Loading...
05-25-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) QUEENSBURYZBA MEETING SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY2STr;2022 Area Variance No.40-2021 Gary McCoola 1. One Year Extension Tax Map No. 302.12-1-14 Area Variance No.15-2022 Samuel Wahnon 1. Tax Map No. 309.1S-1-43.2 Area Variance No.16-2022 John&Paulette Kershko 6. Tax Map No.290.-1-19 Area Variance No.IS-2022 Jeffrey&Joanne Mann 9. Tax Map No.265.-1-23.1 Area Variance No.19-2022 Jeffrey&Joanne Mann 14. Tax Map No.265.-1-23.2 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 05/25/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 25TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN BRENT MC DEVITT RONALD KUHL 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, Wednesday, May 25`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 case up,read the case into the record, allow the applicant to present the case, question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised we'll open the public hearing and take input from the outside. Then we'll poll the Board,see where we stand on the matter, and proceed accordingly. Tonight though we have an administrative item. Initially we have a request for an extension. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: GARY MCCOOLA(AV 40-2021) REQUEST FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION MR. MC CABS John,could I get a motion here? Applicant proposes a 196 sq. ft. screen porch addition, 455 sq. ft. single story bedroom and bathroom addition,290 +/-sq. ft. covered porch, and a new patio area of 36S sq. ft. The site work includes areas for the new additions, patio, and updating the pathway. The existing home is 2,016 sq. ft. footprint and proposed is 2,602 sq.ft.;the porch/deck area improvement is 620 sq.ft. Relief is requested for setbacks. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved Area Variance 40-2021 on June 16,2021. Applicant is requesting a one year extension.With this resolution the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a one year extension to June 16,2023. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR AREA VARIANCE 40-2021, GARY MCCOOLA. Introduced by John Henkel,who moved for its adoption;seconded by Michael McCabe. Extended to June 16`h,2023. Duly adopted this 25th day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mrs. Hamlin,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 15-2022,Samuel Wahnon. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 SAMUEL WAHNON AGENT(S) DARYL S.CUTLER,ESQ. OWNER(S) SAMUEL WAHNON ZONING MDR LOCATION BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 16 X 36 (576 SQ. FT.) TWO-STORY HOME WITH A BASEMENT AND TWO 16 SQ. FT. DECKS,ONE AT THE FRONT AND ONE AT THE REAR OF THE HOME. THE FOOTPRINT WOULD BE 604 SQ. FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SIDE SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 48-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 LOT SIZE 0.08 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 290.-1-19 SECTION 179-3-040 DARYL CUTLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 15-2022, Samuel Wahnon, Meeting Date: May 25, 2022 "Project Location: Big Boom Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 16 x 36 (576 sq. ft.) two-story home with a basement and steps to access the home, one at the front and one at the rear of the home. The footprint would be 60S sq.ft. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the placement of a two-story home on the property. The parcel is 3,500 sq.ft. and is in the Moderate Density Residential zone MDR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant proposes a footprint area that has a 20 ft. front setback where 30 ft. is required, a 9.5 ft. setback on either side where a 20 ft.setback is required. The modular home will be placed in the footprint. 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 limited due to the lot size and the zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 10 ft.from the front yard and 10.5 ft.for each side setback. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 576 sq. ft. two-story home with a basement to be installed on an existing 3,500 sq. ft. site. The applicant has explained there was a previous variance for this site with a similar proposal but was not developed in one year from the approval. The plans show the location of the home to be placed on the lot." MR. CUTLER-Members of the Board, my name is Daryl Cutler. I'm the attorney for Sam Wahnon, the applicant. He apologies he couldn't be here. He's not feeling well and didn't want to expose anybody to anything he might have. As indicated in 2010 my client had applied for and was granted a variance for a structure, a house to be placed there, identical in size to the one that's being proposed here. Actually, I think he added that 16. This is actually 15.5,but other than that,it's,I'm sorry,15.6,15 feet 6 inches. I did want to point out this is not a mobile home. This is a modular home with abasement. In the application he had indicated that the front,the reason for the setback in the front is so that there's room for the septic system in the back, and obviously the side setbacks are necessary given the fact that there's a 25 foot side setback on each side and this lot isn't even 50 feet wide. It's only 35 feet wide. I guess it depends on how you define whether this was self-created. I know it's only a factor,but this was a legal non-conforming lot in the sense that it was established by a legal subdivision, and then zoning came in. My client did buy it after the zoning was there so from that perspective to him you could call it self-created,but I would say that the need for variance was there once zoning was put in place that made this legal non-conforming lot impossible to build otherwise. So again just reiterating that with 25 feet on each side and it only being 35 feet wide, a variance would be needed no matter what you put there. On the front of the house,the front door you can have steps leading up to the house without the need for a porch because there's a landing, and if you look at the,we've provided a picture of the front of the house, and you can see there's a landing there so that there's no porch needed in the front. On the side of the house,if you were facing the house from the road it would be on the right hand side, there is an entryway to the house that does not have a landing before it. That door does open inward. So theoretically there wouldn't be the need for a deck or a landing to be placed there. It could just be stairs,but from a practical standpoint it might be wiser to have a deck there. If that were the case, then the actual, on that particular side, instead of it being 9.5, that's why it's indicated 5.5 for the setback there. Does the Board have any questions for me? MR. MC CABE-Does the Board have any questions? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MRS.HAMLIN-So what were the actual requirements from the previous variance? MR. CUTLER-From the previous variance there was a 9.95 on each side. MRS.HAMLIN-Okay. MR. CUTLER-And then the,I think,yes,that would create four additional feet on one side. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.KUHL-Is this property going to be owner occupied? MR. CUTLER-No. MR.KUHL-You're going to rent it out? MR. CUTLER-No. He's likely going to place the structure there and then sell it. MR.KUHL-How come,if he got approved in 2010,he didn't do anything? MR. CUTLER Just economics were such that he wasn't able to follow up on it, and frankly he wasn't aware of the fact that his variance, although it clearly states it,would expire after 12 months,and so when he came to see me,I told him that's in fact true and so he said if that's the case we best re-apply. MR. KUHL-Sure,but you're stating that he's going to put this building on this property and then sell it. Is that so? MR. CUTLER-That's his intention,yes. MR.KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who has anything to add on this particular project. Sir? You've got to come up here. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DERRICK OGBURN MR.OGBURN-My name's Derrick Ogburn. I live in the property I think he's talking about right thereon 123 Big Boom Road,the house that's currently next to it,the property that they're talking about, and you said that 9.9 feet. Is that from the road or from the property line? MR. MC CABE-Side. MR. OGBURN-Side shoreline? Okay. And he's talking about the deck. We all have eight foot privacy fences all the way around, and he's talking about having a deck on the second story, and I mean the only view he's going to have is my yard,and I don't have any problem there,but it would be one thing if he was buying it to live in it,but now he's going to sell it,rent it,who knows. MR.HENKEL-I think you misunderstood him. I don't think he's having a deck on the second story. MR. MC CABE-We'll let him answer that. MR.OGBURN-I mean it's so close,I could be watering my front yard and I could be peeping in his window. I mean it's literally that close. I mean I don't know how it was even right for someone to sell him that property assuming there could be a house on it. I know with the variances they've only got to be like 20 by 20 foot,now with the septic tanks,with the leach fields and everything I don't even see how it could be done with the parking. I don't know. It's not my property. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? MR. OGBURN-No,that's all. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. OGBURN-Thank you guys. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MR. MC CABE-So does anybody else have anything to add on this particular project? Seeing nobody,I'll let you just comment. MR. CUTLER-Can I just ask you,do you live right here? MR. OGBURN-I think so,yes. MR.CUTLER-I just want to point out that actually the property line we're talking about is right here. So your stockade fence and your property line is right here. There's an easement here between. That remains there. I just wanted to assure you. MR. MC CABE-I can't have you talk from the audience. MR. CUTLER-I apologize. I know it's not proper to talk,but I just wanted to assure him of that because I thought that was the case. The other thing is I think maybe I wasn't clear,but the deck I was talking about was really just a landing next to the stairs for the side entrance. There wouldn't be a deck above on the second floor. MR. MC CABE-So anybody else? 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 Roy. MR.URRICO-I just want to point out that there was a public comment letter,but it was from Mr.Ogburn. So it's already been covered. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. URRICO-Well, I think this is a good application. I would approve it. I think the questions have been answered. It's going to be tight,but we approved this once before. I kind of remember it and I would approve it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm not as old to remember it,but, no, I would agree that it's a good use of the property. I would be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I understand Mr. Ogburn's problem,but in 195E this was deemed a buildable lot, so unfortunately our hands are tied a little bit and what they're asking isn't great so I would say we would have to approve it. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it's been properly vetted as it was the first time we approved it in 2010. I know it's a tight property,but I think it could still work. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-To Jim's point,it's been properly vetted. For whatever reason I'm not crazy about the fact that it's being constructed in an ideal world,but we don't live in one of those. So I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS.HAMLIN-Yes,some new information came up. I was just wondering wat is the easement for? MR. MC CABE-We're all done. MRS.HAMLIN-I know,but I didn't know there was an easement there before you ended it. MR. MC CABE-Does it make a difference? MRS.HAMLIN-Yes,I want to know what it's for. I mean is it a utility easement? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MR. CUTLER-If I could address that. Actually if you pull out the survey I provided,you'll see that that easement actually goes back to the,it was an estate at that time land owned by Henry Anable,but it's not been used at all. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So potentially you could buy that? So potentially he could buy that and expand that lot. MR.CUTLER-Well unfortunately there wasn't any success in reaching anybody in regard to the purchase of any additional land,but the problem is,even if that were done,if that were purchased,then at that point that land would be a landlocked lot. So that wouldn't be possible. MRS. HAMLIN-Well thank you for the answer. Yes,this is about as small a house as I think you can get away with and even though there's a slight increase in your request, I think I would still honor it because I think it's such a small house. So I would be in favor. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. It's probably the best you can do with a small lot like this and the small lot, as you say, came about along time ago. So it's really not a self-created problem. Sol approve the project. So at this particular time I'm going to ask Ron for a motion. MR.KUHL-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-Prior to you starting I just want to clarify that you're going to, update to the west side would be 5.5 feet and the east side is 9.5 feet. They're not both 9.5. MR.KUHL-Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Samuel Wahnon. Applicant proposes a 16 x 36 (576 sq. ft.)two-story home with a basement and steps to access the home, one at the front and one at the rear of the home. The footprint would be 60S sq. ft. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the placement of a two-story home on the property. The parcel is 3,500 sq.ft. and is in the Moderate Density Residential zone MDR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The applicant proposes a footprint area that has a 20 ft. front setback where 30 ft. is required, a 5.5 ft. setback on the west side and a 9.5 ft. setback on the east side where a 20 ft. setback is required. The modular home will be placed in the footprint. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 25,2022. 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 this blends into the existing community. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial due to the size of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created due to the size of the lot. 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,- 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 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. 15-2022 SAMUEL WAHNON, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 25th Day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Hamlin,Mr.Henkel, Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. CUTLER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 16-2022,John&Paulette Kershko. AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JOHN &z PAULETTE KERSHKO AGENT(S) ETHAN HALL,RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) JOHN&z PAULETTE KERSHKO ZONING MDR LOCATION 238 CHESTNUT RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 345 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT ADDITION FOR A 3 CAR GARAGE&z EXPANDED SECOND FLOOR AREA. THE ADDITION IS TO BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOME WITH A PORTION OF THE EXISTING HOME/GARAGE AREA TO BE DEMOLISHED FOR THE ADDITION. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF SOME EXISTING DRIVEWAY AREA AND PORCH AREAS TO BE ADDED TO THE REAR OF THE HOME. THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ON THE SITE TO REMAIN. THE EXISTING HOME HAS A FOOTPRINT OF 2,673 SQ. FT. WITH THE MAIN BRICK BUILDING (DATED - 1852) HAVING A SECOND STORY OF 980 SQ. FT., THE REAR PORTION OF THE HOME HAS A HALF STORY 431 SQ. FT. PER RPS. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF N/A. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES. TAX MAP NO.290.