Loading...
11-16-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING NOVEMBER I61r;2022 INDEX Area Variance No. 60-2022 Loreen Harvey(Kasselman Solar LLC) 2. TABLING REQUEST Tax Map No.266.3-1-76.1 Area Variance No.20-2022 Eric Carlson 2. Tax Map No.239.12-2-S4 Area Variance No.21-2022 Reds LG,LLC 7. Tax Map No.239.17-1-15 Area Variance No.59-2022 Steve&Tracey Bureau 15. Tax Map No.2S9.13-1-7 Area Variance No. 63-2022 3 Sons&Holly,LLC (Michael Carey,Jr.) 20. Tax Map No.239.12-2-57 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 11/16/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING NOVEMBER 16TK 2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL RICHARD CIPPERLY ROBERT KEENAN,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT BRENT MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-So good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,Wednesday,November 16`h,2022. If you haven't been here before our procedure is pretty simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. I will call each application up,read the application into our records, allow the applicant to present his case. We'll ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we'll open the public hearing, seek input from the public. At that point then we'll close the public hearing,poll the Board to see where we stand on the application and then proceed accordingly,but first we have a few administrative items. So,John,can we get some meeting minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES October 19`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 19TK,2022,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16`h day of November,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Keenan ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt October 26`h,2022 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF OCTOBER 26TK,2022,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 16`h day of November,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr.Keenan ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MEETING DATES CALENDAR FOR 2023 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) MR. MC CABE-So can I get a motion on the calendar for next year> MOTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SCHEDULE OF MEETING DATES FOR THE YEAR 2023,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th day of November 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LOREEN HARVEY (KASSELMAN SOLAR LLC) AGENT(S) LOREEN HARVEY OWNER(S) RORY RUSSELL ZONING MDR LOCATION 1516 RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PROJECT FOR 2592 KW(54 PANELS)APPROXIMATELY 1,348 SQ.FT. THE EXISTING HOME OF 5,035 SQ.FT. IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE PROJECT WILL BE LOCATED ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE WHERE NO VEGETATION IS TO BE REMOVED. SITE PLAN FOR GROUND MOUNTED SOLAR PROJECT FOR RESIDENTIAL USE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 75-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 6.1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-76.1 SECTION 179-5-140 MR. MC CABE-So is anybody here for AV 60-2022,1516 Ridge Road? Because we're going to table that. So I will open the public hearing for that. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-And we'll leave that open until we have that case. So now can I get a motion to table? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Loreen Harvey (Kasselman Solar LLC). Applicant proposes a ground mounted solar project for 25.92 kw(54 panels) approximately 1,34E sq.ft. The existing home of 5,035 sq.ft.is to remain with no changes. The project will be located on the north property line where no vegetation is to be removed. Site plan for ground mounted solar project for residential use. Relief is requested for setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2022 LOREEN HARVEY (KASSELMAN SOLAR, LLC ,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: Tabled to the November 30`h,2022 Meeting. Duly adopted this 16'day of November,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our first application is AV 20-2022,Eric Carlson,67 Brayton Lane. TABLED ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ERIC CARLSON AGENT(S) CHRIS KEIL (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) ERIC CARLSON ZONING WR LOCATION 67 BRAYTON LANE (REVISED) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3-BEDROOM HOME WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE HOME WILL HAVE A FOOTPRINT OF 3,381 SQ. FT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA OF 6,033 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 SHORELINE, NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES,DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%,AND FRESHWATER WETLAND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF THE WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND STORMWATER DEVICE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORELINE AND WETLAND. CROSS REF SEP 241-2019., SP 26-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) LOT SIZE 1.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-84 SECTION 179-3-040;147 CHAPTER 94;179- 5-020 NICK ZEGLEN,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 20-2022, Eric Carlson, Meeting Date: November 16, 2022 "Project Location; 67 Brayton Lane Description of Proposed Project: (Revised)Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home with an attached garage. The home will have a footprint of 3,3SI sq. ft. The new floor area of 6,033 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 and stormwater device less than 100 ft.from shoreline and wetland. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and stormwater device less than 100 ft.from shoreline in regard to construction of a new home with an attached garage. The parcel is 1.25 ac and in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Chapter 147 stormwater device Revised with the garage being attached to the proposed home which removes the height variance. The portion of the home with the garage is located 14 ft.from the property line where a 25 ft.setback is required. The stormwater device is to be 50 ft. from the lake and 50 ft. from the wetland where 100 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the home is moved further from the back and the detached building is in similar location as previous. 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,proximity to wetland, and shared access by adjoining properties. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the setback is 11 ft. and stormwater device location is 50 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 to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The plans show the location of the new home with covered porch areas and attached garage. The applicant has revised the plans noting the garage has been moved further from the property line." MR.ZEGLEN-Good evening. Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership,here tonight with the applicant,Eric Carlson. Here tonight seeking two variance requests for proposed site improvements at 67 Brayton Lane. The applicant is proposing to tear down the existing house as well as the detached garage and build a new structure with an attached garage. This new house will be beyond the 50 foot shoreline setback whereas the existing house is,I believe,43 feet and the detached garage is currently six feet off the southern property line and this new structure with an attached garage will be improved to 14 feet off the property line. Sothis project has been before the Board a couple of times now with these two variances. The Board had recommended take another look at,as mentioned,the side yard setback with that attached garage,see if we can do anything to improve on that. So we did go back to the drawing board and kind of re-worked that footprint and we were able to shift that structure another eight feet off the property line to improve to the 14 feet versus the 6 feet that's there and the 6 feet that was previously proposed, and the 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) other variance for the setback of a stormwater device to the lakeshore and an offset wetland. So there was a lot of discussion about stormwater devices in particular on that south side of the side yard that was adjacent to the retaining wall. So we did take a look at the grading in that area,re-worked some of the grading. Instead of having one larger retaining wall, we now have it terraced as two smaller retaining walls. We also split up that stormwater device into two devices,one at each terrace of that retaining wall. So the runoff would enter the first device on the upper terrace,filter through. Any overflow would enter into a pipe that would discharge into the lower terraced wall where it would receive additional treatment. So we feel we've take some steps to address some of the concerns that were presented and I'd be happy to answer any questions that you might have tonight. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Nobody? So a public hearing has been advertised so at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if t here's anybody who would like to provide input on this particular project. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I still have questions that remain regarding the wetlands. I ask in the previous two meetings how they were delineated and whether that delineation has been approved by the Adirondack Park Agency. I question how the variance can be requested without the approval of the approval agency agreeing where that wetland is. I submitted,the submitted boundary is significantly less than the information that I submitted with my letters regarding the wetland boundary that's delineated on the County maps which is scaled from the Adirondack Park Agency wetland maps. That also results in significant clearing and disturbance into the 75 foot protective buffer that's detailed and protected under 179-6-050. There are alternatives other than an area variance for the stormwater setback variance to the wetland as the relocated driveway is not necessary and that was stated at the most recent public hearing by the neighbor I believe. We do have concerns regarding the retaining wall,it's effect on stormwater management. It was said now that it's filtered,the upper one. We don't want it filtered. That's not what the Town's requirements are. The Town's requirements are for infiltration. Still questions on the under drains and how that piping that's always put in behind the walls will be there to take away the hydrostatic pressure. So we still have concerns about this application and questions remain. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Ma'am? LORI SHAY MS. SHAY-Good evening. I've been before this Board before when this came before you in June. I'm the northbound neighbor. I did review Mr. Carlson's additional plans. My issues remain the same. I understand that he's done stormwater management on the south side of his property. My property is on the north side of him. There's a retaining wall that's being taken down. There's no terracing on my side and there's not anything that's going to stop that water from pushing on to my property, and better yet, I have a basement. That basement sits on that side and along that border. So whatever he does on that side I'm going to get water,unless it's adequately done with stormwater management. As it stands right now, I understand that he's made the additions and the changes that this Board would like. I would like them to take a serious look at the north side of the property. With him moving the driveway,that changes the whole composite of that side of my property,where that water's going to sit. On that side,there was only water at the back of our property. So he's pushing his driveway and he's pushing that road further past me into wetlands which is what this other gentleman discussed. There's plenty of water behind my property that all is just sitting there. So with the addition of him moving the driveway onto my side,it's going to create a whole host of problems on the water side for me. Thank you. MR.MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? So you can come back and maybe provide some answers here. MR. ZEGLEN-As far as the stormwater goes, there is no stormwater on this property as it stands. So we're providing stormwater to capture runoff from the impervious and treat it, and that in itself should help mitigate any stormwater issues that currently exist on the property. MR. MC CABE-So what you're saying is you're going to collect it. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. We're going to take the runoff from that road and capture it into the stormwater devices as shown,whereas there are no stormwater devices for that road now. The stormwater has been reviewed by the Town's Designated Engineer. It was signed off on, and then we did revise it further and they reviewed it again,provided an additional letter, I believe it was the last meeting, saying that they're comments had been addressed. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we still should be concerned with the overall plot plan here, especially the fact that even though you say you're going to handle the runoff on the property,it's still going to infiltrate onto that lawn that exists down on the front side down by the lake. So I'm not in favor of it as it exists. I think we can polish it up more. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-It's important we listen to the concerns of the neighbor and the Waterkeeper and obviously this project has been tabled, denied three times,but I think at this time the Board's done a good job and the neighbors have done a good job of asking the applicant to change some things. So they're really not asking for a whole lot anymore. They're asking for relief for side setback, relief of only 11 feet, whereas before it was a separate building and they were looking for height too, and also these stormwater devices that we require 100 feet. Other agencies don't require that,but I think they're going to keep their water on their own property pretty much I think and not hurt anybody. Their permeability is really good. It's not like their permeability is really that bad. They're over the required amount. So I think they're not asking for a lot. So I would be in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-The thing that concerns me is what Mr. Navitsky brought up about the wetlands, whether they're approved or not by the APA. An item like that is something that really should be delineated,should be solved,it should be answered. MR. MC CABE-Hold on just a second. Let's ask Staff what the situation is here. MRS. MOORE-So it's my understanding these wetlands are part of a larger wetland, this section that's being asked for relief from,my understanding is they're part of the larger wetland. I would understand that the applicant has delineated those. As part of the Zoning Board of review,it actually goes up to the APA to have them review that request. MR.KUHL-Before they get final approval it has to go? MRS. MOORE-After our Town approval it also goes to the APA specifically for variances. MR. KUHL-All right. Well,okay,I'll leave that. As my former Board members have said,I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-At this point I would be in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I still have a problem with the six foot wall with eight foot trees on top of it that is now a 14 foot barrier between this project and the next house. The good news is they're cedar trees and the deer will eat them,but nonetheless it's a 14 foot wall that you're proposing. MR.ZEGLEN-So the wall is,it was previously a nine foot wall. So we've now terraced it to a six foot wall and then after that it's a three foot wall. So the height hasn't increased. The wall height has decreased to six and three,two separate walls versus the nine that was there before,and I believe the trees you're talking about are some arborvitaes that we're putting up along the wall just as sort of a buffer on that south side. MR. CIPPERLY-Correct. Most people that live here know that the deer will eat them. Really, that and I'm still concerned about the Park Agency thing. Hopefully that will take care of itself,but the wall is my concern. MR. MC CABE-So you're a no? MR. CIPPERLY-Correct. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I think if the Park Agency is addressed I think I would be in favor of the project. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) MR. MC CABE-So you're a yes? MR.KENNAN-Yes. MR. ZEGLEN-And I just wanted to add one thing about the. MR. URRICO-I think this time is for us. Okay. MR. MC CABE-The way I look at this,basically what we're looking to approve here is the setback,the 14 foot versus the 25 foot requirement, which is really, again in this particular area, a minor request. The other thing is the location of the stormwater device. The requirement is 100 feet,but in reality it's,you know, where is the stormwater, what makes sense. I mean, you know, you could meet the 100 foot requirement and it wouldn't really address the stormwater. So I think it's more of a commonsense thing. And I believe that the stormwater devices are located in the right spot. So I would support this particular project. So, Ron,I wonder if we could have a motion. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Eric Carlson. (Revised) Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3- bedroom home with an attached garage. The home will have a footprint of 3,3SI sq.ft. The new floor area of 6,033 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 and stormwater device less than 100 ft.from shoreline and wetland. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and stormwater device less than 100 ft.from shoreline in regard to construction of a new home with an attached garage. The parcel is 1.25 ac and in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,Chapter 147 stormwater device Revised with the garage being attached to the proposed home which removes the height variance. The portion of the home with the garage is located 14 ft.from the property line where a 25 ft.setback is required. The stormwater device is to be 50 ft. from the lake and 50 ft. from the wetland where 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on May 1S,2022,July 20,2022,&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-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 this is a replacement of an older building with improvements. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. What they're looking for is an It foot side setback and stormwater devices within 100 feet. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created,but they are asking for two variances. 