Loading...
MInutes AV 29-2022 (Orban) 6.22.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MEGHAN & STEPHEN ORBAN AGENT(S) STEFANIE BITER OWNER(S) MEGHAN & STEPHEN ORBAN ZONING WR LOCATION 21-25 DUNCAN COVE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING HOME AND OUT BUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,548 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A PORCH AREA OF 463 SQ. FEET; NEW FLOOR AREA IS 4,584 SQ. FT. THE PERMEABLE PATIO FACING THE LAKE WILL ALSO INCLUDE A HOT TUB (DEFINED AS A POOL PER CODE). PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE AND SITE PLANTINGS PLAN, DEVELOPMENT FOR PERMEABLE PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREA; A NEW ON-SITE SEPTIC SYSTEM AND WATER SUPPLY DRAWN FROM THE LAKE; A NEW ACCESS DRIVE FROM DUNCAN COVE RD. TO CLEVERDALE THROUGH PARCEL 226.16-1-9. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACE WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND POOL LOCATION. CROSS REF SP 39-2022; AV 82-1992 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.16- 1-7 & 226.16-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040; 147; 179-5-020 STEFANIE BITTER & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2022, Meghan & Stephen Orban, Meeting Date: June 22, 2022 “Project Location: 21-25 Duncan Cove Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and out buildings to construct a new home of 2,539 sq. ft. footprint with a porch area of 447 sq. ft.; new floor area is 4,584 sq. ft. The permeable patio area facing the lake will also include a hot tub (defined as a pool per code). Project includes site work for stormwater management, shoreline and site plantings plan, development for permeable patio and driveway area; a new on-site septic system and water supply drawn from the lake; a new access drive from Duncan Cove Rd. to Cleverdale through parcel 226.16-1-9. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surface within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and pool location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and pool location for construction of a new home in the Waterfront Residential zone WR. Section 179-3-040 WR, Chapter 147 stormwater, 179-5-020 pool The project involves placement of a stormwater device at 42 ft. from the shoreline where 100 ft. is required. In addition the applicant proposes a spa/pool area on the shoreline side of the property that is considered a pool in a front yard requiring a variance. 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 character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to locate the home so the stormwater devices do not require relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for stormwater device setback of 58 ft. The pool location is for the front yard. 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 project includes a new on-site waste water system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a new single family home with associated site work for stormwater management, septic, water supply, plantings etc. The plans show the survey of the existing conditions and the proposed (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 2 lot arrangement with the new house. The project includes developing an access from Duncan Cove to Cleverdale on a separate parcel across from the house project parcel.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was adopted on June 21st, 2022 and that was a unanimous vote. MS. BITTER-Thank you. I’m Stefanie Bitter, here this evening with Andy Allison and Sara Tuttle from AJ Architects as well as Brandon Ferguson from EDP as part of the team for this project. Let me start from the beginning. These folks just purchased this property in January. Meghan Orban has been a long time resident of Cleverdale, or her family has and this is part of her dream to find her own piece of Cleverdale to stay and have with her family. That being said, Laura, if you can move to Page Two. You all have it in your packet, and many of you have visited the site. This is how it exists today. There’s two principle residences which are right up against the shoreline and there is a fairly large garage. It is the plan of our clients to demolish all of those structures and re-construct a home which Laura did have on the screen before I asked here, and in a compliant location. The only requests that are before you this evening are two items relative to the project assigned. The setback of the stormwater system, which I’ll let EDP go into details, is within 100 feet of the lake. The other item is a hot tub, all right. When we presented this plan to Laura, she unfortunately had to give us the bad news that it wasn’t here determination, it was Craig’s that a hot tub is considered a pool, although my clients won’t be swimming in this hot tub, because of its size, it then has no compliant location on this property because pursuant to 179-5-020, as you had heard from the applicant before us, because this is on the lake, the lake is considered the front yard as well as the architectural door