Loading...
05-18-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING MAYI8Tr;2022 INDEX Area Variance No.22-2022 3 Antigua Road LLC 1. Tax Map No.239.17-1-2,239.17-1-1 Sign Variance No. 3-2022 Hoffman Development Corp. 2. Tax Map No.296.17-1-42 Area Variance No.17-2022 Tom&Beth Portuese S. Tax Map No. 316.5-1-3&316.9-1-27.2 Area Variance No.20-2022 Eric Carlson 11. Tax Map No.239.12-2-S4 Area Variance No.21-2022 Reds LG,LLC 17. Tax Map No.22-2022 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 05/IS/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN RONALD KUHL MEMBERS ABSENT BRENT MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, May IS`h, 2022. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each application up,read the application into the record, allow the applicant to present their case. We'll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we'll open the public hearing,seek input from the public,then we'll close the public hearing,poll the Board, see where we stand on the issue and then proceed accordingly. First we have a couple of Administrative Items. So,John,could we have a motion on the meeting minutes for April 20`h APPROVAL OF MINUTES April 20`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 20TH,2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this IS`h day of May,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Henkel ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt April 27`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF APRIL 271K,2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this IS`h day of May,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Kuhl,Mr.Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So the applicant has requested that we table AV 22-2022,which is 3 and 5 Antigua Road until June,but it has been advertised as a public hearing. AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 3 ANTIGUA ROAD LLC AGENT(S) CHRIS KEIL (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP) OWNER(S) 3 ANTIGUA ROAD, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 3 &z 5 ANTIGUA ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022) CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,145 SQ. FT. HOME WITH A 180 SQ. FT. DECK FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 6,483 SQ.FT. THE NEW HOME IS TO BE GREATER THAN 28 FT.IN HEIGHT. THE DRIVEWAY AREA INCLUDED PERMEABLE PAVERS OF 1400 SQ. FT. AND 8,145 SQ. FT. HARD-SURFACING. THE PARCEL THAT IS LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF QUEENSBURY ADJOINS A PARCEL THAT IS IN THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE THAT HAS FRONTAGE ON THE LAKE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW ENTRY PORCH OVERHANG TO THE EXISTING HOME AND A PORTION OF THE NEW HARD SURFACE AREA FOR OUTDOOR KITCHEN THAT IS LOCATED IN THE TOWN OF LAKE GEORGE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT, PERMEABILITY, AND STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACK. CROSS REF AV 59-2014,SP 25-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE .74 ACRES AND.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-2,239.17-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040,147 MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody here for that particular application? So I'm going to open the public meeting anyway because it's advertised. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-And then,John,I'm going to ask for a motion to table. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 3 Antigua Road LLC. Applicant proposes to construct a new 2,145 sq.ft.home with a 180 sq.ft.deck footprint with a floor area of 6,483 sq. ft. The new home is to be greater than 28 ft. in height. The driveway area included permeable pavers of 1400 sq. ft. and 8,145 sq. ft.hard-surfacing. The parcel that is located in the Town of Queensbury adjoins a parcel that is in the Town of Lake George that has frontage on the lake. The project includes a new entry porch overhang to the existing home and a portion of the new hard surface area for the outdoor kitchen that is located in the Town of Lake George. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks,height,permeability,and stormwater device setback. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.22-2022 3 ANTIGUA ROAD LLC.,Introduced by John Henkel,who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood: Tabled to the June 22 d 2022 meeting with any new information by June 1",2022. Duly adopted this 18th Day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So the first application is SV 3-2022,Hoffman Development Corporation. TABLED: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2022 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP. AGENT(S) FRANK PALUMBO (CT MALE) OWNER(S) 919 STATE ROUTE 9,LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 919 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPPortueseOSES A FREESTANDING SIGN TO BE NO GREATER THAN 90 SQ. SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR FREESTANDING SIGN GREATER THAN 45 SQ.FT AND SETBACK. CROSS REF SP 71-2021;PZ-DISC-0005-2021; P-SSE-0008-2017,PZ-0189-2016;SP 53-2011;SP 57-95;SP 38-90 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2022 LOT SIZE 2.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO.296.17-1-42 SECTION 140 FRANK PALUMBO&MARTY HOFFMAN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2022, Hoffman Development Corp., Meeting Date: May IS, 2022 "Project Location: 919 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: "Revised-Applicant proposes a freestanding sign to be 88 sq. ft. Relief requested for freestanding sign greater than 60 sq. ft. and setback less than 25 ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for freestanding sign greater than 60 sq.ft.The parcel is 2.011 acres and located in the Commercial Intensive zone. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) Chapter 140- signs The project is for an SS sq.ft.sign where a 60 sq.ft.sign is the maximum allowed with a 25 ft.setback. The sign is to be located 20.1 ft. from the setback where a sign greater than 60 sq. ft. is required to be 25 ft. setback. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 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 sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the sign size. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is 2S sq.ft.greater than allowed and setback is 4.9 ft. 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 have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is for a new sign to advertise for the Hoffman's car wash. The plans show the sign to indicate the services offered at the site. The sign includes the words Hoffman Car Wash,Free Vacuums,and open 7 days a week. The plans show a stone base structure to hold the sign. The applicant reduced the sign size from 13S sq.ft.to SS sq.ft." MR. PALUMBO-Frank Palumbo with C.T. Male, Ron Levack from Sign Studio is also with me this evening. Marty Hoffman and Josh are also here from Hoffmans as well. So when we presented last month we heard loud and clear that the Board was not willing to entertain the size of the sign that we had first proposed. We came back with a new size sign that Laura has up on the screen now. It still does require a variance. We've brought this down to SS square feet from I think that our original was 13S square feet. We had made the case, we feel that the sign is fitting for the spot where we're putting it. Just to update the Board,we did receive Site Plan approval last night from the Board, and one of the key elements of that was that we want the public to,for as much as possible, we have two entrances, one on Weeks Road and one at the signal across from Sweet Road and so this sign for various reasons being on a corner lot a lot of people would normally possibly have it on a corner,but that's not what our intent was in this. There was an easement there. So we have moved this up closest to the entrance that is at the signal. We want people to see that because there's a lot of concern over the,well any potential traffic on Weeks Road. Our identification of the sign being sizeable enough for people to easily and readily see it as they're approaching from either direction that that's where, the signs on all of the Hoffman's are really located at the primary entrance. So we have it up there. We did want it to be sizeable enough for it to be easily visible. We think it is an attractive sign that will meet the architecture of the building with the stone base. We think that it is essential for this type of business to not only have the car wash but also the two panels below that will be identifiers for what you can, what is essential to the business there. It is open seven days a week and the free vacuums is not only a service as part of the brand of what Hoffman's does,but identifies for people immediately that they know that they can pull in there and it's not just for paying customers. You could go in there and vacuum your car if you're coming off of, you've been up at Great Escape and something spilled in the car,you can pull in and do that. That it's an area, and that's why we think that's an important part of having those services listed on the sign. Ron is much more of the sign specialist and can go into more of those details, but we're really here to see if we've gone in a direction that you feel is achievable for the variance. We'd like to answer any questions that the Board may have. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So do we have questions of the applicant? Also I just want to announce that we are short a member tonight. So you still need your four positive votes,but there's only six of us instead of seven. So if you want to withdraw it to a later time when we have our seventh person,that's fine. MR. PALUMBO-Yes. If there's an indication that there's other question or saying one way or the other, maybe we'll take you up on that. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MR.KUHL-Mr. Chairman,could I ask a question? How many car washes does Hoffman's have? MR.HOFFMAN-Twenty-three. MR.KUHL-Okay. Of all the twenty-three,is this your standard sign? Yes,or no would be fine. MR. LEVACK-So Hoffman went through a re-branding a few years ago, and every new car wash, in the process of building these new locations,they're also re-vamping the old locations,and with re-vamping up the old locations,they are bringing up the new brand. So,yes,going forward they are all this branding MR. MC CABE-But they aren't all that right now. MR. LEVACK-Not currently,no. MR.HENKEL-So you say that branding,but is it that size? What are you saying for square footage when you're saying? MR.KUHL-This is my question. What's the largest sign you have? MR. LEVACK-Twenty feet,one hundred thirty-six square feet. MR.KUHL-Okay. My view is that when you see Hoffman Car Wash you know you get quality,you know you get service. It's real,it's whole. Perhaps,if this sign had to be 60 square feet,would you accept that? MR. LEVACK-Well,we can look at it this way as well,if you'd like,if you've give me the opportunity. If you look at the 4 ft.by 12 ft.sign above,which is 4 S square feet,the sign was designed so that the entire 4 S square feet does not illuminate. So most people would look and say that whole thing is illuminated 4S square feet. What we did at this location is we decided the background is not going to light up. Just the letters are going to light up and it's going to be white,it's going to be black during the day and at night it will light up white. So there's not going to be 4S square feet during the hours of nighttime it's going to light up,and that's the same with the bottom portion. The only part that's going to be illuminated will be the cabinet that contains the three vacuums and open seven days. MR.MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. I think I left the public hearing open from the last time. So is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN JOSEPH NICHOLS MR. NICHOLS-Good evening. My name is Joseph Nichols. I representing Queensbury Holdings. Queensbury Holdings owns the property which is adjacent to the property being built by Hoffman's for the car wash. My client is opposed to the application for a sign of this size. It obviously requires a variance from this Board. I don't believe that the applicant has indicated a valid reason for the variance. I think they would like to have a larger sign. Looking at the presentation, I'm questioning why it would be necessary for the applicant to advertise their free vacuums or open seven days a week would be necessary for the advertising of their business. Other local businesses do not advertise particular features of their business on their sign. They simply advertise what their business is, and there would be no reason that the Hoffman Car Wash sign would need to exceed the 60 feet, and a question if I may. I thought that the amount of square footage was 45 feet. That was what we were operating under last time, if I'm not mistaken,I thought 45 feet was the amount that if the applicant exceeded that they would need a variance but I heard the Board say 60 this evening. MRS. MOORE-So there's two separate items in the Zoning Code. I apologize for interrupting,but there is an opportunity for an applicant to have a setback of 25 feet up to 60 square feet of signage. So that's where this application falls under. MR.NICHOLS-Understood. Thank you for that clarification. I appreciate it. So it would seem clear that this is a self-created problem. The applicant doesn't need a sign of this size. I think that other businesses nearby that are not able to have signs of this size are then going to want to have signs of this size. I think it's going to disrupt the character of this entire corridor. Everybody's going to want to have signs that are consistent that with the signs that Hoffman's are allowed if they are granted this variance and I think that's all. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular matter? BEN BOTELHO 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MR. BOTELHO-My name is Ben Botelho. I'm an attorney with Braymer Law. I'm here representing Whispering Pines Associates, an apartment complex down Weeks Road. Initially I think as my boss Claudia mentioned at the last Zoning Board meeting,we think the SEQR,she already laid out the reasons for that because of uncoordinated review you are required to review all aspects of the underlying project, not just the sign. Our client still remains opposed to this,the whole project including the signs. We ask that the Board deny the application as Mr. Nichols already said. The applicant has alternatives including signs that meet the Code. The variance is substantial and the hardship is self-created and I think Mr. Valente here may have some comments. JAMES VALENTE MR. VALENTE James Valente. I'm the owner with my brothers of Whispering Pines and I've been on Route 9 with a business for 35 years and I don't see too many Sign Variances given to exceed the amount that they're asking for. Also, they have a traffic light right there in front of where cars are going to be stopped. They're going to get all the visibility they can see it. I just don't see hardship for them to be putting up a sign of this size and also you've got alight over thereat Wal-Mart right down the road. The traffic's going to be running slowly through there many times when those people are catching the light. I just don't seethe hardship and I also seethe Route 9 corridor. I would not like to see a lot of signs,variance signs get into the Route 9 corridor. I like the way it is with 45 square feet on a 15 foot setback and if it's a 25 foot setback I'd like to see it remain at 60 feet,square foot. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular application? Do you guys have any response to either? MR. LEVACK-I know that the individual mentioned that there's no other companies that go ahead and advertise their brand or the name of their business and also a bunch of services,but I would have to differ with that because it is common in this community that there are businesses that do have their brand up there and do also offer additional signage for services. Any car dealership you go to,you'll find that their brand is there, the manufacturer's name is on the building, whether it be a Mazda, then they'll have the owner's name on it as well. That's a secondary sign. Then on top of that you may find that they have a service bay and they'll have the word service on it and parts. So these types of signs are all automotive service related. Car wash also falls within that automotive service related. You may find some oil change places that advertise alignments on their building,a/c re-conditioning on their building as well. They also have their name on it and they have secondary signage as well. So this is also common. LIA Nissan,they have their name on it. They have their branding on it and they also have service over their bays. So this is the same thing, along those lines, automotive related and we're basically keeping it uniform with the way the automotive industry is and that's why we added those extra features because people will actually look for those extra features. It allows them to see what service you offer there. Like my colleague here had mentioned that sometimes when you're coming down the road and you see free vacuums and you need that service,that service isn't a paid service and it's not combined with any paid service. It's an automatic free service. You don't have to go through the car wash to get it. You just pull in and use it. So those types of things goes in line with whether you buy your car there or you get the service there,or you're getting a car wash there and you're getting a service there. MR. PALUMBO-If I could also just add one quick point. There is something unique on this site. The vacuums are removed towards the rear of the property. You may not even see them from Route 9. They are actually behind the building that is on the adjacent property and that was a particular part of the site plan that was necessary. We screened the rear to the neighbors in the back, but it was the only place where the vacuums can fit and some of the Planning Board members were actually happy that they were set back from the road and not visible. So having the sign with vacuum,whether it's free or not,identifies something that you do not see from the road. So that is another reason that we had that on the sign. MR. MC CABE-You had a question,John? MR. HENKEL-You were stating about a car dealership, other signs, but we're talking about, this is a freestanding sign. What you're talking about is signs against a building, which there's a little difference there. MR.LEVACK-Right,and there's been multiple freestanding signs at dealerships that will offer a secondary service that they have. MR. HENKEL-Yes, but you're also having other signs on that site because you're going to have a menu sign,directional signs. So there's going to be quite a bit of signage. MR. LEVACK-Exterior signs,correct. You're going to need a kiosk. That's where people are going to be able to go in and pay. It would be different than if you go to Wal-Mart. When you go to Wal-Mart if you were to buy something you have to go inside and pay. You have to go to the cashier. Because this is an exterior car wash they have what they call kiosks that substitute for cashiers. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/IS/2022) MR.HENKEL-I'm not questioning those signs. MR. PALUMBO-And one other thing if I may, Mr. Chairman. I really do want to just bring into the equation the fact that those two smaller signs are below, you know, the other sign. We've reduced the height as well from when we were here last. The balance of the sign works with the entire sign. This is, I think,a very attractive sign,the wall,everything that's done with that. Many of the signs that are in the corridor, not that they're unattractive, but they are a post end sign. So we have the need to help direct people to the entrance. We have a need to identify that this site where you look at it and may not see vacuums, identifies that there are vacuums on the site. The Open Seven Days a Week, again, it's just another common thing that Hoffman's is expressing on all of their sites. So from the side of hardship having something that identifies the vacuums is important,but the entirety of the sign is something that's balanced. So if you took out the other signs and said I'll just go with the one,it is taking something away from, I think,the aesthetic, and nothing against other people and the other signs they've done,but there are many signs that meet the Code that are just on a post and a sign and in some cases I would argue that that's not the aesthetic that you want. I don't think that the gentleman who said this is going to drive everyone to ask for larger signs,I don't think that is the case. MR. LEVACK-The design going into it, a lot of it had to do with they wanted to put the address on it,on the sign. So the concept of the design was how can we do it in a way that we can get our address on it, and I've been in front of a lot of municipalities and some of them make a condition of the sign that they have to have the address on there. So you can go in front of a Board and they'll say can you stipulate that there'll be an address on the sign,so we had to find a way that this would blend in with the address as well. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else who would like to speak on this matter? So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Jim. MR.HENKEL-Do you want to do SEQR first,or no? MR. MC CABE-Well let's see where we stand. MR. UNDERWOOD-You're 2S square feet over from the 60. I don't think that's a huge advantage in the corridor by any means. Originally you were at 135. So I think that this is a compromise that we can live with. As far as the setback,they're pretty close to 25. You need 4.9 feet of setback relief for that. I don't see that that's a big problem. So I'd be in favor of the relief they're seeking. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I would like to see it a little bit smaller,but I agree with Jim. I think Hoffman Car Wash is a good business for our community. It's a nice sign. So I'd be onboard with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I don't think you need anything other than Hoffman Car Wash. I think you've got the quality in your product and everybody likes it. The fact that you want to have free vacuums and Open Seven Days a Week, I personally don't think you need it. Having said that, it's not too large a sign. I would not be opposed to it. I think you're overstating. I think if you keep it simple, Hoffman Car Wash people will come. In the past I've seen stores like Wal-Mart have to change their blue to green to be in Clifton Park. I'm not going to try to drive it to where you should not have free vacuums and Open Seven Days a Week, but personally I don't think you need it. You've got a product,Hoffman Car Wash,which in this area is a quality product. All the rest of the spaghetti,I don't think you need it. I'll let this go,but if you're talking about a re-branding and what you want to do or not want to do,Amazon Prime,Prime quality. Hoffman Car Wash is quality. All the rest is incidental stuff. So if you're going to go into re-branding, stay with what people go to. I mean I go to one of their 23. Not often because I'm not a wealthy guy,okay,but I'm very impressed by the way they service me. They come up and they do the job. I don't need free vacuum. I don't need Seven Days a Week. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm against the sign. I still think it's too big. It's not about the content of the sign. It's about how much space you need to say what you're going to say. I don't think people are going to confuse Hoffman for Electrolux when they see free vacuums. So I think the sign can say what you want it to say in a smaller version of it. So I would be against it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MRS.HAMLIN-I agree. You really can't bring content into this issue anyway,and our own zoning allows you to have all of this on here in terms of content,but if we say no to the size,legibility is going to become an issue with your sign. So I look at SS,technically you're really at 45,technically. Sixty is where we get off into the twenty five,but you're closer to twenty five. I had to debate this. Even rounding up, 60 is fair. I can't do SS. You've come along way. I appreciate that you listened to the rest of the Board,but I wasn't sold the last time. So I'm against it at this point. It would have to comedown a little bit more at least,maybe not down to 60,but a lot closer. MR. MC CABE-So I appreciate what you guys have done. I think you've done a good job. It's a good compromise, and so I support the project. So I'm going to ask for SEQR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2022. APPLICANT NAME: HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 18th Day of May 2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-So,Jim,I'm going to ask for a motion on the Sign Variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hoffman Development Corp. (Revised): Applicant proposes an SS sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief requested for freestanding sign greater than 60 sq.ft. and setback less than 25 ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for freestanding sign greater than 60 sq.ft.The parcel is 2.011 acres and located in the Commercial Intensive zone. Chapter 140- signs The project is for an SS sq.ft.sign where a 60 sq.ft.sign is the maximum allowed with a 25 ft.setback. The sign is to be located 20.1 ft. from the setback where a sign greater than 60 sq. ft. is required to be 25 ft. setback. SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 3-2022. Applicant Name: Hoffman Development Corp.,based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant,this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 18th Day of May 2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt A public hearing was advertised and held on April 20,2022 and May 1S,2022; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance? We could ask for a smaller sign,but they've reduced the sign from 13S square feet down to SS square feet. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I don't believe so. It's slightly oversized but it's not going to make a difference. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes. 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,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. (ZBA Board Member does Dot Deed to read the followingA through F): A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one(1)year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park,the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency(APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits,including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency,Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE SV 3- 2022, HOFFMAN DEVELOPMENT CORP., Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th Day of May 2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. PALUMBO-Thank you for all your questions and comments. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 17-2022,Tom and Beth Portuese. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2022 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE 11 TOM &z BETH PORTUESE AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) TOM &z BETH PORTUESE ZONING WR LOCATION 28 LANSBURG LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A HOME OF 1,064 SQ. FT.AND TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 3,184 SQ. FT. WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 5,658 SQ. FT. ALSO PROPOSED IS CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,219 SQ. FT. PATIO. THE PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ALTERATION OF 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) SHARED DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ARRANGEMENT, GRADING, AND EROSION CONTROL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA,HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE, NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, AND DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%. Relief requested for access from adjoining lot. CROSS REF SP 28-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 LOT SIZE 0.75 AC. (316.5-1-3) &z 1.01 AC. (3169-1-27.2) SECTION 179-3-040,179-060,179-4-050 TOM CENTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.17-2022,Tom&Beth Portuese,Meeting Date: May 1S,2022 "Project Location: 2S Lansburg Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a home of 1,064 sq. ft. and to construct a new home with a footprint of 3,277 sq. ft. with a floor area of 5,751 sq. ft. Also proposed is construction of a 1,219 sq. ft. patio. The project includes stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement, grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline,new structure within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes, and driveway greater than 100/o. Relief requested for access from adjoining lot. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for access from adjoining lot. The parcel size 0.75 ac (316.5-1-3) &r 1.01 ac (316.9-1-27.2) and the property zone is Waterfront Residential,WR. Section 179-4-050 Frontage The applicant proposes a new home on parcel 316.5-1-3 then utilizing a driveway access on parcel 319.9-1- 27.2 to get to Lansburg Lane;where parcels are required to have a minimum of 150 ft.of road frontage and the applicant proposes zero. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The new home and access may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character as the site has always used an access road from an adjoining property. 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 difficult to achieve without creating additional variances for the adjoining parcels. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for one parcel with no access to road frontage to access Lansburg Lane through an adjoining 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 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 project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to construct a new home on a landlocked parcel and to create a shared driveway through an adjacent parcel. The plans show the parcel with the new home and the driveway access area." MR.URRICO-And the Planning Board made a recommendation that based on their limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed seven,zero on May 17`h,2022. MRS. MOORE-So I have one correction on that. It's not Lansburg Lane. The access is to Big Bay Road. I apologize. Lansburg Lane is to the north of it and then Big Bay Road is to the south. MR. CENTER-Good evening. Tom Center with Hutchins Engineering. As Laura stated, this is for a shared driveway accessing Big Bay Road. Prior to this project, in order to connect to the Town water system the Portuese's also own this parcel to the south that they're proposing to do the driveway on. They 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) deeded themselves an easement for the water line when they connected to the Town water out on Big Bay Road. So there's already a deeded easement access in place, and this driveway was partially created as an access for the water line when the water line was installed. What they're proposing today is to give up the deeded access that's from Lansburg Lane,currently how they access the parcel,in favor of accessing it through Big Bay Road, and this would be a shared driveway with any house that was constructed on Big Bay Road. It would be a shared driveway, the same driveway would be used to access the parcel to the south. We tried to keep the disturbance to a minimum,get a good site distance and a level area at the top of the driveway to access the parcel either way. Even if we use Lansburg Lane, we would still be here needing a variance because we're doing work on an existing non-conforming lot. So either way we did this. This is the better result not accessing through a neighborhood out the other side. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward. MRS.HAMLIN-The access that you're currently using,that is not shared? MR. CENTER-Yes, it is shared. Lansburg Lane is shared. They're both shared. That's through other existing parcels. MRS.HAMLIN-Okay. I just wanted to make sure. MR. CENTER-It's not a Town road. MRS.HAMLIN-And you're extinguishing that. MR. CENTER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that has any input on this particular project. Roy,is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Nothing. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Ron. MR.KUHL-I look at this as a good project. I think it's a minimal request,and I have no problems with it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree. I think it's a good project. I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS.HAMLIN-Yes,I will vote in favor. They're just really switching off. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a simple request. I think we can approve it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. In the future you'll have two homes just having one access to Big Bay Road. So it makes a lot of sense. I'd be on board with it. MR.MC CABE-And I support the project also. We've allowed access through another means in a number of locations that are similar to this,which isn't really a straightforward neighborhood. So I'm going to ask Ron if he could give us a motion here on this particular application. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tom&z Beth Portuese. Applicant proposes to remove a home of 1,064 sq. ft. and to construct a new home with a 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) footprint of 3,277sq ft. sq.ft. with a floor area of 5,751 sq. ft.Also proposed is construction of a 1,219 sq. ft. patio. The project includes stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement,grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, new structure within 50 ft. of 150/o slopes, and driveway greater than 100/o. Relief requested for access from adjoining lot. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for access from adjoining lot. The parcel size 0.75 ac (316.5-1-3) &r 1.01 ac (316.9-1-27.2) and the property zone is Waterfront Residential,WR. Section 179-4-050 Frontage The applicant proposes a new home on parcel 316.5-1-3 then utilizing a driveway access on parcel 319.9-1- 27.2 to get to Lansburg Lane;where parcels are required to have a minimum of 150 ft.of road frontage and the applicant proposes zero. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 1S,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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 it kind of blends into the existing area. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited,have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been-included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. We're talking about a shared driveway. 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. They're just using the joint access to the property to the dwelling. 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,- S. 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. 17-2022 TOM&z BETH PORTUESE,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th Day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. CENTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So our next application is AV 20-2022,Eric Carlson,67 Brayton Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 ERIC CARLSON AGENT(S) CHRIS KEIL (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) ERIC CARLSON ZONING WR LOCATION 67 BRAYTON LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3-BEDROOM HOME WITH A 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) FOOTPRINT OF 2,381 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES PORCHES/DECK AREAS AND LIVING SPACE OF DETACHED BUILDING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A DETACHED GARAGE WITH AN 873 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA OF 6,194 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ALTERATION OF SHARED DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ARRANGEMENT, GRADING, AND EROSION CONTROL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%, AND FRESHWATER WETLAND WORK WITHIN 100 FT.OF THE WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT OF GARAGE, AND STORMWATER DEVICE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORELINE. CROSS REF SEP 241-2019.,SP 26-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO.239.12- 2-84 SECTION 179-3-040;147 CHAPTER 94;179-5-020 JOE DANNIBLE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.20-2022,Eric Carlson,Meeting Date: May 1S,2022 "Project Location; 67 Brayton Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home with a footprint of 2,3SI sq. ft. which includes porches/deck areas and living space of detached building. The project includes a detached garage with an S73 sq.ft.footprint. The new floor area of 6,194 sq.ft. The project includes new stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement, grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA,hard-surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline,new structure within 50 ft.of 150/o slopes, driveway greater than 100/o, and Freshwater wetland work within 100 ft. of the wetland. Relief requested for setbacks,height of garage, and stormwater device less than 100 ft.from shoreline. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,height of garage, and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shoreline in regard to construction of a new home and detached building. The parcel is 1.25 ac and in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Chapter 147 stormwater device The construction of the detached building with garage and living space is to be located 5 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. The detached building is to be 30 ft. 7 inches where accessory buildings are limited to 16 ft.in height.The stormwater device is to be 49 ft.where 100 ft.setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the home is moved further from the back and detached building is in similar location as previous. 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,proximity to wetland, and shared access by adjoining properties. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the setback is 20 ft.,height is 15 feet 5 inches and stormwater device location is 51 ft. 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 project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The plans show the location of the new home with covered porch areas and a separate building with a garage. The separate building will include a two car garage,changing room area and storage." 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MR.URRICO-And the Planning Board met and 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 adopted May 17`h,2022 by a unanimous vote. MR. DANNIBLE-Good evening. I'm Joe Dannible with Environmental Design Partnership. I'm here on behalf of Eric Carlson. They're asking for the restoration and renovation of the existing site. As stated in the record, the applicant is looking to demolish and existing home and detached garage and construct a new single family home with associated garage. There are several variances requested at this time. One I'd like to start with the side yard setback variance. The existing accessory structure or garage on the property, attached garage, is located about six feet from the adjacent property line and that building is approximately 22 feet tall. What we are proposing is a structure that is going to be five feet away from the property line, again, only one foot difference than what currently exists today, and a structure that is going to be 27 feet, 9 inches on the lakeside of the property and 23 feet zero inches on the non-lake side of the property where the actual garage is itself. Important note of reference here as it relates to the character of the adjacent area. On the adjacent lot,immediately adjacent to our garage area,is a detached building on the adjacent lot. That building is less than two feet from the property line. If you include the eaves it's probably about one foot from the property line,and is also in the height range of about 20 feet as well. SO as you look at the character,we don't believe the variance we are looking for is substantial. Certainly not a substantial change from what the current condition is on this site, and with respect to the adjacent building on that property. Second variance,or,sorry,that was the side yard setback. The height variance we are looking for,the accessory structure, as has been determined,has a height of 27 feet 9 inches on the lakeside,23 feet on the non-lake side. Sixteen feet is required for an accessory structure. Something I'd like to point out with that structure is this detached, I'll say quote unquote detached garage, is actually attached to the main building by a foundation and as well by roof. So it essentially is a single family house with an attached garage. However, there are no walls on the breezeway that connects the two units. If this was considered a single family house with an attached garage, it would fall within the Town's requirements of 2S foot maximum. Because it has been determined to be an accessory structure because it is a garage, or I'll say a portion of the building has been determined to be an accessory structure with a garage,the other has been determined to be attached to the building. The actual structure garage portion of this building is only 23 feet,which is much less variance, considering 16 to 23 versus 16 to 27. So again for all intents and purposes this is really a single family structure with an attached garage but due to a determination,it is determined to be a separate structure and therefore that's why we need the variance. That's also not substantial in our opinion. Last variance is related to the stormwater infiltration devices. One hundred feet required. Our infiltration device as proposed would be about 43 feet. So we do need a variance for that as well. I think that variance is very common with development that occurs along the lakeshore,treating any flow that comes off the roofs,things of that nature. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MRS.HAMLIN-It's the rain garden that's in question here? MR. DANNIBLE-It is on the eastern property line. MRS.HAMLIN-I know where it is. I see it,but I'm wondering which device are we talking about? MR. DANNIBLE-Shallow grass depression. MRS.HAMLIN-'Okay. All right. The vegetated grass depression? MR. DANNIBLE-Correct. . MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who has comment on this particular project. Ma'am? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAMELA LESTER GOLDE MRS. GOLDE-My name is Pamela Lester Golde. I am a registered landscape architect as Pamela Lester, and I happen to be a resident of Assembly Point. This is kind of a chicken or the egg syndrome and particularly their stormwater. The Town Engineer has, we think,has reviewed this,but there's been no discussion between the applicant's engineer and the Town Engineer, and in regards to the variances for the stormwater setbacks,it's questionable as to whether or not they can truly function as they are. The one on the left hand side happens to have a nine foot retaining wall holding it back with a roof going down onto a relatively flat lawn,with vegetation in it that can't survive that much water for them to sit in, and they then have an outlet which has no diffuser on it going out into the front yard. The same is true. There is no diffuser. It is going directly to a retaining wall on the neighbor's property, on the right hand side. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) With that said,that five foot setback is relatively steep and they are doing a gravel,it will be a full gravel width on top of landscape fabric. Gravel on top of landscape fabric especially on slopes,especially with a house that does not have gutters is all extremely questionable as to whether or not that fabric will stay. If you're using three eighths inch stone,which is classic of what gets put on it,there's no way in hell that that gravel will stay there and so they may need additional space in which to create stepped planters as they have on the two areas in the front to accommodate the storm drainage along that side. So all I am asking for is the project to be tabled until a review by the Town Engineer and discussion with the applicant's engineer. So that we're not giving a variance to something that cannot function. I think that there's going to have to be modifications,but the modifications would occur under Site Plan Review,but you're giving a variance that I'm not even sure,they may need a bigger variance when all is said and done in regards to the front yard 50 foot setback and the five feet setback. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR.NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky,Lake George Waterkeeper. We feel the project proposes, we don't feel,we know it needs numerous variances,but when those,the cumulative impacts of all those variances are considered, it will have a detrimental impact to the natural resources of the Town and the neighborhood. Important information on natural resources is missing,i.e. the wetland delineation,that is necessary to determine the potential impacts of this project. It is recognized that mitigation measures are proposed, stormwater management, but that fails to balance the numerous variances and the encroachment into the protective wetlands setback, excessive grading,hardening of the site, and lack of shoreline buffer. We also question why there's not a variance to the setback to the wetland. Wetlands, by definition of the Town, are considered shoreline. By the APA mapping that's part of the Town,or part of the County's GIS, wetlands extend into that northern, or I'm sorry, the western area where that re- graded driveway is. There needs to be,there's stormwater up there. There needs to be a variance for that. That's not noted at all. They don't even recognize the wetlands and it's clearly shown on the County maps. The proposed variance will result in an undesirable change. I appreciate the applicant's description,but they're increasing the height. They're increasing the size. They're decreasing the setback. So that,clearly, I feel, is an undesirable change. I question, the drawings that were submitted said that they needed a variance for hardening of the shoreline,the retaining wall setback,but that wasn't mentioned during the presentation. A structure that is within the setback. It appears that that would need a shoreline variance. Clearly alternatives are available to reduce the size of the buildings,re-configure the stormwater,and again, we just feel there's going to be adverse effect and impact on the environmental conditions. Again, the cumulative impacts are not balanced by the mitigation proposed and they fail to even recognize the wetlands on the property or recognize that the stormwater,they need variances and setbacks for that. So I feel this needs to be tabled. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So,Laura,I wonder if you'd give us input on the wetlands. MRS.MOORE-So the wetlands were denoted. They're over towards the top off of their property,I believe it is. So it was a disturbance within that wet area. I guess I'd have to look at that stormwater device if it's considered a stormwater device within, if it's less than 100 feet, but right now it was described, my understanding,the way I viewed it was it was a disturbance within 100 feet that triggered the Freshwater Wetlands under Site Plan Review. That's where that is. MR. MC CABE-I guess,is there anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,there is. "I live on Assembly Point at 66 Bay Parkway, Lake George, NY. The unique thing about the Carlson proposal is that the Carlson lot is larger than most on Assembly Point,even though its configuration is unusual. Nevertheless there are two aspects that are concerning about the site plan. First, the infiltration devices are too close to the Lake. Given the 150/o slope it is important to re-locate these devices. Possibly, a good storm water management could assist the Carlsons in pulling the infiltration devices back from the Lake. Second,the eight of the garage is way out of line with Town code. From the architectural design,it appears that there will be room for a second floor in the garage that could accommodate additional bedrooms. This will change the FAR ratio. I ask the Board Members to table this proposal and ask for revisions for the infiltration devices and clarification on the garage design. Yours sincerely,Lorraine Ruffing Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition" The second letter is "After a review of the plans and drawings on line as well as speaking with Mr. Carlson, I have a concern, regarding the buffer zone of Mr. Carlson's project as well as the proposed change in existing driveway. Our property is at 61 Brayton Lane, Queensbury, NY and abuts the Carlson property on the North side. Mr. Carlson's plans show the new home will be further set back on the lot, as well as the re-direction of the existing driveway. He proposes a new driveway parallel with our driveway. As cars would travel parallel on the proposed new driveway, they will turn south towards the new garage on the south side of the property. This means we may see headlights where we never saw them as the driveway is on the Southside of the property. If this new driveway is moved to the north side,as vehicles drive in it will be as if they are driving down our driveway with lights etc. There is not a lot of trees anymore down that north side of the property and in the winter and spring we will see all the lights as well as the new house lights. We would like the 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) Board to consider requiring Mr. Carlson to put plantings,taller shrubs or trees from the front of the new home down that north side of the property,so we have a sufficient buffer zone on the north side of property based on his filed plans. The current plans on file,do not appear to show any buffer zone on the north side of the property. Sincerely, Lori A. Shay, Trustee of Joe and Mary Shay Irrev. Trust" And they're at 61 Brayton. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to comment on any of the public comments? MR. DANNIBLE-Yes. Certainly. One of the things I would like to mention is the current property it is developed with a single family home, a garage, driveway not only for this lot but also a driveway serving three other residents. There is no stormwater management on the existing property. Proposed improvements to the property slightly increase the overall impervious area on the site,and we're proposing six new stormwater management devices which is a significant upgrade to the current conditions of the site and increasing water quality in and around Lake George. We would like to point out also the re- designed driveway. As we were talking about, which is within proximity of a wet area on an adjacent parcel, currently it has no stormwater devices. We're adding two stormwater devices to re-align that driveway, again to enhance the water quality in those areas of the site. The discussion about the buffer areas to the north,certainly it's something we can look at during site plan review. It's not something that we're asking for a variance for,for location of our driveway,but it is something that we're willing to look at and work on with the Planning Board for that adjacent driveway to the north. Their driveway is also immediately adjacent to the property line. So it would be two driveways on top of each other. There is no buffer on that property either. Their driveway is in that location. So it's just something, again,we're working with plantings adjacent to and around the lake to enhance those areas as well. MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. You haven't explained the height of the garage. I mean that's awful high for storage. It's a garage with storage you're saying. That's awful high. MR. DANNIBLE-Correct,it is a garage with storage, and again,I think it's hard to understand. Laura,is there building elevations or perspective views. That would definitely help the Board understand what we're actually talking about,the variations in height. Could you zoom in on,let's go to the front rendering, the upper right corner of the screen. This is a good view of it. So the accessory portion of the site is not that entire building. For whatever reason,the portion of the building that has the higher foundation is all that is defined as a garage and the accessory structure itself. MRS. MOORE-Actually the whole structure is an accessory structure because it's not attached. So the whole building is considered an accessory structure, whether it's a bunkroom and a garage together. I apologize if that's not clear,but it is,the whole building is an accessory structure. MR. MC CABE-That's the way I understood it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR.DANNIBLE-So,again,we would generally disagree. We have an attached foundation and an attached roof from the house to that building. With that being said, again, there's maybe some discussion within the Code, one of the elements we could do, and it would make it an attached structure and eliminate the height variance,is to rather than have an open breezeway, we could enclose the breezeway on top of the foundation with the roof, in order to eliminate the height variance. It would change nothing about the property itself. We wouldn't have to change the height variances. It would be considered a single family structure with an attached garage. We like the idea of having the open connection between the rooms. If somebody was to come to the site, they could walk through the area that is open, not have to enter the residence to get around to the lakeside where the entertaining could be occurring on the lakeshore. So again,if need be we can make this an attached structure and eliminate the need for that variance. That would be the one way to go, again,but we'd like to keep it without the walls or glassed area connecting them with walls. Again,the foundation is connected. The roofs are connected and we don't believe that it's a substantial variance because it could be changed just by adding walls. I guess that's the argument. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-I think what you just said is pretty important because that is a lot in terms of height. So if that's something you're willing to do, I'm good with that. I'm not a stormwater engineer and I do see, I mean I'm glad that you really have pushed that building itself back from the lake and you're not really building a much bigger footprint. You're well within the FAR and so forth,but I respect the opinions of people who come to our hearings and I think I would want to wait until I knew more about the stormwater provisions towards the lakeside and the wetland is the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, I'm not sure. Also I'm never fond of a lot of the grass in the front like that. So part of that mitigating the stormwater 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) might be this lady mentioned the steps that you have. I mean some other kind of vegetation could be had there in the front that could do some absorption. So at this point I'm not against the project down the road here. I just think I'd like to see some more input on the stormwater and possible improvements to that,and I don't think I would have been in favor of the height. The side setback I'm fine. MR. MC CABE-So you're a no? MRS.HAMLIN-I'm a no now,yes, as is. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I understand what you're trying to accomplish here with your garage not being attached. Keeping it detached makes sense in this sense here. You're close enough as far as that goes. So I'm not that concerned with the height of the garage,even though it's way over the top as far as the height goes when you view it from the water, but I think the stormwater could be improved. It could be dramatically improved to ensure that you're not going to be, that you're properly going to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. I think also on the lakeshore you could use some buffering. You could improve that also. So at this point in time I don't think I'm ready to give you any kind of approvals. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I think there's a project to be had here. Definitely you do a nice job I think with moving the driveway. It makes sense. I'm not happy with the side setback of five feet, though. I think that's something that should be addressed, and like Jim says,it kind of makes sense what you're doing with the garage,but I still don't like the height of it. You could still drop that height down a little bit with having it still detached. So as is I'm not on board with the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-One of the things that upsets me is you come and you play if I do this then I get that,or if I do this it'll pass. The way it's presented I would not approve it. The height of the garage is too high. If somewhere along it there were 16 foot, somewhere at some point, growing to something else, fine, but because of the height of the garage, and I respect the stormwater devices. I think that's got to be looked into more. So I would not be in favor of it at this time. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-It's always better when you're not asking for a variance for anything. That assures the project goes through,but in this case we're dealing with what we have in front of us. What we have in front of us is a garage that's, the height is way over what it should be, and we have some questions that need answers about the stormwater device as well. So if I were to vote today, I would vote no, but I'm willing to wait and find out more about the stormwater management system and what the Town Engineers find. MR. MC CABE-And so I,too,have a problem with okaying the height variance. It's just that, although I understand your point that it's technical, it's not technical for us because we've forced people to stay within six inches of our height requirement. We've been pretty strict about that and this would be kind of a backdoor way to get around that, and I guess I, too, would like to see a little bit more definition in terms of stormwater runoff management. So I can't support the project either. So you have a couple of choices here. You can ask for a vote,but that's not going to go well,obviously,or you can table and address some of these items. The choice is yours. MR. DANNIBLE-I believe we'll table the application. MR. MC CABE-Okay. When would you be prepared to provide something different? MRS. MOORE-I'm going to interrupt. So it would be into July at this point. MR. MC CABE-The first meeting? MRS. MOORE-The first meeting in July. MR. MC CABE-Which would be the 20`h MRS. MOORE-If they can prepare information and submit it by June 15`h MR.DANNIBLE-I think the main thing that we need is the review letter from the Town's Engineer to look at stormwater. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MRS. MOORE-Right. So that's been done and we'll be receiving that letter this week. So you'll see that information,the applicant will see that information shortly. MR. MC CABE-So the first meeting in July,July 20`h,is okay. Or do you want to wait a little bit longer? MR. DANNIBLE-Certainly plenty enough time for us. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. DANNIBLE-I'd like to get it earlier,but if that's the best you can do. MR. MC CABE-So,John,if we could have a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Eric Carlson. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home with a footprint of 2,3SI sq. ft. which includes porches/deck areas and living space of detached building. The project includes a detached garage with an S73 sq. ft.footprint. The new floor area of 6,194 sq.ft. The project includes new stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement, grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline,new structure within 50 ft. of 150/o slopes, driveway greater than 100/o, and Freshwater wetland work within 100 ft. of the wetland. Relief requested for setbacks,height of garage, and stormwater device less than 100 ft.from shoreline. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.20-2022 ERIC CARLSON,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the July 20`h,2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by June 15`h,2022. Duly adopted this 1S`h day of May,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-We'll see you in a few weeks. MRS.HAMLIN-Mr.Chairman,before we move on,could I ask a question? With regards to Laura and the engineering. Does the engineer create an English language, not jargon, summary of his report by any chance? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they provide an actual letter. Typically it's given to the Planning Board, but I understand in this case it sounds like the Zoning Board would like that letter included in their informational packet. So you'll receive that as part of your next review, and for purposes of this application,you should re-open the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I make a request, too, on the vegetation in the front, instead of just having a plain lawn all the way down to the water,come up with a vegetative plan so you have a buffer zone between houses. MR. DANNIBLE-We can certainly work on the area. MR. MC CABE-So I guess we've had a pretty extensive public hearing. Is it okay if we re-open the public hearing,with you? MR. DANNIBLE-Certainly. There were comments. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to re-open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MC CABE-Okay. Our next application is AV 21-2022,Reds LG,LLC,7,9 and 13 Nutley Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO.21-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II REDS LG,LLC AGENT(S) NICHOLAS ZEGLEN (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) REDS LG,LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 7, 9, 13 NUTLEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE ALTERATIONS 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) TO TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF A THIRD DWELLING UNIT ON THE SITE. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE 7 NUTLEY LANE NEW BUILDING OF 540 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES ONE BEDROOM AND KITCHEN, 288 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH,AND 24 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRY AREA;ALTERATIONS TO 9 NUTLEY LANE 704 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND KITCHEN(FLOOR AREA OF 1,408 SQ. FT.),NEW OPEN DECK OF 440 SQ. FT. WITH WALKOUT AREA BELOW,ALTERATIONS TO 13 NUTLEY LANE INCLUDE INTERIOR ALTERATIONS (EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 2,134 SQ. FT. WITH FOUR BEDROOMS). PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION AREAS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, AND CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE,EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR 9 NUTLEY LANE, AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS,EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING, STORMWATER DEVICES LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORELINE, ADDING A THIRD DWELLING UNIT,AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SEP 37-2021,SP 29- 2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040,147,179-13-010 JOE DANNIBLE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2022, Reds LG, LLC, Meeting Date: May 1S, 2022, "Project Location: 7, 9, 13 Nutley Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete construction of a third dwelling unit on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540 sq.ft.which includes one bedroom and kitchen, 2SS sq. ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,40E sq. ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below, alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations (existing floor area of 2,134 sq.ft.with four bedrooms).Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management,shoreline plantings,and construction of a retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane,expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from shoreline, adding a third dwelling unit,and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from shoreline, adding a third dwelling unit, and permeability. The parcel is 0.53 acres and located in the Waterfront Residential zone—WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Chapter 147 The project work on the buildings includes existing and proposed requires relief: Setbacks for 7 Nutley Lane area 16 ft.to the north property line and for 9 Nutley Lane 4 ft.to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required; on the south property line 7 Nutley Lane area It ft. to the south property line and for 9 Nutley Lane 12 ft. to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Expansion of non- conforming. Stormwater device of stone rip rap at the shoreline where a 100 ft. setback is required.Also 7 Nutley Lane for adding a third dwelling unit as it includes a kitchen. Permeability 70.910/o is proposed where 750/o is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to limit the third dwelling with no kitchen,as a previous survey shows three buildings,however the third building from the previous survey to the current survey do not match in size or location — the building was smaller. The setback variances may be limited due to lot shape. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is substantial relevant to the code. 7 Nutley Lane relief—North side setback of Oft, South side setback of 9 ft. 7 Nutley Lane requires relief for being a third dwelling on the property. 9 Nutley Lane relief—North side setback of 16 ft., South side setback of S ft. 9 Nutley Lane requires relief for expansion of a nonconforming 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) structure. The relief for permeability is 4.09%. Relief is requested for the stormwater management where 0 ft.is proposed and 100 ft.is required. The device is also assisting with bank stabilization. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has received approval for and has installed a new septic system that accommodates each of the dwelling units on the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain after the fact construction of 7 Nutley Lane where an existing cabin with no kitchen was expanded to be larger including a deck addition and 9 Nutley Lane for deck expansion. The site was visited by Staff where it was observed the work on the buildings had been started without approvals. The plans show the buildings and the work that has been almost completed on each of the buildings." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern: The Planning Board recommends none of the variances be approved,and that was passed seven, zero on May 17`h,2022. MR.DANNIBLE-Good evening. For the record,Joe Dannible with Environmental Design Partnership. I'm here on behalf of Reds LG, LLC and their application for area variances is related to re-development or renovation of the property located at 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. The property itself has three existing structures on it, an existing house that is within 40 feet of the lakeshore. The applicants are proposing nothing more than interior and exterior renovations to that property,but are proposing to enhance a site that has no stormwater,providing two shallow grass depressions in front of the house,between the house and the lakeshore,the only possible spot for that to occur. It would require the creation of a retaining wall toward the house to be stormwater features on the property. The lot itself is very narrow, narrowing down to about 70 feet at its narrowest point with side yard setbacks of 20 feet that is leaving relatively little room for any development for the property. In fact the existing structures on the property themselves are all pre-existing, non-conforming. They fall outside of the side yard setback lines. So again with the proposal to start with, the first two variances needed are stormwater devices within 19 feet of the lake. That is to create a stormwater management area. On 9 Nutley, that's the second building up, we are proposing to extend a new deck along the front of that building with stairs coming down to the sides. The existing walkway shared between this lot and the adjacent property to the north. That does increase the side yard setback on the north side. The setback on the south side is the same as the existing structure. It's really just the expansion of the structure for a deck. The remaining variances are all associated with the construction and renovation of the 7 Nutley building. That building is proposed as a cabin with a one bedroom and a kitchen and a deck extension off the front of it. The building has been kept as small as feasible to create a quality living space for the owners of the property. With that being said,the applicant understands the Planning Board's concerns about this property and that this work had started without the appropriate permitting in place. The applicants and owners of Red's LG, LLC,John and Mike, are with me tonight. They're here to show their support for the application and to do what they can to make this application right as they're newer up in the Lake George area and want to do what they can to develop the property within the means of the Code. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-What triggers the permeability? Is that already an existing problem, or is there part of this project,the newer part,that triggers the permeability? MRS. MOORE-Part of this project triggers permeability. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-Laura,does the Town recognize 7,9 and 13 as the addresses? MRS. MOORE-As far as I know,yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So they just created this new building up on the upper end of the lot? MRS. MOORE-There was an existing building. That's why if you look at the original survey, there appeared to be some small building. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's off the side. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MRS. MOORE-I don't know. I'm assuming it was defined as maybe a bunk,a camp setting where it was a much smaller building., probably enough space for someone to sleep in, but it didn't have a kitchen or anything like that associated with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-But it's all considered one tax parcel with three dwellings on it. MRS. MOORE-Correct. Well I wouldn't say dwellings. I would say,they're all defined differently. MR. DANNIBLE-Three addresses. MR. MC CABE-I only saw two when I was there. 