marc Awad, Meeting Date: December 15, 2021 “Project Location: 936 State Route 149 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 6.72 acre parcel. One lot with the existing residence is to be 2.04 ac. and the second lot of 4.68 ac. is to be sold. No site work proposed at this time. Subdivision for two lots in the MDR zone. Relief for lot width, road frontage and access. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot width, road frontage and access to the adjoining lot. The parcel is located in the MDR zone as a 6.72 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-050 Frontage The proposed two lot subdivision has less than 200 ft. average lot width for the one lot and less than 100 ft. of road frontage for the proposed lot. Relief for physical access is requested as the applicant intends to use the existing driveway to access the new lot as described in the narrative. 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot shape. The applicant could consider a shared driveway over both property lines. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The road frontage relief is 100 ft. and the lot width is less than 200 ft. Relief requested for physical access to the new lot. 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. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) Staff comments: The applicant proposes a two lot subdivision where lot 1 is to be 2.04 ac and will maintain an existing home. Then lot 2 is to be 4.68 acres and is to be developed for a single family house when the lot sells.” MR. URRICO-And then 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 motion was passed th on December 14 by a seven zero margin. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Chairman, I’d like to add. There’s one variance that has gone away, and that’s access. The applicant is going to have his own driveway. So they’re not going to do that driveway through the other lot. They’re going to do it on its own lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-So the lot will have its own access. MRS. MOORE-Yes. So the variance to have it not accessing its own lot, it was going through another parcel. This way it has its own lot access. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Anything you wish to inform us about? MR. AWAD-It seems pretty simple compared to the previous project. I’m intimidated to be here. I’m not asking for much. MR. KUHL-Has Lot Number Two sold? MR. AWAD-I don’t know whether I’ll sell it or whether I’ll build on it. I am not staying in the house on 149. I’ve only been there a short time, but it’s. MR. UNDERWOOD-Drives you crazy. MR. AWAD-I just left a job in Brooklyn and its reminiscent. MR. KUHL-Your one of those guys. MR. AWAD-No, I’m not. I’m a northern guy, but I go where the government tells me. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you’re going to have one driveway, one entrance for both lots, and it’s going to enter from where? MR. AWAD-That was a change that was supposed to, it was originally proposed by the surveyor, and we talked about it and I said no, but he didn’t make the change in the application. So there’s the residential driveway for the driving range. There’s the Wests that are right next to me, as you’re going east there’s my driveway. There’ll be this driveway at the edge of the property, and then there’s, I don’t know my neighbor’s last name, Tristan. He lives in the yellow house across from Stewart’s, and then there’s the Farm To Market. MRS. MOORE-So there’ll be two driveways. One driveway for the current house and a new driveway for the new house. So our Code requires that if you’re not going to access the lot on the actual road frontage, you would need a variance from that. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. AWAD-Which I believe was discussed and agreed to last night. MRS. MOORE-It was a recommendation and it was identified that there would be one less variance. MR. KUHL-Give me that one again. Lot Number Two is going to be accessed not directly from 149? MRS. MOORE-It will be directly accessed. It will have its own specific driveway to 149. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Wouldn’t it be smarter to have one driveway for both lots. MRS. MOORE-You can, which means you’d have to share a driveway. MR. HENKEL-It’s less curb cuts onto 149. MRS. MOORE-So that could be a recommendation of this Board. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. AWAD-I didn’t want to make it complicated for easements and potential minimization of disputes between neighbors, you know, I just plowed it last week, now it’s your turn. I didn’t want to get involved in that. I just thought it would be better to have, and as you’re approaching the corner of Bay Road, I’m adding one more driveway. So there’s four right now and this will be five, in an area which you’re approaching an intersection where potentially, you know, the speeds are lower. MR. URRICO-So what will be the distance between the two proposed driveways? MR. AWAD-So this is going to be 50 feet, and this is my neighbor’s property line. So it’ll come in, I think my surveyor called it a flag lot. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s on the right hand side. MR. AWAD-So this’ll be the existing lot right here, the two acre lot with the house, and then we’ll enter here and we’ll go to the other property line and go back, and I believe from the road it’s 1,024 feet. MRS. MOORE-To the back, but the distance between each driveway is a little over 33 feet, because the setback line is at 33.7 or 33.3. So I’m assuming the driveway is going a little bit further distance from the existing driveway. MR. HENKEL-Is Warren County against having curb cuts? MRS. MOORE-That’s fine. MR. AWAD-Can I ask what a curb cut is? I heard that yesterday. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s just if you put a driveway in, it’s considered a curb cut. MR. AWAD-All right, because I didn’t see any curb cut. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. Does everybody understand the situation now? I think at this point I’ll open the public hearing, unless Board members have questions. MR. AWAD-We’ve also done percolation tests in the back of the property. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I think everybody should be pretty straightforward on this one. Anybody want to start? John? MR. HENKEL-It’s not a bad project. I just thought it would be better to have one curb cut on Lot Two to access Lot One and Two, to do away with that curb cut on Lot One where the house is now. I would see that being a better project. So I would like to see that done, but I’m not going to hold it back. MR. STARK-I think it’s a good project. I’d be in favor of it at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I’m in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project as presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think that the argument of curb cuts is minimal. I’m in favor of it the way it’s presented. Curb cut, what for? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the addition of another single driveway on that road is not going to make that much difference. I think it’s fine. Does somebody want to make a motion. MRS. DWYRE-Did you want to close the public hearing? 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, can I make that motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Marc Awad. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 6.72 acre parcel. One lot with the existing residence is to be 2.04 ac. and the second lot of 4.68 ac. is to be sold. No site work proposed at this time. Subdivision for two lots in the MDR zone. Relief requested for lot width, road frontage, and access. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot width, road frontage and access to the adjoining lot. The parcel is located in the MDR zone as a 6.72 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-050 Frontage The proposed two lot subdivision has less than 200 ft. average lot width for the one lot and less than 100 ft. of road frontage for the proposed lot. Relief for physical access is requested as the applicant intends to use the existing driveway to access the new lot as described in the narrative. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 15, 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 is just subdividing a six acre lot into two lots. 2. Feasible alternatives really are non-existent. The issue here really is the second lot, Lot Number Two, doesn’t have the road frontage. It’s only got 50 feet. However, they have been considered by the Board, and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as again it’s just a 50 foot road frontage. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be suggested that it is self-created, again, because of the 50 feet because that is less than required. 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. 76-2021 MARC AWAD, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 15th Day of December 2021 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Prior to you calling the vote, so in the resolution it still says access to the adjoining lot. So I’d ask you to strike that verbiage. So amended? MR. KUHL-So noted. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. HENKEL-But we didn’t get that recommendation. MRS. MOORE-I’m just saying, so in that resolution itself, the draft resolution, it’s up to you the Board. I’m saying you should strike that from your resolution, because that’s not what’s being requested. MR. HENKEL-Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt MR. AWAD-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Next up on the agenda is Area Variance 77-2021, Justin Mootz, Project Location is 15 Brookfield Run. AREA VARIANCE NO. 77-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JUSTIN MOOTZ AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) JUSTIN MOOTZ ZONING MDR LOCATION 15 BROOKFIELD RUN APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A TW-BAY 1,024 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF 160 SQ. FT. SHED AND REMOVAL OF 313 SQ. FT. HARD-SURFACING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF P20010313; P20050292 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-69 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 MATT WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JUSTIN MOOTZ, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 77-2021, Justin Mootz, Meeting Date: December 15, 2021 “Project Location: 15 Brookfield Run Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a two- bay 1,024 sq. ft. detached garage. The project includes removal of 160 sq. ft. shed and removal of 313 sq. ft. hard-surfacing. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for second garage to be 1,024 sq. ft. The parcel is 1.55 ac in the MDR zone; subdivision 11-1987 Brookfield Estates Phase II SR20. Section 179-5-020 garage The applicant has an existing garage with existing home and proposes a second garage. 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 for an addition to the existing home; however may trigger other variances. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial as only one garage is permitted per parcel. 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: 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) The applicant requests to construct a second garage. The plans show the garage meets all setbacks. The garage is to be a bit over 21 ft. The floor plan is open floor plan on the first floor then a stairs for a 434 sq. ft. storage space. No other changes to the site are proposed.” MR. MOOTZ-Yes, I’m at 15 Brookfield Run. MR. WEBSTER-All right. So as we have clarified, this project is for Justin and Kristin Mootz at 15 Brookfield Run. Mr. Mootz is here today. I am his representative, Matt Webster, with Van Dusen & Steves Land Surveyors. It’s a relatively straightforward project. They’re just looking to add a second detached garage to the property to provide them with more parking and storage space. In this case, of course, the husband and wife both have their personal vehicles. Mr. Mootz has a work vehicle which is recognizable and he’d like to store in a garage, and then of course in case they have any recreational vehicles they’d like some storage and of course they have a growing family with ever growing needs for space. So they’re just looking to build this garage which would be conforming in every way except that it’s a second garage. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from the Board members at this point? MR. KUHL-What’s going in the garage, water and electric or just electric? MR. MOOTZ-Just electric. MR. KUHL-Just electric. And what is the storage, undercover police car in there? No. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from the Board? All right. At this point I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak on the matter? Any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Anything else you want to add? This seems pretty straightforward. MR. WEBSTER-Just for correspondence, we did include in the application a letter from the neighbors supporting the project. It wasn’t official correspondence. It was just something Mr. Mootz talked to his neighbors about. MRS. MOORE-It’s in the application. MR. URRICO-Okay. MRS. DWYRE-Did you want to close the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’ll poll the Board. Do you want to go, Brady? MR. STARK-Sure. Yes, I would definitely be in favor of this project. I mean it seems like you need it for the storage, the police car and a lot of other reasons. It seems very practical and I’d be in favor of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-They’re going to eliminate a shed, 313 square feet. So it’s a little bit bigger than I’d like to see for the size of the property, but I would be on board with it as is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m against the application I don’t think we should be granting second garages in this area. I think it would change the character of the neighborhood, and I think it would be a defacto change of the Zoning Code. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I’m in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I’m in favor of this as presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we should be cautious when we approve second garages, but at this time I think this one here is practical. It’s on a one and a half acre lot. So at this point in time I think I would be in favor of this project. So does somebody want to make a motion? Jackson, did you want to do this one? MR. LA SARSO-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Justin Mootz. Applicant proposes to construct a two-bay 1,024 sq. ft. detached garage. The project includes removal of 160 sq. ft. shed and removal of 313 sq. ft. hard-surfacing. Relief requested for second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for second garage to be 1,024 sq. ft. The parcel is 1.55 ac in the MDR zone; subdivision 11-1987 Brookfield Estates Phase II SR20. Section 179-5-020 garage The applicant has an existing garage with existing home and proposes a second garage. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 15, 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 moderate to no impact may be anticipated. 2. Feasible alternatives may be considered for an addition, but those are going to trigger something else so it doesn’t really make sense. 3. The requested variance may be considered substantial but I would say that we all agree in this case on 1.55 acres it’s probably not. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may 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. 77-2021 JUSTIN MOOTZ, Introduced by Jackson LaSarso, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brady Stark: Duly adopted this 15th Day of December 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. MOOTZ-Thank you. MR. UNDERWOOD-Next up is Area Variance No. 78-2021, Albert Gjonbalaj, 177 Glen Lake Road. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ALBERT GJONBALAJ AGENT(S) ALBERT GJONBALAJ OWNER(S) 177 GLEN LAKE ROAD LLC APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE DORMER ADDITION ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF AN EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,435 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. INTERIOR RENOVATIONS ARE PROPOSED FOR THE EXISTING BASEMENT, FIRST FLOOR, AND SECOND FLOOR. THE SECOND FLOOR HAS THE DORMER THAT IS TO BE COMPLETED AND THE DECK TO BE REMOVED. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITH A NEW POOL, PATIO AREA, AND NEW DRIVEWAY AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC 424-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-88 SECTION 179-3-040 SHAHIN BADALY & FRANK CASS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 78-2021, Albert Gjonbalaj, Meeting Date: December 15, 2021 “Project Location: 177 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete dormer addition on the second floor of an existing home. The existing home is 2,435 sq. ft. footprint. Interior renovations are proposed for the existing basement, first floor, and second floor. The second floor has the dormer that is to be completed and the deck to be removed. Applicant seeks approval for previously constructed dormer. The project also includes site improvements with a new pool, patio area, and new driveway area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for partial construction of dormer areas on the second floor of an existing home. The parcel is 0.52 ac and located in the RR3A zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The 295 sq. ft. dormer addition that is to be completed is 43.8 ft. from the southwest property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. Then 90.9 ft. from the rear property line and 56 ft. to the front property line where 100 ft. setback is required. The applicant was informed the dormer under construction needed a variance, the applicant stopped work on the dormer to complete the necessary variance forms to seek relief. 