Loading...
Minutes AV 38-2022 (West) 10.19.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 1 TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) BRETT & PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME PLUS SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 2 STORY HOME WITH A 5,436 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVERS FOR PATIO AND DRIVEWAY AREAS AND A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8,670 SQ. FT. WHERE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IS 8,687 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING, SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. AREA VARIANCE GRANTED 3/23/2022 FOR SETBACKS, NUMBER OF GARAGES, AND STORMWATER DEVICE SETBACKS. REVISION TO SITE PLAN TO INCLUDE FRESHWATER WETLANDS WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF A DESIGNATED WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR WETLAND SETBACK. CROSS REF FWW 10-2022; AV 38-2022; AV 57-2021; SP 51-2021; PZ 210-2016; PZ 95-2016; PZ 89-2016; SP 37-2009; AV 47-2007, SP 39-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.96 AC. TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040; CHAPTER 94; CHAPTER 147 JON LAPPER & GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2022, Brett & Pamela West, Meeting Date: October 19, 2022 “Project Location: 106 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new 2 story home with a 5,436 sq. ft. footprint with a garage. Also included is installation of permeable pavers for patio and driveway areas and a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 8,687 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, and stormwater management. Lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Area variance granted 3/23/2022 for setbacks, number of garages, and stormwater device setbacks. Revision to Site Plan to include Freshwater wetlands work within 100 ft. of a designated wetland. Relief requested for wetland setback. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home needing relief for setbacks to wetlands. Project is in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Parcel is 0.91 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional Chapter 94 Wetlands The new home garage is to be located 10 ft. from the wetland boundary where a 50 ft. setback is required. The depression area is proposed to be 5.5 ft. from the wetland where a 100 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be to reduce the size of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be substantial relevant to the code. Where 40 ft. of relief is required for the building and 94.5 ft. relief to the depression area. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The applicant has included new stormwater measures that did not exist prior and proposes a new septic system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 2 The applicant proposes to demolish an existing building to construct a new home. The plans show the location of the wetland area and the planting plan for the site.” MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Gavin from Environmental Design, project engineer. So as you’re well aware we were here for the better part of two years on this project and the project next door for the main house and the guest cottage. We’ve received all the variances that we need, proceeded to the Planning Board. During the Chazen, now LaBella, engineering review, we were fully approved on the guest cottage next door, and during the engineering review of the main house LaBella asked us to look at the drainage ditch, which is on the east side of the house that connects the wetland that’s in the center of Assembly Point to the lake. Laura, if you could put up the site plan. So just on the right side, so right there. The wetland is here. It comes underneath the road and drains the wetland into the lake. So LaBella had asked us to verify whether that drainage ditch would count as a wetland. We sent the wetland biologist from Environmental Design there and sure enough it met wetland criteria. So that meant that we needed to come back to you for additional variances for setback from a wetland, but the variances that we’re requesting have no impact on the lake and absolutely no impact on that drainage ditch because there’s no water. The site is completely managed for stormwater and there’s no water going into that drainage ditch. That’s all being treated or maintained on sit e, as was required by you and the Planning Board. So at the time that we determined that it was, met the characteristics of wetland and drainage ditch, Craig Brown asked us to go to the APA and Army Corps and see if it was jurisdictional, if we needed any approvals, and we needed no approvals, and that’s all documented with Laura, the jurisdictional, so that didn’t change the project at all. They didn’t care about that drainage ditch, but because Queensbury has its own freshwater wetland regulations of course we needed setback from that ditch, but again, the setback because the water is all being managed, and in fact we have a complete signoff letter from LaBella now on the main house and all of the stormwater. So we’re done as far as the engineering review of the stormwater, except that we now need the additional variance relief from the Zoning Board. So, Gavin, if you could just show