is considered the front yard and a pool, even though it’s a hot tub, has to be in the rear yard. So there’s nowhere on this property that our folks can have their hot tub. So the hot tub is being placed in the location where everyone would expect it to be, right outside of the patio, and on the, what they consider to be the rear yard, all right. Those are the only two variances that this project needs. Because it was our clients’ purpose and their direction for this team to make this the most zoning compli ant lot because we started with this, all right. Jon Lapper, before he left, wanted me to mention to you that he represents the Perrys. The Perrys are the folks to the south, and they are thrilled with this project because now the houses that are right against the lake are no longer going to be there and they’re going to be placed in a setback which is a compliant location. So they support this variance. That being said, although Roy mentioned it, I’m going to mention it again, there is going to be a compliant septic on this property. Obviously we’re before the Town Board for the extension so that that is also constructed together with the new development of the house. The water supply will remain with the lake, and like I said, overall we’re trying to achieve zoning compliance. Relative to your burden, you’re to review the variances that we’re seeking, and we feel that really when you look at this balancing test the benefit to the applicant outweighs any detriment that can be defined relative to the community or affecting the community. No undesirable changes are created by both of these requests, the stormwater and the hot tub. There’s no stormwater being addressed right now. So we’re obviously improving that in that regard. The benefit for either stormwater or the hot tub cannot be achieved in any other manner. Obviously like I had mentioned with 179-5-020 being in place, there’s no compliant location to put a spa/hot tub/pool, whatever you refer to it as. It’s all placed in that same definition. We do not believe that this request should be deemed substantial due to the efforts and design that have been put forth for this project. It’s overall headed in the direction of zoning compliance, far better than it is in its current state and we don’t believe any adverse effects, physical or environmental, can be deemed to exist with the request being proposed, and although the alleged difficulty can be deemed self-created because it’s part of the design, we do not feel that that should be detrimental to the request before you. As Roy also mentioned, we did receive a unanimous recommendation from the Planning Board last night. I’m going to turn it over to these folks to give more details as to the project. ANDY ALLISON MR. ALLISON-Good evening. My name is Andy Allison. I’m the principle of AJ Architecture Planning. As Stefanie said, the clients came to us and asked us to design them a very compliant house. They have two reasons for that. One is they want to get the project started. They don’t want to have any hold ups in the permitting process. They’re also quite dedicated to the overall quality of the lake and of this area, since Meghan kind of grew up on Cleverdale, and I know part of the project that’s not in your purview that we’re also doing is the dock and boathouse. They’re actually re-designing what is, they’re going to re-build a new dock and boathouse, docks and boathouse which are quite larger than what is required and is limited by the lake right now and they’re making that in compliance, and they’re also moving it to the center of their property to get it out of the view shed of their neighbors as part of the project. So they’ve really gone the extra mile in trying to be compliant. The main thing is really how we’re pushing the house back. Again we’re both out of the 50 foot setback to the main part of the house. The main patio is near the line, which opens up the views of not only their views around, but both neighbors to the south and north, and, Laura, if you could go to Page Five. I want to talk about why we thought that this was the best spot for the hot tub. The hot tub, mind you, is a six by eight in-ground hot tub. So it doesn’t sit up on the deck. They want it to be in-ground so visually people won’t be looking at it. It’s six foot by eight foot, just around 300 gallons. So it’s a standard size, six or eight person hot tub. We’ve put it tucked away in this corner over here because there’s a significant amount of natural growth on this northern border to the neighbor to the (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 3 north who’s house is quite closer to the lake than the house now. They’re going to really plant this area and make that a private place. The neighbor to the south, most of their outdoor lawn area is sort of adjacent to what is going to be the Orbans outdoor lawn area. So they really didn’t want this hot tub being in their view shed or kind of up next to them or have to block their views. They didn’t want to increase a lot of plantings here which would block views from