Loading...
Minutes AV 21-2022 (Reds LG LLC) 9.21.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II REDS LG, LLC AGENT(S) NICHOLAS ZEGLEN (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) REDS LG, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 7, 9, 13 NUTLEY LANE (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE ALTERATIONS TO TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE AND COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF A BUNKROOM WITH NO KITCHEN ON THE SITE. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE 7 NUTLEY LANE NEW BUILDING REDUCED TO 330 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES ONE BEDROOM, 184 SQ. FT. OPEN PORCH, AND 24 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRY AREA; ALTERATIONS TO 9 NUTLEY LANE 704 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND KITCHEN (FLOOR AREA OF 1,408 SQ. FT.), NEW OPEN DECK OF 440 SQ. FT. WITH WALKOUT AREA BELOW; ALTERATIONS TO 13 NUTLEY LANE INCLUDE INTERIOR ALTERATIONS (EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 2,053 SQ. FT. WITH FOUR BEDROOMS). TOTAL FLOOR AREA 3,791 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION AREAS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, CONSTRUCTION OF A RETAINING WALL, AND REDUCTION IN HARD SURFACING. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR 9 NUTLEY LANE, AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING, AND HEIGHT FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE. CROSS REF SEP 37-2021, SP 29-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040, 147; 179-13-010 NICK ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2022, Reds LG, LLC, Meeting Date: September 21, 2022, “Project Location: 7, 9, 13 Nutley Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete construction of a bunkroom with no kitchen on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building reduced to 330 sq. ft. which includes one bedroom, 184 sq. ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,408 sq. ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below; alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations (existing floor area of 2,053 sq. ft. with four bedrooms). Total floor area 3,791 sq. ft. Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, construction of a retaining wall, and reduction in hard surfacing. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, and height for 7 Nutley Lane. Relief Required: Revised. The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconf orming, and height of 7 Nutley Lane. The parcel is 0.53 acres and located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Revised – 7 Nutley Lane would be reduced with no kitchen, building size reduced, deck size reduced to meet setbacks. 7 Nutley Lane would be 19 ft. in height and would require a height variance for being greater than 16 ft. for an accessory structure. 9 Nutley Lane building work would be 4 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required; and 12 ft. to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Expansion of non-conforming for 7 and 9 Nutley Lane. Permeability existing is 67.78% and improved to 69.60% proposed where 75% is required- noting no relief is required as the site is improving the permeability on site. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The setback and permeability variances may be limited due to lot shape and location of the buildings on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is substantial relevant to the code. 9 Nutley Lane relief –North side setback of 16 ft., South side setback of 8 feet. 9 and 7 Nutley Lane requires relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The device is also assisting with bank stabilization. Accessory structure size relief for height of 2 ft. No permeability relief is requested. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 2 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has received approval for and has installed a new septic system that accommodates each of the dwelling units and the bunk house on the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain after the fact construction of 7 Nutley Lane revised with no kitchen with the building and deck reduced in size, then 9 Nutley Lane for deck expansion. The plans show the buildings and the work that has been almost completed on each of the buildings. The plans show revision with additional stormwater management on the site and shoreline plantings.” MR. ZEGLEN-Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership, here on behalf of the applicants, Reds LG, LLC. Unfortunately the applicants could not make it tonight, but we’re back tonight with the Nutley Lane project seeking three variances for, two of the variances are side yard setbacks on the north and south side of 7 Nutley Lane for the deck that was built, and then another variance for 7 Nutley Lane as an accessory structure that was being considered unapproved development. Since the last meeting we have revised the footprint of 7 Nutley to be reduced to fit within those side yard setbacks and we’ve also moved the two stormwater devices and retaining wall down near the lakeshore another seven feet back away from the lake as far as we could get away from the lake to still catch the runoff from the 13 Nutley existing roof. So those are the changes that we’ve made to the plan since we were last before this Board. So the 7 Nutley structure now falls in conformance with the side yards and just on the 7 Nutley structure height, we did go out and measure the height of that building, and it is below 16 feet. It’s about 15 and three quarters. We just have not been able to get updated architectural drawings reflecting that. The original drawings did not have a height on them so that is the 7 Nutley height variance, and just to re-cap the remainder of the project, we have provided stormwater management for the site where there