Loading...
Meeting Minutes(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEPHEN HARADEN AGENT(S) DEAN HOWLAND & JON LAPPER OWNER(S) STEPHEN HARADEN ZONING WR LOCATION 334 CLEVERDALE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING HOME AND OUTBUILDINGS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3 BEDROOM HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,052 SQ. FT. AND 222 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK. THE PROPOSED FLOOR AREA IS 4,312 SQ. FT. SITE WORK INCLUDES PERMEABLE PAVERS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FAR IN CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FAR. CROSS REF SP 11-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.36 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-74 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER & DEAN HOWLAND, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2021, Stephen Haraden, Meeting Date: March 17, 2021 “Project Location: 334 Cleverdale Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing home and outbuildings to construct a new 3 bedroom home with a footprint of 2,052 sq. ft. and 222 sq. ft. porch/deck. The proposed floor area is 4,312 sq. ft. Site work includes permeable pavers, stormwater management, and shoreline plantings. Project subject to site plan for new FAR in CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and FAR. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area ratio in the Waterfront Zone –WR. Section 179-3-040-dimensional The new home is to be located 16.3 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for floor area where 4,313 sq. ft. is proposed and 3362.7 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. 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. The new home is set further back from the shoreline than the original home. 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 possible to reduce the floor area; this may minimize the setback relief. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief for the home side setback is 3.7 ft. Floor area relief is 950.7 sq. ft. in excess. 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. The project includes installation of a new septic system. 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 and to complete associated site work. The site work includes the new septic system, permeable paver driveway, rain gardens, and a shoreline -planting plan. The plans show the elevations and floor plans of the new home.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board passed a motion that based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed seven zero on March 16, 2021. MR. MC CABE-So it looks like we have the same team presenting this project. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 2 MR. LAPPER-Yes, you do, Mike. For the record, Jon Lapper and Dean Howland. I’ll get started and then hand it over to Dean. This is a very different application from the last one, and I want to remind everybody about the Bill Bosy application that you handled in the fall because that was on Assembly Point and we wanted to maintain the existing setback in that one, and here we’re doing the opposite. The existing house is 22 feet from the lake where most people that buy a house on the lake ant to take advantage of that because you certainly can’t do that anymore, and here the applicant realized that the right thing to do was just move the house back to 50 feet. In this case it’s 53. So everything that’s there could have been maintained and somebody else might have come back and asked for a variance to go back away from the lake and make it bigger, but here the house is being completely demolished and the lake setback, which of course is the most important, is going to be complied with. So, you know, not what your typical applicant would ask for. The north side setback is essentially what it is now, but Dean was able to make it slightly better, and the only reason, so that the main variance here of course is floor area ratio, and we’re asking for approximately 28% which is obviously a bunch more than 22, but not what some people have asked for, and Dean will go into some detail explaining this, but it’s really because once they’re building the basement they’d like to have a rec room, and that’s what, we eliminated the rec room, it wouldn’t change anything visually upstairs when you drive by or when you look from the lake. It’s just what’s underground that you can’t see, and that’s really what accounts for the additional floor area here, but it’s, as Roy read, new septic, new stormwater, a lot of plantings. They’re trying to do everything right with a brand new development and of course most importantly move this away from the lake. So that’s the big picture and I’ll let Dean talk about the details. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. Well as you know when you design a house in the Town of Queensbury you can’t be any higher than basically 27 feet 4 inches from existing grade. That gives you the 28 feet. So we’ve designed, the shape of the house is designed to meet that and still give it a somewhat Adirondack appearance. The garage, I found out over the years that if you don’t have 36 feet from the garage door to the back of your permeable pavers, you’re going to have to do a three point turn. I mean you can’t get away from it. So that’s how we ended up being 1.2 inches better on the north setback than exists. I think it’s a nice looking house. I like it. The owner likes it, and to build this type of house, the foundation wouldn’t change whether we had a room downstairs or not. It’s just the lay of the land. I’ve got to tell you, you have to do the concrete the same way. One thing that’s besides the retention ponds that we have, and this one if you read the plans, all the eaves are guttered with copper gutters, and everything goes to underneath the front porch and the front deck. What I’ve done over the years is we backfill with a lot of extra crushed stone and we run, besides our perimeter drain, we come up three or four feet and you’ve got a second drain and a gutter. I’ve done this for so long because there’s no maintenance and the customer doesn’t have to think about it . I mean we to put leaf screens on and all that, but that’s fairly normal. So not only are we picking up water and the rain, we picked up every bit of the house water even though nobody considers that a stormwater management. I do, but any water to my neighbor and I don’t put any water to the lake. I’ve always done it this way. I’ve been doing this system since 1985 and I love it because there’s no maintenance for the owner. Other than that I can answer any other questions that you have. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? So no questions, so a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody out there who has input on this particular project or see if there’s any written information on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-So we have Chris Navitsky. He did write a comment and I believe he’s going to speak as well. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Chris, are you there? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Yes. Thanks. Back again, everyone. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We just feel that the FAR variance is substantial, and, again, we think that it fails to meet the balance for this property located in the CEA. As you know the FAR calculation is really an important planning tool to balance the site with the proposed structure with the land that’s available to mitigate the potential impacts from that and to really put it in character with the size of the other buildings in the community. It’s our opinion the proposed project could be more compliant and provide additional benefits, such as stormwater management and create a compliant permeability coverage. I understand Dean’s comment on the stormwater. However what was sized on the project is much less than what would be required to manage the whole building. So we do feel the variance would produce a change in character. The building will exceed the allowable FAR by 28% which can be considered substantial and can be excessive on the property we feel that to mitigate the adverse environmental impacts. We recognize that there are the two small raingardens, but that doesn’t balance the request for the exceedance in the allowable FAR. We recognize that there’s a shoreline buffer proposed, but the project, the majority of the mature vegetation that’s on the site will be removed or has been removed already which provides important water quality benefits through interception uptake and evapotranspiration. So we think the application could better (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 3 balance with additional stormwater management and some more mature vegetation and replace what would be proposed.. That existing vegetation is or was to the north of that house. So we just feel that that would balance out and if there was a reduction in the Floor Area Ratio. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So, again, at this point, there’s no one raising their hand, and if folks in the attendees, if they wish to speak on this application, for the Haraden application, if you’d simply raise your hand. There’s a function on the tool bar that will allow you to raise your hand or ask a question or in chat. At the moment I don’t see anybody. So I’m going to read this public comment in. “We live at 336 Cleverdale Road, property adjacent to Stephen Haraden. We have no objection to replacing his old house with a new residence as proposed which includes trees planted as per our agreement with Mr. Haraden and indicated on the project plan. Karen Azer Helene Horn” MR. MC CABE-So that’s it? MRS. MOORE-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Howland, would you like to address? MR. HOWLAND-Yes, I e-mailed back and forth today with Chris. As of yet there’s no trees that have been removed that I know of, but there will be a big maple tree in the back because that’s where the septic system has to go, but I think what they’re missing here is that there’ll be no water from that house, that roof that’s going to go anywhere but in the ground and be stored. It just doesn’t happen. The runoff that you’re going to have, the reason for that, one, there’s again, at the top of the driveway before you go down just to catch any water that might, again, one of those 50 year storms we get a couple every year, and the rainwater is just the water that’s going to fall on the lawn that’s going to go down there. So, to me, I think when I mention about the gutters and my son builds a house he does it the same way. We collect everything and again we’ve been doing it for years. We know how it works. We recognize the fact that that is stormwater and it is. We’re doing exactly what you’re supposed to do. MR. HENKEL-Mike, I was there on Monday and there was a tree service company there trimming trees to the north and it looked like they were doing some removal on Monday. MR. HOWLAND-I have no idea. I haven’t been by it since. MR. HENKEL-I was there on Monday. There was a tree service there. They were removing stuff to the north. MR. HOWLAND-Okay. MR. LAPPER-This is Jon. I’d also like to point out that this site is directly across the street from the Sans lower parking lot. So just in terms of the character of the neighborhood, that’s the parking lot where people park two deep to be able to accommodate them. I’m guilty as charged for dong that as well, but just in terms of the Floor Area Ratio, we, as Dean explained, it’s really in the basement. It’s not going to be any impact on the character, with what’s there with the commercial use across the street. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing and I’m going to poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’ve looked at this a couple of ways, but I am in favor of the project. One variable that’s important to me is that lake setback is being complied with, in addition the new septic and stormwater. So I am in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Brent. I’m in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. It looks nice on paper there’s no doubt. They would have to do new stormwater management and septic work if they were building a new house anyway. The FAR variance is a little bit steep for me, but I guess I could live with it. So I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 4 MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with John.. My concern was the Floor Area Ratio, but I’m impressed with the improved setbacks, especially from the lake, so as far as the balancing test, I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Question again, I’m sorry, but this will go before the Planning Board, correct? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-And they will address stormwater. Okay. So my only hesitation really was also the FAR, but in light of the fact that we’re fixing that setback from the shoreline and everything else, I think it’s reasonable provided the Planning Board takes a hard look at stormwater. It sounds like they’re proposing. So I’d be in favor as it is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we should be concerned with the Floor Area Ratio, but I think that they explained the fact that the cellar is what’s triggering the extra 1,000 square feet of relief that’s necessary here. So I think the improvements to the lot, you know, with moving it further back from the lake is an improvement, the new septic and everything else. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think the applicant has done a very nice job re-siting the house on this particular property and I think what we gain far outweighs what we give up. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Michelle if she can make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen Haraden. Applicant proposes to remove existing home and outbuildings to construct a new 3 bedroom home with a footprint of 2,052 sq. ft. and 222 sq. ft. porch/deck. The proposed floor area is 4,312 sq. ft. Site work includes permeable pavers, stormwater management, and shoreline plantings. Project subject to site plan for new FAR in CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and FAR. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area ratio in the Waterfront Zone –WR. Section 179-3-040-dimensional The new home is to be located 16.3 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for floor area where 4,313 sq. ft. is proposed and 3,362.7 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 17, 2021. 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. Per our deliberations it’s been discovered that the home is going to be located in a compliant location away from the lake and the other setbacks are either going to be improved or remain the same. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as again deliberated tonight. Improvements were made overall except for the floor area ratio which we have decided is amenable. 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. 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; (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/17/2021) 5 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2021 STEPHEN HARADEN, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 17th Day of March 2021 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So I do have something for discussion on this. I would just include information about the actual setback and I can’t remember what property line it is, but there is a setback issue f or the side. MR. HENKEL-The north side. MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, it’s 3.7 feet of relief is it? MRS. MOORE-I’m not sure if it’s the north side. It may be the south side. I know that I made an error in one part of it. It is the north side? Okay. So it is. I just want to make sure you include that as part of your noted relief. I know you mentioned the Floor Area but I didn’t hear anything about the setback. MRS. HAYWARD-Well I mentioned in the motion that the home is to be located 16.3 feet from the north property line where a 20 foot setback is required. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That’s fine. I just heard more discussion about the Floor Area. Sorry. MRS. HAYWARD-I believe I read that in and also about the Floor Area Ratio. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So you have a project. MR. LAPPER-Thank you, everyone. MR. HOWLAND-Thank you.