them where all the stormwater facilities are on the site. MR. VUILLAUME-Laura, can you go to the grading and utilities. That should do it. That’s close enough. So basically we’ve got several stormwater management areas on the site and most, it’s a little difficult to see, but the one that’s providing the most amount of stormwater management are the grass planters a nd there’s actually some, you can probably see them better on your plans, but they are along the borders of the home itself. It takes all the runoff from the back roof and some of the patio around the building and those all infiltrate into the ground and manage all the stormwater from the proposed buildings. The next type of device that we’ve used is the stone drip edge and that takes care of the connector. As you are well aware we do have a connector connecting the main house to the guest house and w e’ve got grass or I’m sorry stone drip edges along both sides of that connector. The other one, probably the closest to the wetlands, would be the area where we have the grass depression. It’s fairly large. There’s an area in the front of the garage here near the lake and another one towards the road that captures runoff from the permeable paver driveway, collects the water, does not take it anywhere near the, it takes it right past the wetlands and then discharges out toward the lawn in between the building and the lake. So none of the runoff is directed toward the lake. MR. LAPPER-So in addition to that, this, of course, was a grandfathered site that had absolutely no stormwater devices and an ancient septic system. So as I’m sure you’ll remember this has holding tanks for both buildings for septic. So no septic system at all and, as Gavin showed you, fully managed for stormwater which is a huge improvement for the lake and for the community. So just again what, you know, have to ask for these variances because it’s a technicality in terms of the distance, but we’re not impacting that drainage at all, the wetlands in any way. MR. MC CABE-Just for information, how far is the existing property from the drainage ditch? MR. LAPPER-When you say the existing property? MR. VUILLAUME-The existing building? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. VUILLAUME-I would have to say probably 50 feet maybe, roughly. MR. MC CABE-It doesn’t meet the setback either. MR. VUILLAUME-Right. MR. LAPPER-And we’re basically talking about roof water which is clean anyway, except the stuff that comes off the pavers goes into that basin. MR. VUILLAUME-And so the driveway is here. You can see existing. That’s basically where we have the garage and the driveway now. The existing building’s fairly close to where that was. That’s probably, I would have to say, close to 50 feet. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 3 MR. MC CABE-All set? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I’m going to tell you, I was there, we had a rainfall of about three inches back on August 21st, it was a Monday, and I went out there to watch what was happening there, and there’s no doubt the majority of the water goes on O’Keefe’s property, not on the West property. That was three inches of rain during that storm. So, for your information. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So I’ve lost track. Have we left the public hearing open or is it closed? MRS. MOORE-You left the public hearing open. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to seek input from the public on this particular project. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this particular matter? Ma’am? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Good evening, members of the Zoning Board. I live on Assembly Point at 66 Bay Parkway. MR. MC CABE-So first we need your name. MRS. RUFFING-Lorraine Ruffing. It appears that this is our last chance to really review the West proposal and its compliance with Town Code as far as Critical Environmental Areas. What is in question, which you just heard, is the wetland which is now partially shown on the West site plans and the buildings should be setback at least 50 feet from the wetland as the ex isting building is. The Wests are asking n for a IO-foot setback from the wetland which means that the size of the relief is significant, that is 40 feet or 80%. This is in addition to the 12 variances you’ve already granted. Your criteria for judging whether to grant a variance or not is to balance the benefit to the property owner versus. the detriment to the neighborhood. This variance will be detrimental to the adjacent O'Keeffe property as it would increase flooding on the O’Keeffe property. The wetland between the West and O'Keeffe properties has been called a ditch. It is more than a ditch. It is one of two exits from a larger wetland on the northern end of Assembly Point and periodically discharges water directly into the lake. Some Board members believe it is only a ditch and not a wetland and I attached pictures with my letter which were taken on September 6th. While the Army Corps of Engineers has said this is not a federally protected wetland that is, not their jurisdictional wetland, it is a State and Town protected wetland, According to recent New York State legislation, wetlands do not have to be shown on official state maps before they can be protected by land - use regulators such as