-1-19. SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT;JOHN KERSHKO,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2022,John & Paulette Kershko, Meeting Date: May 25, 2022 "Project Location: 23S Chestnut Ridge Rd. Description of Proposed Project:Applicant proposes a 345 sq.ft.footprint addition for a 3 car garage&r expanded second floor area. The addition is to be on the north side of the home with a portion of the existing home/garage area to be demolished for the addition. The project includes removal of some existing driveway area and porch areas to be added to the rear of the home. The existing buildings on the site to remain. The existing home has a footprint of 2,673 sq. ft. with the main brick building(Dated-IS52)having a second story of 9SO sq.ft.,the rear portion of the home has a half story 431 sq.ft.per RPS. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for alterations to an existing home. The parcel is 1.33 ac in the Moderate Density Residential MDR zone. 179-3-040 dimensional The addition that is proposed will be 11 ft.7 inches to the side setback where 25 ft.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 addition and alterations may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character. 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 considered to reduce the addition size. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested 13 ft.5 inches. 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 expand a residential home leaving the main IS52 brick structure intact. The addition would include upgrading the garage area for a two car garage. The upper level addition includes expansion of the master bedroom area. The lower level alterations expanding the kitchen area,sitting and dining area. The plans show the addition and alteration. The elevations and floor plans for the existing and proposed are also provided." MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records my name is Ethan Hall. I'm a principle with Rucinski/Hall Architecture. With me tonight is the owner,John Kershko. It's pretty straightforward. They've got an existing two car garage and the garage doors face north. In order to get into it now they have to get into it now they have to come in and make a swing and drive in to the end of the garage. So it's our attempt to turn the garage so they can drive straight in, come off from Chestnut Ridge Road and not have to make that swing. The expansion is for the shop area which is currently in front of where their garage doors are now. So they pull in,two cars, and then there's a shop area. So we're switching it around a little bit. It's not quite as deep as it is long now. So we needed to get it straight to put that in. So we're going to put t that in again. The idea is that we're trying to make it so that headlights aren't swinging in to the neighbor's yard when they're going either in or out at night and this just makes it a little bit easier for snow removal and things of that nature. It's relatively straightforward. The barn part of it,the garage part of it right now is in pretty tough shape. That's why we looked at taking that whole apart and just replacing it. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody here who would like to provide input on this particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Cathy. MRS.HAMLIN-Yes,it's not too big an ask. I looked at it today. How old is it? MR.HALL-IS52 is the original. MRS.HAMLIN-Yes,that garage has seen better days. MR.HALL-Yes. It's hurting. MRS.HAMLIN-And you're going to bring that driveway over a little bit,right? MR.HALL-Yes,the driveway won't expand in and the building actually stops short of where,the driveway goes. MRS.HAMLIN-Where the existing gravel is now. MR.HALL-Actually out over the property a little bit. MRS.HAMLIN-This sounds like something I can support. MR. MC CABE-So you're a yes? MRS.HAMLIN-I'm a yes,I guess. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm a yes, Mr. Chairman. I think it's well thought out and I like the fact that the headlights will not shine into the property. So that's good with the front load garage the way you've designed it. So I'm in favor,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a minor amount of side setback relief. I'm all for it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, definitely. Just one relief they're asking for. Makes perfect sense. Nice to keep the old house. I'm all for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I agree with my Board members. I'd be in agreement with this project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-It satisfies the test. I'd be happy to approve it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. It's a minimal request. So I'm going to ask Cathy for a motion here. MRS.HAMLIN-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John &z Paulette Kershko. Applicant proposes a 345 sq. ft. footprint addition for a 3 car garage & expanded second floor area. The addition is to be on the north side of the home with a portion of the existing home/garage area to be demolished for the addition. The project includes removal of some existing driveway area and porch areas to be added to the rear of the home. The existing buildings on the site to remain.The existing home has a footprint of 2,673 sq.ft.with the main brick building(Dated-IS52)having a second story of 9SO sq. ft., the rear portion of the home has a half story 431 sq. ft. per RPS. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for alterations to an existing home. The parcel is 1.33 ac in the Moderate Density Residential MDR zone. 179-3-040 dimensional The addition that is proposed will be 11 ft.7 inches to the side setback where 25 ft.is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,May 25,2022. 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. 2. Feasible alternatives,we did not consider them. As presented they seemed reasonable and minimal to meet the client's needs. 3. The requested variance is somewhat substantial but given the proposal and the setbacks and the existing home,it is a reasonable request. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty probably is self-created,but nonetheless this is just one factor. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 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. 16-2022 JOHN &z PAULETTE KERSHKO, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 25th Day of May 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate it. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 18-2022,Jeffrey&r Joanne Mann. AREA VARIANCE NO. 18-2022 SEQRA TYPE JEFFREY &z JOANNE MANN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN ZONING RR- 3A LOCATION BAY RD.&z PICKLE HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 5-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 35.23 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOT SIZES INCLUDE: LOT 1 (692 AC.);LOT 2 (595 AC.);LOT 3(7.77 AC.);LOT 4 (3.63 AC.);AND LOT 5 (11.57 AC.). THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE APA AND THE SITE INCLUDES APA AND NWI WETLAND AREAS. THE SITE HAS EXISTING OUT BUILDINGS ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF BAY ROAD. THE PROJECT AREAS INDICATE THEY ARE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION OF 5 LOTS, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF WETLAND/SHORELINE WORK, WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF DESIGNATED WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE,STORMWATER DEVICE LOCATION,AND LOT WIDTH. CROSS REF AV 19-2022; SUB 14-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 34.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 265.-1-23.1 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.I8-2022,Jeffrey&Joanne Mann,Meeting Date: May 25,2022 "Project Location: Bay Rd. & Pickle Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project Applicant proposes a 5-lot subdivision of a 35.23 acre parcel. The lot sizes include: Lot 1(6.92 ac);Lot 2 (5.95 ac);Lot 3 (7.77 ac); Lot 4 (3.63 ac); and Lot 5 (11.57 ac). The project is located in the APA and the site includes APA and NWI wetland areas. The site has existing out buildings along the south side of Bay Road. The project areas indicate they are within 50 ft. of 150/o slopes, a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision of 5 lots,hard surfacing within 50 ft.of wetland/shoreline work,work within 100 ft.of designated wetland. Relief requested for road frontage,stormwater device location,and lot width. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width for a five lot subdivision. The lot is 35.23 ac and located in the Rural Residential RR3A zone. Section 179-4-020 dimensional RR3A, Chapter 147 Stormwater The applicant proposes 5 residential lots. Lot 2 requires relief for lot width where 362 ft. is proposed and 400 ft. is required; road frontage where 400 ft. is required and 325 ft. is proposed. Relief is requested for distance to stormwater device being less than 100 ft.where 35 ft. is proposed. Relief is also requested for the 3 ft.vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft.is proposed. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) 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. The lots proposed are greater than 3 acres. 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 environmental constraints including wetlands. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The lot width relief is 3S ft., lot frontage is 75 ft., stormwater device location is 65 ft., stormwater device height is 1 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 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 a 5 lot subdivision for a 35.23 acre parcel. The plans show the lot arrangement with driveways to Bay Road and Pickle Hill Road." MR.DOBIE-Good evening,Board. For the record,Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering,a professional engineer in partner with Hutchins,a local company here,representing Jeff and Joanne Mann who bought the property in 2002 and it's a pretty complex project so I'll try to keep it as straightforward as I can. It's really two projects we have on before you tonight. This one we're discussing parcel 23.1,which is the left portion of that that's on the screen. You'll see some arrows pointing to the west. So that's parcel 23.1, a five acre,or five lot subdivision,and I'd like to thank Laura for helping us put this together,too. It's a pretty complex project and I believe we've done a nice job with it. We've been working on it on and off for two years now. So we put a tremendous amount of thought into it, and we're an Adirondack Park Agency Class A Regional Project. Which means they have full review authority over these two parcels, which they look at as one whole project because it was under common ownership back in the day,but it's two separate tax map parcels. So that's why we're here with two projects for the Town. This five lotter,the relief we're asking for is on Lot Two,the road frontage and lot width,and the point I'd like to make is we have 1200 feet of road frontage on Pickle Hill Road for three lots. So one could say well why don't you give them 400 apiece and be compliant. That was our initial layout. The Park Agency asked that we move the driveway for Lot Three to the east. So it cannibalized some of Lot Two,and we think that's a good solution. It crosses the small stream,culvert instead of the main stream,which they didn't like that idea. So we had a little logging road cut for Lot Three, slide the driveway over,took a chunk out of Lot Two. So Lot Two had deficient road frontage and lot width below the 400 feet requirements, and for the stormwater variances we're asking for is to design to the Lake George Park Commission standards which they adopted and updated last summer,but the Town has not incorporated that into the stormwater ordinance yet. I anticipate that probably within the next year. So as the Town Code sits today we design to the DEC standards which require 100 feet for say a rain garden to a water body or a stream or a wetland, and as there's pockets of wetland along the stream,we can't hold that 100 feet for this sort of project. So we ask to go to the 35 feet as adopted by the Park Commission and then two feet of vertical separation from our storm device to groundwater as opposed to three from the DEC standard. We're consistent with current Park Commission law to give us flexibility in our design and because we know that's going to be the first comment when we do our full design for the Town Engineer is going to say,well why didn't you build to DEC. We're trying to get out in front of that before we spend thousands and thousands of more dollars doing the full comprehensive design. So we're here to ask for your approval for these variances and if we're successful we'll design to the full build out with the SWPPP, the stormwater plan, and then we'll have two more rounds with the Planning Board and also we have to re-submit to the Park Agency. So we're hereto take a good swing at it tonight and we're very comfortable with the project. There's all kinds of density. By density there's enough for eight lots. We're proposing five. So we think it's very reasonable for the land and the final point I'd like to make is my clients have been somewhat zoned out if you will, where they owned it in 2002 when the lot width required was 200 feet and it went to 400 feet in 2009. So if we still had the old standards,if you will, we wouldn't need that variance. So they've owned it for 20 years, and again we're compliant with all of our setbacks per current Code for this Rural Residential zone and then density is plenty compliant. So we don't feel like we're asking for too much with this project, and we're here to ask for your approval and we'd be happy to answer any questions the Board may have. Thank you for your time tonight. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MR. HENKEL-I walked that property where Lot Three is and that's pretty scary. There's a lot of wet in there and I can see maybe four lots,even though you're way over the requirement,but that Lot Three kind of looks pretty scary. I don't know if you've walked it or not,but there's definitely some concerns there that I'd be afraid to approve a house there. Whatever you do it's going to always need other variances. Usually with a piece of property like that you're going to need another big barn put on it to house your equipment for land maintenance and that. So I think whatever we approve,they're going to comeback to us numerous times for other variances. I can see a four lot division of four lots maybe there,but not five. So that's the only concern I have is that Lot Three I walked. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised, so at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if anybody has any input on this particular project. So you've got to come up here and identify yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM BARNES MR.BARNES Jim Barnes. I live at 96 Pickle Hill Road. There's so much traffic on the road right now you can hardly get up and down that road, especially in the wintertime. You put that many houses down, you're going to have a problem. There's three streams there, on this property. When you say you've got 100 foot and you go 100 foot from the center of the stream,or 100 foot from the bank,your setback. When you make a 100 foot setback,does it start at each side or does it start at the center of the stream and go out either way? MR. MC CABE-That's not our job to answer questions. We're just here to listen to the comments that you might have. MR. BARNES-That's a waste of my time because that's what I want to know. There's three streams running down through there. It's all wet behind there. I've been there for 32 years. We get a lot of water down through there when it rains heavy. It floods. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else who would like to input on this particular project? Go ahead. MATTHEW SCOTT MR. SCOTT-Hi. Good afternoon. My name's Matthew Scott. I have a property at the top of Pickle Hill and Bay and I've only lived there for a few years,but I can tell you,because I am perched right up there on top of Bay and Pickle Hill,and I completely agree. The traffic's incredible already,and I'm not exactly sure of the layout of the expansion for all these lots,but if there's going to be an entrance on both Bay and Pickle Hill, I can only imagine the amount of traffic that's going to be on there now, and again, I don't know exactly what the Board intends to do or what you consider,but as far as when I purchased the property,I purchased it because I didn't want to live in a development. I didn't want all the traffic. I didn't want all the,you know there's enough traffic on Bay,put Pickle Hill is a lot more than I would ever have imagined. The other thing is,living there for several years now,the amount of wildlife that I see, and whether or not that plays a factor into your decision I'm not really sure,but I can tell you that on that big giant cornfield, that used to be a cornfield,the amount of wildlife that I get the opportunity to see as I walk my dog up and down Pickle Hill,is tremendous and obviously with any development it has to be considered that that's all going to be displaced. So, you know, not only the deer, the turkey and all the other animals, I think it's just, it's not my property so it's not my decision what you guys decide to do with it,but as a concerned neighbor, I just,my value I think of my property will be diminished in my experience living in that area. So for what it's worth. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? LIZBETH SWEENEY MS. SWEENEY-My name is Lizbeth Sweeney and I'm not really sure, my property doesn't border this project. It borders the next one that is coming up,but I wanted to say I agree with the previous neighbor that it will detrimentally affect the environment of the area. It also, from my experience, and I've lived there almost 30 years,it is a very wet area, and all those streams,when it's high water,those streams just surge, and they're surging into the Lake George watershed and I believe that that's something that should be considered. I also feel that I have never known the New York State DEC to back down on something. If they have a code that says 100 feet,they're going to be strict on that code no matter what the Lake George Park Commission is saying,because New York State even fights off the EPA at times. So that is a concern to me. I do think a lot of time was put into this in trying to develop it, and the understanding of the environment. I have concerns sand I do think it's a significant impact on the area and I also feel it is somewhat self-imposed because when that property was purchased,it was purchased as it was. Okay the 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) Code did change in 2002,but the Code changed,and that's what,I would think,has to be upheld,the Code that exists,not the Code that they think it's going to change to a year or two from now. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So, Roy,do we have anything written on this particular project? MR. URRICO-We do,but it was by the same. MR. MC CABE-Is it all right if we don't read the letter? MS. SWEENEY-You don't have to read it,but I hope you'll consider what's in the letter also. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. URRICO-Am I reading it? MR. MC CABE-Yes,you can read it. MR. URRICO-"Thank you for the opportunity to voice my comment and concerns on the above listed requests for variances. The information listed in the packets on the website does not reflect information in the public Hearing Notice I received at my home address. The PHN I received cross references AV 1S- 2022. In researching the information, the application which references property adjacent to my property is listed in zoning board documents under AV 19-2022. I appreciate the efforts that Jeffery and Joanne Mann have put forth in preparing both applications with the supporting documents.It appears the efforts on this project have been in good faith. I sternly object to the requested variances in both the above referenced requests. My greatest objection is to the request that due to the stream and wetland locations it is not possible to situate all the needed stormwater management devices 100-ft away from these features and the property owners are requesting horizontal setbacks and vertical separations which are significant. It is my opinion that the request for these setbacks pose significant undesirable stormwater and environmental changes to the properties and the community. The only benefit I see from these requests is to the applicant,the applicant could seek to develop the property within the existing code framework.The applicants state the requested variances are considered moderately substantial. I disagree it is highly substantial and will have an adverse impact on the physical, and environmental conditions of the neighborhood,the community,the ecosystem,and the Lake George watershed. The impacts of this project and the impacts of the requested variances are 100 percent self-created by the property owner. In summary I object to the requested variances being approved. Regards,Lizbeth Sweeney" And it's SO Sunset Trail. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So would you like to respond to the comments? MR. DOBIE-Could you go to the next map, Laura. If you'll allow me to walk up here just to explain Lot Three a little bit. I would just like to address Lot Three which seems to cause a little heartburn. So our original thought was for a density for two lots up here. We realized that wouldn't work with the land and,yes,to Mr. Henkel's point,to come off of Pickle Hill Road down in the draw across the main stream and come back up could cause some heartburn I could see. That's why we moved the driveway to the east of the main stream where it crosses Pickle Hill Road and there's little remnants of probably a skid trail once upon a time so it parallels almost the edge of the cornfield which is right here, and then Jeff and I walked and found an appropriate spot to cross. We're still on the high ground for this secondary stream which is here and then the property comes back up, and these are two foot contours. So it's six to eight feet higher than the stream,and this is an area where it's been logged in the last five years and we did three series of test pits with the Park Agency. So this is the high and dry ground of Lot Three. We kept the driveway to the east all that we could to avoid crossing the main stream and any wetlands impacts,and we had a Park Agency wetland biologist there twice and she flagged along fingers in here, and here's our building setbacks off of the wetlands and the stream. So we're keeping the house,and this is a substantially sized house,just to show that we have room to work. So it's compliant with our stream setbacks,wetland setbacks. So I'm comfortable that this is the building spot up here. It's on higher ground,a little heavier soil and so I just wanted to make that point for the record that we're not doing any wetland disturbance or mitigation on this part of the site at all or on any part of it for how we laid it out. MR.HENKEL-So when you say a large house,what do you figure that footprint is? MR. DOBIE-This is over 6,000 square feet of a footprint,just gave us enough to work with. MR.HENKEL-Thank you. MR.MC CABE-I want to make it clear. We're not making decisions on any houses at this particular time. All we're making decisions on are the locations of the stormwater device,which maybe you explain the 100 foot versus the 35 foot. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MR.DOBIE-Sure. How the Town Code reads is the standards,there's the DEC stormwater design manual, which in our professional opinion is more aimed at commercial projects,big,huge developments. So it's difficult to apply that to residential projects when there's 100 feet obviously. DEC does allow home rule for those standards because Queensbury's what's called an MS-4. They administer the DEC program at their discretion, and then the Town Code reads that the Zoning Board has power to grant relief from the stormwater standards which is the design manual. So that's why we're here to ask for that relief. MR. MC CABE-So where does the 35 feet come from? MR. DOBIE-The 35 is the Lake George Park Commission standard and it was adopted last year because they recognize that they used to have a 100 foot standard and that was difficult to meet that on many projects. So they were seeing a lot of variances for their board. So we didn't just pick that out of the air. We went with the Park Commission standards which were adopted for the drainage basin. MR. URRICO-Where is the 35 feet measured from? MR.DOBIE-They measured from the high water mark. So as one gentleman was talking about,the width of the stream, if you had a 20 foot wide stream,you'd measure from the stream bank. These streams are generally three to four feet of a stream bank,but we will hold to the stream bank as the standard. 