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. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2022 ERIC CARLSON, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th Day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 21-2022. AREA VARIANCE NO.21-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 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 6778110 and improved to 69.60010 proposed where 75010 is required-noting no relief is required as the site is improving the permeability on site. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 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 S 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 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. Sothis 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. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 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. B RAYME R-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 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 anew 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 21"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 be 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 60010 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 6601o, and you were upheld by the Appellate Division. So here the requested relief will reduce the setback on the deck by S001o, 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 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 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. 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. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 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 IS95 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. 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? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 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 1.25 acres 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 have an equal share, 0.64 acres of our 1.25 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.S 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 1.25 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. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) "We live at 33 Antigua Rd., Lake George NY 12545, 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 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 12545" 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 2S feet that's allowable and there's a lot of homes in the area that are well over that 2S 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 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 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 tome 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 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 abetter 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 1,40E 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, 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) 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 6778010 and improved to 69.60010 proposed where 75010 is rewired-noting no relief is rewired 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,&r 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. 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,- 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. 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. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 59-2022,Steve&Tracey Bureau,5 Chestnut Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO.59-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEVE&z TRACEY BUREAU AGENT(S) RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE-ETHAN HALL OWNER(S) STEVE&z TRACEY BUREAU ZONING WR LOCATION 5 CHESTNUT RD. APPLICANT HAS CONSTRUCTED A 45 SQ. FT. MUDROOM ADDITION AND 22.1 SQ. FT. CLOSET AREA TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE HOME HAS A FLOOR AREA OF 1,338 SQ. FT. AND A FOOTPRINT OF 1,110 SQ. FT. WITH DECK/PORCH OF 453 SQ. FT. IN ADDITION,THE APPLICANT HAS REMOVED A GARAGE AND REPLACED IT WITH A 228 SQ.FT.SHED. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF PREEXISTING NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 74-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-020;179-13-010 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 59-2022, Steve &Tracey Bureau, Meeting Date: November 16,2022 "Project Location: 5 Chestnut Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has constructed a 45 sq. ft.mudroom addition and 22.1 sq. ft.closet area to an existing home. The home has a floor area of 1,33E sq. ft. and a footprint of 1,110 sq. ft. with deck/porch of 463 sq. ft. In addition, the applicant has removed a garage and replaced it with a 22S sq. ft. shed. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for setbacks and expansion of preexisting nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a mudroom,closet area addition,and placement of a shed that includes setbacks and expansion of preexisting nonconforming structure. The project site is 0.19 ac in the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimension and 179-5-020 accessory The shed is located 17.0 ft.from front property line where 30 ft.is required,closet area is S.5 ft.where 15 ft. is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 limited due to the location of the existing home on the parcel and the configuration of the interior of the home for the mudroom and closet additions. In addition,the existing shed had replaced a garage in a similar location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 13.0 ft. from the front yard setback for the shed and 6.5 ft.for the closet. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes no changes to the existing conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has constructed an addition to an existing home,enclosed entry is to create a mudroom and has replaced a garage with a shed. The plans show the location of the addition, renovations, and the elevations. The project involves removal of an existing patio area to install the patio. The applicant has indicated the work completed was to improve a neglected camp." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on their limited review adopted a motion that did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was approved November 15`h,2022 by a unanimous vote. MR. HALL-For your records, my name is Ethan Hall, a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. I'm here tonight with Steve and Tracey Bureau, the owners of the property. The Bureaus purchased the property around 2016 I believe. It was pretty neglected. It was a seasonal camp that was fairly rundown, had a lot of stuff going on with it, a lot of overgrowth. They've made it their permanent residence, their year round residence,at this property. It's not a rental unit of any kind. They've put a significant amount of energy and funding into putting things back together and making it into a year round residence. What 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) triggered this whole thing was a complaint that was filed with the Building Department. There was an existing covered porch on the back portion of the house that they enclosed. They didn't realize that they needed,it was already there. They didn't realize they needed a permit to re-build it and enclose it. Made it into their mud room/entry room. When that was done, Code Enforcement asked us to come out and provide them with drawings. Once we provided drawings to the Building Department, Planning and Zoning got involved, and that's when all this started to unravel with the setbacks. The 21 square foot addition to the master bedroom which is their closet was on the building when they bought it. It was done prior to them purchasing the property. The garage that got torn down, it had a garage door in it. That was the only thing that made it a garage. It's the same size as the shed that's there,but short of it falling down, that was about the only reason it was still there. They did replace it with an Amish barn. It sits on skids. It's not permanently attached to a foundation. It doesn't have a garage door in it. It's strictly used for storage of kayaks and bikes and things like that. It is a small lot, .19 acres. They're well within the floor area ratio,which a lot of times on these really small lots we're looking for floor area ratio relief,but we're not here. The Bureaus,at significant expense,this summer,spring and summer went and installed a new on-site waste treatment,sewage disposal system. It's about a$50,000 investment on their part. That went to the Town Board. We received, I believe there were 13 variances that were required just for us to install that portion,just based on the nature of the lot. So they've gone through and they've done a fair amount of work on the building. They've improved all the drainage. They've taken up a lot of the hard surfaces that were from the road to the house and replaced those with permeable surfaces. They've taken down all the trees that were dying and diseased. They've fixed a lot of the stuff that's there, and we're just asking for the relief for the units that are there. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? None? MR. KUHL-Well,let me just say one thing. You bought it in 2016. If that closet was on there already, think about all the people you had searching. You had a title search,you had this search,you had that search. People went out and took pictures. How come that was never found? That's one of my questions, but anyway,you're earning your money. Very good explanation. These people have done a great job on this house,but that's one of my own personal tiffs,you know, I mean if that closet was put on before you bought it,you paid a lot of people to look at that house,to do a title search, do this, do that, and here you are how many years later saying,it shouldn't have been,but that's.you know,you sign 42 documents. You have to see if you have smoke detectors in there. It's just crazy. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else have questions of the applicant? Okay. All right. So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and I'm going to ask if there's anybody in the audience that would like to address us on this particular project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TRACY TAYLOR MR. TAYLOR-My name is Tracy Taylor. My wife and I,Justine, own a home on Glen Lake on Jay Road. We've been there four years. One year of renovations, two year seasonal. This last year full time,year round,and I'm just literally here as character support of the Bureaus. When we came,we met them. When we first came to Glen Lake they pulled up on their pontoon boat on our dock and we were working on our property and they welcomed us with open arms to the lake like we'd been there forever and I thought this is going to be a great community. Subsequently we watched them fixed up this little camp that they turned into a pretty stunning home from both Chestnut and from the lake. Very well done,fits in to the natural setting of the lake, certainly fits into the neighborhood, has enhanced the neighborhood, the community and they're incredibly meticulous, conscientious people. We went over there for dinner and like you couldn't drop anything on the lot. They went around and picked it up. I mean they're just conscientious. They do the right stuff, and then further Steve would, when we were rehabbing our place, Steve would come over and help us and talk about what a great community. They do the right things. That is what I think. We live in a relatively small community on the lake of year round residents. We all look out for each other. We invest in our properties. We care about the community. We care about one another. We care about the beautiful lake that we live on, and these two people I've seen nothing but that, and everything they've done has totally enhanced the lake and the community that surrounds them. So I'm just kind of imploring you to give them their variance because I think from the previous guy,this one should be a slam dunk. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. You had a comment. KEVIN DOUGREY MR. DOUGREY-Thank you very much. My name is Kevin Dougrey. My family has had this property adjacent to them. There isn't a structure on it now. My great grandmother was the owner,passed it down through multiple generations to me. We are finally in a place that we potentially want to build on our property which is a neighbor to them. I know Tracy has reached out to one of my siblings in the past to potentially purchase the property. Essentially what I'm asking today is to understand it, and where we 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) don't have an existing structure to see the changes they've made. Walk the property with my architecture because we're starting to get ready for our work. Thank you. MR.HENKEL-Make sure you check your title. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? Sir? ROBERT HUGHES MR. HUGHES-Thank you. I'll try to be brief. My name's Robert Hughes. A lifelong resident of Glen Lake. I've been there since before I was born. I'm an August baby. I'm dedicated to that lake as much as you've heard some other people. I think what this family has done is tremendous for the betterment of the lake. I think the fact that they've re-done their septic system to improve the safety and health to the lake is critical. They're good citizens of the community,teachers, small business owners. They've done a lot to enhance the neighborhood which I think is critical. I see no downsides to this. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. LISA DOSTER MRS. DOSTER-I'll be brief. I promise. Lisa Doster. I'm a neighbor on Glen Lake. It looks like the updates to this property are within the same footprint of the original building and structures on this property. So I don't see any concerns in regard to anything that's been done. I do have to say the owners have done an outstanding job on this property and the fact that the new septic,well that speaks for itself. I'm in favor of this project. WILLIAM SMITH MR.SMITH-My name's William Smith. I live four houses down facing Steve,and I'm a year round resident and I just have to say what everybody else has said. Everything they've done has been an improvement. It's enhanced the lake,the house,just great people. I hope that you consider that. They've inspired me to do work on my house. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So at this particular time, unless, Ethan, do you want to make any comments? So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. MRS. MOORE-We do have some public comments. A form letter. MR. URRICO-I'll just say that there's a dozen letters here and they're all very favorable about the project and they reflect some of the comments that were made. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Was that good enough for you guys? Okay. 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-This is a prime example of why Waterfront Residential works inmost cases. That's just my comment on this project. I think that putting the mudroom on is not any detriment at all. It's already covered so I see no negative impacts about that. As far as the bedroom closet goes, I have no problem with that either. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I don't see any issues with this project. I think it's been handled pretty well and I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I also completely agree with Ron that this is basically the same footprint. All they've done is improve the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) MR.KUHL-Yes,I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. I think from an environmental improvement standpoint we gain. From an aesthetic standpoint we gain and so I'm ayes, and John? MR.HENKEL-It's a good project. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time,Jim,I wonder if you could make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve&z Tracey Bureau. Applicant has constructed a 45 sq.ft.mudroom addition and 22.1 sq.ft.closet area to an existing home. The home has a floor area of 1,33E sq. ft. and a footprint of 1,110 sq. ft. with deck/porch of 463 sq. ft. In addition, the applicant has removed a garage and replaced it with a 22S sq. ft. shed. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for setbacks and expansion of preexisting nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a mudroom,closet area addition,and placement of a shed that includes setbacks and expansion of preexisting nonconforming structure. The project site is 0.19 ac in the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimension and 179-5-020 accessory The shed is located 17.0 ft.from front property line where 30 ft.is required,closet area is S.5 ft.where 15 ft. is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on 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-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 because it's been a fully improved property with a new septic system. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. What they've done is deemed to be reasonable to minimize any kind of request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 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 self-created by the fact of the small size of the parcel the property is located on. 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. 59-2022 STEVE&z TRACEY BUREAU,Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 16th Day of November 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.HALL-Thank you very much. I appreciate your time. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 63-2022. AREA VARIANCE NO.63-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II 3 SONS AND HOLLY,LLC (MICHAEL CAREY, JR.) AGENT(S) STUDIO A LANDSCAPE, ARCH. &z ENG.; JON LAPPER, ESQ. OWNER(S) 3 SONS AND HOLLY, LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 28 HOLLY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME AND SITE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 416 SQ. FT.ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,275 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE DECK PORTIONS INCLUDE REMOVAL OF DECK/PORCH AREAS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 72 SQ. FT. PORCH AND A 200 S. FT. PORCH. THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 3,225 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF AN ON-GRADE PAVER PATIO AREA AND STONE SLAB PATH, ENLARGING THE FIRE PIT AREA. IN ADDITION, THERE IS TO BE A RAIN GARDEN AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS ADDED TO THE SITE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE EXISTING 1,152 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT GARAGE WITH LIVING SPACE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR PERMEABILITY, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 76-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2022 LOT SIZE 0.38 ACRES TAX MAP NO.239.12-2-57 SECTION 179-3-040;179-6-065;179-4-080;147 JON LAPPER&MATT HUNTINGTON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 63-2022, 3 Sons and Holly, LLC (Michael Carey,Jr.), Meeting Date: November 16, 2022 "Project Location: 2S Holly Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 416 sq.ft.addition to the existing home of 1,275 sq. ft. footprint. The deck portions include removal of deck/porch areas to construct a new 72 sq. ft.porch and a 200 sq. ft.porch. The new floor area is 3,225 sq. ft. Site work includes installation of an on-grade paver patio area and stone slab path,enlarging the fire pit area.In addition,there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings added to the site. There are no changes to the existing 1,152 sq.ft.footprint garage with living space. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA,expansion of nonconforming structure,and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for residential addition for permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure,and setbacks. The project site is on a 0.34 ac parcel in the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional Relief is requested for permeability where 65.140/o is proposed and 750/o is required. Existing is 71.60/o. The deck to be setback 39 ft.where a 50 ft. setback is required. Stormwater device proposed to be 35 ft.where 100 ft.is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. 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 location of the existing home near the shoreline. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested for permeability is 6.56010 and setback relief is It ft. for the deck and 65 ft.for stormwater. 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 maybe considered to have 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. Stormwater controls are proposed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to alterations to the existing home to create a new entryway. The additional work includes anew deck to the back of the home and patio area improvement. The plans show the new addition entry elevation and the floor print area of the new deck." MR.URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was passed on November 15`h,2022 by a unanimous vote. MR.ZAPPER-Good evening,everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with Kirsten Catellier,project architect and Matt Huntington the project engineer and the applicant,Mike Carey,is behind us. So we believe this is a pretty modest project. Of course it's on a third of an acre. So a non-conforming lot. What Mike is trying to do, as Laura just stated, fix up,on the non-lakeside, the entrance way. On the lakeside replace the deck which is too steep and not really safe,make it smaller and a little farther back from the lake and then do basically a patio area just to improve the use of the site on the lakeside,and to compensate for that because we were already slightly under the permeability. It's not a floor area ratio issue. He's not trying to build too much house,but it's a small site. So a little bit of permeability seems like a lot of percentage just because you're on a third of an acre site. So to compensate for that and justify the relief requested, there are a number of stormwater projects that are a part of this that are two basins,one on the north,one on the south, and most importantly, and Kirsten and Matt will show you in a minute, but there's the existing stormwater situation that isn't created by this house that comes down the road. I know it affects the neighbor to the north. So what we've done voluntarily here is to capture the stormwater,bring it along the north side of the property into a basin where it's slowly let out, not into the lake, but to sheet flow across the grass to help control what's happening on Holly Lane and help the neighborhood, and of course adding a bunch of plantings which Chris will say you have to do plantings if you do a project,but if you don't do a project,you don't have to do plantings. So there's stormwater facilities and anew septic already There's stormwater facilities being added. We're trying to address the road issue and also a bunch of plantings along the lake. So on balance I think this is a modest project on a small lot,but all good for the lake. So with that I'll ask Kirsten and Matt to explain it. KRISTEN CATELLIER MS. CATELLIER-So just to walk you guys through the project. MR. MC CABE-Hold on. You have to introduce yourself. MS. CATELLIER-Sorry. Kirsten Catellier from Studio A. MR. MC CABE-It's for the lady that transcribes the minutes. She needs to match your voice to a name. MS. CATELLIER-Awesome. Thank you. So just to walk you through the project. Starting out on Holly Lane,there's existing asphalt which is a series of about six parking spaces right now that bump up to an existing detached garage structure. A series of walks connect the garage and the asphalt parking to the front of the residence, and that's where we're proposing an approximate 416 square foot addition with the porch on the front of the residence. Those are the extent of the improvements in the front. We are proposing a set of evergreen trees along the north property line to buffer from the adjacent neighbor, and then going around the front of the residence on the shoreline there is an existing deck structure right off of the residence and it actually extends out currently. We're proposing to remove that and actually reduce the deck structure back in size and then put in an on grade patio. Portions of the on grade patio are going to be broken up by blue stone pavers just to break up all the paving in general. There's an existing fire pit that's to remain where it currently is,but we are proposing to put a series of blue stone slabs surrounding the fire pit to expand upon the size of that fire pit, and additionally we are proposing stormwater which Matt will chime in and go through the series, and then also too we're heavily buffering the shoreline in regards to the Town of Queensbury Code and meeting all the requirements in that aspect. MR.HUNTINGTON-Yes,Matt Huntington with Studio A. The stormwater practices for the site consist of a raingarden and a depressed detention basin. The depressed detention basin and swale are on the north side of Holly Lane, and that was just installed. There was nothing really saying that we had to do that as part of this project, but Holly Lane has had some runoff issues that are directed kind of towards the neighbor to the north. So in an effort to mitigate as much as possible and kind of be a good neighbor, as long as Mike was doing a project here,we've installed a swale along the north property line in addition to the plantings Kirsten mentioned that'll help with any runoff uptake through the root system. That swale's going to take that runoff issue from Holly Lane. It'll travel down the swale and go to a small detention 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) basin that has kind of a level spreader to spread the flow back out before it gets to the lake and all that's set back from the lake. It's not directly discharging into the water. So we hope that'll help the Holly Lane situation. In terms of the proposed development on the site, the front porch and the patio area are all designed to a raingarden that's being installed to the south. You can kind of see it south of the deck on there, and the patio paver area is actually pitched back towards the house to a slot drain that will then drain into the raingarden to avoid anything coming off of that patio paver going directly into the lake. Currently there's no stormwater practices on the site. So we feel this is a pretty robust attempt at controlling what we can from a stormwater perspective. MR. MC CABE-Is that it,Jon? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. Do we have 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 seek input from the audience and anything that might be written. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED BRIAN HOGAN MR.HOGAN-For the record my name is Brian Hogan. I own the two properties immediately to the north that was part of the discussion about the stormwater management. First of all let me apologize for handing out all this stuff to you folks. I was not aware of this meeting. I never got notified. I own two properties. I never got any notification. So I had to rush to put all this stuff together,but I'm going to be brief in terms of what I would like you guys at least to look at. This is extremely uncomfortable for me. They're showing a one bedroom apartment over the garage. Since 2004 that has been a two bedroom bunkroom and it's since been converted to a one bedroom with a den, four season residence with cooking facilities and I believe laundry facilities as well. That work was not completed until after this application was filed. Moving upwards, the applicant has purchased a two bedroom home across the street which they're advertising on VRBO with lakefront access, and that's current. As a matter of fact you can look on BRB and still see the two bedroom construction of the place. So I believe that requires a variance. The other thing,moving upward from that,we see the original thing where they had six parking spaces. Actually be Town guidelines that's 9.5 parking spaces, and to achieve that they removed S00 feet of stormwater management and paved it over. Now that's listed as the existing condition as well. So you've got two existing conditions. This existing condition wasn't even constructed until after the applicant filed this application in front of you. The other part we're looking at here,now that that is done that way,this just generates 4,350 gallons of stormwater. That was part of my original complaint to Mike. I said,hey,you're flooding my yard eight inches,can you do something about it, and in all honesty I expected this evening's meeting to be about addressing the specific issues associated with it,not expansion of the property. Holly Lane is actually a highway by use. So the applicant has more responsibility in terms of permeability as well as stormwater. The other thing that's occurred as a result of this is he has a newly installed septic system. It's in a failed state. The two criteria for determining the failed state of the septic system is surface water and full D box test. It's failed both of those tests on multiple occasions. This is a result of any time there's a significant rain storm. It basically fails and they're trying to rent this out now as a commercial venture with a lot of renters and everything in and out of it. I didn't make these tests. They were done by the septic system installer IBS. They were on site twice. One time the fella was there and he put his foot into the leach field up to his ankle and said this is a swamp. Another time a guy was on site and dug up the D box and activated the pump in the system. MRS. MOORE-So in regards to the septic system,that's not the purview of the Zoning Board. MR. HOGAN-I'm going to go through it anyway because it does affect the stormwater, and the water actually squirted up from the ground. So they're showing stormwater management where they're driving 4350 gallons of water into a relatively small dispersion area and it's going pasta failed septic system. Now while it keeps the water off my property,it goes past the septic system and into the lake right in front of my house. Neither situation is actually very good. The last thing I'm going to mention is the unapproved development in front of the place, and while this is not Mike's fault. This was done in 2019. The whole fire pit was added as well as the previous owners had gotten permission from the Town to put in a screened porch. As part of the screened porch they were supposed to remove all facilities from the apartment which they did. That happened in 2004. In 2019 it was converted from a screened porch into a four season room. Basically now it's advertised.. The detail is on therewith all of that stuff. You guys are welcome to ask me any question you want. Otherwise I need to sit down. MR. MC CABE-So other people that would like to speak on this particular project? Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. There are concerns regarding the permeability variance for this small non-conforming lot within the Critical Environmental Area of Lake George. In an area that's experiencing Harmful Algae Blooms as recently as 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) three weeks ago. The project proposes to enlarge the hard scape patio and move it closer to the lake, reduce vegetative cover and topsoil within the shoreline protective zone. In fact when you compare the existing deck to what the proposed deck/patio area will be,the new one will be nearly 1000/o larger. This patio is actually not an on grade paver patio as claimed in the application,but it's actually being installed on 15 inches of fill, according to the drawing. So if you look at Drawing 1.1 that area that's closer to the lake is actually a 15 inch grade. That's how they get the grade to push everything back towards the house. So there is the question about the unapproved work on the property. I attached to the letter that I submitted a 2002 aerial which shows that stormwater management area where those parking spaces are that has been removed and paved over and also there's a question on the fire pit which is within that 50 foot setback where there's supposed to be approvals for all hard scape. I don't know whether that has received approvals. There is a question about the stormwater management along the northern property line and whether that could be adjusted and pushed further away from the lake because that is handling runoff from the road from traffic areas, and that's supposed to be 100 feet from the lake. So those are my comments at this time. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Ma'am. LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Board members. My name is Lorraine Ruffing and I live on Assembly Point. My concern, and I think the concern of most of the neighbors on Holly Lane, is the fact that in October a harmful algae bloom was found in this very small, shallow bay. While the LGA was not able to get out fast enough to test this algae bloom, according to the DEC that has tested for toxicity,according to the DEC as soon as a harmful algae bloom is known,my may not drink the water and you may not swim in the water and so I think we have to do everything possible to increase the permeability rather than decrease it because it is obvious that the lake is under stress. The plan submitted by 3 Sons,particular the new extensive patio which is 24 feet from the lake,has the potential to increase the runoff which has already been aggravated, as was mentioned, by unapproved development. The impervious patio would replace the existing deck which did have a pervious surface underneath it and the plans in effect make a non-conforming lot even more non-conforming. I think Miss Connor,in her letter to you,said that the Board is being asked to adjust the rules governing the owner's property so that he can build whatever he chooses. While it has been alleged that the relief requested is minor, it is not and its impact could be major for this bay. It is curious why the Town of Queensbury would be asked to accept a lower standard for setbacks for stormwater infiltration devices. We often hear the defense that the new stormwater devices wherever they are placed will be better than non-existent ones. However,in the case of 3 Sons, the addition of more hard surfaces near the lake seems to necessitate a stormwater infiltration which is against the code. So do two wrongs make a right? Given the fact that the lake is in decline and that harmful algae blooms are prevalent in this area,please ask the applicant relocate the patio and decrease the hard surfacing near the lake. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else? Go ahead. WILLIAM CROWELL MR.CROWELL-My name is William Crowell and I reside at 20 Holly Lane. My concern I think mirrors some of the concerns that have been previously testified to before the Board. The major concern that I have is really with the fact that it seems to me that this is a commercial use in a Waterfront Residential zoned area. As was pointed out earlier,there's rental. 3 Brothers owns two properties,two single family homes and they're on VRBO and it seems to me that this is a commercial undertaking. MR. MC CABE-Short term rentals are not considered commercial and they're not our concern. MR. CROWELL-They are your concern. MRS. MOORE-No,I'm sorry. They're not. Not for the Zoning Board,but I'll let you continue. MR. CROWELL-Well,the Zoning Board,the definition of tenant tourist accommodation,the building or group of buildings, whether detached or in connected units, designed for transients and providing the accessory off street parking facilities. The term tourist accommodations includes buildings designated as tourist,etc. So I'm suggesting to you that this is a usage. So as use. MR. MC CABE-You're free to suggest that. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. CROWELL-And you're free to say that it doesn't have any impact, but it certainly does on the residents and it certainly has an impact on the use of the property and the fact that there's going to be rentals of two properties and in fact you've got a definition of single family unit. I mean the definition of 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) a single family home, there's a single housekeeping unit, a more or less permanent arrangement, stable rather than transient. MR. MC CABE-So we understand your point here. MR. CROWELL-Okay. Good. Thank you. I appreciate it. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else who has input? Go ahead. JEFF MEYER MR. MEYER-Mr. Chairman, my name is Jeff Meyer. I'm here on behalf of a number of the property owners on Holly Lane,including Mr. Brian Hogan. What I asked, and Mrs. Moore was kind enough to pull up is the survey that the applicant submitted,done by Van Dusen and Steves. That is base line. That shows what's pervious, what's impervious, what was permitted by the Town of Queensbury. All of the future calculations, everything else relative to this application, should be based on that. It's still a small lot. There's still going to be pre-existing,non-conforming issues,but in terms of the pervious surface,it is conforming. There isn't an issue with impervious surface that pre-dates the 1500 or so square feet of paving along Holly Lane that is the source of a lot of the stormwater issues. It also pre-dates a lot of the impervious surfaces that are in between the house and the lake. Anything beyond that has been an addition and should require review by this Board as part of this application. In looking quick at the statutory criteria, because you guys have had a lot thrown at you,you're looking at whether an undesirable change is going to be produced to the detriment of the community and the adjoining property owners. You've heard numerous people speak to how there are stormwater issues,parking for 11 cars,a wide open parking lot on the side of a residential street would never be approved. Any time a highway application, any time a business opens in Town they look at a single point of ingress and egress for parking and DOT from the State, County and municipal level, everybody's trying to close off the situations that this applicant has created, where cars can come and go. It's hazardous to pedestrians. It's hazardous to other vehicles. Additionally,you have a massive patio that's on the front. It's excessive. It's out of character with the rest of Holly Lane. It's out of character with Assembly Point if you start looking at aerial photos. There's simply no need for 500 plus square feet of hard scape on this lot this small right against the shores of the lake. You have zoning and shorefront protection in place that are designed to protect against this type of development. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some other feasible method other than an area variance. Yes. There are feasible alternatives. You don't have to build out the property in this manner. You don't need the massive patio. You don't need all the hard scape. All the other homes in the area get by just fine. There's simply no need for that additional patio and all the impervious surfaces both along the lake and along the road. The requested variance is substantial. The permeability numbers allow for 75%. It is,based on that survey,it is in compliance. What they're asking for is 6S%. That's a significant deviation from what is allowed and what is feasible on the property. You've heard a lot about the adverse environmental impacts. You have the Waterkeeper talking to you about algae blooms and all of this is well documented. You have heard about the septic and the stormwater. MR. MC CABE-I don't think Chris mentioned algae blooms. Did you? You did? MR. NAVITSKY-You weren't listening. MR. MC CABE-Sorry. Go ahead. MR.MEYER-You heard about the septic issues and the stormwater issues and so I'll keep that brief. And lastly whether the hardship is self-created and it's entirely self-created. You have a home. There's always the no build option. To build in this manner with this much hard scape right along Lake George is entirely self-created. It is up to this Board to essential safeguard the protections of the community and deny this variance. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? So, Roy, do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-We do. Some have already spoken. So I'm going to read the letters that weren't. "Please accept this letter concerning the application before the planning and zoning boards by Three Sons and Holly LLC. Currently scheduled for 11/15 and 11116. I write in reference to the property at 2S Holly Lane, Lake George NY 12 545,for an addition to the structure and the plans for materials around a fire pit that do appear to be detrimental to the property concerning absorption and runoff effecting the lake. We must protect the shoreline to protect the lake. (Presently we are monitoring"blooms"in this area.). Queensbury has regulations to protect the shoreline and lake. These are not new regulations. The current owner is aware of them;yet takes no notice when he asks for them to be ignored. It is your duty as stewards of the land and lake to uphold the regulations for all the reasons they exist. The town boards are not here to adjust an owner's property to fit the structure he/she chooses to place on it. You are here to protect the property's use because it effects more than the owner's desire to add amenities. Hold true to your office and protect Queensbury's corner of Lake George bordering Assembly Point.I request that you reject these 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) requests made by the owner of 2S Holly Lane,Lake George, NY 12545." And this is Florence E. Connor,6 Holly Lane. "We are writing In reference to the current application before the planning and zoning boards by Three Sons and Holly LLC. Currently scheduled for 11/15 and 11116. This owner has purchased multiple properties at the end of our street.All with the sole intent of maximizing income from short term rentals. The owner himself spends very little time using any of the property. Significant additional work has been completed on the properties in recent months to further increase revenues,including adding dock space, expanding parking areas and other expansion work on the property. Now he is seeking further significant variances to allow for even more additional living area and expanding the party area on the lakefront. We live in a quiet residential neighborhood on a small road. Our expectation is that it should remain that way as much as possible. Placing a 1960's style cabin colony on our road is not something we feel should be encouraged. Awarding additional variances and approving further development for what are purely commercial purposes is not in keeping with a residential neighborhood. Nor does it meet any of the balance tests for awarding such variances.We strongly object to any award of variances that put additional pressure on the lake or change the character of our neighborhood, especially for obvious commercial purposes." And this is signed Christine Baertschi, William Crowell, Curt and Tami Carstensen, Lynn Gauger,Bruce and Carolyn Hodgkins,Eileen Considine,Bob and Jen Metivier,Brian and Meredith Hogan, and Edward and Susan O'Hanlon. That's it. MR. MC CABE-That's it? So,Jon,would you like to provide any rebuttal? MR. ZAPPER-That was much ado about a small project. Mike bought the property a year ago. He assumed that the fire pit had always been there,and if it wasn't it wasn't,but everything that he's proposed here is good for the lake to be putting in the stormwater facilities. Chris' argument about putting in a little bit of fill,obviously that's a good design so that the new patio drains away from the lake and goes into the basin. Dealing with the issue on Holly Lane,you know, was something, again,that he didn't have to do, that we think is for the benefit of the neighbor Mr. Hogan, even though he's objecting. It's a brand new septic system. There's no failed septic system. It's a brand new septic system that was just installed. Nothing's changed above the garage. There's no kitchen above the garage. What did you say,you re-did the floor? MIKE CAREY MR. CAREY-I re-did the floors and the walls and re-painted. MR. ZAPPER-Yes. There's no cooking facilities. MR.MC CABE-You have to come up here if you're going to make a comment. So do you have a comment? MR. HOGAN-Brian Hogan again. Laura, can you bring up the site plan that shows the plans for the one bedroom apartment. As you can see,it is now a one bedroom apartment. He said he changed the floors. That's not true. If it,in fact,is what's shown on this as an existing condition, then there's a disconnect here. It was a two bedroom bunkroom without kitchen facilities. I see a kitchen. I see a den with a pull out couch and I see a bedroom. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.CAREY-Mike Carey. I'm the owner of 2S Holly Lane,the subject property. So that plan is incorrect. That upper level, that was a plan that we were thinking about doing and re-configuring it. It was a one bedroom and another den. I believe a room has to have a closet to be considered a bedroom. Right now the bathroom is in the center. Where that shows a one bedroom is like a den and then the far bottom right corner is a bedroom. There's a one bedroom,one den. That never got re-configured that way. I didn't realize that that was submitted that way. So there's no kitchen. There's a countertop with a sink. There's no cooking facility. There's no cooktop. So that plan is wrong. I didn't know it was submitted that way. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.HENKEL-Do you have any proof of that? MR. CAREY-I will get that submitted the correct way. MR. URRICO-Which one do we have,Laura? Which one is actually the one that was being submitted? MRS. MOORE-This has been submitted. MR. URRICO-This one here? MRS. MOORE-That's been submitted to us for,as part of their review. MR. URRICO-And you say that's incorrect. 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) MR. ZAPPER-What Mike is saying is that the Town can come in and inspect that there's no, nothing's there. MR. URRICO-But that is not the right one? MR. CAREY-That's not the right plan. MR. URRICO-But that's the one that's on file. MR. CAREY-That is on file. It was submitted improperly. MR. URRICO-So we don't really have good information here. MR. ZAPPER-That's the first time we heard about that. So that's valid and we'll have to fix that. So, again,there's no contamination. There's no algae bloom caused by this. What we're talking about here is water that runs off a paver patio,which isn't contaminated, and goes into a basin which is beneficial to the lake compared to what's there now. MR.MC CABE-So I'll just ask the question. Where does the drinking water for this property come from? MR. CAREY-From the lake. MR. ZAPPER-Yes,lake water. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So you have a further issue. Jon,would you give up the table for a second. MR. HOGAN-Brian Hogan, 33 and 34 Holly Lane. On Page 3 of the pre-submission conference form,it's in the document that I gave you. It's the third page. MR.HENKEL-It says Page Eight at the bottom. MR. HOGAN-You see where it says Item Two on there, and you see where the requested septic information,Page Four,DOH resolution 4-2022. I attended the meeting at which this. MR. MC CABE-So this would be a Town Board meeting? MR. HOGAN-This is a Town Board meeting,Board of Health. I had an opportunity to review the plans. At that time the plans showed that there was three bedrooms in the main house, one bedroom in the apartment. I spoke to the engineer at the time,Mr.Hutchins,and I informed him of this,and he corrected the plans at that time. If you look at the fourth page of what I have,and you see the actual Board resolution, I see Mr. Hutchins making a comment here. This is a four bedroom design. There are two bedrooms in two separate structures on the property. This was a change he made at my request because it was inaccurate. Now we see that it's back again in the pre-submission form as three bedrooms in the main house and one in the other one. I have a significant disconnect here with what's going on. MR. MC CABE Jon? MR. HUNTINGTON-Matt Huntington with Studio A. I don't really have a lot of insight on the septic design of this because we didn't do it,but it sounded like from that statement it was a four bedroom septic and it's still four bedrooms. So it seems like it was the same design for the same bedroom count,three in the house, one in the garage, and if it was designed for two in the garage,two in the house,it's still a four bedroom septic. MR. ZAPPER-I've heard a lot of weird conspiracy stuff. I would like to table it just in terms of clarifying the application to make sure that that's the right plan. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So when will you be ready? MR. ZAPPER-December. MR.HENKEL-We only have one meeting. Right? MRS. MOORE-So December's meetings,the deadline was on Monday for December's meeting. We need to come up with when you would be sending information by,as well as,I would prefer January. MR.HENKEL-What are we going to do,January or December? MR. CAREY-I have the correct plan. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) MRS. MOORE-So could you provide information by Friday of any clarifications? MR. ZAPPER-I guess before we table I'd just like to hear if anything else members of the Board would like us to address. MR. MC CABE-I think the most important thing is that we have the right information. MR. ZAPPER-Of course. MR.HENKEL-The permeability scares me a little bit. MR. MC CABE-So why don't we make a motion about tabling. MR.UNDERWOOD-Why don't we get some comment from the Board so it gives them more ammunition to come back with something. MR. MC CABE-Well,certainly if you could clarify,it sounds like permeability is an issue. So if you could clarify that a little bit. It sounds like there was more impervious. MR. ZAPPER-We didn't address that. So this whole area in front of the house was landscaping,riprap, and Mike did add two more parking spaces,but we can address permeability. We can look closer at that. We're asking 6S010 which isn't a lot. I know it's a small lot,but,sure we can look at that. MR. MC CABE-So we'll have a motion for December. MR.HOGAN-Can I make a comment. MR. MC CABE-I haven't closed the public hearing. So come up. MR.HENKEL-Our two Wednesdays are the 14`h and 21". I'd assume we're doing the 14`h MRS. MOORE-We're only doing the 14`h MR.HENKEL-Okay. So you're going to submit it by this Friday? MR. HOGAN-Brian Hogan. One of the things I don't understand about the Board, and maybe you guys can explain this,I don't know. MR. MC CABE-We don't ask the questions of you,you provide input to us. MR.HOGAN-Okay. What I've seen happen over the years is that any time when you find some significant discrepancies in what look to be sometimes deliberate acts,the applicant tends to immediately request to be tabled,and then when you're down the road where there's four,five meetings, at which,you know,you request public comment and everything, and that just seems crazy to me that you would do that. In this particular instance,based on this,I would deny the application and send them back to the drawing board, and it really should go back to the Planning Board first now that they have all the proper information. It's self-serving on my part because I don't want to come back to another meeting in January and maybe another one in February and do this thing, and it seems like from my perspective that just tends to wear you guys down and eventually you give in, and I've seen situations with the Board where you go to six meetings and seven meeting and you guys finally approve something and then at the end of it some of the Board members look at it and go,how did we approve this. MR. URRICO-You're making a lot of generalized comments here. He raised it. I want to answer it. MR. MC CABE-There's more than S0 years'experience sitting right here on this Board. MR.HOGAN-I'm sorry. I apologize. I'm getting upset and I shouldn't be. MR. URRICO-I'm getting upset listening to you. MR.HOGAN-Thank you. Sorry. MR. MC CABE-So we need a motion on the tabling. MR.HENKEL-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 3 Sons and Holly,LLC(Michael Carey Jr.). Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home and site. The project includes a 416 sq. ft. addition to the existing home of 1,275 sq. ft. footprint. The deck portions include 2S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) removal of deck/porch areas to construct a new 72 sq. ft.porch and a 200 sq.ft.porch. The new floor area is 3,225 sq.ft.Site work includes installation of an on-grade paver patio area and stone slab path,enlarging the fire pit area.In addition,there is to be a rain garden and shoreline plantings added to the site.There are no changes to the existing 1,152 sq. ft. footprint garage with living space. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of nonconforming structure, and hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief is requested for permeability,expansion of a nonconforming structure,and setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.63-2022 3 SONS AND HOLLY (MICHAEL CAREY, JRJ,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to December 14`h,2022 with new information due by Friday,November 1S`h,2022. Duly adopted this 16`h day of November,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. ZAPPER-I'd like to ask one other thing. It's a credibility issue and there's no,it's not a dwelling unit above the garage. So I'd like to ask Laura to have Bruce Frank go and inspect the garage so he can see what's there. I think that should be in the record. A lot of this crazy neighbor stuff we hadn't heard before,septic systems failing. We'll be back in December. MR.MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. So we don't have a meeting next Wednesday. We have a meeting the following Wednesday. So that's the 30`h MRS. MOORE-Correct. That would be November 30`h, and I just want to make sure the Board understands I'm also working on a training opportunity with Mark Schachner. I'm hoping it to be in December,either the first meeting which would be December 14`h MR. MC CABE-Yes,the first and only meeting. MRS. MOORE-The first and only meeting in December for the Zoning Board,but as far as I know he will be meeting here on Thursday, December 15`h to talk to the Planning Board anyway because they had specific topics, but I don't mind merging that but I was trying to keep you separate because you had different topics that you wanted Mark to address. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR.HENKEL-What about the one we're working on there for the 30`h with Starr Mowery? MRS. MOORE-So we've requested to find out if she's submitting additional information. She has not submitted additional information at this point. So there maybe further tabling for that project. MR.HENKEL-I was going to say,wouldn't it be smart for us to have maybe a lawyer for that so that's kind of,for me,I don't know about anybody else,but I'm a little bit confused on a little bit of it. So I would say personally I have a little problem understanding it. MR.MC CABE-Sure. So if you could approach our counsel and say we need some guidance on questioning the judgment of our Zoning Administrator. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR.KUHL-So are we also meeting on the 15`h with the Planning Board? MRS.MOORE-No,unless,if Mark can only do the 15`h,I'm going to provide the opportunity to the Zoning Board members to attend that also. MR.KUHL-I'm sorry,I'm not going to be here. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to make a motion that we adjourn the meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16TH,2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 11/16/2022) Duly adopted this 16`h day of November,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-See you guys in two weeks. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 30