Loading...
Minutes AV 7-2022 (Stefanzick) 2.16.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 7-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK OWNER(S) FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK ZONING WR LOCATION 43 HANNEFORD ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 233 SQ. FT. SECOND STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1,434 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SITE; ALL WORK ALTERATIONS ARE INTERIOR. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 3,337 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 3,570 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION. CROSS REF SP 7-2022; PZ(AV) 13-2015; PZ(SP) 16-2015; AV 69-2014; SP 61-2014; AV 27-1994 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.4 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.6-1-11 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010; 179-6- 065 FRITZ STEFANZICK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 7-2022, Fritz & Mary Stefanzick, Meeting Date: February 16, 2022 “Project Location: 43 Hanneford Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 233 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 1,434 sq. ft. (footprint) home. There are no changes to the site; all work alterations are interior. The existing floor area is 3,337 sq. ft. and the new floor area is 3,570 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure for construction of a second story addition. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 9,138 sq. ft. parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-13-010 expansion The addition is to be located 16 ft. from the south property line where a 30 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. 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 as the existing home is currently nonconforming. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the new construction setback is 14 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 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 applicant proposes a 233 sq. ft. addition for an office area over the existing sun room. There are no site changes proposed. The plans show the exterior elevations with the changes and the interior changes to the home.” MR. URRICO-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 six zero on February 15th 2022. MR. STEFANZICK-My name’s Fritz Stefanzick and I’m the owner of 43 Hanneford Road. I a ppreciate your time. I wanted to show my current house, which it’s in the packet. MRS. MOORE-I think it’s on this one. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022) 2 MR. STEFANZICK-So this is a view of the existing house. We’re now up on top of it. On the bottom is what I’m proposing. It’s basically a dormer room being added to the lower level, what we used to call the sunroom. This is the view facing the north. So the addition is 233 square feet. That’s a little bit less than seven percent of floor area. It’s still 455 square feet below the allowable for this site. All the work is being done interior to the footprint, also below the existing height of the house. All of this was approved about five years ago when I had the house re-built. It got approved and the CO was issued back in March of 2017. So basically building this addition within the existing footprint within the existing height. So beyond the floor area, this house also is a non-conforming structure in that the south side of the house is five feet away from the property line. It’s been like that probably since the beginning. So the requirement is 30 feet. The addition, which, once again, is being done on the north side, the closest the addition is to that south boundary is going to be 16 feet. So the request is for a variance to the south side of 16 feet versus the 30. The setbacks on the north, east, west and the shoreline are all within the allowable. Also as I mentioned since everything is being done internal to the footprint, there’s not going to be any change or disturbance to the property or the surrounding area. So no changes in the grading, topography, and also there’s a significant amount of green infrastructure that I put in place over the last four to five years, professionally done, around the entire property, to manage any type of stormwater or erosion, anything that comes off of Hanneford Road to the back property, but none of that is going to be disturbed. This project isn’t going to change anything. MR. MC CABE-Actually it’s going to improve it because of the dormer, you’ll spread it out a little bit more. MR. STEFANZICK-Exactly. The area where the rain is going to come down isn’t going to change, but it is going to be diverted. As part of the infrastructure that I put around the pe rimeter of the house is gravel that’s contained by Elgin blocks. So when the water does come off it usually falls right into that area, then it seeps out and it trickles off to the evergreen gardens and the shrub gardens that I have around there. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-By home office, is it for a professional? MR. STEFANZICK-No. It’s going to be probably for my wife. She’s going to be working 100% remotely. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. STEFANZICK-So it’s going to be personal use. MRS. HAMLIN-I know it said in here you’re not having clients coming or anything like that. MR. STEFANZICK-No. It’s only for one person. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. 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 seek input from our vast audience. Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-Yes. “Regarding the subject upgrade being proposed by Mr. Stefanzick, I am the neighbor directly across from their property. I fully support Mr. Stefanzick’s proposed plans and believe that it will continue to provide a positive impact to the neighborhood as he has displayed in all of the upgrades he has made in the past 10 years. Sincerely, Harold Smith 44 Hanneford Road” “As the owner of the property directly across, and northeast, of the Stefanzick home, I offer my full support for their proposed upgrade plans. In the past 10+ years that the Stefanzicks have lived here, they have significantly enhanced their property and have made a positive impact on the overall appearance and character of our community. All of their past improvements have been made with consideration to both the surrounding environment and neighbors. I believe that their future upgrade plans will further enhance and add to the overall desirability of our community. Sincerely, James Valastro 48 Hanneford Road” 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 John. MR. HENKEL-He’s not changing the footprint. He’s just going up and he’s within the FAR variance and he’s got support of the neighbors. So it’s a great project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022) 3 MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, it’s quite minimal. I’ll vote in favor of the variance. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It only requires setback. So I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. What’s being asked for is minimal, and I think you’ve done a real nice job with the property and this’ll, I think, further enhance it. So with this in mind, I’m going to ask Jim to make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Fritz & Mary Stefanzick. Applicant proposes a 233 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 1,434 sq. ft. (footprint) home. There are no changes to the site; all work alterations are interior. The existing floor area is 3,337 sq. ft. and the new floor area is 3,570 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure for construction of a second story addition. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 18,295 sq. ft. parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-13-010 expansion The addition is to be located 16 ft. from the south property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 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 all the construction will take place internally on the footprint. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. There really are no feasible alternatives. It’s a straightforward project as far as we’re concerned. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the setbacks requested for relief already exist on the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We see none. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created just by the fact of where the house is located on the waterfront. 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. 7-2022 FRITZ & MARY STEFANZICK, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th Day of February 2022 by the following vote: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022) 4 AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. STEFANZICK-I appreciate your support.