12-8-22 Carey Responses_Updated
38 High Rock Ave, Suite 3 | P.O. Box 272 | Saratoga Springs, NY 12866 | 518.450.4030
PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SITE IMPROVEMENTS
3 Sons and Holly, LLC
28 Holly Road
Queensbury, NY
AREA VARIANCE APPLICATION – Responses to Criteria
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or
a detriment to nearby property will be created by the granting of this area variance?
Response 1: The proposed project will not produce an undesirable change to the
character of the neighborhood. A 416 square-foot addition proposed at the front of the
home will improve the appearance of the residence from the street. Site improvements
facing the lake include removing a deck that encroaches into the shoreline setback. The
deck will be replaced with a smaller deck that is more conforming to the shoreline
setback. An-on grade patio is proposed to replace the deck and will be broken up with
bluestone slabs with 3” spacing between the slabs to reduce hardscape near the
shoreline. The existing fire pit area is small, and will be expanded with approximately 123
square-feet of bluestone slabs with 3” spacing between. The spaces between the slabs
will be filled with either pea gravel or groundcover plantings. A rain garden is proposed to
attenuate stormwater created from the proposed impervious surfaces from the addition
and on-grade patios. Furthermore, the existing shoreline buffer will be bolstered with
additional native shoreline plantings that fully comply with the Town of Queensbury’s
shoreline buffer planting requirements in Article 179-8-040, Section B. Overall, the level
and intensity of use of lakeside amenities will also remain the same to existing uses.
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?
Response 2: The existing residence is already non-conforming in that it encroaches on
the 50’ shoreline setback. Thus, any proposed lakeside deck attached to the residence or
lakeside patio greater than 100 square-feet in size is immediately non-conforming and
requires a variance. Various configurations were explored to reduce encroachment into
the 50’ shoreline setback, while also allowing the owner to maintain the same level of
existing improvements. Porous pavers were considered in the design process; however,
infiltration practices have a 35’ setback requirement from the mean high water mark,
which would have made for a small and awkwardly shaped patio.
As it exists, the site’s permeability is 71.60%, which means any additional impervious area
would result in the site being non-conforming. The proposed project has been
redesigned to meet the existing site’s permeability, therefore, not proposing an increase
in impermeable coverage.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial?
The requested variances are not considered substantial. The parcel and structures are
already non-conforming, therefore, any proposed improvements will require variances
and review. Site permeability as it exists is approximately 71.60% , while 71.60%
permeability is being proposed. Several designs were explored to minimize the proposed
impervious surfaces, while also allowing the property owner to enjoy their lakefront.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?
Response 4: There will not be an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood. The surrounding neighborhood is
comprised of residential structures of similar sizes and aesthetics. There will actually be a
positive impact on the neighborhood or district. An additional 474 square feet of
impervious area is proposed in exchange for compliant shoreline buffer plantings and
stormwater practices where neither exist today.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created?
Response 5: The parcel does not meet the minimum lot size, minimum lot width,
minimum road frontage, minimum water frontage, nor the minimum site permeability
per the Town of Queensbury area requirements for the Waterfront Residential district.
Due to the existing non-conforming nature of the lot and existing residence, area
variances to for any proposed additional development on this lot are impossible to avoid.