was no stormwater management before. We are proposing to reduce the overall site impervious to below the existing conditions. We’re also adding shoreline plantings along the shoreline and a replacement septic system was installed about a year ago now that was submitted to the Town and reviewed and approved by the Town for all three buildings, seven bedrooms in total. So each of those buildings does have a grinder pump that pumps up to a septic area in the gravel area where the parking is underneath. So that was reviewed by the Town showing all three buildings. So I just wanted to state those other improvements that have been made to the property in the past year or so. So with that I’ll turn it back over for any questions. MR. MC CABE-So just to be clear, what you’re saying is that actual measurements so that you don’t need a height variance for 7? MR. ZEGLEN-That’s correct. MR. MC CABE-And you don’t need any of the setbacks from the boundaries. So the only thing you need in the way of a variance is for a non-conforming structure? MR. ZEGLEN-So for 7, yes, that would be just for the non-conforming structure, but the 9 Nutley, the structure in the middle of the lot, the middle structure, the deck has the two side yards of where the steps are four feet and twelve feet I believe on both sides. So those are the three variances. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-How come this is presented, 7 Nutley Lane would be 19 feet in height, and now this applicant is saying, no, that’s incorrect? MRS. MOORE-So just to clarify, I don’t have those plans yet to confirm that it’s less t han 19 feet or less than 16 feet, which is fine. I mean if the applicant is stating that there’s no height variance, then they need to prove that, and that could be a condition that that information be provided. MR. KUHL-It hasn’t been provided. MRS. MOORE-It hasn’t but it could be. The applicant is saying it will be less. MR. HENKEL-So it would be contingent on. MRS. MOORE-On that proof. Right. Right now I don’t have that proof, but the applicant is indicating it will be 16 feet or less. If Bruce goes out and says, no, that’s actually greater than 16 feet, then they would have to come back before this Board to get that variance relief requested. MR. HENKEL-What did you say it was again? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 3 MR. ZEGLEN-It was 15 feet and about I think it was 10 inches. MR. HENKEL-So close. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. MR. KUHL-How can we make a ruling on something like this? MR. MC CABE-Just condition it that the height is 16 feet. MR. HENKEL-That’s not the only thing bothering you obviously. There’s other things bothering you. MR. KUHL-No, I’m talking about this one item. You talk about what’s bothering me. I mean, this was presented in this document, and now the applicant is stating something different. MRS. MOORE-It’s going to be less. MR. KUHL-So as far as I’m concerned, I don’t think I could make a decision on this. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. KUHL-Without an actual. MR. ZEGLEN-And I do apologize. I tried to get updated building drawings from the architect. I just did not get them in time for tonight’s meeting and we’re working on getting those, but I will say we did go out and measure it. We measured from the height of 7 Nutley to the ground, and it was 15 feet 10 inches. MR. KUHL-Yes, but this is not the first time you’ve been here. Correct? MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. ZEGLEN-At the last meeting I don’t believe that the height of 7 Nutley was presented for a variance. So it was just something that was caught on the plans after the fact and when that was ca ught and it was notified, that’s when we did go out and we measured it, between the last meeting and this evening. MRS. MOORE-Right. So that was, it wasn’t considered an accessory structure at that point. It was considered a third dwelling unit. Now it’s reduced it to an accessory structure and accessory structures need to meet the height requirement. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. CIPPERLY-If everything else is okay, we could make the final height less than 16 feet. MR. MC CABE-We could condition it at 16 feet. MR. URRICO-Are there any other measurements that are not accurate on the application? MR. ZEGLEN-No. MR. URRICO-And you have the paperwork home? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. And I will make sure you get updated paperwork. They’re going to have to submit updated paperwork as well because of the change in the footprint of 7 Nutley. That was the other thing that I’m trying to get from the architect is we’re not doing the, the building that’s there now is going to be reduced. So they’re going to have to submit all new architectural drawings anyway in order to do that I would assume. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to speak on this particular application. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 4 MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I appreciate the Board’s time on this application as well as the applicant re-visiting. This is kind of a difficult project. You look at, you know, what, if they came in with what is on this drawing now, obviously I don’t think that could fly, but that’s not the situation. You’ve got an overdeveloped project on steep slopes, but they have no stormwater management. So they’re coming in and proposing that which clearly is a benefit. So, I apologize I’m a bit torn on it. I think it’s too much, but if you continue to say it’s too m uch, they may walk away and not do anything with it, or are we better off? So saying that my thought is, on the stormwater, you know, it’s too close to the lake. I think they can improve the stormwater project. They’re clearly not intending to meet the Town Code on the buffering, and I know that’s more of a Planning Board issue. However, raingardens