Loading...
Meeting Minutes 1.26.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2022 SEQRA TYPE II PATRICK M. CONNORS AGENT(S) DANIEL W. RYAN, P.E. OWNER(S) PATRICK M. CONNORS ZONING WR LOCATION 95 ROCKHURST RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING DECK OF 644 SQ. FT. TO CONSTRUCT A 644 SQ. FT. DECK IN THE SAME LOCATION. THE DECK IS ATTACHED TO THE EXISTING HOUSE AND HAS A PATIO AREA UNDERNEATH. THE STEPS FROM THE DECK TO THE LOWER PATIO AREA ARE TO BE IN THE SAME PLACE. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,890 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT MINUS THE DECK. THERE IS ADDITIONAL WORK ON THE BOAT HOUSE STRUCTURE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 2-2022; AST 725-2021; AST 876-2021; AV 1454-20953; SP 61-88 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.9-1-1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010; 179-4-080 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; PATRICK CONNORS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 3-2022, Patrick M. Connors, Meeting Date: January 26, 2022 “Project Location: 95 Rockhurst Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing deck of 644 sq. ft. to construct a 644 sq. ft. deck in the same location. The deck is attached to the existing house and has a patio area underneath. The steps from the deck to the lower patio area are to be in the same place. The existing home is 1,890 sq. ft. footprint minus the deck. There is additional work on the boat house structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck addition. The parcel is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.25 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-4-080 decks, 179-13-010 expansion The deck is to be 40.94 ft. from the shoreline and 8.39 ft. from the side property line. The shoreline setback requirement is 50 ft. and the side setback requirement is 20 ft. 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 limited due to the existing house location and the previous deck. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal to moderate. The relief requested is 9.1 ft. to the shoreline, 11.61 ft. to the North property line. 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is to remove an existing deck to construct a new deck of 644 sq. ft. The applicant has provided site photos showing the existing deck to be removed and the site plans show the location of the new deck.” MR. RYAN-Dan Ryan, the project engineer. I’m here with Patrick Connors, the applicant. I’ll give you a brief overview of the project and I’d be happy to answer any questions. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. RYAN-Basically we have an existing 644 square foot deck. It’s elevated. So there’s a walkout basement underneath it with a large patio slab and the deck is elevated off the rear or lakeside of the house. The deck’s in dire need of repair. There’s parts of the deck that have settled several inches. So the deck is actually sloping and there’s quite a few members that need to be replaced due to deterioration over the (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) 2 years. It’s over 20 years old I believe at this point. The disrepair is to the point where the deck cannot be classified as a repair. Basically it has to be entirely disassembled so that the rim joist and some settled piers can be replaced. So it really makes no sense to do parts of it rather than the entirety of the deck structure. So the game plan really is to remove the existing deck and then re-build it in its exact same configuration. Basically no changes, other than maybe the style of the handrail and types of materials used and to replace a couple of sonotube piers that have settled substantially and we want to get those corrected, and other than that there is no other site work proposed or no other project changes really. The stair configuration will remain the same as will the deck dimensions. Because of the fact that the deck is being removed in its entirety, the Town Code classifies this as new construction. Thus we’re here for variances for basically the existing conditions. Patrick, do you want to say anything quickly? MR. CONNORS-No, other than to say I bought the house from Roger Howard in 2011. I think the deck might be from the 1990’s. As Dan said it needs to be replaced. MR. MC CABE-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. CONNORS-I would say, too, there’s a beautiful tree that’s there that the deck is built around and we’re going to obviously preserve that. I think we have to preserve that. Roger told me that he wanted to tear that tree down. So we’re going to keep the tree. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Are you doing, since you’re doing this any additional landscaping? MR. RYAN-There’s no land disturbance proposed, other than removing a couple of piers and replacing them with pre-cast piers. So there wasn’t any additional site work intended. So there would be no removal of any existing vegetation. So there wasn’t any proposal to replace anything. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’ve got a question. Obviously you’ve probably checked that concrete that’s been there for a long period of time that’s going to be all right when you start removing the existing deck and obviously building a new deck over it. There’s not going to be any problem with that? MR. RYAN-Yes, it’s like over 12 inches thick. It’s a pretty massive concrete pad. So there a couple of piers that are off the pad, just off the edge of it, and those are the ones getting replaced. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So that would be the only reason I’d have a problem with it is if that had to be removed then I would want that deck to be smaller, but I’m okay with the deck the way it is, as long as that concrete pad is okay. MR. RYAN-We looked into that and the posts do sit right on that pad. MR. HENKEL-Fair enough. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised on this particular project. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project. Go ahead, Chris. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’re not opposed to the project that is requesting a variance, but we feel that the re-development and re- construction is an opportunity to bring properties that may not have the water quality protection measures by the Town’s regulations, implement those, such as stormwater or the landscape shoreline buffering. So we feel that there is the ability to impose conditions on that, and not alter the intention of what the project is or their, you know, overbearance. So we feel that to what extent non=structural practices can be put in, like a rain garden or stormwater planters that would be best for the lake. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So could I ask Staff, would that be better taken care of by the Planning Board? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-We would have to make a recommendation, wouldn’t we? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) 3 MRS. MOORE-You already received a recommendation from the Planning Board, but typically that is handled by the Planning Board. There’s a count that comes about when evaluating that project, but if you include in there that additional plantings should be included, directed at the Planning Board, you could potentially do that, but really it’s taken up by the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-So if you guys want to come back. Do you have any comment as to? MR. URRICO-I have another letter. I have a letter to read in. MR. MC CABE-We better get that in quick, then. MR. URRICO-And also I didn’t read this earlier, but 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 was passed unanimously on January 18th, 2022, and then the letter they have says, “I am writing in support of the project proposed by the Connors. Rebuilding an existing deck structure on its current footprint due to a need for improved structural integrity should be deemed as “maintenance” and I hope that the Boards will agree. Since moving to Rockhurst, the Connors have been diligent about keeping their property maintained and this necessary rebuild will keep their home both safe an attractive. Thank you for your consideration. Steve and Debby Seaboyer, 83 Rockhurst Rd.” Okay. I’m done. MR. RYAN-Okay. In response, obviously there’s always a benefit if the project proposes site work to do additional site work to increase water quality. Here I would say we have a patio made of concrete. They don’t salt it. There’s really no reason to try to improve water quality. It’s rain discharging directly to a lawn that’s 40 feet of well-established grass before it hits water. Creating land disturbance for no reason doesn’t seem to me as protecting the lake. I think the preference would be to ma intain as much of the existing site and vegetation as possible from the project as opposed to disturbing more land. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-And you did say the piers there are going to stay on the cement. MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. HENKEL-They’re not going to be re-located to the grass. MR. RYAN-No change. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Just the other piers are going to be the ones. MR. RYAN-A couple along the side. MR. HENKEL-On the north side. Okay. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-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 Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. It’s a simple replacement, and I would make a recommendation, though, that on your front line there you probably could, I don’t know how much runoff you’ll accumulate from this, probably minimal anyway. MR. RYAN-Yes, I mean a typical storm is a couple of inches of rain. Obviously we design for the 100 year storm, five inches of rain over 10 feet. So it’s not a ton of water. Again, it’s over a 24 hour period. So it’s pretty minimal. MR. UNDERWOOD-The slope is at least 40 feet away. I mean, that’s a consideration of the property owner to maybe add a little bit of vegetation, a couple of plants or some flowers, a flower bed halfway down or something like that. I don’t think it would hinder you mowing your grass. MR. RYAN-There are a couple of walls that stage their way down to the water line. So it is already broken up and fragmented to kind of trap water and allow some time for it to infiltrate before it does get to the lakefront. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) 4 MR. UNDERWOOD-I think in general it would be nice on Rockhurst if people put a couple of smaller bushes or trees that you can clip the tops off so you don’t impede their view. MR. RYAN-And I think you can tell by all the photos now, there hasn’t been any issues with erosion. He does have quite a bit of forested area along the south side of the house as well that’s always remained as well. It’s pretty well landscaped and the grass is well established, but point taken for sure in terms of maybe his future planning. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I respect Chris Navitsky’s concerns, but I think we’re just replacing something that needs to be replaced, and I’d be in favor of it as it is. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Well I specifically did ask the question about landscaping because you’re keeping your permeability the same, but there is some room for improvement there. You aren’t actually up to Code on that. It is 70, right? MR. RYAN-Seventy percent. MRS. HAMLIN-And 75 is required. So that’s the only thing. I agree with what Jim said. I mean it’s good to stabilize soil when it’s disturbed, silt fence and whatever. A little additional landscaping wouldn’t be a problem for me, but on the other hand it is an in kind replacement and that’s just my suggestion and it would be nice if the Planning Board could take that up. If I don’t have the votes, I don’t. MR. MC CABE-So are you saying that you support the project? MRS. HAMLIN-I support the project. I’d love to see a condition on maybe adding some landscaping to help with the permeability, but if nobody else is in favor of it, I’ll still be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I support the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-Yes, I’m in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think our main consideration is we have a deck that’s in tough shape and needs to be replaced and I think that really should be the first consideration here. So I support the project. So it looks like you’ve got some good numbers here. So I’m going to ask, Brent, would you make a motion here. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Patrick M. Connors. Applicant proposes to remove an existing deck of 644 sq. ft. to construct a 644 sq. ft. deck in the same location. The deck is attached to the existing house and has a patio area underneath. The steps from the deck to the lower patio area are to be in the same place. The existing home is 1,890 sq. ft. footprint minus the deck. There is additional work on the boat house structure. Relief is requested f or setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck addition. The parcel is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.25 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-4-080 decks The deck is to be 40.94 ft. from the shoreline and 8.39 ft. from the side property line. The shoreline setback requirement is 50 ft. and the side setback requirement is 20 ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 19, 2022 & Wednesday, January 26, 2022. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/26/2022) 5 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. As discussed we’re talking about some handrails and some piers. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are limited due to existing house location and the previous deck. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. If anything it’s minimal to moderate. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It, again, will have a minimal impact at best. It appears to be an improvement with the railings and the piers and bringing a property back that just needs a little bit of work to it. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered 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; 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. 3-2022 PATRICK M. CONNORS, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. RYAN-Thank you.