Loading...
Minutes AV 21-2022 11.16.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II REDS LG, LLC AGENT(S) NICHOLAS ZEGLEN (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) REDS LG, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 7, 9, 13 NUTLEY LANE (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE ALTERATIONS TO TWO EXISTING DWELLING UNITS ON THE SITE AND REDUCTION OF 7 NUTLEY LANE TO AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE 7 NUTLEY LANE REDUCED TO 330 SQ. FT,; ALTERATIONS TO 9 NUTLEY LANE 704 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH TWO BEDROOMS AND KITCHEN (FLOOR AREA OF 1,408 SQ. FT.), NEW OPEN DECK OF 440 SQ. FT. WITH WALKOUT AREA BELOW; ALTERATIONS TO 13 NUTLEY LANE INCLUDE INTERIOR ALTERATIONS (EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 2,053 SQ. FT. WITH FOUR BEDROOMS). TOTAL FLOOR AREA 3,791 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES GRASS DEPRESSION AREAS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, ROCK WALL WITH STEPS, AND REDUCTION IN HARD SURFACING. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE FOR 9 NUTLEY LANE, AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR 9 NUTLEY LANE FOR SETBACKS, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING, AND HEIGHT FOR 7 NUTLEY LANE. . CROSS REF SEP 37-2021, SP 29-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.17-1-15 SECTION 179-3-040, 147; 179-13-010 NICK ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2022, Reds LG, LLC, Meeting Date: November 16, 2022, “Project Location: 7, 9, 13 Nutley Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and reduction of 7 Nutley Lane to an accessory structure. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane reduced to 330 sq. ft.; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,408 sq. ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below; alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations (existing floor area of 2,053 sq. ft. with four bedrooms). Total floor area 3,791 sq. ft. Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, rock wall with steps, and reduction in hard surfacing. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested 9 Nutley for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, and height for 7 Nutley Lane. Relief Required: Revised. The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, and height of 7 Nutley Lane. The parcel is 0.53 acres and located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Revised – 7 Nutley Lane would be reduced to 330 sq. ft. with no kitchen, bathroom or deck, building size reduced to meet setbacks. 7 Nutley Lane would be 19 ft. in height and would require a height variance for being greater than 16 ft. for an accessory structure. 9 Nutley Lane building work would be 4 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required; and 12 ft. to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Expansion of non-conforming for 7 and 9 Nutley Lane. Permeability existing is 67.78% and improved to 69.60% proposed where 75% is required- noting no relief is required as the site is improving the permeability on site. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The setback and permeability variances may be limited due to lot shape and location of the buildings on the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested is moderate relevant to the code. 9 Nutley Lane relief –North side setback of 16 ft., South side setback of 8 feet. 9 and 7 Nutley Lane requires relief for expansion of a nonconforming structure. Accessory structure relief for height of 3 ft. No permeability relief is requested. 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 2 environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has received approval for and has installed a new septic system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain after the fact construction of 7 Nutley Lane revised removing the bathroom, kitchen and deck and reduced to 330 sq. ft., then 9 Nutley Lane for deck expansion. The plans show revisions for the building reduction for 7 and the work completed for 9 to remain. In addition, the plans indicated the stormwater management on the site and shoreline plantings.” MR. ZEGLEN-For the record, Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership, here tonight with the applicant, Tom Ensslin. We’re here tonight seeking three variances for unapproved development at the applicant’s residence at Nutley Lane. So the variances we’re seeking are side yard setbacks on either side for 9 Nutley, and a variance for an accessory structure which is 7 Nutley. So this project as well has been before the Board a couple of times and we’ve gone through some iterations. Just to summarize kind of some of the latest revisions that we have made, we are now proposing to remove the bathroom and bedroom on 7 Nutley as well as the proposed deck. This structure is to be used for storage use only, not habitable space. So that’s the big change with 7 Nutley. We also did revise the stormwater per the Waterkeeper’s recommendations. The two stormwater devices down by the water will be raingardens. We’ll put some plantings in there with roots, in lieu of shallow grass depressions. So all the, the other stormwater is to remain, the proposed plantings and landscaping are to remain since the previous submissions. The big one is the 7 Nutley. Just for storage use only. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. MOORE-Before you do that, I just want to identify, we discussed earlier today, probably about an hour ago, in regards to the height, and I’m going to show you some images that they’re saying that the height is now 13. MR. ZEGLEN-So we were unfortunately not able to, we were trying to get new architectural drawings showing the height of that 7 Nutley building. We were not able to get that, but the applicant did go out there and put a tape measure to the roof, down to the ground, take photos of it, measurement, to show that the structure is indeed less than 16 feet. The actual building itself is 13 feet 14 inches, but then when you add, it’s just on blocks. If you go all the way down to the ground, is how they measure the building height, it’s, as we had said 15 feet 10 inches and change and that’s what these photos that Laura is pulling up show, and one item that Laura and I had discussed is we could condition it upon a Town Code Enforcement Officer coming out and witnessing that measurement to see that it is indeed less than 16 feet. So, yes, that’s the one photo showing it going down to the ground. It’s a little tough to see there. There’s the 14 foot measurement and as you go down closer to the screwdriver there’s the 15 and then obviously it’s covered up a little bit, but that’s the ground. MR. CIPPERLY-So that matches your plan, 15 feet 10 inches. MR. ZEGLEN-Correct. MR. CIPPERLY-So you do not need a variance for over 16 feet. MR. ZEGLEN-No, but I think the Town was looking from something from the architect, an architectural plan. MR. CIPPERLY-Right. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input from the public on this particular project. Do I have anybody out there who would like to speak? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CLAUDIA BRAYMER MS. BRAYMER-Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members. You know I’ve been here, but I’ll state for the record, Claudia Braymer, attorney with Braymer Law, representing the neighbor to the north, Mr. O’Brien, and we are here, again, to oppose this application. I’m just learning about this height variance thing. So when I get to that I’ll ad lib it a little bit, but just as a reminder, this is a Waterfront Residential zoning district where the purpose is to protect the delicate ecological balance of the Town’s lakes, as well as to enhance the aesthetics of the waterfront areas, and as a reminder, only one single family residence is allowed on a lot of this size. It’s less than two acres. This is obviously much less than two acres. I want (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 3 to talk about three different things. The first one I’m going to call the third structure which is the one that we just saw on the screen, the one that’s farthest away from the lake, and as a reminder, this is not a pre - existing structure. The applicant has already admitted that this is a new structure, and new construction. Many members of the Board have already told the applicant to remove this third structure, the proposed structure on the property, and yet we are here with another proposal showing the third structure on the plans. That building should be removed completely. At the very least the variance allowing the size and the height for that third structure should be denied. As the applicant told you in September, the height was 15 feet 10 inches. I brought up the minutes from the September 21st meeting. Now we are hearing that it is 14 feet some inches or 14 feet 10 inches. I really don’t understand how you can go by the applicant’s word on this issue, and I think that this should be denied. They had requested a variance to be 19 feet tall. Of course we would ask that that be denied. I have some photos tonight to show the third building as compared to my client’s home. This building as it is now is as large as their home. If it’s not removed all together, it should at the very least be reduced in size, area and the height and should not be allowed to be greater than 16 feet for accessory structures. Moreover all of the language on the site plans about this being a seasonal residence should be stricken so that there is no confusion in the future that this should not be allowed to be habitable space and there should be conditions requiring that the structure not be inhabited and that it be disconnected from the septic system or not b e permitted to be connected to the septic system which we know is already designed for this particular building. I’ll be quick. The middle structure, the applicant completely renovated that structure and increased the bedrooms from one bedroom to four bedrooms in violation of the Code, and I’ve already brought that information to you about the Stop Work Order. The applicant did not receive approval from this Board to enlarge the house and increase the number of bedrooms or to renovate the inside of that non-conforming structure and that’s a violation of your Code in 179-13-010. The applicant should not be allowed to further enlarge the structure by adding the proposed deck. That request should be completely denied. The area variance request to reduce the side yard setback for the deck from the mandatory 20 feet to a mere 4 feet should be denied. The number of people, whether they are renters or part of the applicant’s family, who can stay in that middle structure and make noise on that deck directly next to my client’s property will negatively impact Mr. O’Brien’s enjoyment and value of his property, which is one of the criteria you need to consider for an area variance. Moreover one of the most important other criteria that you have to consider is whether or not this is a substantial request and it