them looking out toward the lake. So it’s somewhat strategic in that manner. It also works best for their layout of their house. Their kitchen’s back here. This is their outdoor kind of covered patio area, and it just makes sense to have it there, but it’s a very private place. The activity around the hot tub is more like sitting around a campfire than it is a pool with kids and slides and diving boards and that. So we feel that it met the intention of the Code when the Code talks about hot tubs or pools on corner lots, it has a lot of language in there about how you treat a hot tub or a pool with respect to a rear yard lot line, you know, we’re well within those guidelines. I know this isn’t a rear yard, but you kind of interpreted that, that met the intent of when you have a lot that doesn’t have a defined backyard how you handle it. So that was part of our placement plan. Do you want to talk about the hot tub, or do you want to have us go through the stormwater system as wel l first before we have questions? MR. MC CABE-Whatever you want to do. MR. ALLISON-Well, I can field questions on the pool itself. MR. MC CABE-You guys do your presentation and then we’ll have questions. MR. FERGUSON-I’m Brandon Ferguson from EDP. So, yes, the stormwater management, as Stefanie mentioned earlier, there is nothing on the site now. Those houses are right on the lake. I think one’s five foot off the lake, one’s twelve, and they essentially shed water right into the lake. So by pulling the house back we’re greatly improving the stormwater situation just by doing that, and this is a Major stormwater project. So now we have to infiltrate stormwater from any proposed impervious surfaces. So we’re doing some shallow detention areas around the house, in these areas, and then all the paved surfaces are going to be permeable as well. From a permeability standpoint, I know we’re not asking for that variance, but we’re improving it greatly on site, too. It was noncompliant before. It was a little under 57%, and now it’s going to be around 78%. So it’s going to be a huge improvement in permeability on this site. . As far as the variance, we’re looking for a setback variance on this shallow grass depression here. That’s going to take the roof runoff from the house. I’ve done a lot of these. The setback of 100 feet for a Major stormwater becomes difficult when the house is within 50 feet of the lake and there’s not really room to push the house back on the site to get further from the lake. It’s going to need to get a septic system in there as well, and the septic will be compliant, over 100 feet from the lake. We’re kind of squeezing it up here. So that’s going to be, that’s not going to require any Board of Health variances. I’ll turn it back over to you guys if you have any questions. MR. MC CABE-So does anyone have any questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-Suppose you couldn’t get the hot tub approved. Would you go ahead with the project? MR. ALLISON-I think we’d have to discuss that with the clients again, talk about what their options would be then. It was one of the main things they wanted as part of the project from the beginning. They use it mostly just for relaxation. It’s an integral part of what they wanted for the project. So I’d have to talk to them. MR. KUHL-The other interesting thing, if you take that hot tub and put it in the garage, you wouldn’t even be here, would you? It would be inside, right? But anyway. I thought we were adamant about swimming pools towards the lake and, I don’t know. You might have to discuss that with your clients. My wife’s wanted one for 25 years and I’ve said no, but I just wanted to know whether that had been discussed. MR. ALLISON-We’ve discussed it, and they’ve asked us to come here and seek the variance. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-What about reducing it so that it doesn’t need the variance? MS. BITTER-There’s nothing that changes it anywhere on the site, because I did ask Laura if I moved it to the south. MRS. MOORE-So it’s location would still trigger it as a problem. The number of gallons makes it a pool. So it’s 100 gallons. MR. ALLISON-The smallest you can buy on the market it a 200 gallon. I don’t know what a 100 gallon. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 4 MRS. MOORE-Basically a bath tub would trigger it. MR. HENKEL-Have you thought of pushing it back to the 50 feet setback? MR. KUHL-No, because it’s still a front yard. MR. HENKEL-Right, I realize that. MR. KUHL-Wherever you put it. MR. HENKEL-So there’s no way around it. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS. HAMLIN-Uniform Code, this wouldn’t need approval, right, with the Uninform Code. MRS. MOORE-Yes, it just happens that the Town Code is stricter than the New York State Building Code. 