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 limited due to the location home and the zone the home is located in. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is 31.2 ft. for the southwest property line, 9.1 ft. to the rear property line and 44 ft. to the front property line. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to complete a dormer project on an existing home. The project includes the removal deck on the second floor to finish the dormer. The plans show the dormer and other work on the site.” MR. BADALY-My name is Shahin Badaly, representing the applicant. So we have the renovation and legalization of this single family home at 177 Glen Lake Road. As was stated, it includes the expansion of the driveway. There’s construction of a pool. There’s some expansion of some walkways, on grade paved areas in the back as well as a full renovation of the property. The variance we’re seeking is for a dormer that was constructed, and my understanding is roughly ten years ago and prior to this ownership. The dormer is above the existing footprint of the first floor. We’re not increasing the footprint of the house. The way the setbacks are in this zone compared to this lot size essentially makes it impossible to add any 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) area to the building without being before this Board. That is mostly due to that 100 foot front and rear yard setback. I’ll also mention, as part of the scope of work, we are demolishing a shed that is in the back left of the site. We’re installing a new septic system, a new water well. There’s also the installation of an exterior propane tank and lastly I’d like to mention that currently there is a deck on the back of that dormer. We’re not looking to legalize it. We’re looking to remove it and the dormer’s actually pretty much constructed. So it’s really a matter of the interior and exterior finishes. The structure is up currently. MR. KUHL-Was this dormer there when you bought the property? MR. BADALY-Correct. The property was purchased about a year ago, and I believe the dormer was constructed roughly 10 years ago, and that’s information I received from Charles Dyer in the Building Department. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-So was this an enforcement issue, then? MRS. MOORE-So he was made aware that there was previous non-conforming elements to it. So when this applicant went in to start the work, that was identified in the middle of their construction, it was identified that they need a permit for the work that they’re doing, and then it was identified that there was an issue. So the applicant stopped the exterior work and started the paperwork. They have started some interior work that’s under inspection. MR. BADALY-I do want to mention a permit was issued for the remainder of the interior work and it’s currently issued, but we’re not permitted to work upstairs until we come before this Board. To make a decision. MR. UNDERWOOD-Hopefully you’re not leaking with all the rain that we’re having. MR. BADALY-They put a new roof on it already. The property was generally dilapidated when they purchased it. So it’s significantly been improved and it hopefully can be a great improvement to that site which is right near Glen Lake. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. Any questions from the Board? MR. KUHL-What are we going to use this house for? FRANK CASS MR. CASS-Hi, I’m sorry, my name is Frank Cass. We’re using this house as an Air BNB. MR. KUHL-I thought so. Okay. Say no more. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any other questions from the Board? I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak? Any correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, I have a couple of letters. “I am the owner of the adjacent property directly to the south. My concern at this time is my privacy. So I am requesting a privacy fence at least six feet tall. Thank you for your attention for my concerns. Patricia A. Hay” And she’s at 169 Glen Lake Road. “We learned this weekend the property at 177 Glen Lake Road his property line may not be correct and the propane tank seen in front may be on our property at Gloria’s Way as well as the debris he has placed of stumps on our property since they buried our pin. This is definitely not 10 feet from our property line as it stands and it is required by code to be 10 feet from the property line my husband says so we would like it moved closer to his house. Thank you. Dawn Hlavaty-Staratt” This is actually a combination of two letters. So the second part of the letter is “I am writing you today as I border 177 Glen Lake Road property on my Gloria’s Way property next to it is noted. I am concerned about a few things that have been put on the description of the project regarding setback. 1) I am requesting 6 ft. nature friendly fence that borders his entire property from the road between both our properties and my entrance all the way between our properties. Also requesting a fence around his propane eyesore tank in front. It is my understanding you have setbacks for his driveway which now will border mine off the road and he is making 8 parking spaces that means numerous people are planned for such a small area of his property. This is very close to my property and I wonder how they will turn around with their vehicles in such a small area. So considering this is small on a .52 acreage I have no idea where they would be turning around for these setbacks. So that means they are very close to my property for parking. I have no idea what his plan is for this house as a result either. Sadly, I am afraid he will be using this for an Air BnB rental weekly and for that I am requesting a 6-foot privacy fence between our properties from the road entrance between our two 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) properties all the way around it to border Patricia Hay property as she has requested a privacy fence as well. It is my understanding he will have a pool and fireplace and for that matter I would like my property safeguarded against his guests. His guests, trash or flame embers I do not want on my property at all. We feel this property will be having weekly guest rentals of people we do not know and we do not want them throwing garbage or going into the woods of our property next door. I also am asking who allowed the propane tank in front of his house as it is a clear eyesore next to my property as most people have it behind their house or close next to the house. I do not want to look at that going into my property should I choose to one day build or sell it. That needs to be put back of the house or with a fence around that as well if it has to stay in front which years prior it was close to the house so I am asking why was it out there? Thank you for your time today. Dawn Hlavaty-Staratt” That’s it. I’m done. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Any comments you want to make at this point? MR. CASS-I’d like to first of all mention that we are proposing a privacy fence, and as a requirement for the pool it is required to install a minimum four foot fence. We are proposing a six foot fence. It’s not on the property line. It’s actually further in. MR. BADALY-I’m sorry, and that’s both neighbors. So that’ll satisfy both neighbors. So it does go all the way around the pool. In terms of vehicle turnaround space, we do have an adequate backup aisle behind the parking spots to allow for them to exit. So they can just back out and then turn. There shouldn’t be a need for a turnaround,, and I will mention, for the Board’s information, that the house does not have a garage, and so it is a five bedroom house and we’re hoping to have enough parking for all of, considering that there may be personal drivers in each bedroom, and that’s how we kind of figured the parking mostly. The propane tank, is it in front? MR. CASS-It is actually in the front, but it is on our side of the property. However, if that is in fact true that there is a 10 foot requirement that you need to be off the neighbor’s property. MR. BADALY-That’s the Building Code. That’s not for zoning. Our site plan shows it at the rear. So that is something that needs to be revised. MR. LA SARSO-I have a question for Staff. So is that standard for the propane tank, is that because it’s on a permitted structure or? MRS. MOORE-So the propane tank is not covered under the Zoning Board. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-It would be covered under Building and Codes. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. Thank you. MR. BADALY-Any, I believe it’s oil or gas tank is required to be at 10 feet from a property line or I believe a building as well. MR. LA SARSO-Okay. MR. URRICO-I have a question for Laura. You can’t do a six foot fence, can you? MRS. MOORE-So where it’s located is what determines whether it can be six feet or higher. Typically if it’s in what we call the rear yard, six feet is the maximum height that can be allowed. Once the applicant does propose that, I would definitely have that run by Craig to make sure it’s in compliance. I believe if it comes any further, closer to the road, than it may be subject to the variance, but once it’s in the rear yard, it could be up to six feet, as a privacy fence, but that is something that, because he’s proposing it around the pool and the pit, I would have to run that by Craig to determine if it needs additional review. At this point, you’re not discussing the fence. It’s not part of the proposal. MR. BADALY-This is the line that displays here, the front yard setback, but I would assume, I mean it’s kind of hard to define, is it the rear yard of the house or is it. MRS. MOORE-It’s not a setback issue. It’s what would be determined to be the rear yard of the house structure, and the Zoning Administrator would make that determination. MR. BADALY-Gotcha. MR. URRICO-So you better check before you build it. MR. KUHL-Yes, check with them before you start to buy the fence. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. BADALY-I will mention the site plan was submitted for Staff review, but I will definitely confirm to make sure that that is permissible, and if it’s not then we can scale it down. MR. URRICO-It’s a question of whether it’s four feet or six feet to the front yard. MR. BADALY-And we can definitely scale it down for four feet. I think the neighbors may prefer a six foot fence it may appear. MR. KUHL-If you’re also going to put a pool back there, you want to secure the area around the pool so children don’t fall in. MR. CASS-Yes, definitely. MR. KUHL-I pass that structure daily. I’m surprised at where the propane tank is, and I think there’s some simple ways you could dress that up, you know, some lattice fence around it or something simple like that. You don’t have to do that. I’m just suggesting because that may save some. MR. CASS-Absolutely. MR. KUHL-You’re putting an awful lot of effort into that structure and a lot of work into it. MR. CASS-And we’ll do that. MR. URRICO-I have a second question for Laura. Since they identified this as an Air BnB property, is there anything else that we need to address? MRS. MOORE-Not in Zoning or Planning. That’s something that’s addressed through Building and Codes. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess I’ll close the public hearing at this point. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-And poll the Board. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I think it’s an improvement, and my wife actually went into that house one day when it was sold and the people were there clearing out because the father had passed away, and the comment that the daughter made was every time the father’s wife was looking for him he’d build another room and ultimately he ran out of real estate or retired. I don’t know, but from a resident’s standpoint in the area, I think you’re improving the property. I applaud you, and so I’d be in favor of the way it’s presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, there’s no doubt, I’ve been going by the property for years, too, and it’s 100%, going to look 100% better than what was there. It’s a good improvement for the neighborhood. So I’d be on board with it the way it is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I’m definitely on board with it. MR. UNDERWOOD- And I, too, I drive by it all the time and it’s a definite plus. MR. CASS-Thank you. MR. BADALY-All the time that I’ve been involved with them, it is a significant investment made into the property, and it’s usually above the value of the property. It is worth it. MR. UNDERWOOD-So I guess I’ll ask somebody to do a motion here. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. KUHL-Do you want me to make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. UNDERWOOD-Certainly. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Albert Gjonbalaj. Applicant proposes to complete dormer addition on the second floor of an existing home. The existing home is 2,435 sq. ft. footprint. Interior renovations are proposed for the existing basement, first floor, and second floor. The second floor has the dormer that is to be completed and the deck to be removed. Applicant seeks approval for previously constructed dormer. The project also includes site improvements with a new pool, patio area, and new driveway area. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for partial construction of dormer areas on the second floor of an existing home. The parcel is 0.52 ac and located in the RR3A zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The 295 sq. ft. dormer addition that is to be completed is 43.8 ft. from the southwest property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. Then 90.9 ft. from the rear property line and 56 ft. to the front property line where 100 ft. setback is required. The applicant was informed the dormer under construction needed a variance, the applicant stopped work on the dormer to complete the necessary variance forms to seek relief. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 15, 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 variance improves the property that is already there. 2. Feasible alternatives were really limited. They have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance really is not substantial as this was an existing structure that never got approved. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really is not self-created as it was existing when the building was purchased. 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. 78-2021 ALBERT GJONBALAJ, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 15th Day of December 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Stark, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt MR. CASS-Thank you. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-Last up on the agenda tonight is Area Variance No. 79-2021, Frank Sinatra, Jr. His agent is Environmental Design Partners again. The project location is at 105 Rockhurst Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 79-2021 SEQRA TYPE II FRANK SINATRA AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) FRANK SINATRA ZONING WR LOCATION 105 ROCKHURST RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING 1,562 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT HOME AND TO CONSTRUCT A 1,553 SQ. FT., FOOTPRINT HOME WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 2,338 SQ. FT. THE NEW HOME HAS 3 LEVELS FOUNDATION AREA, FIRST FLOOR, AND SECOND FLOOR. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, AND CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 75-2021; SEPTIC 618-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080; 179-6-060 CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 79-2021, Frank Sinatra, Meeting Date: December 15, 2021 “Project Location: 105 Rockhurst Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,562 sq. ft. footprint home and to construct a 1,553 sq. ft. footprint home with a floor area of 2,338 sq. ft. The new home has 3 levels foundation area, first floor, and second floor. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and construction of new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for the construction of a new home. The parcel is 9,336 sq. ft. and located in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The proposed home is to be 48 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area proposed is 25%, 2,338 sq. ft. where 22% or 2,054 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. 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 size of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of 2 ft. Floor area relief of 3% in excess of 22%. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a new home to be 2,338 sq. ft. with a lower level, main floor and second floor. The plans show the location of the existing home and the new home. The project includes installation of permeable driveway area and a new septic system.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, Queensbury Planning Board, based on its limited review identified the following area of concern: the floor area variance of three percent.” And that was motion was passed th December 14 by a unanimous vote. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. KEIL-Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership. The Sinatras were looking to make this house more of a multi-generational base for them, you know, their family is their grandkids, etc. They’re looking to make a big improvement on the property. The existing house is a lawful non-conforming house and as it stands would require a front yard, side yard, and permeability variances. They would like to demolish the house and shift the location so it fits more within the setback. It does, however, trigger a shoreline setback variance, and we’d like some relaxation there, and that’s just for the deck, not for the actual house. Furthermore, you know, there’s currently two seepage pits that would be non-conforming. They’re less than 100 feet from the lake. That’s getting improved with an enhanced wastewater treatment system. There’s currently no stormwater on the site to speak of and they’re going well above and beyond with improvements there for stormwater. So in summary I think it’s quite an extensive project. So they’re hoping to get the most out of it and make it a property that really fits the area. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from the Board? All right. I’ll open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wishing to speak on the project? Any correspondence, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No correspondence. MR. UNDERWOOD-I guess I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. UNDERWOOD-Anything else you want to add at this point? MR. KEIL-No, just if you have any questions. MR. KUHL-Could I ask a question? What’s the dimension of the deck off the house? MR. CASS-Yes, it’s very tight. It’s seven feet in that pinch point there. MR. KUHL-Seven feet? MR. CASS-Yes. The tighter kind of pitch off the northern side right there, that’s about seven feet, and you can see we tried to follow in respect to that setback line, but just having like a little place for a table or something there. It’s pretty tight. MR. KUHL-I guess my question is if approval was based on reducing it one foot, would you? MR. CASS-I mean, I don’t know. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you go to six feet, you’re basically going to have a hard time walking around the chair at that point. If you want to have a table out there and have a usable deck area. MR. KUHL-I just wanted to ask the question. MR. UNDERWOOD-All right. I guess I’ll start with you, John. MR. HENKEL-It’s definitely a hard piece of property to build on, for one reason because of the slope. It doesn’t give you a lot to work with there. It would be nice, but there’s not a lot you can. I think you’ve done all you can really do. It’s a little bit over the FAR variance. I’d like to see it a little less on that, but the benefit of the new septic and the permeable driveway compared to what’s there now with the asphalt. So I’d be on board with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-To me it seems like a lot of relief. So I would be against it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-Well, you know, I mean, here we go because so many of these properties are torn down and built new. I think the benefit, I hate to say it, but I think the benefit for the new outweighs what they’re asking for. I think the request is minimal. I wouldn’t want to start a trend. That way everybody would start blowing them up a little bit bigger and build them closer and closer to the lake ,but I’d be in favor of this the way it’s presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-Jackson? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I’d be completely in favor of this as it goes. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) MR. UNDERWOOD-Brady? MR. STARK-I’m in favor of the project as well. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I have my concerns the same as Roy does on this one here. Four bedrooms on a .21 acre lot. I think even if you have an advanced system that’s going to deal with your wastewater that you’re going to produce on there, I still think your proximity to the lake is a concern. I think all the re- do’s we’ve done on this part of Rockhurst Road I think have been a concern in the past. So at this point I don’t think I’d be in favor of the project. So I guess it looks like you have enough to approve this. So does somebody want to make the motion? MR. STARK-I’ll do it. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank Sinatra. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 1,562 sq. ft. footprint home and to construct a 1,553 sq., ft., footprint home with a floor area of 2,338 sq. ft. The new home has 3 levels foundation area, first floor, and second floor. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and construction of new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for the construction of a new home. The parcel is 9,336 sq. ft. and located in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The proposed home is to be 48 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area proposed is 25%, 2,338 sq. ft. where 22% or 2,054 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 15, 2021. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because it seems to be somewhat minimal. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not necessary at this point. 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial. 4. There is not necessarily an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It would be very minor if there was any. 5. The alleged difficulty can 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. 79-2021 FRANK SINATRA, Introduced by Brady Stark, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 15th Day of December 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/15/2021) ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt MR. UNDERWOOD-You’re all set. MR. CASS-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-So for the Board members here, I just want to give you a little reminder about training. You’re supposed to have four hours worth of training before the end of the year. I do have a training session tomorrow night here. Actually it will start at 6:15 p.m. It’s on our MS-4 program and particularly we’re talking about Wincrest Drive, and Jim Leibrum and others will be present to give us a quick overview of that. MR. KUHL-What time is that? MRS. MOORE-It starts at 6:15. I have heard from most of you, but if you haven’t done it yet. So you need to close the meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’ll close the meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TH DECEMBER 15, 2021, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 15 day of December, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Stark, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. McDevitt On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, James Underwood, Acting Chairman 29