Loading...
Minutes AV 57-2021 3.23.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST (MAIN HOUSE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER OWNER(S) BRETT & PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 106 BAY PARKWAY (REVISED 01//18/2022) APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMO EXISTING HOME PLUS SHED AND CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME WITH A 5,436 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A GARAGE. ALSO INCLUDED IS INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PATIO AREA AND A COVERED WALKWAY BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WILL BE 8.670 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES SITE WORK FOR NEW LANDSCAPING SHORELINE AND RESIDENTIAL HOUSE, SEPTIC, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AREA. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, STORMWATER DEVICE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORE, AND SECOND GARAGE PORT COCHERE. CROSS REF SP 51-2021; SEP 342-2021; PZ 210-2016 ; PZ 95-2016; PZ 89-2016; SP 37-2009; AV 47-2007; SP 39-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021, FEBRUARY 2022 (SETBACKS & STORMWATER DEVICE) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.91 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6- 065; 147 DENNIS MAC ELROY & GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-We’ve already listened to quite a bit about this case. The public hearing is closed. Do you guys want to make any statement before we poll the Board here? MR. MAC ELROY-Good evening. I’m Dennis MacElroy, here with Gavin Vuillaume from Environmental Design. I apologize Jon Lapper’s not able to be here and I wanted to thank the Board also for re-scheduling tonight those two items that were to be on the agenda. Both were Jon’s and he had intended to be here but as Laura indicated because of an illness he’s not able to be with us. I’m sort of filling in. Gavin will go through briefly what you’ve summarized in the past. Most of you were here last month. Because there wasn’t a full Board and we had, at that t ime, a three, three vote or polling, we provided some clarification to some stormwater information, re-submitted that to the Town’s designated engineer, and I think we’re in good shape in terms of the responses that we’ve made to Chazen and hopeful of moving forward but just to re-iterate or to summarize what has happened in the past, I’ll let Gavin cover it. MR. VUILLAUME-Great. Thanks, Dennis. MR. MC CABE-So you’ve got to state your name. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. Again, Gavin Vuillaume. I’m a principle landscape architect with Environmental Design Partnership. So yes just quickly go through the slides for any of the Board members who weren’t here at the last meeting. We made this full presentation at the last meeting. Nothing’s changed on the site planting. So if you wanted to start with, I have a number here. So the first one is just an introduction. The second one we don’t really need to see the project history. Obviously you know we’ve been here several times. We started off I believe back in September where we presented the project first to you folks, and we’re here obviously in March. So the first slide I guess we’d start with is the existing conditions, Slide Three. Okay. Right after that one there. Okay. So that’s one hopefully everybody can see. That’s just the existing conditions. This one’s a nice view of the two sites. Obviously we received the approvals for the south property, which we call the Guest House. This actual photo was taken many years ago when that house was still on the property. You can see from this slide that the existing building, not only the one that we’re talking about today, as well as the one to the south, were both beyond the 50 foot setback for the shoreline setback, as well as the shed, and you can’t see it in this view, but in the next one you’ll be able to see that the garages are also in the setback. So you can see right now that the existing conditions would be the extra buildings that are adjacent to the garage which is the group of structures in between the two main buildings. That also is in violation of the setback. The other, just go back to that other existing one real quick. Yes. So you can kind of see that the layout, once we get to the site planning portion of it, the new proposed layout, is very similar to what was originally built on this property. You’ve got the main structure. You’ve got a loop road, the garage. In this case is on the left side where on the proposed it would be on the right, and so the overall layout is somewhat similar. Obviously we’ve pulled a lot of the proposed structures away from the shoreline setback. So next one. Okay. You can skip that. MR. MAC ELROY-Just point out the amount of area within the setback. If you could go back, Laura. Right there. 1,757 square feet of area existing building within the setback area. It’s an important number. It reflects how much reduction has occurred. MR. VUILLAUME-Let’s go to the next one. So these are the different proposals, and you can kind of quickly go through these. We started off with the building at a certain distance from the shoreline, and at a certain size. That was back in September. The next one you can see how the building shifts in October. Next one, December we switched it and then February is our current one. So as Dennis has just pointed out, the original amount of area that was within the shoreline setback was 1700 square feet. Now (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2022) 2 we’re all the way down to 316 square feet, and that’s 72% less than what was there originally. So that is an important number as Dennis just pointed out. You can also see with this sketch here that we do now meet the 20% FAR requirement. We meet the permeability at 77.9 and what else. You can see that the setback especially has gone from, on the north side of the property from where we were at 19 feet now we’re at 46 feet. So that’s quite an improvement from what’s there today. On the other side of the main house we were at 29 and we’ve increased it to 35. So we’ve done, I think, a pretty diligent job of trying to get this building as far away from the lake as possible. Okay. This is, again, a rendering that we’ve prepared that’s superimposed on a photo. You can see the simulation here is meant to represent some of the existing trees and large vegetation that would be preserved as part of this project. This particular view is in the wintertime and certainly this is the worst case scenario. In the summer you’ll have a lot more leaves and vegetation that would screen the proposed structures. These are just some ideas that the architect had presented I think at the last meeting, just some concepts for the Adirondack Great Camp style which is what the owner really has intended for this project where the two