work much more efficiently than grass depressions. Why? Roots of grasses are like that big. The plants, perennials are much deeper. They go in the raingarden. So maybe if they vegetate that entire area down near the lake that will be an improvement. The unapproved development construction on Number Nine, the middle lot, maybe that can be removed. That will reduce some of the impervious covering, and I ask about the number of parking spaces. There seems to be a lot of parking there. Maybe we can reduce the impervious a little bit more, allow them to move this project forward, but with a number of things that will make it better for the lake. So I don’t know if I’m helping you or not. I’m just kind of talking out loud, but those are some areas that I think we can get improvement, because if they don’t, I mean, technically, Laura, you don’t have to answer this, but they can just walk away a nd not do anything. So can we get stuff that’s done better. So thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. HENKEL-Chris, I hear you say that this project is too close to the lake, but 13 and 9 were both there for many years, since the late 1800’s. So whatever they do is going to be much more of an improvement. MR. NAVITSKY-That’s where I’m torn. I mean I’m saying if they came in with this plan right now, it would be too much. MR. HENKEL-I agree. It wouldn’t fly. MR. NAVITSKY-So that’s where I’m saying well is it okay, and that’s where I’m saying I think to get stormwater in on it is better, but I think the stormwater can be done better because they’re not meeting the planting requirements that they’re supposed to, and again that’s more of a Planning Board issue. Maybe that can be a condition. Raingardens with deeper rooted plants work better than grasses with shallow roots. So maybe that way we can allow that encroachment on the stormwater but get the best stormwater possible. If that helps, John. MR. HENKEL-Thank you. MR. NAVITSKY-Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular application? CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Good evening, Board members. Thank you, Chairman. Claudia Braymer, attorney, representing the neighbors to the project, the O’Briens and we’ve been in front of you before and I’ve heard this entire Board express concerns about this project. I’ve also heard the Planning Board express concerns and provide a recommendation against approving this project. As Mr. Navitsky said, it’s too much. This would never fly if it were a new project. Of course we know that’s not true. It’s definitely overdevelopment on this tiny lot. It’s waterfront residential. Single fami ly homes are allowed, one. One single family residence, and here we’re talking about three. I know that your staff is telling you it’s an accessory structure. We’re still considering it to be another residence. It’s going to have the same impacts a s another residence there. It’s going to have a bathroom. It’s going to have a bedroom. It’s going to have a deck. I mean what else are they going to do but have people living there, other than getting their food maybe from the middle house. So just to summarize what is there, there is the existing residence down by the waterfront that’s 13 Nutley that has four bedrooms. Then there’s the middle house, 9 Nutley, which was converted from one bedroom to four bedrooms without approval, and now they’re being required to reduce it down to two bedrooms. They also want to expand that non-conforming structure to have a deck on the outside, and then you have the structure up on top of the hill which is referred to as 7 Nutley, which is brand new construction. Maybe there was a shed there, but they have moved it. There’s nothing in the same footprint that was there before. It’s brand new construction, and we’re asking that you completely deny any variances and require removal of 7 Nutley. They have already removed the kitchen in their application to you in July when this Board expressed concerns about 7 Nutley and said you didn’t want it there, when it was being referred to as a bunkhouse. So I’m asking the Board to stay consistent with your positon in July on the application and not allow 7 Nutley at all. In addition we are asking the Board that you deny any of the variances for the expansion of 9 Nutley. When you look at this property, they’re going to have anywhere from 15 to 20 people staying on the property, and they have rented it out in the past. It’s not like it’s just the three families who own it right now. It could be complete strangers, more than three (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 5 families, you know, five families staying on that piece of property. So the more outside space and decks that you allow them to have, the more people are going to be spending time outside making noise and disturbing the neighbors. We are completely opposed to any of those expansions to the non-conforming structures that are being proposed. Thank you for your consideration. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. MR. URRICO-I still have letters, Mike. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. MR. URRICO-We live at 33 Antigua Road , directly across a small cove from 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane. We would like to express our concerns regarding the proposed alterations at those addresses. The applicants are hoping to be able to provide 7 bedrooms on this site of just 0.53 acres. This would allow a rental occupancy of 16 people. For the last several years these properties have been used as short term rentals. This has attracted people who seem not to appreciate their proximity to other residents or the courtesy one generally expects from neighbors. We have frequently been subjected to overly boisterous activity which has extended far into the night disturbing our sleep and requiring us to call the Warren County Sheriff to quell the noise. Increasing the occupant capacity of these properties by allowing additional bedrooms and living space will only serve to further foster more of this behavior. Even if the current owners never rented the property again, the occupancy would still be increased so that future owners could take advantage of a larger occupancy rate. In either case, the occupancy density of the area would be significantly increased altering the character of the neighborhood. The zoning board has not responded favorably to previous requests for vas for this project and it is not apparent to us how the changes in the current proposal address any of the concerns regarding the high occupancy for this property that constructing additional bedrooms will allow. We hope that the fact that this construction was already well underway before the appropriate permissions were requested will not be used as an excuse to approve them. Thank you for your consideration, Susan and Martin Farber” Second letter. “Although I plan to attend the meeting in person I would like to again voice my objections for the record and to show you some pictures of what I have had to look at during the night, this past summer. When choosing anything for my property I have always tried to keep in mind how it will affect my neighbors especially with something as important as outdoor lighting. There is NO consideration to the surrounding neighbors from the owners of the Nutley Lane buildings, Number 9 and 13, when it comes to outdoor lighting. It also shows they have no concern for the wildlife in the area with lighting so bright it looks like daylight over there all night long. Poor Bob O’Brien, who lives right next door to this property has told me he can no longer see the lake at night because of their bright lights. I can’t sit out on my porch at night because the bright LED lights are emitting such a bright light onto it. Enclosed are some photos at the bottom of this letter. This summer #13 Nutley has been unoccupied because it still has not passed Zoning Board approval. Because of this our neighborhood has been much quieter, the way it should be and the way it used to be. As a neighborhood we have had to endure too much noise and commotion these past few years, I sincerely hope that you do not allow more than one house to be rented at a time in the future. It would be too many people in too small of an area to have both properties rented at the same time. Even though the third building, 3 Nutley Lane, which is being called a “bunkhouse” has now been reduced to 330 sq. ft. I still think it should go back to being the small shed that it was before they erected a small house there without a permit. Can you imagine how Bob O’Brien felt when he drove to his summer home in the spring two years ago and saw an entire new house standing up next to his property without any warning? Again, NO consideration for their neighbor who they share a driveway and path to the lake with. How inconsiderate. I am sure there will be more LED outdoor lights installed on the 184 sq. ft. porch if this “bunkhouse” were to be approved. The first three photos show how the back of house is lit up and shining on the bedroom windows, the last two are the view from the front porch. It looks like daylight over there at night. It is blinding to look at. Thank you, Denise Freihofer (Home to the north of Nutley Lane)” MR. MC CABE-Is that it? MR. URRICO-Yes, that’s it. MR. MC CABE-So now I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HENKEL-Can I ask a question first? So if we don’t approve this and they withdraw the application, they can use this property as how? MRS. MOORE-They’re still in violation on it. They would still have to go through some review process, or remove the violation. So they’re not done. They’d have to do something. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 6 MR. MC CABE-First of all I guess I’ll give you an opportunity to respond. MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you. So I know there was some discussion regarding what was there, what was not there, and we do have on file with the Town a survey from 1996 that has the 13 Nutley structure, the 9 Nutley structure, and then another framed structure in a different location that’s actually further to the southern property line that would be completely within the setback. So that is the structure that is now believed to be 7 Nutley. So that’s just one thing about what was there and what was not there. As far as the bedroom count, it is a seven bedroom count. Like I said, it was su bmitted to the Town as a seven bedroom count. The septic was designed for seven bedrooms. It was approved and installed for seven bedrooms. We do have planting proposed along the shoreline. If the Town would like more plantings we can certainly look at that. As far as the impervious area we have gone through and eliminated all the impervious that we didn’t believe was necessary. Like I said, the septic area is also doubling as the parking area. So we can’t remove any more of the impervious for that. The driveway that comes down is used by other properties. So it wouldn’t make sense to remove that impervious. So anything else that we have been able to improve we have gone through to try to remove and help with the runoff on the property and to help improve the quality of the lake, and as far as the lights go, I apologize that the applicants aren’t there to speak to the bright lights at night. I mean if we want to put something in the conditions of approval. I know up to Code now is downcast. MR. MC CABE-Lighting is not our deal. MR. ZEGLEN-Okay. Well, this, I know it’s supposed to be downward facing, dark sky compliant. MR. MC CABE-So just, the Waterkeeper made a couple of suggestions. One, sounds real good. Would you agree to putting in raingardens? MR. ZEGLEN-Raingardens in lieu of the shallow grass depressions. MR. MC CABE-And then the raingardens would be at, you know, the discretion of our Planning Board who control vegetation. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, that’s acceptable. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to poll the Board. I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-I mean there’s no doubt this project could be all torn down and built a much larger house here. You’re 1200 feet below the FAR variance. So it could be a worse project. I think with the recommendations that Chris made with the deep plantings, it’s a good idea. I am still struggling a little bit with Number Seven. It’s hard to say what that was previously without any r ecord. At this point I’d probably like to see that turned back into not a cabin and be an accessory building. I don’t have any problem with any of the other setbacks or the other two buildings, 13 and 9, I have no problem with. I’d like to see, I’d probably not approve it as it is. I’d like to see Number Seven become a shed. MR. MC CABE-Well in essence that’s what it is. MR. HENKEL-But it’s not. It’s a bedroom and a bathroom. MR. MC CABE-Well an accessory building is an accessory building. Right? MR. HENKEL-I don’t want it to be a living quarters. I’d like to see it back to, because we don’t have any proof of what it was. MR. MC CABE-Why did it have an address? MR. URRICO-Are you arguing for them? MR. MC CABE-I’m just inviting questions. MR. HENKEL-Okay. In that case, you’re probably right, Mike. Yes, I’m going to listen to the rest of the Board before I give my decision. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think it would be a big mistake on our part to give any approvals here with this project without the removal of Number Seven. Number Seven was illegally constructed. It should be remanded to the Town Board for a court order to remove it at this point. I think that the suggestions from the Waterkeeper are very applicable as far as putting raingardens in down in the front. I think we could probably approve the improvements on the two houses down below, but I don’t think the one in the middle (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 7 deserves to have as much of a build out as has been done illegally again. So at this point in time I’m not going to be in favor of this project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Very much the same. I think when they bought the property it didn’t have a bedroom in Number Seven, and there’s no reason to figure that they ought to have a bedroom now if it wasn’t supposed to be there and shouldn’t be there. I also have some issue with the deck on Number Nine. It creates a lot more outdoor space, whether there’s lighting or not, with a deck you’re going to have much more lights, and I have an issue with that big a deck on Number Nine. I could not approve it as it is. I think the raingarden idea is great and I think there’s some positives, but Number Seven isn’t one of them. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think even though the Zoning Board is here not to put up stop signs every time somebody comes in for a new project, I don’t think we’re here either to say because a project would be better than nothing we should let them get away with what this is, and I think this project still has too many unanswered questions and probably some structures that should not be there, including Number Seven. I think even adding the Waterkeeper’s raingarden, his idea is a good one, because there really in essence is no stormwater management there right now, so that would be an improvement with the addition of the raingarden, I still think this project is way too big for that property. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I’m abstaining from this. I’m not in favor, but I will abstain from the vote. MR. HENKEL-Do I have to give a decision at this time? MR. MC CABE-You can abstain. MR. HENKEL-I’ll stick with Ron. MR. MC CABE-So I believe that the applicant has done a good job here reducing the size of this project, but unfortunately it’s not enough. So you’ve got a couple of choices here. A couple of people would look at it a little bit more favorably if Number Seven was not a bedroom. MR. ZEGLEN-We’ll table and take another look at it. I think that the applicants are having a tough time because that structure was proposed as a bedroom. A private pump was installed to hook up the s eptic for that structure to be used as a one bedroom. So that’s kind of what they’re struggling with with the 7 Nutley. MR. HENKEL-When do we want to table until? MRS. MOORE-That would be the first meeting in November. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So we’re looking at the 16th. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reds LG, LLC. Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and complete construction of a third dwelling unit on the site. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane new building of 540 sq. ft. which includes one bedroom and kitchen, 288 sq. ft. open porch, and 24 sq. ft. covered entry area; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,408 sq. ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below; alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations (existing floor area of 2,134 sq. ft. with four bedrooms). Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, and construction of a retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, stormwater devices less than 100 ft. from shoreline, adding a third dwelling unit, and permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE 21-2022 REDS LG, LLC, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Cipperly: Tabled to the November 16th, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by October 17th, 2022. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/21/2022) 8 Duly adopted this 21st day of September, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Underwood ABSTAINED: Mr. Kuhl ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt