Loading...
Minutes 8.18.21AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MIKE LEWIS AGENT(S) MIKE LEWIS OWNER(S) AMANDA BERNARD ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 11 TUTHILL ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 720 SQ. FT. OPEN PAVILION WITH ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE EXISTING 2,181 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME IS T O REMAIN; THE EXISTING 1,440 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT DETACHED GARAGE IS ALSO TO REMAIN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF AST 334-2021; PZ 253- 2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 5.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-8 SECTION 179-3-040; 179=5-020 MIKE LEWIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2021, Mike Lewis, Meeting Date: August 18, 2021, “Project Location: 11 Tuthill Road Description of Proposed: Applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. open pavilion with associated site work. The existing 2,181 sq. ft. (footprint) home is to remain; the existing 1,440 sq. ft. footprint detached garage is also to remain. Relief requested for setbacks and a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a proposed pavilion setbacks and as a second garage in the Rural Residential zone RR-5A. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-5-020 –garage The applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. open side pavilion to be located 34.8 ft. from the south property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. The relief is also requested to have two garages on the site –as the open pavilion by definition is considered a garage. 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 pavilion project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character. 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 considered to locate the pavilion to a more compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for second garage where only one garage is allowed. The relief for the setback is 40.2 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 requests to construct a 720 sq. ft. pavilion. The applicant intends to have a pool constructed to be associated with the pavilion. The plans show the location and the architect of the pavilion.” MR. LEWIS-Mike Lewis. I’m proposing a pavilion. There is a proposed pool, just to the end of it, and it’s in close proximity to the existing house where we would like to keep it. It’s classified as a garage because of spacing between the posts. It’s a conventional type pavilion, but it’s intended to be used as a place to entertain and such by the pool. MR. MC CABE-So it’s pretty straightforward. Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-It looked like there was a pool there. Isn’t there something there? I didn’t go way out there, but it looked like there were some like railings that. MR. LEWIS-Not to my knowledge. MR. KUHL-Will you have electric and water, refrigerator? MR. LEWIS-In the pavilion? I know there’ll be lights. There’ll be electric. There’ll have to be lights. They may put a fridge out there. We’re just building the pavilion. MR. HENKEL-You haven’t been up there yet. There’s definitely something there that looks like there’s a pool there now. MR. LEWIS-They’ve had all summer. MRS. MOORE-They may have a pool permit in. I don’t know. MR. HENKEL-Because I was there and it looks like there’s railings like a pool railing. MRS. MOORE-There may be a pool permit that’s been done. MR. LEWIS-That’s separate from me. Maybe they’re putting a pool in. Maybe they did over the course of the summer, when it stopped raining. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this. Is there anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to close the public hearing PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s pretty straightforward. I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It’s a pavilion. It’s not a second garage. So I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I’d like to see a little bit smaller pavilion. I think also you could, the setback, you could probably do a little better on that setback. So I would not be in favor as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I’d be in favor of it the way it’s proposed. I’m sorry, John, but I would be in favor of it the way it’s proposed. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of it as it is proposed. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. As I view it, this is a five acre lot, certainly large enough to justify a second garage which is basically what we’re okaying here, and there’s pretty good pitch to the property. So it’s not like putting it on a slant or anything like that. So I can understand where some relief would be required. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion, and I’m going to ask Brent to make said motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mike Lewis. Applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. open pavilion with associated site work. The existing 2,181 sq. ft. (footprint) home is to remain; the existing 1,440 sq. ft. footprint detached garage is also to remain. Relief requested for setbacks and a second garage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a proposed pavilion setbacks and as a second garage in the Rural Residential zone RR-5A. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-5-020 –garage The applicant proposes to construct a 720 sq. ft. open side pavilion to be located 34.8 ft. from the south property line where a 75 ft. setback is required. The relief is also requested to have two garages on the site –as the open pavilion by definition is considered a garage. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 18, 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. The proposed pavilion will be visually appealing. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They could move it to a more compliant area, but it’s a five acre lot and we don’t believe that’s a problem. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s 720 square feet and it is a five acre lot. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again, it appears to be visually appealing. Good pitch to the property. 5. The alleged difficulty certainly could be argued to be self-created, but for the aforementioned points that have been already made we don’t believe it’s a problem. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2021 MIKE LEWIS, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th Day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Henkel MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. LEWIS-Thank you.