yourselves. Wetlands of one acre are protected within the Adirondack Park. I also attached a photo which I sent you in May which shows that this wetland can flood the O'Keeffe property near the exit point to the Lake. The Town also found it necessary last spring to redo the culvert leading from the wetland to the West and O'Keeffe properties to prevent flooding on Bay Parkway. If the town thought this was just a ditch unattached to a larger wetland, why did they bother to do the work? Our concern is that if 80% relief is granted, the three-car garage will be so close to the wetland that it will increase storm water runoff into the wetland as well as onto the adjoining O'Keeffe property and into the Lake, and I believe other people will speak to the effectiveness of the planned stormwater runoff devices that have been described. Furthermore, in September and December the West's representatives said "we will remove some trees", but they have not provided a cutting plan, just a planting plan. The vegetation between the garage and the wetland and the O'Keeffe property will have to be removed in order to build the garage, and I think this is the critical part, is that behind the garage you have a number of mature trees that will have to go in order to build a garage. This removal will increase runoff into the wetland and Town code Chapter 179 restricts cutting within 75 feet of the wetland. If cutting is to take place, a specific cutting plan should have been provided to the Planning Board. So, I ask that you take into consideration the detriment to the neighborhood, to the lake's water quality and to O'Keeffe's property and do not grant excessive relief from the required wetland setback. The beauty of the design or maintaining the feeling of a great camp should not outrank safe drinking water. Compromises are possible such as by shifting the proposed garage which now incorporates the barn, closer to the porte cochere. There would still be ample room to back out of the garage. While the Wests' representatives insist, they "have made enough changes", certainly a better plan is still possible which affords the Wests reasonable use of their property while not jeopardizing the O'Keeffe's property. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this matter? Ma’am? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 4 PAMELA LESTER GOLDE MRS. GOLDE-I’m Pam Lester Golde and I am a resident of Assembly Point. As a matter of fact I am the neighbor on the other side of the Wests. I am also a registered landscape architect in New York State as Pamela Lester. First off, Mr. Lapper indicated that the Town Engineer, Labella, had approved the storm drainage plan. The letter specifically says it is not taking any exception and would review it after the zoning variances if were applied. So the storm drainage has not been approved. Unless there is a newer letter that has been received by the Town that we have FOILed and we have not received any communications. In this particular case this is an extreme sized variance. It’s not a corner of a building. It’s the entire garage which is three cars plus living space on the first floor. It includes part of the driveway and it includes part of the connector between the house and the garage. It eliminates about 75% of the buffer that’s there, and the buffer they’re indicating is 50 feet, which is Army Corps of Engineers. The Adirondack Park Agency is 100. So they have removed everything and it’s not coming back because it would be a structure. When you remove the buffer you’re moving protection to that wetland, that it is on the property line. As Lorraine had indicated, there is a requirement by the Town for a cutting plan for the property, and nothing has been provided and there are major trees, and they’ve indicated that in their presentation previously the trees between the two properties, between their two properties, would remain Well I’m sorry unless you want your feet, the way I describe the root system of a tree, it’s like somebody’s feet, and unless you want me to stomp on your feet, that’s going to hurt the tree and you can’t take two feet of material away from a root system and expect those trees to survive. You will lose the structural root system as well as the feeding root system. So at this particular point I really think that this variance needs to be denied and that a compromise needs to be considered on the clients’, on the West’s, behalf. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular issue? Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. The Town Code states that wetlands are an invaluable resource to the Town for floodway protection, protection of water resources, and they’re concerned over the number of acres lost or impaired to filling, draining, excavating, and other activities inconsistent with the natural uses of wetlands and wetland and conservation and this is a Town concern. The activities will impair the wetlands by grading and vegetation removal of the entire protective buffer. The Town has determined buffers are critical for the protection of wetlands and they established a 75 foot protective buffer under 179-6-050b with no woody vegetation one inch or greater to be removed. Clearly vegetation will be removed which is not indicated on the plan. They’re grading and putting a berm right up to the wetland. Project proposes