13 wasn't identified in any way. Just looking at the signs,I did not see any sign to indicate. MR. DANNIBLE-13 is the main. MRS. MOORE-The main house. MR. MC CABE-Okay. I saw 7 and 9. I did not see a 13. That's all right. So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-Yes,I have one. I always go at this assuming you had come to us with clean hands,but I'm curious to know why the project was started in the first place. MR. DANNIBLE-Again,I have the owners with me if you have questions about the situation. MR. MC CABE-They're welcome to come up. JOHN GRINER MR. GRINER-So it's me,my brother and my uncle. MR. MC CABE-First of all,you have to identify yourself. MR. GRINER-Sorry. John Griner. My brother Mike's in the back there. Bought the property as like a weekend, fun. As time went on we wanted to improve the property naturally. The guy that owned the property prior was like a hoarder. There was tons of stuff on the property that we wanted to remove, inside and out. So we started improving the property. We saw a lot of, I guess you could say like flaws in the construction,things we felt like were unsafe,things that we felt were old,some electrical,whatever. So as we were inspecting the property,we wanted to improve it,make it look better,nicer,and COVID hit and we had some free time on our hands and we thought, okay. So we apologize for overstepping our boundaries with what we did. It wasn't our intentions to rub anybody the wrong way or insult your process,but obviously we did so and we're here to take care of it. So far what we have done is we have respected the process as much as we can in going forward as to what we can do, and then on top of it we improved the septic system on all the structures. We removed all the asphalt on the property that we could to improve the percolation on the property. MR.HENKEL-Now when you said you improved the septic systems. MR.GRINER-Yes,we got the permit and Hutchins did it. It was all approved and inspected by the Town. MR.HENKEL-Are they holding tanks or what are they? MR. GRINER-Three grinder pumps and they're pumped up to the tanks up top, and forget the name of the system. It's a drivable to drive on. It's an Elgin. So up in the upper area where there was tons of parking for it,and you get back to the numbering on the buildings,I don't know how familiar you are with the properties and the fact that there used to be Carrie's Cottages. I don't know if you're familiar with it or not. There were tons of cabins on the property. They just kind of merged them all together and that's kind of what we have on the property. So like technically 9 was three cabins merged into one. So that's why on the deed, all the numbers are on the deed, one on deed,but it's very confusing for us because like the numbers on the doors are not always the same that matched,but they are what they are. MR. HENKEL-But if there was ever any kind of septic system hooked up to seven,that would have given you. MR. GRINER-No, there was a full bathroom in that. Yes, there's a full bathroom and just like a quick, there's a bedroom,like a small,you know like when you go almost like a studio, a cabinet,a refrigerator, a sink,a shower and just a single living space. So what we actually did do,because the roof line was horrible, we did adjust the roof line, 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MR.KUHL-When did you purchase the property? MR. GRINER-I'm horrible with timelines. 2017. I think it was 2017. We enjoyed it for the first couple of years and we were just busy with life and work. So we had some free time,like I said,when COVID hit, and we were sitting around. We wanted to do what we did. I apologize for what we did. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? MRS.HAMLIN-So you purchased this for personal use only. MR. GRINER-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-Correct, for you and your family and your friends. You seem very knowledgeable. Are you in the construction business? MR. GRINER-We do,my brothers and I,yes. MRS.HAMLIN-Okay. Are you from New York State? MR. GRINER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-I'm just curious how you didn't think you needed to apply for permits. I don't mean to be hard on you. MR. GRINER-I knew it was going to happen. Trust me. Like internally you have a family member that you may not get along with at times. I have an older uncle who's an older uncle. I respect him,but we kind of butt heads at times and bickering back and forth. MRS.HAMLIN-He won. Okay. I gotcha. Yes,but it's a problem for the Town. MR. GRINER-I understand what you guys are saying. MRS. HAMLIN-And I hate to be a bad guy,but technically speaking we could tell you to rip everything out. I wish there was like a fine situation. I'm torn,and I'm actually confused. MR. GRINER-There is a lot. Even like next door they have another cabin on Fantastic Place and a structure there that we actually purchased also with my family,my brother and the rest of my family,not my uncle,and that was part of it,it was actually all one big looped driveway right there with tons of cabins. MRS.HAMLIN-I've got a quick question for you. You have replaced one deck already,correct? MR. GRINER-So we improved the one deck,yes. MRS.HAMLIN-You built it,but without approval,correct? MR. GRINER-We've re-built it,correct,without approval. MRS.HAMLIN-Okay, and to the same size? Is it in kind or is it bigger? MR. GRINER-It's bigger. MRS.HAMLIN-Okay. All right,and then you added a kitchen to one of the cabins? MR. GRINER-No,no kitchen has been added to it right now. It's just all stick framed right now. There's nothing done inside the structure as it sits right now. MRS.HAMLIN-You have three buildings that are complete units that each one has a kitchen. MR. GRINER-All three would have a kitchen,correct,but not all three have a kitchen. Only one. MRS.HAMLIN-Okay. MR. GRINER-Only one of the structures you would use right now. The other one,I think it was Charlie that came by. MRS. MOORE-So I think the main house has a kitchen,because that's interior alterations,but that main house has a kitchen. MR. GRINER-Correct. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MRS. MOORE-But the middle cabin is the one that was renovated with the deck. The cabin that is the smallest cabin I'll say is the one that was much smaller unit at the time,based on just going out to the site and looking at those buildings you can clearly see it was enlarged and its intent is to have a kitchen in it. MR. GRINER-The building was re-leveled because of the way it was sitting, and I don't know if you've ever been to the location or are familiar with the area at all, the elevations there are like this. So we did what was best for the structure at the time to make it sit as sound as it could. MRS. HAMLIN-So I guess what I'm asking is, is this supposedly, we're asking for a third dwelling unit really for that. MRS. MOORE-So,7,to the point of Planning and Zoning Department,Number Seven is not a legitimate dwelling unit. That's why it requires a variance. Because right now the site only recognizes 9 and 13 as dwelling units,with available kitchens and making it dwelling units because it has a kitchen in it. Number Seven does not. MRS. HAMLIN-So we would be giving him a variance to put a kitchen in there. The kitchen isn't there now. This is an after the fact forgiveness situation. MRS. MOORE-As far as I know there's no kitchen in Number Seven at all at this point. MR. GRINER-No,there's nothing in the structure right now. MRS. MOORS Just raw wood. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Did they increase the square footage? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. GRINER-Correct. MR.HENKEL-By how much. Do you know? MR. DANNIBLE-It appears without the deck maybe double. With the deck maybe triple. MR.KUHL-What are you going to use them for? MR. GRINER-Well there's three of us. We're a growing family. We're a huge family. We're all in the process of having families. It's nice to have our own space when we can. I won't lie. We have air b-n-b'd it,but our intention isn't to use the entire property like that or like every weekend. Our intention is for us to use it and to enjoy it most of the time. It was nice to get some money back. MR.KUHL-So you'll swear on a bible it'll never be an air b-n-b,right? MR. GRINER-I said that we will use it, but not all three structures, no way. I'll put that in writing if that's something you guys would like. MR. KUHL-In my past experience,we had people come up there and they wanted to add for the mother- in-law. Okay. My granddaughter got engaged out of that air b-n-b. Okay. So,you know, we have no authority other than your word on the record,but it kind of bends me out of shape a little bit about people coming in saying one thing and doing another. MR. GRINER-I'm trying to be as transparent as I can,I guess. Like I said we have used it as an air b-n-b. MR.KUHL-So Mike gets the small one? MR. GRINER-Mike gets the small one. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? MRS.HAMLIN-Not the applicant,but again,there seems to be a discrepancy between Staff Notes and the application with regards to the permeability. So what is the permeability as it stands now? I have 70.91 in Staff Notes and I'm showing 62.5. So which is it? Because that's a decrease. MRS. MOORE-They're proposal is 70.910/o. MRS.HAMLIN-Okay. All right. So that's actually,that's an improvement. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MR.HENKEL-Because on our proposed one it says. MRS. MOORE-70.91. So existing is 62.9. MRS.HAMLIN-Existing? Or is existing 67.7S? MRS. MOO RE-So if it is,750/o is required. So I apologize. I don't know why I don't have the most recent application on here. MR.HENKEL-So it is at the 70.91 now? Or is it the 62 and a half? MRS. MOORE-It would be the application that you have in your hand. MR.HENKEL-That's what we have,62 and a half. MR. DANNIBLE-62.5. It's something I can definitely verify numbers on that. I think it's a matter of how much of the pavement has been removed as the applicant has tried to reduce the permeability. MR.HENKEL-So you're saying it's at 62.5. MR. DANNIBLE-That is what the proposal is. It's probably even a little less than that with the variance. MR. URRICO-You're sharing a septic system,all three units? MR. DANNIBLE=All three structures go to two different holding tanks. MR. URRICO-Two different holding tanks. MR. DANNIBLE-But each structure in itself has its own grinder pump that goes to the two tanks, and then they share the same leach field up top. Where that whole parking area was, right off the road 9L there,that was all removed,which is a pretty decent sized area,probably as wide as 70 by probably 40. MR.HENKEL-Is that approved? MRS. MOORE-The septic system is an approved system. MR.HENKEL-It's approved for all three cabins? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR.URRICO-And the stomrwate4r management system,are they connected in some way,or is it separate for each? MR. GRINER-We haven't installed the stormwater. What we want to do down near the lake with the retaining wall, we haven't done any of that work yet, but just from the aesthetics of the property and knowing that we know it was a big deal, we want to it as good as we could. The intent was to improve the percolation and all the runoff goes down into the lake right now. If we could do something to retain that water with building a retaining wall. MR. DANNIBLE-So to answer your question, there would be stormwater management in place down closest to the lake and then the lot gets quite steep up behind 13 as it goes into where the old cabins used to be. Up there there's only a few flat areas. Within those flat areas we're proposing two additional stormwater features to collect runoff certainly from seven and of course you know the roof on nine. MR. URRICO-Is the ultimate plan to consider them three separate dwellings? Or will they be interconnected throughout? If one of them becomes an air b-n-b property,where would you have parking for that? Where would the? MR. GRINER-Up top parking is pretty large. It's like 60 by 70 area. MR. URRICO-So everybody would park there. MR. GRINER-Well everybody,yes,could park there,but how would it be shared. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. GRINER-As few times as we're there, we usually don't go up there. We don't want to be there if there's a renter there. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MR. URRICO-You're nor the Property Brothers then. MR. GRINER-Actually we were asked to do the show,but we didn't do it. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. First I want to say I was just confused by the application. I see references to stormwater devices. I didn't see any represented on the drawing that was prepared. I haven't gotten into the stormwater because I didn't know there were variances on that. I do have concern about the permeability and I feel it's going to increase impervious cover,not decrease. They show the entire area,the parking area at the top,to be replaced by Number Two stone. Apparently the Town of Queensbury Zoning Code considers parking,driving surfaces constructed with materials of Number Two stone or larger as permeable. Despite the fact that it will become compacted,prevent infiltration and create runoff. This is not supported by science principles and contrary to basin wide standards and definition for impervious cover established by the Lake George Park Commission and also as the definition in the Queensbury Town Code under stormwater§147. The Lake George Park Commission defines"Impervious Area:"as well as§147 in the Town Code,as "all impermeable surfaces that cannot effectively infiltrate rainfall". This includes paved,concrete,packed earth and gravel surfaces,i.e. parking lots, driveways,roads, runways and sidewalks. So clearly I think,regardless of the stone size,this is going to become impervious. MRS. MOORE-Can I just offer quickly is that the Number Two stone is in relation to landscaping area, but if it is in reference to a driving surface,it is considered impermeable. So just a clarification. MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. That's all right. Because it seemed that they cited Number Two stone. So I as just confused on that,and I didn't see anything on the stormwater plans. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else that would like to input on this particular project? Sure. MARTIN FARBER MR. FARBER-My name is Martin Farber. I live at 33 Antigua Road which is across the cove from the property. I have a letter which I guess is going to be read. So I won't. MR. MC CABE-Well, we can read the letter for you or you can take care of it yourself. I really would rather you did it. MR.FARBER-All right. I will read it. So we live at 33 Antigua Road directly across the a small cove from 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. We have some concerns regarding the proposed alterations at those addresses. For the last several years these properties seem to have been used as short term rentals. This has attracted people who seem not to appreciate their proximity to other residents or the courtesy one expects from neighbors. We have frequently been subjected to overly boisterous activity which has extended far into the night disturbing our ability to sleep and requiring us to call the police to quell the noise. Increasing the occupant capacity of these properties by allowing additional bedroom,and it was unclear to me as well from the description whether it was one or more bedrooms that were going to be increased, and living space will serve to further foster more of this behavior. In addition,I have some concerns that allowing an increase in human activity on such a small plot will stress the septic system,particularly if the leach field is going to be used as a parking area. This would allow the introduction of bacterial and viral pathogens into a part of the lake which is shallow with a limited rate of turnover and which is the source of drinking water for all the homes in that area. It would also result in an increase of unwanted nutrients in the lake which will encourage an undesirable increase in marine plant growth and the likelihood of potentially harmful algae blooms which are already affecting other parts of Lake George. I would also point out that this construction was already well underway before the appropriate permissions were requested will not be used as an excuse to approve them as I have in other times I have seen when I have come before this committee with projects that have been started before appropriate permissions were granted, and I thought that a year or two ago they were doing work on the shoreline before getting permissions and they were stopped. So the fact that they would then do this without getting permission seems to me to be somewhat questionable.. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this matter? BEN BOTELHO 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MR. BOTELHO-My name is Ben Botelho. I'm an attorney with Braymer Law in Glens Falls. I'm here to represent Robert O'Brien and Denise Freihofer who live very close to the property. We are upset the applicant has done most of the work on the property without permission from the Town and is now seeking retroactive approval from the ZBA. We did send a comment letter to the Planning and Zoning Board and I'll give everyone a copy when I'm done speaking,but I just wanted to reiterate a couple of items from our letter. MR. MC CABE-So are you going to require that we? MR.BOTELHO-I won't make you read the whole thing in. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.BOTELHO-I'll just handout copies to you. First because the Zoning Code only allows one dwelling unit for every two acres and only allows one dwelling lot per lot regardless of size, we believe that the applicant needs to obtain a Use Variance not an Area Variance. Second,even if the Area Variance criteria did apply,the Board should deny them. It is a very substantial request,asking for three dwelling units for a half acre lot when the Code only allows one for two acres. There'll be major impacts to the neighborhood if the variances are granted. There are several alternatives for the applicant to develop the property, including removing 7 Nutley Lane, which we believe is a brand new structure that's almost three times bigger than the previous one that was there or converting it back to its prior use which was basically a shed, and,third the difficulty was clearly self-created. The work was done without permission from the Town. If approved the massive overdevelopment will have significant impacts on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. We respectfully request that the Board deny the variances. Thank you. And I'll hand out copies. MR. MC CABE-The first copy goes to Roy. MR.BOTELHO-Okay,it's already in your packets? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR.BOTELHO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to comment on this particular project? MR. URRICO-I have other letters. This is from Kathleen Toomey Noonan, 9 Big Slide Drive. "As a lifelong owner and resident of 9 Big Slide Drive on Lake George I am voicing my opposition to any variance for buildings at 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. This owner has not followed any of the rules or regulations or building codes in the past. He has converted a shed to a building with no permits or approval and has now erected a second building. Now this request for a third non-conforming structure sure to push any limits on water,septic and less green for further runoff into the lake. The fact that even one building exists on this lot is ridiculous when as a 55 year plus owner on his property I cannot get a variance to make my dock 1 inch bigger,how can this unchecked building in a sliver of land go unchecked? This person is not a resident. He is running a business and has created congestion in an area not designed to handle the increased number of guests now staying in a very small area and pushing the limits of our small communities septic, utilities and roads. In addition, the overcrowded number of guests staying at his rentals have increased the loud noise, drunken behavior, limited parking, exceptionally loud music and bright lights, none of which are in keeping with our Lake George community. I strongly oppose any variance to allow additional building expansion and further request the past violations of this LLC with failure to request permitting any and all codes an regulations be reviewed by this body as it appears a pattern of abuse, the building already exists and was erected in secret, how can you allow this? I am requesting the planning and zoning board deny any variances for this property. Thank you for your attention in this matter." "I am the owner of No. S Nutley Lane,that is, a dwelling heartbreakingly close to No. 7 Nutley Lane, one structure in question this evening. In fact, the two properties were once one property and still look that way.We share a driveway and a path and we're very close together. My family has been living at this address, S Nutley Lane,since the early seventies,nearly 50 years. Significant loss of serenity and the Adirondack experience began in the last few years with the neighbor's renting of their property (nos. 9 and 13 Nutley Lane), often to would-be partiers. In the beginning, they exercised much respect and care with regard to screening renters. With time,that has changed. There is much to discuss regarding the downsides of Bldgs. # 9 and # 13 Nutley Lane. Our recent past experiences with the AirBnBers and other renters' negative influences at these sites has a deleterious effect on our neighborhood's overall living and peace. I will try to narrow my major comments to the Bldg. at#7 Nutley Lane,however. The reason being that#7 is about 35 feet from my front door and the center of my living room at# S Nutley Lane. So,there can be no fencing,no baffles,no trees or other plantings that will limit the amount of noise and excitement emanating from that site after 10:00 pm in the evening.This we learned from the noises emanating from#9 Nutley Lane after 10:00 pm. Loud noise,music and raucous goings on till the wee hours. Again, not all renters behave thusly, but enough to disrupt the overall Adirondack serenity. When I first saw Bldg#7 upon my arrival a few seasons ago,I was shocked and appalled.No one 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) had ever mentioned to us that this edifice was even planned. A small ,tiny shed pre-existed on that site. Nor has anyone still, in the past two seasons even mentioned it to us. Apparently, the Board was not informed either. Building#7 is not, as the plans state, "an existing seasonal cabin to undergo interior and exterior renovations". This is a brand new dwelling unit. It is not a renovation. It's an entirely new construction on a property that shouldn't have two dwelling units,let alone three.Just visit the property and you will see. Other problems exist with this application, to be sure. #9 is not an "existing seasonal cabin to undergo interior renovations and rebuilt deck". This is a year-round,four-bedroom dwelling that was converted and fully renovated by the new owners from the one-bedroom home they purchased. The application at hand appears to be for renovations that have been completed for a number of years, while admitting only that the deck was "rebuilt prior to SPR and ZBA approval". Major construction work has been going on at this property for years, with few if any permits applied for. To get back to our primary concern„Bldg.#7 is a major invasion to our privacy and to what had previously been a serene Adirondack space.As I sit in my living room,I can clearly look across our shared driveway into the living space of Bldg. #7. And I assume that will apply to their prospective deck as well. So much for the Bldg. #7 occupants being able to gaze into my living quarters! To attempt to block it out would be like putting a Band-Aid on an open wound.Vision is one thing,but noise after 10 pm is not blocked by fences and shrubs.The building must be taken down. What we have observed on our lakeside lawn after 10 pm,from the#9 Bldg renters; i.e. removal of our wood burning grill, removal of wood and miscellaneous lawn items,renters out in the open public urinating on the lawn, and the usual loud music,I am afraid all this would now extend to our front lawn on the other side of our house, should Bldg#7 be granted a variance. To be clear, even if our neighbor agrees to never rent again, and even if everyone is quiet and respectful, adding a third house to their property that already has two, four-bedroom homes, is too much. (As noted, one of the homes, #9, was purchased as a one-bedroom home and converted to four.) The new building must be taken down. The fact that#7 is already built,without any approvals, should reinforce that fact, not lessen it. The fact most of the work mentioned in this application is already complete prior to making proper applications, should reinforce that fact,not lessen it. To sum up,it seems that we might have reached a new reality with our current woes caused by the new renters of Buildings#9 and#13,but the thought of extending these woes to a newly constructed Bldg.# 7 and the other side of our property is almost mind numbing. The absolute loss of Adirondack serenity is most assured thereby. A realtor recently told me,"You know,if that structure,No.7 proceeds,and is occupied by tenants or renters,your property values at No. S Nutley Lane will plummet." That thought sticks with me today and I ask the Board to protect my home and investment by removing#7 and simply restoring the Adirondack beauty to what it once was. Respectfully submitted, Robert A. O'Brien, #S Nutley Lane" "I live just to the north of the properties at 7, 9, & 13 that are in question on Nutley Lane. I have been made aware through the notice that was mailed to me that my neighbor Tom/Reds LG,LLC has applied for a variance and approval for a third house on his property. The building(7 Nutley Lane)was built there illegally where there once was an old shed. It was built without applying to the Town for a building permit and now he wants a variance? Normally I wouldn't object to a neighbor asking for a variance because I like to keep a friendly relationship with my neighbors but in this case, I must strongly protest approval of this variance. Here are my reasons. Since this property was purchased by the current owner the other two houses that exist on this property have been rented out continually for short term usage during the summer months. I have been subjected over the years to noisy parties until the late hours of the night, lots of people wandering around outside, doors slamming, loud music, people yelling profanities, and the bright, unnatural, LED lighting that he has installed on his porches and deck areas which shine over to my property. He did move one spotlight when I made him aware that it was shining directly on to my porch and I was appreciative for that. What should normally be a peaceful evening on Lake George for the residents who live in Plum Bay has often been shattered and turned into a disturbing, noisy night where I have had to close my doors and windows and turn up my television to drown out the noise coming from his property. I have not called the police on nights like this, but I know others have. A couple of summers ago I finally did call Tom after a particularly loud party that went on until 3 a.m. I left him a message and he did text me back and apologized and would let his renters know to tone it down. This seemed to help for a few weeks,but it didn't last for long before it started up again. Last summer was particularly bad. I especially dreaded weekends at my home because of all the noise at night and commotion that came from his dock during the day which would be loaded up with people,jet skis and boats zooming in and out of the bay above the speed limit. Please don't get me wrong, I am all for people enjoying the beauty of Lake George and staying at a short-term rental home. Other homes around me are rented and I never had to deal with any problems like this. I have lived in Plum Bay during the summer for 41 years now and up until Tom purchased this property we had a peaceful neighborhood where I felt safe at night. Now there are people renting from him that he obviously does not check out very carefully nor does he put stipulations in his rental agreement about large parties and noise after 10 p.m. at night or I don't think we would be having these issues if he did. Occasionally there are nice,quiet families who rent and are respectfully that they are in a residential neighborhood,but there have been way too many other times that he has rented his property out to young,loud,obnoxious people who have no concern for the residents who live in the surrounding homes and just want to party,and they have no consideration for neighboring homes. This is especially true at nighttime when the sound travels across the water even more loudly. And now he wants to be able to have even more renters stay on his property by trying to sneak a third building onto his land? I was relieved to hear that the Town told him to stop construction since he had built it without applying for a permit first. Who does that? Residents need a permit for everything before building here in Queensbury and Lake George. I realize that I can't stop Tom from renting his two existing properties and I am glad to see him finally making some 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) improvements to those structures granted they are conforming to the Town of Queensbury building codes. For these reasons I'm asking the Zoning Board to NOT approve this third building (7 Nutley Lane) and that the structure betaken down. If this is allowed,it will only mean more congestion on his narrow lot, more people on his dock and more noise for nearby residents to hear. This is a money-making venture for him and he does not care about what his neighbors have had to endure these last few years. I am sorry if I sound upset, but I have been pushed to the limit with this situation. Thank you for your time and for reading this. Respectfully submitted, Denise Freihofer" That's it. MR. MC CABE-So you may comment or you can listen to what we have to say. That's kind of up to you. MR. DANNIBLE Just in general, from the engineering and stormwater perspective, certainly comments that we're all aware of would be coming. Obviously everybody noted what we had noted ourselves is that our stormwater is close to the lake and we have no other options with that. Also everybody noted that the construction that occurred without a permit,we've represented in that they're not trying to hide that fact. They're trying to figure out a way to get to an agreeable approval so that they can come and utilize the property. MR. MC CABE-So let me just clarify one thing. Normally there's a problem with multiple dwellings on one property, but historically as long as the building existed before and construction took place on the original footprint, then we've approved that. The problem would be if the three buildings didn't exist before and construction took place on a footprint other than the original,then we'd have to take a harder look at it. So my question is,can we verify that there were indeed three dwellings on this property before? MRS.MOO RE-I can confirm that there were at least two dwellings on the property. I can't confirm there was a third dwelling. I can tell you that the survey that was generated prior to the most recent one shows three buildings, two of them were noted to be dwelling units. The third one I'm assuming was either a shed or a bunkroom of some sort. I can't verify that. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. GRINER-We have old photos from the previous owner of it being a structure. MIKE GRINER MR. M. GRINER-Mike Griner. So actually the owner that owned it, well one of the children of the neighbors that owned it back from 1950 he actually stopped by the property and he gave us about 50 pictures from when he was a kid there and so we have old photos from 1950 of all these structures,one of which,so the two that,you know,13 and 9 and 7,which is all livable,and it was with a cabin,and we have the old site plan. I have it at my house. It has the cabin on it. What I have here is a survey map from 1996 that's on file with Warren County and with the Town of Queensbury that shows 13 a framed residence, 9 a framed residence and 7 as a framed cabin. MR.HENKEL-What's the square footage of 7? MR. M. GRINER-It doesn't define square footage. MRS. MOORE-So cabin can be, I can't confirm whether it was a bunkroom, and that's why, whether it had a kitchen. I'm assuming it didn't based on just looking at that building. MR.HENKEL-We don't have that. MRS. MOORE-We have the same survey MR.HENKEL-We don't have it in our packet. MRS. MOORE-You don't have it in your packet. MR.HENKEL-Could I just compare that to what we have here? MRS.MOORE-I guess the other point is that there's no permit in the sense that that is considered a living, a dwelling unit. I mean the cabin is one thing. MR. MC CABE-So it's your contention that it's very possibly an accessory structure? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 2S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/IS/2022) MR. J. GRINER-I'd point out on the survey map John is looking at right now, there's three framed structures on our property. So there's multiple structures on the adjacent property. It's not out of character for the place. MR. MC CABE-All right. So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Ron. MR.J. GRINER-Not anything to do with this, I kind of just wanted to address the room. I understand the concerns with rentals and the air b-n-b and loud noise and what all the complaints have been. Not to push blame,but we're not the only air b-n-b in this cove. MR. MC CABE-And we understand that. It's a Town wide problem. MR.J. GRINER-And the other thing is,with these other structures,we don't plan on air b-n-bing all three structures,nor do we plan on doing this forever. I also would like to add,every one that we rent to we do have a screening process and we have an age limit, and again this isn't necessarily for you. I would just like my neighbors to hear it. I just want them to know we do have screening. We don't let anyone come in less than 25 at the absolute minimum,most of the time 30. I do know the couple of complaints that they have called us and, you know, we verified it, and it was my uncle's sons that are early 20's. Unfortunately it really wasn't the air b-n-b's problem. It was more or less our younger cousins. And we pretty much said you're not allowed up here without supervision anymore. So we do understand the problem and we don't want to be that person in this neighborhood. We love Lake George. We don't want anyone upset with us. We want to make it right. So kind of just to our neighbors we apologize for that. We don't want a bad experience with anyone. We're very nice people from a big family. We want to have fun. So that's pretty much all I can say just to the neighbors. MR. HENKEL-But you've got to realize if we approve this as three units and you guys sell it, which very well could happen in a few years,now it's approved as three units. That's going to continue on. Somebody could buy it just to rent those three units,not to use it as family like you guys are going to do,which I think it's great that you do that,but that's the problem that I have. MR.J. GRINER-I can comment that this,hopefully my children never sell this. I understand what you're saying,but the other thing I can say just as far as rentals on this topic,we have one dock and people don't rent on the lake unless you can bring a boat. Ninety-nine percent of people won't rent, and we own a boat. So there's really no other spot for anyone else. Mike owns a boat. We own a boat. So to have more than one renter ever,it's not really feasible. So having that extra cabin doesn't mean that we're bringing in more rentals, and I know it's off topic,but I just kind of wanted to let everybody know. MR. MC CABE-All right. So, Ron,how do you feel? MR.KUHL-I think if you would have brought your pictures I'd be more convinced. I think you're asking for too much. If Number 7 was just a rawbuilding or was a,whatever,a shed,I don't know. You're asking for too much. I'm not in favor of the way it's presented,and I'm going to stop right there. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in agreement with Ron. I think,you know,when I first looked at this and I've said in the past that trying to look at this as nothing had happened,it's a new project and you're proposing this,I would still say no to most of the variances. In fact I don't even understand some of these. I don't understand what is taking place here and I imagine that there's a reason for that because it's been done haphazardly almost,but I also want to address,when we look at the criteria we look at whether there will be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created,and from what I've heard and what I've seen from the letters and people speaking here,it's already affected the neighborhood and the character and you haven't even gotten approval for any of this stuff here. So you're trying to convince us that this project should go forward or with different approvals yet you haven't demonstrated anything that shows you're willing to do that. You haven't done anything yet that demonstrates that, what you've done with the property, and if somebody's misbehaved on the property and making it hard for people nearby, that's still your problem. So I would say no to the project at this point on any of the variances. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I'm a no on everything at this point, but I am open-minded if certain improvements. Permeability, I wouldn't budge an inch on that. I wouldn't, no matter what you do, go for that third dwelling and the kitchen. That would be out for me. Then we're just left with some setbacks. It sounds like it was the deck that was added that created the four foot setback. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/1S/2022) MR. DANNIBLE-The stairs to the deck. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So that's one of the biggest encroachments right there. So maybe you'd have to move the stairs. I don't know, and I'd definitely want to know more about what the stormwater is,how its effectiveness is. I don't know if the engineering would have a look at that as well. I'd have to have a lot more information and certainly it's just not going to happen for me,the one in the back with the extra dwelling unit. MR. MC CABS Jim? MR.UNDERWOOD-I think we're grossly underestimating the negative elements of this project. The two lower homes on there obviously I think you should be able to improve those. I don't have a problem with that,but I think the way that you went about the process is to your detriment now because as you're seeing the Board's not going to approve you. I think you're caught between a rock and a hard place. I think as far as Number Seven goes that building as you've constructed it is not built to year round standards as new construction should be done in the Town, and I think that as a building it has no purpose and it should not exist under the present rules and regulations. You're going to have to deal with the Adirondack Park Agency who's going to put this under a big microscope and they're going to come down on you 100 times harder than this Board. So to gain any ultimate approvals you're going to have to jump through a lot more hoops. I think you're talking about seven bedrooms on this small lot here, even though they're in three separate dwellings,you're talking about three separate kitchens on top of that and you're telling me your septic is perfectly designed and engineered for that purpose. I find that a big stretch of the imagination. I think your stormwater with your drive coming down has to be dealt with. So you're going to have to go back to the Planning Board and deal with this. I don't think that we should touch this with a ten foot pole at this point. MR. MC CABS John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with my Board members pretty much. There's no doubt,like Jim said, Number 9 and Number 13, I understand the improvements except for that deck might be a little bit too big, and you probably could have changed the stairs,although you have a generator sitting there,but I definitely would not be in favor of Number 7. So I'm not in favor of the project at all. MR. MC CABE-And so I also have some problems with the project. So I don't have a problem with the setbacks for the expansion of a non-conforming building,and I have to say that stormwater control is a lot better than no control. So I think if you explain the stormwater management a little bit better, which I think is very important on a property such as this,that we could get by there,but I think the third dwelling is a problem because it doesn't sound like we really had a third dwelling as we view a dwelling. It sounds like the third building was a bunkhouse which is again fine but the addition of a kitchen to that makes it a dwelling and I would have a problem with that,and I would also have a problem with the permeability, again, because of the proximity to the lake here. I think you would have to do a better job with permeability to be a good citizen here. So you have two choices, as you did with the other project. We could take a vote,but you're not going to do real well with a vote, or you could go back and do a little bit more work. I like the idea of re-submitting a revised set of plans by June 15`h for the July 20`h meeting. MRS. MOORE-For the first meeting in July. MR.HENKEL-So July 20`h. Okay. So we're going to table it? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR.HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reds LG,LLC. Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete construction of a third dwelling unit on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540 sq. ft. which includes one bedroom and kitchen, 2SS sq. ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,40E sq. ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below, alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations(existing floor area of 2,134 sq.ft.with four bedrooms). Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, and construction of a retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100 ft.from shoreline, adding a third dwelling unit,and permeability. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 21-2022 REDS LG, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the July 20`h,2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by June 15`h,2022. Duly adopted this 18`h day of May,2022,by the following vote: MR. DANNIBLE-Sounds good. Thank you for your consideration. MR.MC CABE-Hold on. I saw somebody enter from the back there. Were you here for the Antigua Road project? AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-That project got tabled until June. MRS. MOORE-To July. MR.MC CABE July 20`h,excuse me. So the public hearing is open for that particular project. If you want you could make your comments tonight,or you could wait until the actual meeting. AUDIENCE MEMBER-I'll wait. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So actually, I apologize. The Board, they can't hear a project in advance of getting the information. MR. MC CABE-I will tell you that if you submit your request for a survey,what we normally do would be allow the initial portion of it,and then ask for an as built survey. That's it. I just gave you the guidelines. MRS. DWYRE-Mr. Chairman,I just need the vote for the tabling. AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Henkel, Mr. Urrico,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 18TI,2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18`h day of May,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MRS. MOORE-So did you re-open the public hearing for Nutley Lane? MR. MC CABE-So I'll re-open, see, actually I questioned Craig and he said particularly when you have a bunch of comment,that once I close the meeting,I really need the permission of the applicant to re-open it. MR.HENKEL-He did say that when he was at the last meeting. MR. MC CABE-But this guy doesn't seem like he has a problem with that. So I'll re-open the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MRS. MOORE-You're now adjourned. On motion meeting was adjourned. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/IS/2022) RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 32