Loading...
10-19-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING OCTOBER I91r,2022 INDEX Area Variance No.20-2022 Eric Carlson 1. REQUEST TO TABLE Tax Map No.239.12-2-S4 Area Variance No. 3S-2022 Brett&Pamela West 2. Tax Map No.226.15-1-17 Area Variance No.47-2022 Don Bernard 9. Tax Map No.239.E-1-15 Area Variance No.4S-2022 William Mason 12. Tax Map No.239.E-1-49 Area Variance No.49-2022 Faden Enterprises 16. Tax Map No.2SS.-1-5S Area Variance No.53-2022 Renee&Tom West 22. Tax Map No.239.7-1-16 Area Variance No.52-2022 Renee&Tom West 2S. Tax Map No.239.7-1-16 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 19TH 2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL BRENT MC DEVITT RONALD KUHL RICHARD CIPPERLY LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, October 19`h, 2022. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is relatively simple. There should be an agenda on the back table there. We'll call each case up,read the case into our records and let the applicant present the case. We'll ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we'll open the public hearing, take input from the public, then we'll close the public hearing,poll the Board to see where we stand on the issue and then proceed accordingly. I see we have our students back. Welcome. Just for your information,initially you're taking part in a public meeting, and a public meeting means that you can listen to the procedures,but you can't input. Within each case there'll be a public hearing, and that's what allows you to provide your thoughts or data on the particular issue. There are three Boards that are concerned with land use in Queensbury. This is one of them, and the Boards look pretty much like us old people,but it doesn't have to be like that. So the requirements to sit on a land use board such as this are you have to be at least 18 years of age, and be a U.S. citizen, and if you have an interest in your community, I would encourage you to seek out a little more information and consider serving on such a board. We have the Town Board who are elected,the Planning Board and the Zoning Board. Both of those Boards are appointed. So that's my recruiting speech for the evening. Before we get started here,we have a couple of administrative items. So,John,we need the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 21",2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 21ST, 2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19`h day of October,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE September 28`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 28`h, 2022, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 19`h day of October,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: AREA VARIANCE 20-2022 ERIC CARLSON REQUEST TO BE TABLED TO NO VEMBER 16,2022 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Eric Carlson. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home with a footprint of 2,381 sq. ft. which includes porches/deck areas and living space of detached building. The project includes a detached garage with an 873 sq. ft.footprint. The new floor area of 6,194 sq.ft. The project includes new stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement, grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline,new structure within 50 ft. of 150/o slopes, driveway greater than 100/o, and Freshwater wetland work within 100 ft. of the wetland. Relief requested for setbacks,height of garage, and stormwater device less than 100 ft.from shoreline. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.20-2022 ERIC CARLSON,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to the November 16th,2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 19`h day of October,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 38-2022,Brett&r Pamela West,106 Bay Parkway. TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 BRETT&z PAMELA WEST AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS (GAVIN VUILLAUME) OWNER(S) BRETT &z 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 8,687SQ.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 096 AC. TAX MAP NO.226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040;CHAPTER 94;CHAPTER 147 JON ZAPPER&GAVIN VUILLAUME,REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 38-2022, Brett &r 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: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 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: 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.ZAPPER-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 site, 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 and 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 we'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. ZAPPER-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 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 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 CABS Just for information,how far is the existing property from the drainage ditch? MR. ZAPPER-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. ZAPPER-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. MR. MC CABE-All set? MR. ZAPPER-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 21",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 nowpartially shown on the West site plans and the buildings should be setback at least 50 feet from the wetland as the existing 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 SO%. 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 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 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 S0010 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? 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 750/o 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 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 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 2211a "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 line. 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 MR. ZAPPER-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.WILLAUME-Yes, as far as the signoff goes,the LaBella letter,so the letter was dated May 26`h. 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. WILLAUME-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. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 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 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 S0010 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. ZAPPER-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. ZAPPER-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. ZAPPER-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. ZAPPER-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 can 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? S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 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 1S 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. 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 SO%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&z 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 5,670 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is S,6S7 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. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 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. 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,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 38-2022 BRETT &z 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. ZAPPER-Thanks very much,everybody. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 47-2022,Don Bernard,20 Brayton Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 DON BERNARD AGENT(S) AJA ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S): 20 BRAYTON LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 20 BRAYTON RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT ANEW SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OF 730 SQ.FT. FOOTPRINT AND 885 SQ. FT.DECK/PORCH AREA. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 2,643 SQ. FT. THE APPLICANT'S PREVIOUS HOME HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED AS PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL WHICH HAS SINE EXPIRED IN JUNE OF 2022. THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE SAME PROJECT WITH A CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME AND MAINTAINING EXISTING OUT BUILDINGS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 54-2022; FWW 12- 2022; AV 61-2019; SP 79-2019; FWW 1-2020; FWW 8-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) JON ZAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2022, Don Bernard, Meeting Date: October 19, 2022 "Project Location: 20 Brayton Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a new single-family home of 730 sq.ft.footprint and SS5 sq.ft. deck/porch area. The new floor area is 2,643 sq.ft. The applicant's previous home has been demolished as part of the original approval which has since expired in June of 2022. The applicant proposes the same project with a construction of a new home and maintaining existing out buildings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and Freshwater Wetlands permit for work within 100 ft. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. The relief for the setbacks of north side and east side. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements—Waterfront Residential Zone-WR The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from the north side where a 9 ft. setback is proposed where a 12 ft. setback is required. Then on the east side is proposed setback of 22 ft. as a front setback where 30 ft.is required. Permeability was 60010 and proposed is 710/o as an increase in permeability relief is not required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the configuration of the lot and proposed location of the new home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code for setbacks. The side setback relief is 3 ft. and front setback is S ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and to upgrade the site of 0.25 acre odd shaped parcel. The applicant has revised plans for request for setbacks—no relief requested for floor area or height. The applicant has indicated the new home is to be in a similar location as the home to be demolished. The plans show new areas of low native plantings, a rain garden area, lawn area and areas of vegetation to remain. The existing garage is to remain along with the shoreline deck area,four sheds to be removed and one shed to remain. The height is proposed to be 27 ft. 6 inches and the floor area is proposed to be 2,643 sq.ft.where 2,690 sq.ft.is the maximum allowed." 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 was adopted October 1S`h,2022 and that was a six to zero vote. MR.ZAPPER-For the record,Jon Lapper. Sothis is an unfortunate story where Mr.Bernard had all of his approvals from the Zoning Board, Site Plan, all the plantings. We started the project in the spring, knocked down the house,removed all of the storage shed which the project required to remove. We called Laura and found out that that wasn't enough to qualify for grandfather because he didn't start building. He just demolished it. He also had to bring in new electrical line, which was kind of a big deal for this, but none of that qualified. So by the time he had that discussion it was too late because his last renewal had expired. So we had to apply to the Zoning Board and the Planning Board for the exact same thing, but most importantly, and the reason why you granted it last time, not floor area ratio variance. It's a modest house. Odd,irregular shape lot,not a height issue,not a permeability issue. Just setbacks because of the shape of the lot. So we're just asking for the same thing. We couldn't ask for a renewal because it 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) was too late. So we're asking for it to be re-issued. We were at the Planning Board last night. They had no problem with it and recommended that you approve it. MR. MC CABS Just a quick question. It mentions that they're within 100 feet of the wetlands. How far are they? MR. ZAPPER-Because where it is on the peninsula,right next to the lake. If I recall the wetland is back by the driveway entrance area. MRS. MOORE-Right. So it's near the marina itself actually. So the wetland is actually on the marina property. MR.HENKEL-Next door. MRS. MOORE-Next door,not physically on the property. MR. MC CABE Just trying to get some answers. So do we have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none,a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular project. Roy, do we have any written communication? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No,sir. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR.UNDERWOOD-I think due to the fact that we've previously reviewed and presented this project and it's essentially the same I think we can approve it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I agree with Jim. We've approved it. It's kind of an odd shaped lot,and I'm in favor of it,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I agree, also. I think even if it came in for a new proposal we could approve it. MR. MC CABE-Well it is a new proposal,unfortunately. MR. CIPPERLY-This is the first time I'd ever seen it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-Yes,Mr. Chairman,I agree. I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-If I can remember correctly,I think we downsized it from the original. We worked on it a few times. We didn't just approve it the first time. We brought it down to where it needs to be. So I approve it as is. MR. MC CABE-And I approved it the first time so I guess it's appropriate that I approve it this time. So, given that,Ron,I wonder if you could make a motion for us here. MR.KUHL-Why,thank you,Mr. Chairman. I would be overjoyed to do that. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Don Bernard. Applicant proposes to construct a new single-family home of 730 sq.ft.footprint and S S5 sq.ft.deck/porch area. The new floor area is 2,643 sq. ft. The applicant's previous home has been demolished as part of the 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) original approval which has since expired in June of 2022. The applicant proposes the same project with a construction of a new home and maintaining existing out buildings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline,and Freshwater Wetlands permit for work within 100 ft.Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. The relief for the setbacks of north side and east side. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements—Waterfront Residential Zone-WR The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from the north side where a 9 ft. setback is proposed where a 12 ft. setback is required. Then on the east side is proposed setback of 22 ft. as a front setback where 30 ft.is required. Permeability was 60010 and proposed is 710/o as an increase in permeability relief is not required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,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 as this was previously approved. Nothing has really changed. It's just that they missed their window of opportunity. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is really not that substantial as it fits. It's an odd shaped piece of property and the dwelling fits in nicely. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest is self-created but it's only due to the fact that it's a.28 acre lot and it's an odd shaped piece of property. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2022 DON BERNARD, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. ZAPPER-Thank you,everyone. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 48-2022,Bill Mason. AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 WILLIAM MASON AGENT(S) WILLIAM MASON OWNER(S) ROBERT&z RUTH FINEGOLD ZONING WR LOCATION 4 ONONDAGA DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES REMOVAL OF EXISTING 768 SQ. FT. HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF THE SAME FOOTPRINT WITH A SECOND STORY AND 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) BASEMENT LOCATED IN THE TAKUNDEWIDE DEVELOPMENT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 2,354 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 32 SQ. FT. NEW PORCH LANDING ENTRY AND AN 18 SQ. FT. SMALLER ACCESS LANDING TO THE EXISTING PORCH. THE PROJECT HAS COMPLETED CONNECTION TO THE TAKUNDEWIDE COMMUNITY SEPTIC AND WATER SUPPLY FROM THE LAKE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS,PERMEABILITY,AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 67-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO.239.8-1-49 SECTION 179-3-040 WILLIAM MASON,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 45-2022,William Mason, Meeting Date: October 19,2022 "Project Location: 4 Onondaga Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of existing 76S sq. ft.home to construct a new home of the same footprint with a second story and basement located in the Takundewide development. The new floor area is to be 2,354 sq.ft. The project includes a 32 sq.ft. new porch landing entry and an 1S sq. ft. smaller access landing to the existing porch. The project has completed connection to the Takundewide community septic and water supply from the lake. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks,permeability,and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure for constructing a second floor. The site is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 2,25 S sq.ft.parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement The applicant proposes the new home with two porch areas. The applicant requests relief from setbacks, permeability,and floor area. The setbacks for the home are proposed north to be 7 ft. (fireplace), S ft. east porch entry,6 ft.to the south porch entry and 10 ft.west(shore side)where a 15 ft. setback is required for all four sides. The permeability is to be 640/o where 750/o is required. The floor area is proposed to be 670/o based on the lot size where 220/o is the maximum allowed—the applicant has explained the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the IS.7 acres is common area for the association members —in addition the master plan indicates the IS.7 ac is to be considered during the request for a house expansion with the HOA. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to the existing lot size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the fireplace side is S ft.,east is 7 ft., south is 9 ft., and 5 ft. on the west. The permeability relief is in of excess 11% and the floor area is in excess of 450/o. In regard to the Floor area, the applicant has explained that the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the IS.7 acres are common area for the association members. In addition,the master plan indicates the IS.7 acres are to be considered during the request for a house expansion with the HOA. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes removal of the home for construction of a two story home with a basement —the footprint would be 76S sq. ft. and two entry landings. The project occurs in the Takundewide cottage development off of Cleverdale Rd. In 2003 the Planning Board adopted an MOU with Takundewide HOA 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) outlining activities for future development. The project is similar to other cottages on the site where the increased floor area is the proposed 2 a floor mirroring the style of the other housing. The submission includes renditions of the proposed home with the existing roofline shown on the plans. The floor plans of the existing interior arrangement are provided." 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 was passed by a six zero margin on October 1S`h,2022. MR.MASON-My name is William Mason. I'm representing the applicant. This is very similar to anything I've been in front of this Board for. It's almost identical to the one the Board approved I think it was two years ago for Matt and Joyce Smith which is exactly on the south side of the beach area. This is on the north side. It's a critical setback. You talk about setbacks a lot on Takundewide. The critical one is the lakefront one which we're actually coming back a little farther just by moving the fireplace around to the north side. I don't really think that impacts anything,but it does change the numbers a little bit. We are beyond the 50 foot which is required on that critical one. All of the other setbacks,floor area ratio and the permeability,are really mitigated because we have 21 acres at Takundewide with only 32 homes. Roughly 2/3rds of an acre per parcel that don't get considered when we fill out the form. That's why I spent all that time talking about them because they're not going to be developed. This Board would have to approve it if they ever, somebody tried to develop them. There's no additional homes that are going to be put on them. So they should be considered as part of this project. I don't know if there's any other questions. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-I do. I see you have egress windows here for the basement. So obviously. MR.MASON-I've built a number of these,and one of them I built one time they put them in without egress windows and it scares the heck out of me to have a basement with only one access. MR.HENKEL-It could also make it possible for other bedrooms in the future. MR. MASON-It is not for a bedroom. What they're putting in the basement will be a large office. The man is a doctor, a radiologist from Maine, and he loves books, and I keep warning him basements sometimes get wet, but anyway, he's going to have his office down there and a little hobby room with a utility room and a bathroom,but there will be no. MR.HENKEL-So there is going to be a bathroom down there. MR. MASON-Yes,there will. MR.HENKEL-That's not on the plans. MR. MASON-I didn't, we have not developed that yet, but, trust me, there's no bedroom down there. That's normally the issue. It is a basement,though. I am including that we will be making that,finishing it as an office. MR.KUHL-Did you hear that word,John,trust him? MR.HENKEL-But it could be a basement and a bedroom later,maybe two. MR.KUHL-But he's stating that it's not going to be. MR.HENKEL-Trust me. MR.KUHL-Trust him. We'll take him at his word. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? 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 speak on this particular project? Seeing nobody,is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No,nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going 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 Brent. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. It seems like the use is remaining the same and it's been done for a few other individuals. So I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABS Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Way back in 2003 Roy and I were still on the Board and at the behest of the ZBA and the Planning Board both you requested a group leach field on a septic be created on the property with the HOA and I think that was done because we recognized the postage stamp size of the lots and I think the variances are about the same as what we've given in the previous areas of this property. So I'd be in favor of the request. MR. MC CABS John? MR. HENKEL-If you look at the property at.05 it would not be allowed. If you're looking at the overall property, the whole complex it's equal to about two acres per house. So,yes, it's a little bit bigger than what I'd like to see,but I'm for the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes,we've seen these before in this community,with its common area. It's a good thing that they're tearing down the old house and building a new one and we can trust Mr. Mason that everything will be done properly. So I would be in favor of this,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR.CIPPERLY-I'm in favor of the project. It certainly meets the criteria of the Homeowners Association and it looks like all the rest. MR. MC CABE-And so I think this is the fifth one of these that I've approved, and you haven't mislead us yet. So I'll go along with this. So given that,Jim,I wonder if you'd make a motion for us. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William Mason. Applicant proposes removal of existing 76S sq. ft. home to construct a new home of the same footprint with a second story and basement located in the Takundewide development. The new floor area is to be 2,354 sq.ft. The project includes a 32 sq.ft.new porch landing entry and an 1S sq.ft.smaller access landing to the existing porch. The project has completed connection to the Takundewide community septic and water supply from the lake. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks,permeability, and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure for constructing a second floor. The site is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 2,25 S sq.ft.parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement The applicant proposes the new home with two porch areas. The applicant requests relief from setbacks, permeability,and floor area. The setbacks for the home are proposed north to be 7 ft. (fireplace), S ft. east porch entry,6 ft.to the south porch entry and 10 ft.west(shore side)where a 15 ft. setback is required for all four sides. The permeability is to be 640/o where 750/o is required. The floor area is proposed to be 670/o based on the lot size where 220/o is the maximum allowed—the applicant has explained the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the IS.7 acres is common area for the association members —in addition the master plan indicates the IS.7 ac is to be considered during the request for a house expansion with the HOA. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,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-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. It's similar to other homes in the HOA. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and we are satisfied that this plan is similar to the previous. 3. The requested variance is substantial, but it's mitigated by connection to the community water and wastewater that's been created. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created,but it's due to the small lot sizes on the property. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2022 WILLIAM MASON, Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MASON-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 FADEN ENTERPRISES AGENT(S): LANSING ENGINEERING OWNER(S): SARATOGA PRIME PROPERTIES ZONING Cl LOCATION 1471 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING BUILDING ON THE SITE TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW BUILDINGS AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. PROJECT INCLUDES ONE BUILDING OF 8,950 SQ. FT. THAT IS BROKEN INTO THREE TENANT SPACES OF 2,000 SQ. FT., DRIVE-THRU, 2,500 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT,AND 8,355 SQ.FT.RETAIL SPACE. THE SECOND AND THIRD BUILDINGS ARE TO BE A TOTAL OF 24 UNIT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY OF 3,480 SQ. FT. WHERE EACH BUILDING IS TO BE 1,740 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 12 UNITS EACH. SITE PLAN FOR NEW COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND SELF-STORAGE FACILITY, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE/WETLAND FRESHWATER WETLAND PERMIT, AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR SELF-STORAGE FACILITY. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 68-2022; SUP 6-2022; FWW 13-2022; SP 45-2015; SP 59-2014; SV 48-2014; SP 52-2011; SP 8-2006; SP 34-2004; SP 43-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2022 LOT SIZE 199 ACRES TAX MAP NO.288.-1-58 SECTION 179-3-040 SCOTT LANSING, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; RUSS FADEN,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.49-2022,Faden Enterprises,Meeting Date: October 19,2022 "Project Location: 1471 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of an existing building on the site to construct 3 new buildings and associated site work. The project includes one building of 5,355 sq. ft. that is designated as 3 tenant spaces:2,000 sq. ft. for a drive-thru;2,500 sq. ft. for a restaurant; and 3,555 sq. ft. for retail space. The second and third buildings will contain a total of 24 units of self-storage in 3,450 sq. ft. Each building will be 1,740 sq. ft. and have 12 units. Site plan for new commercial development and self-storage facility, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline/wetland, Freshwater Wetland permit, and Special Use Permit for Self Storage facility. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) The applicant requests relief for setbacks to the wetlands and stream for the construction of three buildings in the CI zone on a 1.92 ac parcel Section 179-3-040 dimension and Chapter 94 wetlands The plan indicated Building 1 (retail/food) is located 60 ft. from the stream and 74 ft. from the wetland; Building 2 is 41 ft. and 43 ft.from the wetland/stream area;Building 3 is 36 ft. and 44 ft.from the wetland area where a 75 ft. setback from building to wetland is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as they are primarily commercial. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot shape and constraints of wetlands and stream on the site. There may be feasibility to reduce the building size although a variance may still be required. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested--Building I is 15 ft.to the wetland,I ft.to the stream;Building 2 is 34 ft. and 32 ft.;and Building 3 is 36 ft. and 31 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area due to the wetlands and stream. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The Applicant proposes removal of an existing building on the site to construct 3 new buildings and associated site work. The plans show the location of the building and a preliminary sketch for the commercial building with the retail and food service. The applicant is aware supporting information for the wetland delineation is required from jurisdictional agency(s)i.e.,Army Corp and the variance may be tabled." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that adopted October 1S`h 2022 by a six zero margin. MR. LANSING-Good evening. My name is Scott Lansing with Lansing Engineering,representing Faden Enterprises. I do have the applicant here with me this evening, Mr. Russell Faden. We are here tonight with a positive recommendation from the Planning Board and we were before the Planning Board yesterday and they reviewed the project. Our ultimate objective for this evening is to ask the Board's consideration for approval of the variances. I think the notice did a great job of recapping the project. So I don't want to be redundant as far ascertain aspects of the project,but I will mention a few things. It is located at 1471 Route 9. The current zoning is Commercial Intensive. So the proposed uses are in accordance with the zoning and we think they are in character with the surrounding area. I did outline the structures and the uses,and as far the variances that are being proposed,there is a 75 foot shoreline wetland setback variance required. Building One proposes 60 feet with 15 feet of relief or 200/o variance. I believe there was something in the notice that we were proposing a 15 foot setback. We're actually proposing 60 feet. So those numbers may have been. MR. MC CABE-Yes,we've got an updated,I think we do. Yes. MR. LANSING-Okay. That's good. Because that is significant, to think that we are only 15 feet away, but we are 60 feet away. So a 200/o difference. Building Number Two in the back,we're proposing 41 feet, so 34 feet of relief. That's about 450/o,and then Building Three we're proposing a 36 foot setback or 39 feet of relief. So that is 52%. As far as the area we are looking for the setback from,I did want to talk a little bit about that stream and the wetlands around it. That stream is very well defined. It is actually drainage from I-S7. There's a culvert,box culvert,that goes underneath I-S7,plus drainage from the asphalt goes to 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) the median,traverses down, and goes underneath the Northway and traverses through the site. It is then picked up by a culvert that goes underneath the parking lot where the existing structure is, goes across Route 9 and it also continues underground through the Factory Outlets across the street, and eventually it makes its way down to Glen Lake Road and Ash Drive. There's a very large wetland complex down in that area and then eventually to Glen Lake which is about 7,000 feet away. So it's a very long path,at this upper reach of the path. Again we consider it more of a drainage channel than a stream. As far as environmental quality,the environmental quality is low. So in our opinion, as far as setback,that is not a highly sensitive environmental feature it is our opinion. As far as what we are proposing, everything we are proposing, all the impervious areas, the roof, the pavement, everything is being conveyed to a stormwater collection system. So none of the water from the impervious surfaces are making it to the stream, or quite honestly I would classify it more as a drainage channel or the wetlands that are immediately adjacent to that. So all the impervious areas are being conveyed to a stormwater system. That stormwater system does pretreatment where it filters water. It also goes through a detention system. There's also a cursory treatment, a filter at the end of that system water's discharged back to another drainage course. So our argument is that while we may be impacting the setback area,all that stormwater is being treatment and conveyed back to the natural drainage course. So we do not feel there is an impact to that drainage area. That is essentially it, and again we're here tonight essentially for questions and comments from the Board, and we would like to request the Board's consideration for approval. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? John? MR. HENKEL-This is about the storage area. Are those going to be garage type? So they'll be 24 garage types or what's the size of those storage units? MR. LANSING-There are a mix. . Some of them are 10 by 10,10 by 20,and then the ends are about a 5. MR.HENKEL-So there's going to be some garage type where you'll be able to store like a car or something like that? MR. LANSING-Yes. MR.HENKEL-Okay. Now is it going to be a fenced in area where you can get in and out by a secure gate? MR. LANSING-It is not proposed to be fenced. No. MR.HENKEL-I'm just going to tell you,my wife's family's got storage units in the Saratoga area and some of them are climate control,but some of them are running businesses out of them. You could potentially have chemicals that are hazardous. That's what concerns me about this stream,and without people having access, I mean they've got access 24 hours a day. Do you have a camera system set up there or anything like that? MR. FADEN-Probably. MR. HENKEL-Because that's the problem that they have. People are running businesses out of there, those units,and storing all kinds of stuff that could be hazardous to the stream. MR. MC CABE-Well I think the stream is basically blocked by the bike path, and that whole area is contained. So,you know,it doesn't go down the other side,which more of the runoff comes from the 149 side. MR.HENKEL-I'm just saying you can get a runoff from their sheds flowing into the stream. MR. MC CABE-Yes, but that stream dead heads, dead ends at the bike path. You can't get any farther because there's high marks on,or high land on all sides. So it's trapped. It doesn't just go down into the water. MR.HENKEL-That's just my concern. MR. MC CABE-I think that it's a valid concern. MR. LANSING-Sure. If I could try to address that. As far as the facility itself,the applicant will have a Subway restaurant in the plaza. It will be owner occupied. So he'll be there to monitor the facilities. So as far as anybody running businesses out of that, that will be monitored and restricted. As far as any storing of chemicals or runoff from the units, again, the units, the pavement, everything goes to the stormwater management system,which again is collected,filtered,regulated and then filtered again at the end of that system. So we don't anticipate any sort of chemicals and things like that being stored and that would be restricted as to the type of material that could be stored there. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) MR. HENKEL-It does happen. I don't know if you have other storage units or not. That is a concern, believe me. So you want to make sure you have cameras there to protect yourself because you'll be liable for anything. Because you know how it is. If they leave that, it's your stuff. So you can be liable for anything left in that building. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? MR. CIPPERLY-Quick question. Do you anticipate anything negative from the Corps? MR. LANSING-Do not,no. It's a very straightforward permit that we'll receive. MR.CIPPERLY-I was happy to see that when you look at the neighborhood,it's not a neighborhood where you find self-storage units,but they're behind the building. I think that's perfect. MR. LANSING-We have worked with the Planning Board. The Planning Board wanted them behind the and screened and they're happy with how they're positioned and screened. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.KUHL-Do you have people that are going to lease out the property already or you're going to build it and they're going to come? MR. FADEN-I'm not sure yet. Russ Faden. I'm the owner. As of right now there's going to be a Subway restaurant in there because I own that,but there's no other tenants at this time. MR. KUHL-Okay. So one of the three buildings, Building One, one of the three spaces in Building One will be occupied. The other two are up for grabs? MR. FADEN-Correct. MR.KUHL-And the idea of the storage units,what's behind that? MR.FADEN-Well we want to utilize the land as is and it has the deeper lots,and I think a lot of businesses up there probably utilize more storage. Myself, I have a few storage units myself. So I think a lot of the businesses might utilize,you know,up in that area,those storage units themselves. I think it's a good area for it. MR.KUHL-Thank you. 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 address us on this particular project. Roy,do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Generally I'm in favor of the project. I am a little concerned about potential runoff. It's that stream. I know it was there before. This is better than it was,but with the storage units there and the cars coming in and out could create another hazardous situation, but I'm generally in favor of it as presented. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. I think it's a good use of the land. Again,your challenge is going to be to get the right people in the back. It really is, and I'm in favor of it the way it's presented. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-It's a good use of the property. The property needs to be cleaned up so I think this is a good way of cleaning it up and making it better for the neighbors. I'd be on board with it. MR. MC CABE Jim? 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm in favor of Building One,but I'm not in favor of the storage units in the back. I think that's excessive and I don't think it's necessary to make a success of the property due to the setbacks from the wetlands. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-And that's actually my sentiments. I'm in favor of the overall project but I don't like the use of the storage units in the back with the,as Jim indicated,with the potential runoff. So that portion is the issue for me. The rest of it I'm fine with. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR.CIPPERLY-I'm actually in favor of the project as presented. I think the idea of storage units for people that are there is valuable and I think you've done as well as you can do to mitigate any impact. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. I think that you're certainly making an effort to control the runoff and I think in the final phase it's going nowhere. So that doesn't concern me. I do think John's comments on the storage units are pretty valid and,you know,you've got to make sure they're protected from the outside world. So given that,Dick,I wonder if you could make a motion. MRS. MOORE-Sorry. Before you do that,the issue that I brought up in the Staff Notes is in reference to the actual setbacks. Since the wetlands have not been confirmed by Army Corps and their location,we're not exactly sure of the distance that's being proposed here. So that is why I'm identifying it, and I explained to the applicant there is a potential that it would be tabled until that delineation was confirmed. MR. MC CABE-I guess we have to do that, then. I was unaware of that. I didn't pay attention to that detail in the Staff Notes. MR. LANSING-As far as the wetland delineation,the Army Corps of Engineers right now is very backed up with work. They're short staffed and they have a tremendous workload. As far as us getting a verification from the Army Corps of Engineers, we'd be asking for a jurisdictional determination, a JD as they call it. If we were to submit a delineation for a JD, that is very low priority for the Army Corps of Engineers and they're processing permits and doing other actions. If we submit for a JD that will take many,many months. We probably won't have it until sometime next year, quite honestly. So what we would like to ask the Board's consideration is to approve this conditioned on the jurisdictional determination coming back and we can show it on the plans,or less. If it anything different than this,then our approvals would be invalid. MR. MC CABE-So I think we've got to get guidance from Staff here. MRS. MOORE-Right. So we're in communications with Army Corps, the individual that would be reviewing this. I tend to disagree with your assessment about the length of time. There's no issue with them communicating with that individual about the wetlands that's on site and determining if this individual can come out and take a look at that and confirm that. MR.MC CABE-So you're thinking that the wetlands determination is going to be sooner rather than later. MRS. MOORE-I believe it would be. MR. LANSING-If I could expand on that. As far as,if we were to submit the delineation along with the permit application,because we do have less than a tenth of an acre of wetland impacts,if that is submitted they have to respond within 45 days with comments and then they have another 45 days to review. So that expedites the process of review of the JD and the approval of the permit. We don't really want to apply for a permit unless we have an approval from the Board. So we're in a challenging situation and so again we'd like to ask the Board's consideration to approve conditioned on a delineation. MR. MC CABE-We've got to go with our Staff there, you know, these are decisions that we don't make. Staff makes. So what should we look for in a table here? MRS. MOORE-At this time November is filled. We could potentially try to take a look at December. MR. MC CABE-Will we have two meetings in November? MR.HENKEL-The 14`h and 21" MR. MC CABE-Well the 21"is the day before Thanksgiving. MR.HENKEL-No,we're looking at December. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) MR. MC CABE-December. MRS. MOORE-There's only one Zoning Board meeting in December at this point. MR.HENKEL-And when will that be,the 14`h or the 21"? MRS. MOORE-It's the 14`h MR.HENKEL-The 14`h MR. CIPPERLY-Do you think we'll have an answer by then? MRS. MOORE-I believe we will have enough information that maybe the Board could move forward. MR. URRICO-What would be the harm in hearing the variance or at least passing a motion to condition it on their, what he suggested? What would be the harm in that? We're looking at maybe January or February for them to come back. If they can't make it back for December. MR.HENKEL-I don't know about anybody else,but I withdrew my yes and made it a no. So I don't know how that's going to change anything. MR. MC CABE-Well,we've had the comment before it would be like signing a blank check. So we really need to. MR. LANSING-In order to cash that check, it would have to be contingent on something. So we would have to come back if something was different. MR. MC CABE-I don't feel comfortable with that. MR.KUHL-Okay. You're the Chairman. MR.HENKEL-Unless they have enough votes to go through it. MRS. MOORE-As Staff I would discourage you from doing that. That's my suggestion. MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So could I get a motion? MR.HENKEL-Yes. Is that okay? We're going to do December 141h,2022? MR.LANSING-I honestly do not think we will have a JD by that time. We'll do our best,but our wetland consultants whom we've worked with for many, many, many years has indicated that they do not anticipate having a JD by that date. So we feel we have to apply for a permit and more or less force the Army Corps to review the application. MR.HENKEL-But you can always re-table it if they're not ready by the 141h MRS. MOORE-Table it further if it's necessary at that time. MR.HENKEL-So we'll go for the 141h. Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Faden Enterprises. Applicant proposes removal of an existing building on the site to construct 3 new buildings and associated site work. The project includes one building of 5,355 sq. ft. that is designated as 3 tenant spaces:2,000 sq.ft.for a drive-thru;2,500 sq.ft.for a restaurant;and 3,555 sq.ft.for retail space.The second and third buildings will contain a total of 24 units of self-storage in 3,4 SO sq.ft.Each building will be 1,740 sq.ft.and have 12 units.Site plan for new commercial development and self-storage facility,hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline/wetland, Freshwater Wetland permit, and Special Use Permit for Self Storage facility. Relief is requested for setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.49-2022 FADEN ENTERPRISES, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ron Kuhl: Tabled to the December 141h, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by November 15,2022. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) Duly adopted this 19'day of October,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Sorry about that. That's my fault. I really missed that fact. MR. LANSING-All right. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next two applications are a bit strange. They're the same thing for the same application with two different sets of parameters. So normally we would take these one at a time. However,if we approve one,then there's not a need for a second application. So what I've determined is you pick the one that you favor the most and we'll listen to that first,and then we always have as a backup the second one. Is that okay with you? MR. MAC ELROY-Why don't we just start. MR. MC CABE-Identify yourself. MR. MAC ELROY-I'm Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Tom and Renee West, the applicants and property owner for property at 79 Knox Road. I guess Tom can confirm this, but I think that you'd want to consider the second application first. MR. MC CABE-So we basically approved,well we approved the second one. Right? MR. MAC ELROY-No,you haven't seen this. MR. MC CABE-Okay. That's the one we haven't seen. Okay. So the second one would be. MR. MAC ELROY-I'll give you a little background. When we entered into discussions about this as a project, I explained that there were limitations to a detached structure that would serve as a garage and would be limited as to the height of it so that living space within it would be a variance issue. The option to that was what you've seen before. So that became the first application,our connector garage,but Tom felt strongly, Tom and Renee felt strongly about the idea of having it as a separate structure because there were some benefits that Tom will elaborate on,but a reasonable thing,but how do we present that to the Zoning Board? Laura and I talked about this, and,boy, never done something like this before,but Craig was asked about it and felt that,yes, if you want to present it that way then that's the way you should apply. So we did that,and I think to the benefit of comparing one to the other at the same time as opposed to getting the approval for Application One and then maybe coming back a month later and saying well this is really what we think is better and this is why,here you're looking at both applications potentially at the same time. So if we should talk about an application,then let's talk about the. MR. MC CABE-So our next case is going to be AV 53-2022. That's right? MR.HENKEL-Yes. AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RENEE &z TOM WEST AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) RENEE&z TOM WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 79 KNOX RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 3,315 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A DETACHED GARAGE OF 1,100 SQ. FT. AND A TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF 7,000 SQ. FT. THE HOME IS TO BE 27 FT. 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND THE GARAGE IS TO BE 27 FEET 11 1/2 INCHES ON A 1.22 ACRE PARCEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, STORMWATER CONTROLS, PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AREAS,AND LANDSCAPING. SITE PLAN FOR FLOOR AREA,HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE,AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND GARAGE HEIGHT. CROSS REF SP 70-2022; SP 71-2022;AV 42-2022; FWW 14-2022; FWW 15-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040;179-6-065;CHAPTER 94;147 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;TOM WEST,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2022, Renee & Tom West, Meeting Date: October 19, 2022 "Project Location: 79 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) existing home to construct a new home of 3,315 sq. ft. footprint with a detached garage of 1,100 sq. ft. and a total floor area of 5,720 sq.ft. The home is to be 27 ft. S inches in height and the garage is to be 27 ft.111/2 inches on a 1.22 acre parcel. The project includes new septic system, stormwater controls, permeable driveway areas, and landscaping. Site plan for floor area, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and freshwater wetlands for work within 100 ft. Relief is requested for setbacks and garage height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of stormwater device and garage height in the WR zone on a 1.22 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional and Chapter 147 Stormwater The stormwater infrastructure is to be located 40 ft.from the wetland and St ft. from Lake George where a 100 ft.setback is required. Relief is requested for the height of the garage building where 27 ft.11.5 inches is proposed and accessory structures in the waterfront zone are limited to 16 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 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 reduce the height of the garage and to reduce the scale of the project so the devices meet the required setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal moderate relevant to the code. The relief for height would be It ft. 11.5 inches greater than 16 ft. The setback relief is 7 ft.to the lake and 49 ft.to the wetland. 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 additional shoreline plantings and stormwater management for the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new home and new garage. The home will have a height of 27 ft. S inches,the garage height will be 27 ft.11.5 inches on a parcel of 1.22 acres. The project includes a new septic system,stormwater controls,permeable driveway areas and landscaping.The applicant's request is similar to AV 52-2022 where the house and garage are one building where the proposal for two separate buildings would reduce the appearance of a large structure." 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 they passed that motion on October 1S`h,2022 by a six zero margin. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I'll give you a little background first. The property, 1,2 acres on Knox Road at the point where the road becomes private. It is a dead end road. I happen to be a neighbor next door to this property. We've known each other for a long time. This property has been in Renee's family ownership for over 60 years. They've shared it with a sibling for a number of years,and within the last year there's been a transfer. So they are sole owners of the property and would like to make improvements so that the residence is a year round property. It's currently, as beautiful as it is,it is a seasonal structure. It's on piers. There's no real heating system. It's just not easily retrofitted to be a year round property. So the idea was to construct a true year round residence. The house as proposed meets all the normal, I should say the standard requirements for permeability,floor area ratio,yard setbacks. The issues and the three variances that we're requesting in this proposal is for two setbacks for the stormwater devices to, Number One, one of them to the lake, Number Two a second one to a wetland which falls in a similar category as a shoreline in Queensbury's regulations. So that in those regulations as you may know are subject to being updated and revised at some time in the future. The Lake George Park Commission,the originator of the stormwater regulations which the townships have adopted and are given the right to administer, Queensbury has accepted that right. So they've always administered the stormwater regulations,but the Town has yet to update their standards to meet the Park Commission standards that were updated about a year and a half ago. So that 100 foot setback for a stormwater device for a Major project was changed in the Park Commission's regulations to 35 feet. So if the Town had updated their 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) regulations at this point to be consistent with the Park Commission's,then this wouldn't be necessary,but they still haven't. So that's two of the requests. The bigger issue here is the height variance request for the detached garage,not connected. That gives the opportunity to move the garage a little further away from the main house and lake. Again,I'll let Tom get into some of his reasoning behind that,which makes sense. Whether it's acceptable to this Board, that's what we're here to find out. So that request, they would like to have living space above the garage, and that structure turns out to be 2S feet, just like a residence height standard would be, but detached from the house so it becomes a separate accessory structure, and if it's helpful, I'll let Tom do a little explanation of the reasoning. There's another site plan that shows the comparison of the detached structure if that's helpful. MR. WEST-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. I'm Tom West. This is my wife, Renee. We are the owners of the property. Laura, is it possible to put the existing survey up? Actually we can work off of this one. This is the existing survey of the existing property. As Dennis mentioned, this is an old camp that's been cobbed together and expanded over time. It sits on concrete blocks. It's two by four construction with little or no insulation in it. So it's very difficult to heat. We're already closed up. The water's drained. This is a pavilion which is separate. It's kind of our sitting area in the summer area and then this is the existing garage which is way back by the road,single story two car garage. When we decided that we might embark upon building a new house,it was our goal to see if we could come up with a project that would require no variances whatsoever. I've done a lot of work on Lake George and I believe in trying to do everything in conformity with the regulations to the extent that you can. So if we can go back to that one,or we could actually look at the one I handed out. We decided that the main building should be very close to and similar in size to the existing building. There was a reason, Dennis pointed that out a few minutes ago. There was a reason that was put there,because if you look at the lot,it's very steep going to the east and the southeast, and it comes down steep on that side, and then the rest of it is very flat,and so the developable property is back up here,but if you go too far you're cutting into the bank and you're now tiering your building or doing something like that. We wanted to re-produce the concept of the house and the pavilion and we wanted to have a garage. So in order to achieve the goal of not requiring any,I'll call them traditional variances,this is versus the stormwater setback variance,we had to work with a connector. So the diagram that we handed out shows you the difference between the two applications that are before you tonight. The one that's further to the back and is in white is the variance that's before you. The area is in red is the garage as connected to the main house. So when we started on this,we started way back in the spring, and we actually had contractors lined up and we were probably overly optimistic that we could get into construction this year,and we didn't realize how backed up the Town was. So it's taken us along time to get here, and we appreciate how busy Staff is and we're not criticizing them in anyway. It was just our mistake to misunderstand that. So once it was going to take more time, I said to Dennis, I said, Dennis,you know, that's not really what we'd like to do. What we'd like to do is figure out if we could get permission from this Board to disconnect the two structures, and I'll explain the reasons why we feel that's better, and so we had more time on our hands and so we made the second application and I think it was a little bit confusing to Staff and I don't blame them,but when you see this diagram with the two together you'll understand. So if you go to the diagram and look at the connected structure you'll see by eliminating the connector we reduce impervious area, and we reduce floor area. We also eliminate what's effectively a concrete dam across most of the property,starting at the upper edge of the house and going all the way across the garage, and if you look at the contour map above that,you'll see that we have a steep hill,and it doesn't stop at the road. It goes up there. It goes up much higher. I don't know what the total height is on the other side of the road but it's very steep. Now we own the property across the road. We have about 900 feet of road frontage going down behind several of the houses,a little over six acres. We don't have any intention of doing anything with that at this point in time. It was bought as a buffer property to protect us. So now if you could look at the photograph that we handed out,which isn't part of the site plan,it may give you a better understanding of what we're trying to do. So you'll see that we have a very flat lawn, which is not very deep to groundwater. I don't know exactly what it is in the front,but as my wife points out it's a clover lawn. We don't use any fertilizer. We don't treat the weeds. We have almost pure clover for the first six weeks of the summer,and a lot of bees, they now call them pollinators, and for the second, the last six weeks, it's all crab grass. In fact wherever I don't have a patch of crab grass I'll actually put a couple of plugs in to try and make it uniform, but it's a very hearty lawn and the other thing I can tell you about this picture that I think is important is that most of the trees you see in the foreground my wife and I planted over the years. We planted the trees along the front there. You'll see there's some kind of spindly little trees over by the boathouse. When we were in high school we bought the trees that are further back and a number of the trees along the front, the cedar trees etc. were all planted by us,the two of us,because,you know,we believe in tree plantings. So if you look at this picture you'll see we're trying to put the new house where the old house is,kind of tuck it into the hill there. The pavilion stays in almost exactly the same spot and under the variance that's not before you, the one with the connector,you'd see the connector and the garage immediately through that gap. By disconnecting the garage and pushing it back a little bit, we actually get it in behind those trees that you see to the left, on the left side of the lot there. So to summarize this, this is a very unique situation. First of all it's a unique lot. It's got it's challenges because of the steep terrain,and then the very flat terrain and the shallow groundwater,but this is a very unique situation because in asking for a variance on the height,we can actually make the project better,for all the reasons that I stated before, and it's very rare, I think, in zoning practice, where you grant a variance and you make the overall project better. Normally you're looking at a variance in isolation and you're saying we're going from 16 feet to 2S feet and 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) you're going to look at the height and what is the impact of that height. Well here by allowing that, and allowing us to put a bunkroom over the garage for grandchildren,we keep that mass out of the main house and it allows us to keep the mass down in the main house. It also eliminates the impervious area that I talked about, opens up some groundwater flow and just makes it a better overall aesthetic presentation both from the lake and from the roadside. It's not so massive. If we had to look at alternative designs, putting them all together,doing what some people do where they attach the garage right to the house and then have the pavilion sticking out in front,it would be like all the other houses on Lake George. MR. MC CABE-I think we get the general idea here. MR.WEST-All right. MR. MC CABE-So why don't we see what kind of questions we have from our panel. MR.WEST-That would be great. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-I have a question. What are you offering us,one from Column A or one from Column B? MR.WEST-It's Door Number One or Door Number Two. MR.KUHL-That's not what I'm here for. I'm here for what are you presenting? MR.WEST-We are presenting the option that is before you. We do need the setback for the stormwater structures that Dennis mentioned. It will be our goal to develop this site in a way so that there's no stormwater discharge. We actually manage the site today with no stormwater discharges. We've put the plantings along the front. It's depressed behind those plantings. Water does sit there and pool,but we take all of that very seriously. So we are asking for a height variance so that we can eliminate the connector and reduce the overall impact of the project. MR.KUHL-How old are your grandchildren? MR.WEST-We have 14,12,and two 6 year olds. MR.KUHL-Okay. There'll be about three more years they won't come. MR.WEST-No,they actually love the lake,but you never know. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-Obviously down the road,we could put a condition to allow this,down the road if we don't want them to turn this into an air b and b,the second dwelling. That's the problem. MRS. MOORE-That room above the garage has no kitchen. MR. HENKEL-I mean you've got a bathroom in there, of course, the mechanical room. Eventually there could be obviously a kitchen put in there. I'm just saying we should have a condition to make sure that this doesn't become a second dwelling later on. MRS. MOORE-You can,but the idea is that's why there's not. We've had folks put notes on the plan set that said no kitchen. MR.HENKEL-Okay. So obviously if comes later and you find out,they'd be in trouble. Okay. MR.WEST-I've given a lot of consideration to that issue,and first of all my wife and I are absolutely against air b and b,whether it's for the entire house or part of the house. MR.HENKEL-That's you,but the next person that buys the place. Down the road. MR.WEST-It's possible. So what I'm willing to do,sir,to put my money where my mouth is,to so speak, is I'm willing to deed restrict the house so that there will not be any separate rental of any part of the house to non-organic family members. MRS. MOORE-So the Board doesn't get involved in deed restrictions. So in reference to, if the Board conditions it, putting a note on the plans saying there will be no kitchen in the garage area, that would address the question of whether it's a second dwelling or not. RENEE WEST 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) MRS. WEST-This is Renee West and I just have a question. Why, if it is attached, that could be then livable? We don't want the kitchen. We just want it to be a bunkroom,but then you could,not that we would want to,but that,what makes that different from renting that than your concern about being an air b and b? MR.HENKEL-It's just the rules. MR. MC CABE-Yes,I know, and that's an area that's kind of loose right now. MRS. WEST-Because I appreciate the concern of air b and b because it's been,you know, a serious issue on Lake George and everywhere else. MR. MC CABE-But people on Lake George have rented their camps out for a long,long time. So whether you admit it or not,air b and b's have existed on Lake George for a long time. MRS.WEST-Right. Exactly,but I just wanted to say. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and seek input from the audience on this particular project. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky,Lake George Waterkeeper. I'm glad I saw and heard the explanation. Thank you. Because I had concerns about that driveway, and there's a bump out from the driveway to the garage which is different from the two scenarios. Is that correct, Laura? Because the driveway on the other actually has a bump out going towards the lake. It required a closer setback on stormwater,but if this is the plan, then. So I guess that was a question of mine. We're not opposed to the variances requested,and regarding the more restrictive stormwater setbacks for the Town, the Town has that obligation. They don't have to go and follow the Park Commission which went with less protective restrictions and we're glad the Town wants more restrictive. We feel that there should be the consideration of a condition for a compliant shoreline buffer, especially with the reduction to the wetland. 179-6-050 requires buffer restoration on the shoreline as well as along wetland because they consider wetlands shoreline. So we feel that if there is a reduction in stormwater setbacks there can be compliant buffers on those shorelines. MR. MC CABE-So you're looking for some raingardens? MR. NAVITSKY-No,I think the Town has,they've got stormwater. As I said,there's a lawn going to the lake,concern about more groundwater being put in and the more buffering we can put there,which is a 35 foot requirement in Town Code, that's what we're asking, compliant. They take into consideration the existing trees and everything, which are part of the buffer, and then offset that to meet the Town's requirements. So thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to comment on this particular project? Is there anything written,Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes,there are two letters. "My family and I own the house 67 Knox Rd.,Lake George. We are in support of the West's proposed project and improvements they are bringing to Knox Rd. Feel free to reach out of you have any questions. Best regards, Stephen Ballas" "My wife Bonnie and I own the property to the south of the Wests at 73 Knox Road. We are writing this letter in support of the improvements proposed in their application. We have shared a common bay and lakefront with the West family since we purchased our home in 19 S5. They have always been conscientious in their support of Lake George,as well as ardent supporters of the LGA and Lake George conservancy.. Mr.West has volunteered countless hours in legal and environmental advice and advocacy to both groups. We feel their proposal will only improve the character of our neighborhood and will not in any way be detrimental to nearby properties. Furthermore, the upgrades to a state of the at wastewater and stormwater system will only improve and enhance our beautiful and pristine lake. Thank you for your attention to this matter and know that we are fully supportive of their proposed changes. Sincerely, Stuart and Bonnie Rosenberg" That's it. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to comment on any of the public comment? MR. MAC ELROY-The shoreline buffer requirement is typically a site plan. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) MR. MC CABE-Right. That's normally 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 Jim. So let's be clear here. So what we're talking about is the second, and it's really just the height variance and the location of the stormwater devices. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the stormwater devices as proposed are adequate. As usual I support people having these over height garages if they have an explanation as to what the purpose of the extra height is for. I think in this instance here if you compare the two plans and you look at the sprawl of that one, versus the gap that's going to be created on the other plan, as you propose to have, I think I could support what you want to do. I think it's understandable. Even though it's a grand variance to give an over height variance,I don't think it's bad. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor of the project. The stormwater devices are adequate and as Jim indicated, comparing the two plans,I actually believe this is the better one. I think it's almost intuition to think the other way when you look at this, the way that I initially read it, and now that I've reviewed it and the presentations have been given,it makes good sense. So I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR.CIPPERLY-I also am in favor of the project. The setback from stormwater is fine. The garage height, especially when you see the garage from Knox Road,it's not going to make any difference at all. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm in favor of the setback for the stormwater devices. I am not in favor of the height of the garage. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-Given our charge here,we're responsible for minimum relief,as minimal as can be,I would not want to start allowing the height of this garage the way it is. I'm in favor of the house. I'm in favor of the stormwater,but I'm not in favor of the height of the garage. So I'm not in favor as presented. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I somewhat agree with some of the members here with the height of the garage,but I think overall it makes sense with this project to have less disturbance on the property and the stormwater devices are definitely a need located where they are. It's a good location. So I'd be in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-And so I'm normally pretty strict on garage height,but in this particular case,I think you guys have thought this out well, and I'm going to change my mind on this project and I'm in favor of it. I think that this design with the taller garage is a much better solution than the compliant garage and all the other stuff that goes with it. So,given that,Jim,would you make us a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Renee&z Tom West. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new home of 3,315 sq.ft.footprint with a detached garage of 1,100 sq. ft. and a total floor area of 5,720 sq. ft. The home is to be 27 ft. S inches in height and the garage is to be 27 ft. 11 1/2 inches on a 1.22 acre parcel. The project includes new septic system, stormwater controls, permeable driveway areas, and landscaping. Site plan for floor area, hard surfacing within 50 ft.of shoreline,and freshwater wetlands for work within 100 ft. Relief is requested for setbacks and garage height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of stormwater device and garage height in the WR zone on a 1.22 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional and Chapter 147 Stormwater The stormwater infrastructure is to be located 40 ft.from the wetland and St ft. from Lake George where a 100 ft.setback is required. Relief is requested for the height of the garage building where 27 ft.11.5 inches is proposed and accessory structures in the waterfront zone are limited to 16 ft. 2S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,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-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. As presented by the applicants they have a strong desire to have the detached garage as opposed to a connected garage to the house which would be permitted without a variance. So we're just looking the other way on that small issue as far as that goes. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and are not possible given the request by the applicants. 3. The requested variance is substantial, but it's not substantial in this case it's permitted by a majority of the Board members because it will be mitigated by the height of the road behind the project. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they wish to create this detached garage. 6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would—Outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. AV 53-2022 RENEE &z TOM WEST, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So we don't have to go through the next one. MR.WEST-No. MRS. MOORE-Sorry to interrupt,but then the applicant should withdraw that other application. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So would you formally. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 RENEE &z TOM WEST AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) RENEE &z TOM WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 79 KNOX RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 4,652 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH ATTACHED GARAGE. THE FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 6,500 SQ. FT. AND THE HOME IS TO BE 27 FT. 11.5 INCHES IN HEIGHT ON A 1.22 ACRE PARCEL. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, STORMWATER CONTROLS,AND PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AREAS. SOME PROJECT WORK WILL BE WITHIN 100 FT. OF WETLANDS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE,AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 70-2022;SP 71-2022; AV 53-2022; FWW 14-2022; FWW 15-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2022 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040;179-6-065;CHAPTER 94;147 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MAC ELROY-In consideration of your approval of the second application, we would withdraw the first application which involved the connector. MR. MC CABE-So that's 52-2022. MRS. MOORE-The applicant is withdrawing Area Variance No.52-2022. MR. MC CABE-We don't have to make a motion for that. MRS. MOO RE-You don't have to make a motion. I just want to have it on record. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. MR.WEST-Thank you very much. MRS. MOORE-Excuse me,Mike,can you close your meeting. MR. MC CABE-I make a motion to close our meeting tonight. MR.HENKEL-I'll second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 19TH, 2022, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19`h day of October,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 30