a high intensity development with the construction of a building within 10 feet, installation of a stormwater device in between the building and the wetland and the installation of a berm, all occurring within 10 feet of the wetland and the stormwater management basin will be installed adjacent to the wetland and into groundwater. Their own test pit information shows on the south side of the garage they did a test pit. It was Test Pit One. Ground elevation at 324.5. Groundwater at 24 inches. If you look at the grading plan, they’re actually cutting a foot and a half on that north side and there is a proposal to put a pipe, an underdrain, in that basin, directed toward the lake. So clearly that will be in groundwater and that will be draining, and I’m shocked that the Town would approve a plan with an underdrain directing stormwater to the lake. That to me is illegal. So clearly, and they stated the existing building is 50 feet away. This will now will be 10 feet. So clearly that’s a reduction of setback, and this will have environmental impacts. There are alternatives to protect the wetlands, Lake George water quality, and neighboring properties. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else in the audience that would like to speak on this particular project? Roy, we have some letters? MR. URRICO-Yes. A number of the letters that were written were represented by people that attended tonight. I’ve received three letters from the O’Keeffe’s. I will read one in. This one is dated August 22 nd. “My name is Mary Helen O’Keeffe and my husband is Dan O’Keeffe. We are next door neighbors to the east of the West property. We have a number of concerns. 1. Even without the increase in the impervious surface on the West property our adjoining property is flooded periodically by the wetland that exists from both our properties. 2. We feel the new structure will be too close to our property l ine. As of now the distance of their existing house to our property line is approximately 36 feet vs. the planned 10 feet of the new garage structure. 3. The runoff will be made worse by the fact that all the existing vegetation including mature trees will be removed from this area. We cannot see this because of the absence of a cutting plan. 4. This massive project will reduce the green space and will be a major change in the neighborhood. 5. We request that the plantings in the buffer area between our properties be increased from the 6 viburnums in the plan to something more substantial. 6. It would be better if the garage was moved 10 feet to the west to accommodate more vegetation from the wetland and our property. Thank you so much for your time and consideration. Mary Helen and Dan O’Keeffe” 102 Bay Parkway (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 5 MR. LAPPER-Okay. So if the objectors, you know, we’ve been here for two years, were really concerned about the lake quality, they would recognize that by moving everything back away from the lake as you have required on a site with a lot of constraints because the lake’s all over it, the applicant, and more importantly their engineers, are doing a really good job of protecting the lake by providing all these stormwater facilities. Again, there’s no water going into this wetland because the detention basin, even if it’s 10 feet, the water gets collected and drains toward the lake, not towards this wetland area and the wetland area is a drainage channel that drains a major wetland that’s nowhere near this property but on the other side of Bay Parkway. The O’Keefe house is nowhere near the property line because of this drainage ditch. So there’s nothing that we’re proposing here that is going to impact this drainage ditch/wetland because the water is all being properly managed and taken as a whole, this whole project is really good for the lake because there’s nothing there now. It’s all being properly engineered and that’s why we went through a detailed review with LaBella and you have the signoff. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, as far as the signoff goes, the LaBella letter, so the letter was dated May 26 th. I’m not sure which one some of the residents have seen, but the letter really just recommended that additional soil tests be done during construction. That was the first comment. They agreed that that would be okay. So there was no problem with the additional soil testing and really that’s just to confirm the groundwater in that area of the project. We have already done many soil tests but not soil tests on each individual infiltration area. Getting to the infiltration areas, as I pointed out, the infiltration areas are mainly around the building, which is very far removed from the wetland area. The only thing close to the wetland area is the grass depression area which is managing stormwater. It’s not infiltrating it into the ground. So that’s why, as far as there being any concern with its setback to the wetland, there should be none at all. We are asking, as part of our variances here this evening, for the variances for those other infiltration devices and I think that’s all LaBella is asking. MR. MC CABE-Normally we aren’t involved in a cutting plan. That’s usually the Planning Board. Is there a cutting plan? MR. VUILLAUME-We have a removals plan, but typically we just show removals for structures on the site at this point, but if the Planning Board would like, we could provide which trees are going to be removed. MR. MC CABE-We’re not the Planning Board. 