buildings would be connected. Family members would be living in both residences and it really has the same kind of Adirondack character that you see on a lot of the older camps. This is just a perspective of the proposed house. Next one is that ’s the Guest House. So that’s just left over from the last meeting. MR. MAC ELROY-Laura, if you could go two back to show them the portico. That’s just one of the variances. The portico qualifies as a second garage. So again that’s one of the variances that’s being requested. MR. VUILLAUME-And we’ve had several revisions with the garage. This is the most recent one. Originally I think on our original proposals, we had a separated garage. Now we’ve combined it all into the one structure at that location. And then that’s just a representation of the existing garages that will be removed and the accessory structures. Stormwater. We’ve spent a lot of time with stormwater at the last, the previous discussions with the Board. We current ly have submitted our responses to the LaBella Engineering. We were hopeful to get some response today or this week. We haven’t received it yet, but we have adequately addressed all their concerns. Just to give you a quick overview, we’ve got several raingardens. This is the lighter green colors. Those are meant to be landscaped areas that would accept runoff from the roof drainage from the existing, from the proposed building. The darker shaded area would be grass depressions. We’ve got one along this edge, one down in this corner and these have been modified again. One thing that we want to try to do, and we’ve got some photos, if you’d like, we could show you. There’s a lot of existing vegetation along this property that we would be preserving as part of our stormwater management. So the same concepts that we used over here, as far as the grass depressions, the raingardens, we’ve also added other features such as permeable pavers to help adequately address stormwater management. The same features that were approved for this project are being presented and proposed on this one. Next one. This just shows you, again, some photos from the aerial photography that we had right from our drone and you can see some areas where the vegetation is lacking along the shore. Certainly we’re proposing new vegetation along this northern edge. This area here doesn’t have a lot of trees or shoreline vegetation so we would be adding shoreline vegetation here as well as the, I guess it would be the western edge along the property where the building is along the edge of the shore. We would be adding vegetation there as well. I think that might be the last one. Yes. So that’s pretty much it. MR. MAC ELROY-Several of those hit on site issues, but that was the Board responding to the variance requests. A number of those variances before you were related to stormwater management and as we tried to explain last week, I think some of those devices, the raingardens in particular that are immediately adjacent to the house as they capture runoff from the roofs, aren’t 100 feet from the shoreline. The Town’s standard currently is that 100 feet to certain stormwater devices and infiltration devices. The Lake George Park Commission who was the author of the original regulations, has seen fit to do an upgrading or modification of their stormwater regulations. They’ve changed that particular aspect of the regulations to be a 35 foot setback. The Town, I believe, will follow suit to upgrade their regulati ons to be compliant and consistent with the Park Commission. After all that was the reason in the first place the Park Commission 20 years ago, 25 years ago developed stormwater regulations so that there’d be a consistency around the basin. Nine towns, three counties, three villages, whatever that number is again, but all had different ways of going about it. So the Park Commission developed their regulations. The towns have the ability to choose to administer their own stormwater regulations. Queensbury did that. The Town of Lake George did that. The Town of Bolton did that. The Village of Lake George did that. The others allowed the Park Commission to be the administer of the stormwater permitting. So Queensbury, as they adopted the model ordinance, I happened to serve on the committee back then that would have reviewed the model ordinance and saw if it needed to be tweaked according to what the Town’s desires were. So those, that ordinance got adopted into Queensbury’s regulations. So again I believe that the Town will follow suit at some point in time. I’m kind of surprised it hasn’t happened already, because the Park Commission had their regulations, their ordinance updated in May I think it was, this past May. So that’s where we’re at a difference here between that the Town’s regulations currently are for setback distance and what the Park Commission accepted standards are at 35 feet. So that’s why you’ve got a number of different variance requests related to stormwater. So that kind of summarizes where we’re at and why it seems like there are a number of variances added to the picture, and I now that that was a concern by some that the number of variances, most of them are related to the stormwater devices and that’s, again, an (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2022) 3 inconsistency between what the Town’s regulations currently are and what the Park Commission’s regulations suggest it should be. MR. MC CABE-So that’s it? So at this particular time I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt you’ve come a long way starting in September, and I think as a Board we’ve done a good job of asking you to do various things here, and we’ve reduced quite a few of the variances and definitely have made the variances a lot less, the ones that are existing. So I definitely would be on board with this as is. I think they’re not asking for a lot. The second garage really is meaningless there. It’s just a covered area there. Mr. MacElroy explained the shoreline setbacks with the stormwater devices there and so I think it’s a good project now, actually better than the existing project that’s there, even though the square footage is a lot larger than what’s there. So I’m definitely on board. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I struggle with this because I mean, you know, we’ve eliminated some of the requests and I, too, agree, that the garage is no big deal to me at this point. I wish we could vote individually on each area variance. I might vote in favor of something and not on the infiltration systems, some of them, but as it stands I’m going to stick with my no. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think in looking at the changes that have been made and we’ve come a long way. I also don’t think we can anticipate what might change any more than we can consider what some people consider what should be the rule. So I’m going to change my vote from the last time I was polled and I’m going to in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-I like this project. It looks great from your presentation. You guys have made a lot of improvements since you guys started in September. I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Mr. Chairman, if I have a question, can I do that now? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. Thank you. The new vegetation that you reference along, I know it was the western edge and maybe the northern, Laura, could we just, thank you, you’re way ahead of me. Talk to me just a little bit more about that. I just want to understand the kind of plan and what. Thanks. MR. VUILLAUME-Sure. So there’s the certain plants that we would use that are native to the area. There is a lot of very well maintained vegetation now on the property. These happen to be areas, I believe, that potentially maybe he corrected at some point. I’m not sure why there’s not a lot of vegetation there, but for whatever reason we would be adding new, both trees and shrubs at those locations for sterilization of the shoreline. MR. MC DEVITT-Okay. All right, and I do agree with Roy relative to kind of where we’re at. We can’t really say where we’re going to be, but I do still believe that Mr. MacElroy’s point is well taken relative to the 35 feet as per the Park Commission and I believe that was May of last year you mentioned. So I absolutely agree with what my fellow Board member indicated and I would second that, but I do just find that to be an interesting tidbit there. So I like the project. I think it’s well thought out and I’ll be voting yes on this. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Even though it’s not before us tonight, I think the biggest concern that we should have with these projects up here, even though I agree with you. It’s well designed. It’s going to look nice. It’s going to fit in with the neighborhood, at the same time I think the big issue here before us is not so much the floor area ratio that you met at the present time, but it’s the footprint, and if you look at the size of what’s originally there with the garage and stuff like that, the big garage that you have in the back on the north side there, you know, is still a grandiose, giant building, and I think by increasing the footprint on this property where you have such limited availability for percolation of groundwater and stuff like that, you don’t have the ability to put septic on this site. I think that we still should be concerned with the fact that, you know, you’re creating this giant building envelope that’s going to be much greater than what the average is in the neighborhood up there, and I think when you go before the Adirondack Park Agency they’re going to strictly look at this, too. If you recall the last time when you were going to re -do (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/23/2022) 4 the house and it had a second story on it, they didn’t pass you that one there. I don’t really have a concern with the port cochre and your covered walkway over to the other house because I think the driveway’s already impermeable to begin with. I don’t think that’s an issue, but I think yo ur garage in the back, combining that all together into another giant structure is not going to be a plus for the lake. I think it’s a negative and I don’t think it’s going to be in the interest of the long term health of the Lake George basin. So I’m going to vote no. Sorry. MR. MC CABE-And so I’m impressed with the changes that the applicant has gone through. He’s definitely been willing to work with us to minimize the variances required. I think that we’re going to end up with a beautiful building here, and so I’m going to support the project. So at this particular time I’m going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett & Pamela West. (Revised 1/18/2022) Applicant proposes to demo existing home plus shed and construct a new home with a 5,436 sq. ft. footprint with a garage. Also included is installation of permeable patio area and a covered walkway between the two properties. The new floor area will be 8,670 sq. ft. The project includes site work for new landscaping shoreline and residential house, septic, stormwater management, an d permeable driveway area. Project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shore, and second garage port cochere. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home needing relief for setbacks, second garage and stormwater device setback to the shoreline. Project is in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR. Parcel is 0.91 acres. The additional variance noted for the shoreline setback for the infiltration device. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garages, Chapter 147 Revised February 2022. The new home is to be located 46 ft. to the east shoreline, 35 ft. to the west shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The covered walkway is to be 0 ft. from the west side setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. The project proposes two garages where only one is allowed – the porte-cochere is considered a garage due to width of open sides allowing vehicles. Relief is also requested for setbacks for infiltration device – there are 7 proposed -35 ft., 64 ft., 39 ft., 41 ft., 92 ft., 58 ft., 66 ft. where 100 ft. is required. Note: Permeability 77.9% is proposed where 75% is required- no permeability relief is requested. The floor area proposed is 8,670 sq. ft. where 8,687 sq. ft. is the maximum size allowed – no floor area relief is requested. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 29, 2021, October 27, 2021, December 15, 2021, & 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 we feel that the resulting structure from this project will be a beautiful addition to the particular area. 2. Feasible alternatives have certainly been considered and we’ve ended up with a compromise which the Board feels is reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The variances under consideration are really quite minor. It would appear like the second garage is the largest but that is necessary for the character of the structure to maintain the feeling of the Adirondack great camps. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We feel that going from no control of runoff to what we feel is very good control of runoff is going to substantially improve the economic impact of this particular property. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created because the new project. 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 03/23/2022) 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. 57-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brady Stark: Duly adopted this 23rd Day of March 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Stark, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. VUILLAUME-Thank you very much.