is. It is indisputable that any request over 60% reduction is substantial, and I brought with me tonight a case involving the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals where you denied a request for a variance that would reduce the setback more than 66%, and you were upheld by the Appellate Division. So here the requested relief will reduce the setback on the deck by 80%, and it should be denied because there are alternatives such as reducing the size and/or moving it to the middle of the structure or to the other side of the structure to the south. As a reminder, the Planning Board previously recommended denial of all of the variances that were requested, including those for the middle structure, meaning the deck also. One more minor note and then I’ll wrap up. Removing the asphalt on the paved path to the lake is problematic for our clients. They still have the right to use that and they’re not sure what sort of surface will be there. We request that in your review you take a separate vote on each of the variance requests and that you deny the requests because they are too substantial and the applicant has a history of non-compliance. Reminder this is an unapproved development you’re looking at right now, and the Board should not grant them the opportunity for further non -compliance with the Code that will negatively impact the neighbors. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I’d like to thank the applicant for their increase in permeability as well as the additional shoreline plantings. We feel that that is an improvement. I do have a question why there’s not a variance for stormwater devices that are 25 feet from the lake. I thought that that was in one of the first submissions. I don’t know why that’s not in now. I was real confused about the 7 Nutley floor plans they were in there. I don’t know why they were still in the application. I’d agree that it’s still a lot for this property. Steep slope. Perhaps the deck on 9 Nutley could be reduced, to reduce that potential impact and I just heard about the other variance on the height. So I did not have any response to that, but I do have that question about the stormwater variance. MR. MC CABE-So I also thought there should be a stormwater device variance. MRS. MOORE-But let me start with the comments in regard to the floor plan. So there was, we corrected, we added additional information to Laser Fiche. Laser Fiche was not noting the colored notations that were. MR. NAVITSKY-The red lines? MRS. MOORE-The red lines on it. MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 4 MRS. MOORE-So that was, we found a fix to that to show that that’s why that occurred. I’d have to check the Ordinance in reference to the stormwater devices. So if you give me a second, I’ll have an answer for that, but my understanding is that it is due to it being a minor. MR. NAVITSKY-A minor. Okay. MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’ll look it up. MR. NAVITSKY-Okay. Great. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? MR. NAVITSKY-Now if that was the case, there wouldn’t have been a variance on the last application for a 50 foot setback on the stormwater device by the wall. That was a major. Okay. Thank you. TOM ENSSLIN MR. ENSSLIN-Hi. I’m Tom Ensslin. I own the property. Well there’s a lot to talk about here. MR. MC CABE-You only have three minutes. MR. ENSSLIN-First of all, my address is 7-13, 7, 9, 11, 13. This was Carey’s Cabins back in the 60’s, and along with O’Brien’s property, it was part of Carey’s Cabins, and that was the game room, I guess, and he’s got, his property is bigger, by the way, because he’s got two floors also that are finished. So anyway, these structures were always there, and the accessory structure that we’re reducing down to within setbacks right now and height and everything else is already in line, was always there. I have pictures of it galore, and I can show all that. They were always there, the original door on the building. The original flooring, and, yes, we had to put a new roof on it and did the outside walls so it looks new, but it isn’t, and as far as the deck on 9 Nutley, there was a 12 by 14 deck there, tons of pictures of that, pictures of me standing on it going like this and the deck going like this. I mean I’m taking a property that wasn’t touched for the longest time and it’s safe now. We’ve got a brand new septic system, $40,000 later. It’s way up on the parking lot, the parking lot that I had was for the whole camp. It’s like 20 by 50. It’s 1,000 square feet. It was all paved. Well water doesn’t go through pavement. Now the pavement’s gone because that’s where the tank is because all the pumps go up to there and the leach fields are there and you can still drive on it, but that’s all more permeable, but for better. MR. MC CABE-Permeability is not a question. MR. ENNSLIN-Okay. So anyway there’s just a lot of issues here that she’s saying that isn’t correct. I mean his structure, by the way, Mr. O’Brien’s is three feet off of my house, and Number 9 Nutley and his house are like six, eight, nine feet apart. I mean it’s just the way it is. You know the way old school stuff was. So I mean I’m trying to do everything and get this done and it’s just, I don’t know. I’m trying to get everything done, and I’m doing things the right way. We improved a lot. MR. HENKEL-Could I ask a question? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. HENKEL-I don’t know if this is a Staff question or your question, but can you tell us how many bedrooms are in each building? MR. ENSSLIN-So the original main house which was built in 1895 or something like that was always four bedrooms. MR. HENKEL-It’s always been four bedrooms. MR. ENSSLIN-Never touched the footprint of that building at all. MR. HENKEL-And can I ask Laura, is that something we have any idea, is that true or not? MRS. MOORE-I’d have to go look at the files. MR. MC CABE-It’s been reduced to two. MR. HENKEL-No, no. That’s still four. MR. MC CABE-That’s the original. Okay. Yes. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 5 MR. ENSSLIN-By the way, if that house was finished, which it isn’t, that’s all we’re doing is re-modeling the inside. This whole air b-n-b thing is all because of COVID and not being able to use it and the same thing about doing a lot of this work, and I apologize for the way we did it, but it’s like dead on COVID when we started all this stuff and the whole Building Department and getting them stuff, and I’m not making excuses, but then the next building, 9 Nutley, which is the one that the really bad deck that we replaced, and, yes, we did make it larger, but, boy it’s built like a tank and correct. That was actually one bedroom, but, you know, we made it two bedrooms, and it’s got the septic for it which was approved by the Building Department and we have a pump tank for this accessory structure which is not hooked up at all. MRS. MOORE-In regards to that one in the middle, it just needs re-inspection to confirm that it’s a two bedroom. It’s understood that there are two bedrooms in that building and when Building and Codes goes out there they’ll inspect that again., but that’s the understanding that it’s now two bedrooms. MR. HENKEL-So they don’t consider a pull out couch in the living room being another? It has to be a bedroom. Okay. MRS. MOORE-It’s a bedroom. There’s a definition of bedroom. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Just making sure on Number 9 it was no so much the deck but the stairway was added was too close to the property line. That was the concern. MR. ENSSLIN-If we had to move the stairways, and as far as this path that Mr. O’Brien, it’s a shared path that literally curves. If he’s on my property then I am on his property and we’re back on. I can make it completely on my property if I wanted to be like that and make him make his own path like alongside mine. I wouldn’t do that. We’re going to do things the right way with nice pavers and stuff. Right now it’s crappy pavement. MR. HENKEL-Pretty much everybody’s got the same problems along the lake there with the narrow properties. MR. ENSSLIN-Yes. MR. HENKEL-It’s tough when neighbors don’t get along. MR. ENSSLIN-But we do get along. He never said anything to us. MR. MC CABE-So anything else? MR. ENSSLIN-No, I’m sorry. It’s just, okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So, would you like to? You’re all done. So do you have any more input? So I guess we still have the question of the stormwater device. MRS. MOORE-No. I’m still looking at it, but the idea is that it’s classified as a minor. So the stormwater devices themselves do not need to meet that setback requirement. MR. MC CABE-So we don’t have to consider this one? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Anything else? MRS. MOORE-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to. MR. URRICO-I have some letters. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me, Roy. MR. URRICO-“My name is Stephen Burnett and my property is in the neighborhood of subject property, Reds LG LLC, which is asking for permission to enlarge one structure at 9 Nutley Lane and to build a new Bunkhouse on a different footprint than the original shed on a 0.53 acre lot zoned waterfront residential that already contains two existing residences. The parcel is classified as Waterfront Residential and is considered a parcel. I am greatly troubled that the deliberations are still ongoing. The owners installed a large deck on the 9 Nutley residence that was nearly one third the size of the residence (approximately one-half the size of the main floor of the residence that my brother lived in at 11 Andrew Drive, Queensbury now part of The Burnett Family Trust. My property is to the north of subject property and is 1.28 acres (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 6 and also has two pre-existing residences on it and is also classified as nonconforming. My brother and I owned our property tenancy-in-common until his death. I came before this board and I was not successful in my request to subdivide our property to enable my brother's heirs to ha ve an equal share, 0.64 acres of our 1.28 acre lot. The subdivision was denied. I was forced to lose my share or buy them out. I bought them out and then sought the expertise of a local builder, Eric & Eric Construction Company to explore what I could do to repair or replace the 11 Andrew Drive residence now owned by the Burnett Family Trust. Eric & Eric Construction Company thoroughly examined the property and consulted with the Town of Queensbury and then provided me with a plan of what could and could not be done. I was told that I could stabilize the building on its original footprint (or make it smaller within that footprint). However, if I wanted to remove and replace the building, I would have to remove the 7 Andrew residence, detached garage, and all other out-buildings and be limited to one 2,000 square foot residence. Later, when I had architectural plans prepared for renovation/repair of damaged portions I was told that I needed a variance because my 96 year-old cabin was 22.8 feet from the adjoining