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 us with input on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED THOMAS HANS MR. HANS-Good evening. Thomas Hans. I own property right directly to the north. I haven’t met the new owners. I was unaware that there was a meeting last night. I was unaware that there was a meeting tonight and I think there’s one tomorrow night. So somewhere I didn’t get communication. So I really haven’t seen anything. This is the first I’ve seen of the project and I welcome them as neighbors. I have no issues with that. I have a problem with the hot tub because the hot tub is really kind of almost directly off my master bedroom in the house. Also I have a kitchen that has a large picture window looking south on the lake, I’m not sure if the hot tub would be an obstruction of that view or not, but it is very close to our property line. Both the house and the existing camp that’s there right now are no more than I’d say 20 feet away from each other. So it’s already pretty close to the property line. MR. MC CABE-So that’s not one of the variances that we’re looking for here. MR. HANS-What’s that? MR. MC CABE-Their side setback. MR. HANS-I’m just talking about the hot tub. MR. MC CABE-I understand that, but the location of it, with the side of the property, is not a question. MR. HANS-I thought it had to be behind the house, or? So it’s okay where it’s located then, right there? MR. MC CABE-No, it’s not okay, but it’s not too close to your side of the property. MRS. MOORE-It’s not a distance setback. It’s a location. MR. HANS-Okay. I don’t understand that, but that’s all right. MRS. MOORE-It would have to be 20, it’s actually more than 20 feet setback to the side property line. That would be the setback distance. It meets that. It’s location is in what’s considered a front yard. MR. HENKEL-You have two front yards when you’ve got a road and you’ve got a lake. And in the Code you can’t put a pool anywhere in Queensbury in front yard. MR. HANS-Okay. So this is not considered a front yard ? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it is a front yard. MR. MC CABE-That’s what they’re looking for the variance for. MR. HANS-Okay. And that’s why I’m saying I do have a bit of a problem with it being there. MR. MC CABE-Okay. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 5 MR. HANS-If it was in the middle of the property I really wouldn’t have a problem with that because I mean you folks would probably have a bigger problem with that than I would, but it’s just being moved away from my property line a little bit, just for my protection. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Okay. Thank you. MR. HANS-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Ma’am? MARTHA NOORDSY MS. NOORDSY-I would like to speak. MRS. MOORE-So could I just acknowledge one thing as this gentleman is walking away. So the information was provided. It was sent to a Florida address. MR. HANS-Okay. I never got it. MS. NOORDSY-My name is Martha Noordsy. I’m a part owner of 245 Cleverdale Road which is two doors down from this proposed building. My concern is the hot tub. As someone who’s come to the lake for years and years, I find it disturbing that people need a pool on the lake. It doesn’t make any sense to me, plus the fact that if it leaks or it overflows, and that’s a problem as far as water quality is concerned. I look at the lake as something that needs to be protected, and I’m not getting a strong feeling of protection here. People spend a lot of money to live on the lake, and they spend a lot of money and they think that they can do as they wish. I look at it that I’m only here for a little while and the next generation will take over, but if we keep on building and building and building and having extraordinary prices for homes, what happens to the quality of the lake? What happens for the next generation when they are looking at spending time on the lake that was pristine and hopefully will continue to be pristine. My concern is the hot tub. My concern is, is it going to be a permanent residence? Are they going to be renting it out? Are they going to turn it into a seasonal rental? Because that has happened on Cleverdale. People have said they’re putting up houses for relatives and they rent them out. So I just want to make sure that it’s going to be a permanent residence. It’s a very congested area. It’s a very small road. It’s very difficult to navigate that area, and I think that needs to be considered as far as the increased traffic, if it’s going to be rented out. I see that as a problem, people coming and going. The road is limited and there’s been tremendous build on Cleverdale, but I think we really need to think about the quality of the lake and I hope that you comply with that. I think that is important to do because it is a pristine body of water that needs to be protected I believe. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So do we have anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, we do. “The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Lake George Waterkeeper commends the applicant for the decision to construct the new dwelling in a compliant location and shoreline setback, which will benefit the lake. The Waterkeeper would recommend the variance for the stormwater setback be significantly reduced by pushing the basin in line with the proposed dwelling, which can be easily accomplished. The Waterkeeper is not in favor of the hot tub within 32 feet of the lake with the chemicals that are associated with its use and could contaminate the lake. Finally, the Waterkeeper recommends the Board require the applicant to review hardscape and permeability for the proposed design. For example, the driveway width should be reduced, and patios reduced. Another issue that would affect permeability is the fact that permeable pavers are proposed for the driveway where the grade is approximately 15% and permeable pavers should not be installed where grades exceed 5% according to the New York State Stormwater Design Manual. The Waterkeeper recommends that Zoning Board of Appeals table the application and require the applicant to seek alternative, more compliant location for the stormwater basin, eliminate the hot tub, and revisit the permeability coverage for this project located in the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” That’s the only letter I have. MR. MC CABE-So do you guys want to comment? First of all, Chris doesn’t usually give compliments. MS. BITTER-And I think essentially that was just the beginning of this letter, by the Planning Board last night, that they found that these requests were minimal. There were a couple of items they asked us to look into, which we absolutely did and, you know, obviously the only variances we’re talking about right now is stormwater and the hot tub, but there are actually two access points to this property. There’s Duncan Cove as well as Cleverdale. So traffic isn’t going to be a problem and I can’t stress to you enough (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 6 that this couple, well it’s a family, are just trying to make a place of their own on Lake George. This is not going to be something that has a lot of traffic other than thei r family, but no more than anyone else. So I think that relative to the concerns of the water being pristine, this project absolutely supports that, that that’s the intention of the applicant. They’re creating stormwater. They’re placing the house in a compliant location. They’re removing the excess buildings that are currently what occupies this parcel and they’re placing a compliant septic system. This isn’t the first time you’ve talked about this variance tonight relative to a pool or a hot tub on a lake lot. We think there’s absolute similarities in what we’re requesting as to what was being sought by the Lynches and in fact this hot tub is sunken in. It’s going to be protected. There’s landscaping that surrounds it. We think all of that supports the request and lessens any concerns relative to that. MR. ALLISON-I want to mention two things I forgot to mention about the hot tub. It is going to be a saltwater pool. So it’s not a chlorine or bromine system, and we actually talked about the maintenance schedule on that so that normally a hot tub you have to empty out every four to six months. So we’re actually going to have a holding tank put in where the hot tub can be pumped up to it and then the water can be taken off site. So it’s not dumped into the ground near the lake. That was something the Planning Board talked to us about last night and we actually had already previously mentioned that to the owners as a way to maintain that, and then the gentleman to the north, we just haven’t had the opportunity to sit down and look at the exact location and how that would impact his view, but I know the owners are very much interested in working with him to make sure it’s placed in a way that doesn’t impact his views, without getting it any closer to the lake for sure. MR. MC CABE-Okay. At this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-You were talking about the Lynches there. That was 52 feet from the lake, that spa or pool, whatever you want to call it. I think it is a good project and there’s no doubt you’re improving that area, but I would not be on board with the pool that close to the lake. MS. BITTER-But you’re in favor of the stormwater? MR. HENKEL-The project as is is great. I think it’s a good improvement to that area. There’s no doubt. The only problem I have is with the pool. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m in favor of the project, all but the tub. I would not approve it, and that’s the long and the short of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think it’s a good project also, but I’m definitely not on board with the pool, hot tub, whatever you want to call it in the front yard, it’s almost like a corner lot. It needs special attention and in this case it can’t get any attention. So I would say no. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree as is. I would be more open I think to the hot tub re-located and possibly look at Chris’ suggestion with regards to moving the stormwater infiltration device, if that’s possible to move that back more. Otherwise, just do the infiltration test and make sure that everything is copasetic. At this time without moving the hot tub, I’d be against it at this point. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I would echo the sentiments of my Board members. I actually think the project in total is a great project. I think the stormwater is an improvement. There’s nothing on site now. Great improvement. Permeability being improved is great. Recognizing it’s a saltwater situation and then also recognizing what you had indicated, you know, with sort of a maintenance schedule there, but the project, I’m only sounding my voice here, which is I’m in favor of the project. I’m not in favor, currently, as the hot tub sits. So that’s my sticking point. Otherwise you have a project that I would support. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I have no problem. I think you should be complimented for the design and the setbacks because you don’t have any other variances you’re asking for. As far as the groundwater infiltration, I think that’s a non-issue in my book. As far as the hot tub goes, I think you can move it down (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 7 in the center of the lot, in the middle of the deck up there closer to the front of the house. I think that way you would not be causing any ill effects on either neighbor on either side of you. So I would think that would be a reasonable re-location and I think that’s what you should consider and come back to us with. MR. ALLISON-I’m wondering if we could talk about that now, just to get the Board’s favor. MR. MC CABE-We’re not done yet. So again I voiced my opinion with the first application. It’s a dangerous precedent for us to okay a pool on the lakeside. I don’t have a problem with a front yard on the other side of the house, but I definitely have a problem with the pool/hot tub on the lakeside. I support the stormwater device and I commend you with the effort that you’ve made to make everything else compliant, but from my standpoint, we’ve strongly avoided allowing pools on the lakeside and to be consistent, I’d have to vote against that. So right now you’re not doing well. You don’t have a lot of friends. MS. BITTER-Well, I was just curious, and again I don’t mean to ask, but this was my thought process. Okay. Environmentally we’re addressing the concerns raised by the Planning Board relative to drainage. When I think of a pool and the intentions of this section, 179-5-020, the concept is for swimming and activities to be isolated. So that’s where the rear yard comes into play. The reason I bring this up is what do you think is happening on the lake? So if everyone is swimming on the lake, having a hot tub there is the same activity as is already occurring. So that’s why when Laura alerted me that that’s what brings us before you, I was confused as to the intention of the Code and although I appreciate the concept of we’re worried about, one, setting a precedent, when I envision Lake George and the concept of the resort area especially that’s where the pools are located. They’re right on the lake, the hot tubs as well. So I’m just trying to understand, other than setting a precedent, what would be the concern? MR. MC CABE-So if you can find a pool lakeside anywhere in this area, you let us know. I think you’re going to have a hard time finding that in the Town of Queensbury. MS. BITTER-I don’t know that they ever reviewed it. Is that true? Because you told me that there was only one application. MR. MC CABE-No, we’ve had a couple. In fact one of them was a really attractive Infinity pool and again, it was a pool, and it was exotic, but that was counter to what we’ve been trying to do in the Town of Queensbury. MS. BITTER-That was a pool, not a hot tub. No hot tubs. This is your first. MRS. MOORE-This is the first time I’ve seen the Board evaluate a hot tub. That’s correct. And I don’t know, but I would say there’s probably hot tubs. MS. BITTER-All right. Well I think I’ve made my point. MR. MC CABE-So we’ve got to ask you, you know, you can take a vote, but you’re probably not going to get the. MS. BITTER-I just wanted to get the feeling of the Board because to be perfectly honest this is not at all what I thought was going to be a concern, because we re-created this site and eliminated everything that was ever a zoning variance that we’d have to come before you for, floor area, setback. So I’m surprised that. MR. MC CABE-And we commend you for that. MR. MC DEVITT-You did great work, by the way. MS. BITTER-But that’s why I was just kind of like, for a hot tub. MR. ALLISON-It’s a little confusing in the Code because it doesn’t come out and say that hot tubs and pools are not allowed in the Waterfront Residential. It’s very convoluted in the Code. So I wanted to, if you could, I’d like to see the Board have favor. We did, at one time, talk about bringing this thing. MR. KUHL-I think we’re going to vote on this, aren’t we? MS. BITTER-Well, we’re just asking. We have a meeting tomorrow night, and these folks are, they already have the septic ready. Everybody’s ready to go. MR. MC CABE-So I think from our standpoint the pool/hot tub is the sticking point on the lakeside. MR. ALLISON-Right. So we had talked, at one point, about, you know, what would the hot tub look like if it was inside the 50 foot setback, closer to the home, which I think, you know, the owners would be in favor of, rather than not having one at all. I didn’t know if that, because I heard some of you say it was just (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 8 the distance to the lake, and I’m assuming that’s why the previous applicant got approved farther away, but if it’s the distance, I think we could be in here. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in that area would work for me. That’s where I would put it. MR. MC CABE-What I would suggest is that you table this. MS. BITTER-And it’s not that I don’t want to, Mr. Chairman. It’s that we have a septic extension, too, and I’m just trying to keep them all done, because obviously it’s in the Town’s interest to see the septic removed , decommissioned and everything started in the fall. So I’m trying to keep our agenda item for tomorrow night so that we have that ability. So if there is an interest to support Mr. Underwood’s concept of putting it in the middle, to be in the 50 foot setback, we would be very appreciative. MR. MC CABE-I don’t think we can negotiate here. Not right now. I think you almost have to table this or else take a vote and take a chance on losing it. MS. BITTER-I thought we had the ability to make less of a variance? That’s really what we were trying to accomplish is to achieve what the requests were. MRS. MOORE-So because it’s still non-compliant in the front yard. MS. BITTER-Right. It’s still the same variance. We were just placing it in the middle. MR. ALLISON-Can we tell our client if we brought it within the 50 foot setback would that be better for you? So I can advise our clients what to do. MR. MC CABE-Well then I’d have to poll the Board again. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the other feasible alternative is to move it indoors. With sliding doors. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant could remove the pool from the application at this time and create a whole new variance application. So that would be. MR. ALLISON-I think that’s how we would proceed. They don’t want to lose time. MR. MC CABE-All right. So you want to remove the hot tub at this particular time? MR. ALLISON-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, John? MR. HENKEL-I’m on board with it then, yes, great project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-You’ve got it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-And I’m okay with it also. So, Jim, can you make a motion for us? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Meghan & Stephen Orban. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and outbuildings to construct a new home of 2,539 sq. ft. footprint with a porch area of 447 sq. ft.; new floor area is 4,584 sq. ft. The permeable patio area facing the lake will also include a hot tub (defined as a pool per code). Project includes site work (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 9 for stormwater management, shoreline and site plantings plan, development for permeable patio and driveway area; a new on-site septic system and water supply drawn from the lake; a new access drive from Duncan Cove Rd. to Cleverdale through parcel 226.16-1-9. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surface within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and pool location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and pool location for construction of a new home in the Waterfront Residential zone WR. Section 179-3-040 WR, Chapter 147 stormwater, 179-5-020 pool The project involves placement of a stormwater device at 42 ft. from the shoreline where 100 ft. is required. In addition the applicant proposes a spa/pool area on the shoreline side of the property that is considered a pool in a front yard requiring a variance. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 22, 2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. I do not believe so because the house has been designed properly with no setbacks necessary and the stormwater I believe will be complimenting the property where none exists at the present time. 2. Feasible alternatives would be to locate it further back, but it’s basically almost in line with the house which is located more than back from the lake. This would be 42 feet back from the lake. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the lot itself does not create that much runoff based on its topography. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We also note that the Planning Board unanimously approved the (recommendation for) this request last evening. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because that’s where they want to place the current stormwater device. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2022 MEGHAN & STEPHEN ORBAN, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 22nd Day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MS. BITTER-Thank you.