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 John. MR. HENKEL-First I’d like to address, maybe Chris can answer this. We keep on talking about this water that’s between the two properties. Now where does the majority of that water come from? It’s not coming from West’s property. It’s coming from all the other properties. MR. MC CABE-Well, first of all, Chris doesn’t have to answer this, but you can if you want. MR. HENKEL-I’m just saying, you keep on addressing that problem, that it’s West’s problem, and it’s really not. The problem is all the other properties on Assembly Point. MR. KUHL-Could I ask Mr. Lapper a question when this is finished? MR. MC CABE-So first of all, if you’re going to answer him then you have to come up to the table, or if you’d rather not, then that’s fine, too. So at this particular time, I’m going to, if it’s okay with you guys, re- open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-I’m not saying that that, I believe the question was that the runoff was coming from the property and that’s why the drainage ditch is there? I’m sorry, John. MR. HENKEL-The drainage ditch isn’t really created by the Wests. Everyone is saying it’s their fault. I was there during a good rainstorm that Monday and that water is coming from everywhere else but this property. MR. NAVITSKY-Absolutely, and that shows its importance, and that’s why you need to protect that. So when you keep whittling away and chiseling away that protective buffer, you’re going to lose the ability of that channel to properly convey stormwater and I believe there will be an impact from this property on (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 6 that channel, but, no the West’s property is not creating that channel, but they are going to impact that channel by the continual removal. MR. HENKEL-And you’ve got 80% of the properties on Assembly Point that are not even close to taking care of stormwater management. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to re-close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And, Ron, you had a question of Jon. MR. KUHL-Hey, Jon, the distance between the garages and the house. Because of the O’Keeffe’s concerns and this whole discussion about this wetland area, could that garage or that structure be moved closer to the house? MR. LAPPER-So it can’t because you have to be able to get into the garage. We worked all this out with you guys over the course of many months to make everything as tight as we could. We reduced the size of the house. MR. KUHL-No, no. I understand all of that, but I mean I’m looking at the drawing and I’m just asking. MR. LAPPER-And the answer is that on the one hand because right behind the garage is this detention basin which takes the water and channels it, but if we move them any closer, the site just won’t work because we’re pulling it so far from the lake, just to get the cars in and around and in the garage. There’s no ability to move it at this point, but there’s also no impact. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. LAPPER-If we could, we would. MR. MC CABE-So, John? Remember, what we’re looking for is the wetland setback and the position of the stormwater devices. MR. LAPPER-If someone else wants to go first. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Without, leaving it the way it is, the way it’s presented, I don’t know how much more ca n be done. We’ve got the wetland, we’re collecting the rainwater. I understand what Mr. Navitsky is talking about is that that wetland buffer area is in jeopardy. I don’t know how else, what else to do to protect that unless that structure might be moved to give it more area to collect the stormwater. I mean I’m in favor of this project. I think it’s a good use of the land. I understand what Mr. Navitsky is saying. I understand what the O’Keeffe’s are talking about, well, it’s always been 36 feet, now it’s only six feet. I mean I’ll be in favor of this. I’ll leave it at that. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think considering where we started from this has improved quite substantially and I think something needs to be said about the wetlands as well. Change to the character of the neighborhood, well the character of the neighborhood seems to be that it gets flooded and that it ends up on this property. So now we’re making them responsible for keeping the flooding out by not being allowed to build on their property. To me that seems unfair and I think they’ve worked with us for a long time. We’ve worked on the project. I think this is the best it’s going to be and I think I’d be in favor of the project at this point. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Unfortunately I am not. When I see something 10 feet from a wetland and I see this 18 inch culvert draining into this wetland, that’s a lot, and as you acknowledged, three inches of rain, there was a lot of water. So now I have a wetland and you’re going to be 10 feet from it with a little grass strip that hopefully that’s going to take care of it, and I wasn’t here in the beginning of this project, and I’m sure you’ve made great strides to get it where it is, but this piece of it just is not anything I can support. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Understanding the sentiments of everyone here, I do believe that from where this project started to where it is now that the stormwater management planters, the stone drip edge, etc., none of the runoff is directed towards the wetlands, I would be in favor of the project. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 7 MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to recognize the fact that the intermittent stream that drains across there and occasionally puts runoff onto both properties emanates from up on Bay Parkway and it’s always been there for many years. I don’t think there’s any change that could be accomplished by any building project on the site here that’s proposed, but at the same time, you know, throughout the whole process and I’ve always pushed the point that we can move the garage, push things around . No one needs a circular drive, but the want the porte cochre and I understand where they’re coming from, but at the same time we have to keep in the mind that when we keep changing, when we were going from the original property, you’ve got a 50 foot setback and now you’re going to a 10 foot setback. That’s significant , but I don’t think it’s going to exacerbate the problem because you’re at the end of the stream. You’re not at the beginning of the stream, but at the same time I think we need to keep in mind the fact that Lake George is important and everything we do up on the lake does have an impact on the lake. This project I think will have somewhat of a negative impact but I think at the same time with the swales that you’re creating you’re going to stop some of the runoff which doesn’t stop at the present time. So at this time I would still be skeptical of it. I think, you know, if you used like the Marine motto, Sempra Fideles, it’s Sempra Peratas for the Coast Guard on Lake George the motto is Sempra Magas, always more, and I think that’s one of the things we need to worry about more than anything else. So I’m still not going to be in support of your project. MR. MC CABE-So when I look at this project, I really think the applicant has done a good job in every way, shape and manner. I think to let things just go and let runoff go uncontrolled into Lake George as we’ve done since 2014 when this project first came about is just not acceptable. It’s certainly not ideal, but I believe it’s a huge improvement over what exists now. So I would support the project. So, John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, so from where we started, the building was oversized. It was above the FAR variance. It was too close to the lake. It didn’t do much for stormwater management and now they’ve gone below the FAR variance. The permeability is good. The stormwater management I think is probably better than 80% of the homes on Assembly Point, and I agree, I think it’s time for us to allow them to build their project. So I’m all for it. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, I’m going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett & Pamela West. Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new 2 story home with a 5,436 sq. ft. footprint with a garage. Also included is installation of permeable pavers for patio and driveway areas and a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 8,687 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, and stormwater management. Lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Area variance granted 3/23/2022 for setbacks, number of garages, and stormwater device setbacks. Revision to Site Plan to include Freshwater wetlands work within 100 ft. of a designated wetland. Relief requested for wetland setback. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home needing relief for setbacks to wetlands. Project is in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Parcel is 0.91 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional Chapter 94 Wetlands The new home garage is to be located 10 ft. from the wetland boundary where a 50 ft. setback is required. The depression area is proposed to be 5.5 ft. from the wetland where a 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on July 20, 2022, August 24, 2022, September 21, 2022, and October 19, 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. The Great House design and the installation of stormwater controls I think really makes an improvement to the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but do not meet the needs of the applicant. 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial. However, I believe not because properties have existed closer than 100 feet to this wetland for quite a period of time. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 8 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We believe that the control of stormwater runoff is a vast improvement in the environmental conditions. 5. The alleged difficult is, of course, self-created. Not entirely. Part of it was created when the property was initially established a long time ago. 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. 38-2022 BRETT & PAMELA WEST , Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th Day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Underwood MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much, everybody.