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 Cathy. MRS.HAMLIN-I'm not having a really big problem with the road width issue. I think you don't diverge from the 400 too terribly much on most of it,but I'm just thinking, I mean to my mind it's really four lots because you've added a defacto on the fifth lot. I just don't like varying from our own standards that much and I've kind of held to that for a lot of projects we've seen on the lake as well. So I think I'm going to have a problem approving,if we can split the variances, approving the ones for the stormwater devices at this time. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT John made a point,you know, struggling with that Lot Three, and I am,too, and I fully appreciate and understand, you know, your explanation here, and honing in on this thing. So I am, as broken down,would be fine. At this time,Mr. Chairman,I'm not in favor of this. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I find it highly speculative that anybody would be interested in Lot Three with the amount of wetlands you have out there, and I think,you know, the map shows clearly your access point abutting into Lot Two on the eastern side there, too. Those lots to the east and the west I think are developable. I don't really think that Lot Three is a developable lot. I think it should be kept as green space. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I've got to stand with what I said in the beginning there. I think that this is a project that's doable,but I think it's got to be looked at. I know you've put two years into it,and it's too bad you've put that much time into it,but I would have to say I'm not for it as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I find it interesting how people talk about traffic. These five lots, anyway, to me that's not that much traffic off into the area. I actually think it's a good project and I'd be in support of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm disinclined to support a project with this type of stormwater device. I think we cannot anticipate what the future is going to be in terms of the variances. Just like you couldn't anticipate,when you purchased the property,that the lot sizes would change. So given the types of storms that we've had lately and predicted to have going forward,I would rather err on the side of caution rather than approve a project that's that close to the stormwater that might be affected. So I would not support this project. MR. MC CABE-So my feeling here is that you guys have probably done as good a job as you can do,given the nature of this project. I have no problem with the lot width. I have no problem with the road frontage 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) variances. They've been explained very well, and I also don't have a problem with the stormwater device location. To me 100 foot from where you want to protect is way too far. What you're trying to do with the stormwater device is to slow water down, and having to stay 100 foot back to slow the water down to me is very impractical. I think the 35 feet is much more reasonable, but unfortunately you don't have enough friends on this. So you have a couple of choices here. You can table,take a look at it and maybe present another design. You could call for a vote,but that's not going to go well. So I guess I need some guidance here. MR.DOBIE-Yes,we'd respectfully request to table it,let us re-group,and we'll come back to you at a future date. MR. MC CABE-So when might you be ready? MR. DOBIE-Certainly not next month. Probably a July meeting. MR. MC CABE-So do we have openings in the July meetings? MRS. MOORE-I believe we put two in the July meeting. So I'm comfortable putting it in the second meeting. MR. MC CABE-So with information to be submitted by. MRS. MOORE-By June 15`h MR. MC CABE-By June 15`h MR.HENKEL-Okay, and we're going to go July 27`h The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey &z Joanne Mann. Applicant proposes a 5-lot subdivision of a 35.23 acre parcel. The lot sizes include: Lot 1 (6.92 ac); Lot 2 (5.95 ac); Lot 3 (7.77 ac); Lot 4 (3.63 ac); and Lot 5 (11.57 ac). The project is located in the APA and the site includes APA and NWI wetland areas.The site has existing out buildings along the south side of Bay Road. The project areas indicate they are within 50 ft. of 150/o slopes, a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision of 5 lots,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetland/shoreline work, work within 100 ft.of designated wetland. Relief requested for road frontage,stormwater device location, and lot width. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.18-2022 JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, Tabled to July 27`h,2022 with any new information submitted by June 15`h,2022. Motion seconded by Ronald Kuhl. Duly adopted this 25'day of May 2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 19-2022,Jeffrey&Joanne Mann. AREA VARIANCE NO.19-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN ZONING WR LOCATION 76 PICKLE HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 3-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 17.1 ACRE PARCEL. THE LOT SIZES INCLUDE: LOT 6 (3.8 ACRES);LOT 7(4.1 ACRE);LOT 8(9.2 ACRES) NEAR TO THE MANN 5-LOT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION ON A SEPARATE PARCEL. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE APA AND IS NEAR TO APA AND NWI WETLAND AREAS. THE SITE INFORMATION INDICATES THERE ARE AREAS WITH 15% SLOPES,PROJECT IS A MAJOR STORMWATER PROJECT. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SUBDIVISION FOR 3 LOTS, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF WETLANDS/SHORELINE,WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR ROAD FRONTAGE AND STORMWATER DEVICE LOCATION. LUCAS DOBIE,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.19-2022,Jeffrey&Joanne Mann,Meeting Date: May 25,2022 "Project Location: 76 Pickle Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project Applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) of a 17.1 acre parcel. The lot sizes include:Lot 6 (3.S acres);Lot7(4.1 acre);and Lot S (9.2 acres)near to the Mann 5-lot proposed subdivision on a separate parcel.The project is located in the APA and is near to APA and NWI wetland areas. The site information indicates there are areas with 150/o slopes,project is a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision for 3 lots, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetlands/shoreline, work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage, stormwater device location, and lot width for a three-lot subdivision. The lot is 17.1 ac and located in the Rural Residential RR3A zone. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,147 stormwater,179-4-050 frontage Relief is requested for distance to stormwater device being less than 100 ft.where 35 ft.is proposed. Relief is requested for the 3 ft.vertical separation distance for a device where 2 ft.is proposed. Relief is requested for lot 6 of 3.S ac and Lot 7 of 4.1 ac physical access to use a proposed drive for Lot S of 9.2 ac. In addition, Road frontage relief is requested for Lot S where 57.S6 is proposed,Lot 6 and Lot 7 where 0 ft.is proposed and required is 400 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The lots proposed are greater than 3 acres. 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 environmental constraints including wetlands. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for the stormwater device location is 65 ft.,stormwater device height is 1 ft.,road frontage is 342.14 for lot S;400 ft.for both lot 6 and 7. Physical road front for lots 6 and 7. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 3 lot subdivision for a 17.1 acre parcel. The plans show the lot arrangement with driveways through one drive to Pickle Hill Road." MR. DOBIE-Good evening, again,Board. For the record, again, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering. My client,Jeff Mann,is with us as well,and this is Part II,if you will,of his overall Class A Regional Project with the Adirondack Park Agency. So it's Parcel 23.2,which is a 17 acre flag lot with 57 feet of road frontage on Pickle Hill Road, and it's to the east of a stream that runs north/south to the wetlands to the north.. With this project we're here to ask, how we set it up is similar to a private HOA subdivision if you will. We've done a couple of those with the Board over the years, some five lotters where it's a private road maintained by the HOA with landlocked parcels with easements across the roads. That's how we set this up with the southerly lot, Lot Eight,retaining the tail, if you will for the ownership of the road and then easements for Lot Six and Seven. So obviously Lots Six and Seven have zero road frontage on the public right of way. So we're asking for 400 feet of relief from the 400 on those, and then Lot Eight would have the 57 feet out of the 400. So it's a function of the geometry of the parent parcel, and the logic is that the southerly most part of Lot Eight is a gorgeous building spot and to, it's a substantial length of driveway, and the long way there's more really nice building spots. So we're going through the process, and again because of the proximity of the stream to the west,we can't hold 100 feet with our stormwater devices. So we're asking to design to the current Lake George Park Commission standards of the 35 feet horizontally and two feet vertically to groundwater, and again we have sufficient density for the project. Just to make the point that my clients have owned it since 2002 and in the two years we've been working on it it has been for sale without any acceptable offers on it. So that's why we're pursuing the project to move forward with it. So we appreciate your feedback and questions and thank you for having us tonight. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-So you said like an HOA, So is this actually being submitted to the AG and become an HOA? MR. DOBIE-It is what's called a CPS-7 Cooperative Policy Statement. It's an E-4. So it's a simpler basic HOA we would call it. MRS.HAMLIN-But it's a legitimate HOA? MR. DOBIE-It is. Yes,you can't sell a landlocked parcel without a maintenance agreement. MRS.HAMLIN-Exactly. That's my question. Thank you. MR.HENKEL-Does that have to be approved by the State? Does it make it an HOA? MR. DOBIE-I have a little experience with this. It's kind of a general filing with the paperwork. MR.HENKEL-They accept anything pretty much. MR. DOBIE-I believe it's kind of pretty straightforward. MRS.HAMLIN-It's considered diminimus,because it's less than the traditional four to five lots. 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 would like to provide input on this particular project. Go ahead. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEVE PREUSS MR. PREUSS-Good evening. My name's Steve Preuss. I live at 42 Sunset Trail, which is the property directly adjacent to Lot Six. I know the Manns, consider them friends, and I'm learning a lot about this process. So I'm taking this opportunity to express myself publicly and go on record with some of my thoughts about the project. I'm learning about the setbacks and the fact that I guess the current Lake George Park Commission standards are 35 feet,which is what they're proposing. So I realize this is not in the eyes of some of the controlling entities an inappropriate amount of setback to request. However, I do have concerns about preserving the quality of the water that flows into Lake George as many of us do in this community. We trust that the requirements and the laws and the rules really are going to be looked through that lens of wanting to preserve what flows into Dunham's Bay and that whole wetland area that ultimately ends up in Lake George. I do believe that this project will result in a detriment to the neighborhood directly behind it. Many of the other property owners there highly value their setting right now, and although we realize and acknowledge Mr. Mann's right to develop his property within the guidelines as he sees fit, I just want to go on record to say we believe it would be a detriment to our neighborhood in terms of that aesthetic that brought us to that neighborhood if those woods entirely disappear, we're staring into backyards that are clear cut and lawns and what not. That's not what we purchased our properties having. I don't know that that's what this discussion is about tonight,but I have MY opportunity to express my opinion I suppose. So I also wonder about the environmental impact. I'm familiar with that stream,and again,having it flow into the lake I just want to make sure that this is done right. One concern I have personally a property owner is if the setbacks aren't altered and the property plan is changed,I'm wondering about the consequence of having the road,that driveway further from the stream and therefore the houses closer to my property line. So I don't know if this can be addressed or perhaps the engineer can address it,but what are the plans for setbacks or vegetative setbacks around the property? Is there a plan to have? MR. MC CABE-So tonight we're just concerned with a couple of things, the road frontage and the stormwater device location. Not its design,just simply its location. So anything to do with the houses, that's speculative. MR. PREUSS-Different discussion. MR. MC CABE-And that's a different discussion. That's right. Also there'll be a lot more discussion on the stormwater,all we're approving is the location of the device, and not even the design of the device. MR. PREUSS-All right. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MRS. MOORE-I can just interject,that it will go back before the Planning Board which is typically where they'd go through subdivision review and the locations of clearing and the element of having our Town Engineer review the stormwater management plan. So there is that other element that is addressed at a later time. Specifically the Zoning Board is looking at the variances being requested. MR. PREUSS-Okay. Like I said, I'm learning about the process, but I do appreciate the opportunity to share my views and again, I respect Mr. Mann's right to look at his property and develop it within the guidelines that he has to adhere to. So thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So, anybody else? Go ahead. JOHN GOODMAN MR. GOOD MAN-Hello. I'm John Goodman. I live at 92 Sunset Trail and my biggest concern is the 150/0 grade,more than 150/o grade. There's a lot more than 150/o grade. So I don't know how you're going to have room to put a road,put a house and keep it out of the water. It's a huge,off of the back of our lot it drops right off and it goes right to the water. I'd like to seethe real plans on that when it comes to how you keep all that out of the water. So that's basically all I have. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Anybody else? So do we have anything written,Roy? MR.URRICO-Other than the letter that has been submitted by Lizbeth Sweeney,and the same letter that I read in already. So I'd like to instruct Staff to add this to the notes. MR. MC CABE-So that's it. MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. MC CABE-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.UNDERWOOD-I still have concerns about what you're doing here. It's understandable that the flag lot is the only way that's going to give you access to those three proposed lots in the back there,but I think that the screening proximity to the road and the steepness of the terrain back there is not going to work for me. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I'd have to say I'm kind of more supportive of this one. I understand what Jim's saying. I think I'd be supportive of this one. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-The 150/o grade,but I think that can be worked around. I think you can build it appropriately. I think it's a good project. When we have the public coming up and talking about,you know,I purchased my property and I built my house, but you're purchasing property and you're building your home, you know, if somebody comes and builds a house in front of yours and blocks your view, you didn't buy the view,you bought the property. I think development is positive,it's good,and for that reason,it's the same way as people come up and say look at the end of my property line,I want them to leave 15 feet of trees up where that person clear cut their property to their property line. I personally support development done in a proper way and I think that this is,this is the proper way. So I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-I have the same concerns I had about the previous project abutting the stormwater project, and again we're working with the rules as they're currently,the current rules,not what maybe projected. If that changes, then I would change my opinion,but for right now I still think I need to be cautious, we need to be cautious about granting permission within 100 feet of the wetland. So I would be against this project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS.HAMLIN-I certainly would be okay with granting relief from the 100 foot,but not that much relief. We're talking about,you know,way over 500/o which is extremely substantial. Otherwise,I'm good with road width. I'm good with frontage issue. So I'm a no at this point. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I have an issue, like Roy, with the stormwater, Mr. Chairman. So I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE-And from my standpoint it's the same thing. The 100 foot I think is a ridiculous standard and I don't go along with it,but again, we're a little on the short side here. You need four and you only have three. So I'll give you the same opportunities that you have the last time. MR.DOBIE-So again,Board,thank you for your input,and let us re-group here and if we could get back in July for the second meeting that would be helpful to take another swing at it and re-design it. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So could I get a motion,John? MR.HENKEL-Tabled to the 27`h for that one,too? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR.HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey &z Joanne Mann. Applicant proposes a 3-lot subdivision of a 17.1 acre parcel. The lot sizes include:Lot 6 (3.S acres); Lot7 (4.1 acre); and Lot S (9.2 acres) near to the Mann 5-lot proposed subdivision on a separate parcel. The project is located in the APA and is near to APA and NWI wetland areas. The site information indicates there are areas with 150/o slopes, project is a major stormwater project. Project is subject to subdivision for 3 lots, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of wetlands/shoreline, work within 100 ft. of wetland. Relief requested for road frontage and stormwater device location. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.19-2022 JEFFREY&z JOANNE MANN,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, Tabled to July 27`h,2022 with any new information to be submitted by June 15`h,2022. Motion seconded by Ronald Kuhl. Duly adopted this 25'day of May 2022,by the following: AYES: Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mrs.Hamlin,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. DOBIE-Thank you,Board. MR. MC CABE-So as soon as the room clears,I've got some discussion. MRS.MOORE-Excuse me,can I ask,since our meeting is completed,you can just speak out in the hallway if you don't mind. That way the Board can have a discussion and we're not interrupting you. MR. MC CABE-So I've noticed all of a sudden we've got a bunch of requests for location of stormwater devices,although we don't get any information about the device. It just popped upon us once. It popped up because of the disparity between the Lake George Park Commission and the Town of Queensbury. So our Town Engineer pointed out that we do have this 100 foot setback requirement,and so there's variances required for it,which,again,is silly to me because we're not getting any information on the type of device, you know, what is the 100 foot going to do, what is the danger of reducing this 100 foot, and so I asked Laura to contact Soil and Water Conservation to give us a little dissertation on this,because you should understand that not all stormwater mitigation is called a stormwater device, and there's other factors involved, and I'm not comfortable with my understanding of it, and so I think that it would be worth our while to get some information from somebody who is a little bit more knowledgeable. So I want to ask what you guys think of it, and, you know, you guys have been around for a while. Have you noticed stormwater devices, a variance for that? MR. URRICO-Rarely,because what we have left in the Town to develop is,not called bad property,but property that needs further variances or more variances than previously. So we're hitting wetland areas that we didn't hit before. We have had projects up in this area,though. Not right there,but. MR. MC CABE-Yes, well this is all Harris'land,right? Didn't we have a big discussion on whether that was Harris'business or not? MR. URRICO-Everything was Harris up there. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/25/2022) MRS. MOORE-Yes,everything was Harris. MR. MC CABE-So anyway,what Laura said is in July it's possible to have a meeting about an hour before one of our meetings. Is that a hardship for anybody? MR. MC DEVITT-I think it's needed. I would like that. I think I need some help with it. Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what it'll do, it'll clarify the fact that if your separation distance from the wetland it gives it time to percolate into the ground,whereas if you move it closer it doesn't have as much time. So it has a greater effect. MR.MC CABE-But the way I learned to control runoff is it's cascading,and so you have a block and try to spread it out,then you have another block and you try to spread it out and then you have another block and you try to spread it out. The danger with runoff is washing. If you keep the velocity down low,then it's just water. MR. URRICO-But they've had issues up there already. They've had issues up there that basically they're repairing a road because of the runoff. MR. MC CABE-So somebody,but would you have a device 100 foot away, and then what happens when you get past that 100 foot, or that 100 feet, you have free access to whatever. So the problem with stormwater is you get velocity,and if the velocity is kept very low,then the stormwater is just that,it's just water,but if the velocity is allowed to rise,it becomes turbulent. It picks up gravel and other undesirable items and carries it along with it,and that's what your stormwater device tries to do is to keep that velocity down,let the particulate,if you would, settle out, and so runoff is not as detrimental. That's my feeling, but I'd like to hear what the Soil and Water guys have to say. I went to one of their discussions on culverts and thought it was very good. So hopefully they'll do something like that for us. MR.KUHL-Answer me a question,though. If we were to approve something 25 feet,would then it go to them and they would deny it and they couldn't build? MRS. MOORE-No, because this Board was given the discretion, authority when we adopted the Stormwater Regs that it is a local rule. So if someone says,if ultimately our Code changes to 35 feet, and someone comes in and says we want 25 feet,it would be this Board. It would not be another Board. MR. MC CABE-Right. MR.KUHL-But they're coming forward and saying another agency approves 35 feet. MRS. MOORE-That's what I'm saying is that's what happened with Chapter 147. The Park Commission said here's the rules. If you adopt it in your own, being the local town adopts it, then it's your reg to interpret. There's other communities that just said you,the Park Commission, Cathy was part of this at one point,where we went to each town and said here's the regs to adopt for stormwater regs. Some towns did not,but it was a period probably just around 2009 or some time before I left. MR.KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-SO with that,I make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 25TI,2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 25`h day of May,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Hamlin,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-So just to let you know that in June you will need to adopt a motion that says that you want to start one of your July meetings early. So I'll make sure that we've come up with a date and poll you and all. MR.HENKEL-Sounds good. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 20