property line owned by Tom and Julie Currie and the code required 25 feet the 11 Andrew Drive building and the property line. I also asked if I would be able to make a small addition to the northeast corner to change the shape of the residence to a thirty by 40 forty square foot building which would be 65 square feet larger and was told that I must build on the original footprint. I was also told that I could not add a porch to the front of our cabin at some time in the future. We followed directions from the Town of Queensbury and limited our repairs to the original footprint, except for a fifty percent reduction of the size of our deck. It is difficult for me to hear that a 440 square foot porch was added 9 Nutley Lane and that 7 Nutley Lane shed was reconstructed to a 330 sq. ft. "bunkhouse" (that area could be eleven feet wide by thirty feet long making the new building able to accommodate perhaps ten sets of bunkbeds -maybe twenty people . The 440 square feet deck on 9 Nutley Lane is oversized for a two bedroom residence and it could also accommodate even more people - (e.g., seven bedrooms (two persons per bed) in 9 Nutley Lane and 13 Nutley Lane combined, with up to ten bunkbeds (one person per bed) the bunkhouse. Could this possibly mean fourteen people for 9 Nutley Lane and 13 Nutley Lane, and up to twenty people for the bunkhouse at 7 Nutley Lane). I was told that the subdivision of my property was denied because my 1.28 acres was not enough acreage for two residences and subdivision would negatively change the character of the neighborhood. We have a total of six preexisting bedrooms between two residences on a nonconforming lot. How could the new 440 square foot deck able to accommodate many additional people at 9 Nutley Lane be authorized? Why would the expanded new construction and change In physical location of building for the 7 Nutley Lane address on a new, expanded footprint be allowed? I was denied the subdivision of our lot into equal 0.64 acre shares partially because such an approval would establish a new precedent and it appeared that there was a fear that such a subdivision would significantly change the character of the neighborhood. How could that be? We had six preexisting bedrooms sleeping twelve people with three bedrooms in each of the two separate residences. The residences on Nutley lane have often been rented to or used by people who do not always respect reasonable quiet hours at night that other neighborhood property owners have enjoyed for decades. Late night noise and glaring lights have kept our family and guests from enjoying the beauty and rest of the Lake George experience. Consequently, the quiet residential character of the neighborhood will likely deteriorate due to any increase in population density per acre, especially on lots with small acreage such as those as small as 0.53 acres. I strongly recommend that the location 7 Nutley Lane "bunkhouse" be returned to its original footprint and be further downsized to ten feet by twelve feet. Further, the new 440 square foot deck that was added to 9 Nutley Lane be downsized by fifty percent to 220 square feet, an appropriate size for a two· bedroom residence. If the proposed changes in the Reds LG LLC request are approved by the Town of Queensbury Board of Zoning Appeals, new precedents especially for small nonconforming lots will have a major impact on the quality of life in our neighborhood and neighborhoods throughout Queensbury as other homeowners will likely seek to take advantage of these decisions. Thank you for your consideration. The Burnett Family Trust Stephen Burnett” There are two other letters. “We live at 33 Antigua Rd., Lake George NY 12845, directly across the cove from 7, 9 and 3 Nutley Lane and we would like to comment on the revised project description requesting variance relief. The building identified as 7 Nutley Lane is now described as ‘new construction’ and identified as a storage shed. As such it should therefore be subject to all the zoning requirements issued by the Town including setbacks and height restrictions as we do not perceive any need to exceed those restrictions. In addition, we see no explanation as to why plumbing or electrical connections would be necessary in such a structure and would request they be removed. Finally the architectural drawings addended to the revised application appears to include insulation built into the shed. As there should be no plans to have this serve as living space, there should be no need for insulation and we think this should not be allowed. Thank you for your attention and service to the community in this matter. Martin and Susan Farber” “I live just to the north of the properties in question and this in my third letter about the issues I have with the 7, 9 and 13 Nutley Lane structures and the variances they are requesting. First, the 7 Nutley Lane building. It was placed there without any permits or concern about how it would affect the neighborhood or the neighbor whom they share a driveway with and a walkway to the lake, Mr. O'Brien. The building has gone from being called a 3-season house that they would have rented out, to a bunk house, and now, being labeled as an accessory structure so that a variance might be approved, and it can remain where it stands. This 15 X 22-foot structure sits on a slope which makes it looks even larger than it is. There is no room to screen it from their neighbor's view with any plantings or trees because the structure is too close to the property line. I take no pleasure in voicing my opinion once again by saying that this structure needs to be removed because it never should have been built there to begin with. If they had applied for a permit and variance, I am pretty sure the Town of Queensbury would not have granted it. Secondly, as for numbers 9 and 13 Nutley, my (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 7 main concern is still for the total number of people that they will be able to have stay between these two structures when the renovations are completed, (if approved.) As the zoning board is already aware of, as a neighborhood we have had to endure many a quiet day and night ruined by people who were renting there with their loud parties and music, oblivious to the fact that they were guests in a residential neighborhood. As a homeowner for over 40 years in this neighborhood I feel privacy, peace and quiet is still a major concern because of the numbers of different renters that rotate thru this property over the course of the summer. I hope the zoning board will continue to keep in mind that the surrounding neighborhood properties consisting mainly of single-family homes when they consider the requested variances by Reds, LLC. I understand this property presented a unique set of circumstances as most variances do. I do appreciate that the zoning board did not give blanket approvals when they were first presented with the application and variance requests last May. There have been so many questions that needed answers before giving any approval to so many different projects on this property. Thank you. Denise Freihofer 12 Big Slide Drive Lake George, NY 12845” That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So anybody else? So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with me. This is kind of a tough project here. The problem is it’s severely non-conforming, and, you know, the whole thing started with, I thought it was Charlie’s cabins, but is it Carey’s? Okay. So it started with Carey putting these properties in here. The applicant thought that he was buying three structures. Since we’ve been reviewing this project one structure has disappeared and it’s now an auxiliary structure and this was at our request. If it needs a variance for a height, then that should be on us, and I have no problem with okaying the height variance. The applicant has indicated that he’s below the 16 feet. So that may not be necessary. The other variances that we’re asked to approve here are setbacks which again, on a pretty small property, are kind of the norm. We have to approve variances on this type of property all the time. So I don’t see a problem with that. The expansion of non-conforming, again, is kind of inevitable for an applicant if he wants to make any improvements to the property at all. The question has been raised about short term rentals. That’s not against the law or zoning laws at this particular time and that’s not really a question for us. That’s a question for the Town Board ad we can’t be construed as making rules in this arena that’s just simply not a zoning issue. I think the applicant has gone above and beyond trying to meet our requirements here. I think the major gains that we’re getting are, one, the property is going to be aesthetically much better than it has been in the past, and the other thing is it’s going to be much more environmentally sound. The fact that we’ve reduced the number of bedrooms means that the septic system is overdesigned, and that’s always a good thing. The fact that we’re putting some raingardens in to capture runoff I think is a vast improvement to the environmental situation here. So I support the project. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with a lot of what Mike was saying. There’s no doubt they did wrong by starting this project without any kind of approvals or any permits, but everybody’s talking about the size of it. They’re over 1600 feet below the allowable floor ratio. So they’re way below what they could actually build on that. We’ve addressed that problem with Number Seven, making that back to an accessory, because we had talked to Laura about that and there’s proof that there was something there. Obviously they tried to make it an extra living space but we addressed that. There’s no longer going to be plumbing or heating or electrical, anything hooked up to that. They took the deck off. I’m also all right with the height of it. Like I said even the height of the building, they’re not even close to 28 feet that’s allowable and there’s a lot of homes in the area that are well over that 28 feet. You talk about the noise, these people live near Antigua, Plum Point, where Craig Brown has a band come in on Tuesday night and plays. So these people are all complaining about noise. I’ve been there and stayed there pretty late at night sometimes. So to address that problem, I don’t see where they have that much of a gripe. So I think we’ve done a good job. We were all against this in the very beginning, and like Mike says, we’re not addressing much here now. So I’m on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-So they have bands on Tuesday nights? MR. HENKEL-Yes, Craig Brown brings his band. MR. KUHL-There’s not much more I can say after that. My only concern really is Number Seven. If this I going to be an ancillary structure, there’s not going to be a bedroom. There’s not going to be a bathroom. Nobody’s going to live in it. I mean you can sit there and promise us everything and what happens after that, you know, that’s on you, okay. We have no way of going in and checking and seeing if anybody’s sleeping. I hope you’re staying. Keep it down. This is my time. All right, and as far as the neighbors and he noise, well that’s a shame, you know. People want to have a good time. There’s nothing I can say about that. I can sit on my deck and I can hear people talking four or five hundred feet away. It’s just the way noise travels. So according to me and John, I will also be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m going to come down a different way. I acknowledge this is a vast improvement over the first application we saw, but I’m going to take a different approach and say well if this had been the (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 8 first application we received, the one we have before us tonight, I would still have questions about the setbacks, about this non-conformance, about the height. Well height obviously is off the table, but I still think we have problems, and I don’t think we should just approve an application like this because it’s better than the first one. The one we’re looking at right now is not acceptable as it is. So I think we have some more movement to make on this, and I would be against the project at this point. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I tend to agree. It seems like a trade for one bedroom added on to where there were already five to begin with and you’ve got a tremendous amount of environmental improvements and setbacks, whatever, I mean this is a small lot and these are the buildings that are on the lot. Most of them were there when you got there, and I see a great deal of improvement in terms of environmental protection for the lake as a tradeoff for one additional bedroom. So I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-It looks like there’s been a lot of improvements from the original application. I think the Board’s done a good job of making this a better project. So I think I would be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-And Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I still think we’re pretending that everything’s going to work out on this one and I think that at the same time if you had come in before us initially and asked for what you’re asking for here this evening on Number Nine, we would have probably granted a smaller deck than what you’re proposing here tonight. Seven I think should be gone completely. It never should have been built in the first place. This is all new. So I’m still not in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-But you’ve got enough votes. So I’m going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reds LG, LLC. (Revised) Applicant proposes to complete alterations to two existing dwelling units on the site and reduction of 7 Nutley Lane to an accessory structure. Alterations include 7 Nutley Lane reduced to 330 sq. ft.; alterations to 9 Nutley Lane 704 sq. ft. footprint with two bedrooms and kitchen (floor area of 1,408 sq. ft.), new open deck of 440 sq. ft. with walkout area below; alterations to 13 Nutley Lane include interior alterations (existing floor area of 2,053 sq. ft. with four bedrooms). Total floor area 3,791 sq. ft. Project includes grass depression areas for stormwater management, shoreline plantings, rock wall with steps, and reduction in hard surfacing. Site plan for new floor area for 7 Nutley Lane, expansion of nonconforming structure for 9 Nutley Lane, and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested 9 Nutley for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming and height for 7 Nutley Lane. Relief Required: Revised. The applicant requests relief for setbacks, expansion of nonconforming, and height of 7 Nutley Lane. The parcel is 0.53 acres and located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Revised – 7 Nutley Lane would be reduced to 330 sq. ft. with no kitchen, bathroom or deck, building size reduced to meet setbacks. 7 Nutley Lane would be 13 ft. 8 inches (not subject to variance as information provided at meeting) 19 ft. in height and would require a height variance for being greater than 16 ft. for an accessory structure. 9 Nutley Lane building work would be 4 ft. to the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required; and 12 ft. to the south property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Expansion of non-conforming for 7 and 9 Nutley Lane. Permeability existing is 67.78% and improved to 69.60% proposed where 75% is required- noting no relief is required as the site is improving the permeability on site. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on May 18, 2022, July 20, 2022, September 21, 2022, & November 16, 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 because this project is going to improve the aesthetics of the property considerably. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable at this particular time because they don’t meet the needs of the applicant. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 9 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial, but that’s mostly because it was a large, non-conforming property to begin with. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We believe that the environmental conditions have been improved considerably, basically from nothing to having some environmental control. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created. It was created years ago by these little cabins. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2022 REDS LG LLC, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th Day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you very much.