Loading...
Minutes AV 20-2022 (Carlson) 5.18.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ERIC CARLSON AGENT(S) CHRIS KEIL (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER) OWNER(S) ERIC CARLSON ZONING WR LOCATION 67 BRAYTON LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 3-BEDROOM HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 2,381 SQ. FT. WHICH INCLUDES PORCHES/DECK AREAS AND LIVING SPACE OF DETACHED BUILDING. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A DETACHED GARAGE WITH AN 873 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE NEW FLOOR AREA OF 6,194 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, ALTERATION OF SHARED DRIVEWAY AND PARKING ARRANGEMENT, GRADING, AND EROSION CONTROL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD-SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF SHORELINE, NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, DRIVEWAY GREATER THAN 10%, AND FRESHWATER WETLAND WORK WITHIN 100 FT. OF THE WETLAND. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT OF GARAGE, AND STORMWATER DEVICE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORELINE. CROSS REF SEP 241-2019., SP 26-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.25 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12- 2-84 SECTION 179-3-040; 147 CHAPTER 94; 179-5-020 JOE DANNIBLE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 20-2022, Eric Carlson, Meeting Date: May 18, 2022 “Project Location; 67 Brayton Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home with a footprint of 2,381 sq. ft. which includes porches/deck areas and living space of detached building. The project includes a detached garage with an 873 sq. ft. footprint. The new floor area of 6,194 sq. ft. The project includes new stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement, grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard-surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, new structure within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, driveway greater than 10%, and Freshwater wetland work within 100 ft. of the wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, height of garage, and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shoreline. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, height of garage, and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shoreline in regard to construction of a new home and detached building. The parcel is 1.25 ac and in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Chapter 147 stormwater device The construction of the detached building with garage and living space is to be located 5 ft. from the property line where a 25 ft. setback is required. The detached building is to be 30 ft. 7 inches where accessory buildings are limited to 16 ft. in height. The stormwater device is to be 49 ft. where 100 ft. setbac k 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the home is moved further from the back and detached building is in similar location as previous. 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 limited due to the lot shape, proximity to wetland, and shared access by adjoining properties. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the setback is 20 ft., height is 15 feet 5 inches and stormwater device location is 51 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: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022) 2 The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The plans show the location of the new home with covered porch areas and a separate building with a garage. The separate building will include a two car garage, changing room area and storage.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board met and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion was adopted May 17th, 2022 by a unanimous vote. MR. DANNIBLE-Good evening. I’m Joe Dannible with Environmental Design Partnership. I’m here on behalf of Eric Carlson. They’re asking for the restoration and renovation of the existing site. As stated in the record, the applicant is looking to demolish and existing home and detached garage and construct a new single family home with associated garage. There are several variances requested at this time. One I’d like to start with the side yard setback variance. The existing accessory structure or garage on the property, attached garage, is located about six feet from the adjacent property line and that building is approximately 22 feet tall. What we are proposing is a structure that is going to be five feet away from the property line, again, only one foot difference than what currently exists today, and a structure that is going to be 27 feet, 9 inches on the lakeside of the property and 23 feet zero inches on the non -lake side of the property where the actual garage is itself. Important note of reference here as it relates to the character of the adjacent area. On the adjacent lot, immediately adjacent to our garage area, is a detached building on the adjacent lot. That building is less than two feet from the property line. If you include the eaves it’s probably about one foot from the property line, and is also in the height range of about 20 feet as well. SO as you look at the character, we don’t believe the variance we are looking for is substantial. Certainly not a substantial change from what the current condition is on this site, and with respect to the adjacent building on that property. Second variance, or, sorry, that was the side yard setback. The height variance we are looking for, the accessory structure, as has been determined, has a height of 27 feet 9 inches on the lakeside, 23 feet on the non-lake side. Sixteen feet is required for an accessory structure. Something I’d like to point out with that structure is this detached, I’ll say quote unquote detached garage, is actually attached to the main building by a foundation and as well by roof. So it essentially is a single family house with an attached garage. However, there are no walls on the breezeway that connects the two units. If this was considered a single family house with an attached garage, it would fall within the Town’s requirements of 28 foot maximum. Because it has been determined to be an accessory structure because it is a garage, or I’ll say a portion of the building has been determined to be an accessory structure with a garage, the other has been determined to be attached to the building. The actual structure garage portion of this building is only 23 feet, which is much less variance, considering 16 to 23 versus 16 to 27. So again for all intents and purposes this is really a single family structure with an attached garage but due to a determination, it is determined to be a separate structure and therefore that’s why we need the variance. That’s also not substantial in our opinion. Last variance is related to the stormwater infiltration devices. One hundred feet required. Our infiltration device as proposed would be about 43 feet. So we do need a variance for that as well. I think that variance is very common with development that occurs along the lakeshore, treating any flow that comes off the roofs, things of that nature. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-It’s the rain garden that’s in question here? MR. DANNIBLE-It is on the eastern property line. MRS. HAMLIN-I know where it is. I see it, but I’m wondering which device are we talking about? MR. DANNIBLE-Shallow grass depression. MRS. HAMLIN-’Okay. All right. The vegetated grass depression? MR. DANNIBLE-Correct. . 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 has comment on this particular project. Ma’am? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PAMELA LESTER GOLDE MRS. GOLDE-My name is Pamela Lester Golde. I am a registered landscape architect as Pamela Lester, and I happen to be a resident of Assembly Point. This is kind of a chicken or the egg syndrome and particularly their stormwater. The Town Engineer has, we think, has reviewed this, but there’s been no discussion between the applicant’s engineer and the Town Engineer, and in regards to the variances for the stormwater setbacks, it’s questionable as to whether or not they can truly function as they are. The (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022) 3 one on the left hand side happens to have a nine foot retaining wall holding it back with a roof going down onto a relatively flat lawn, with vegetation in it that can’t survive that much water for them to sit in, and they then have an outlet which has no diffuser on it going out into the front yard. The same is true. There is no diffuser. It is going directly to a retaining wall on the neighbor’s property, on the right hand side. With that said, that five foot setback is relatively steep and they are doing a gravel, it will be a full gravel width on top of landscape fabric. Gravel on top of landscape fabric especially on slopes, especially with a house that does not have gutters is all extremely questionable as to whether or not that fabric will stay. If you’re using three eighths inch stone, which is classic of what gets put on it, there’s no way in hell that that gravel will stay there and so they may need additional space in which to create stepped planters as they have on the two areas in the front to accommodate the storm drainage along that side. So all I am asking for is the project to be tabled until a review by the Town Engineer and discussion with the applicant’s engineer. So that we’re not giving a variance to something that cannot function. I think that there’s going to have to be modifications, but the modifications would occur under Site Plan Review, but you’re giving a variance that I’m not even sure, they may need a bigger variance when all is said and done in regards to the front yard 50 foot setback and the five feet setback. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Chris? CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We feel the project proposes, we don’t feel, we know it needs numerous variances, but when those, the cumulative impacts of all those variances are considered, it will have a detrimental impact to the natural resources of the Town and the neighborhood. Important information on natural resources is missing, i.e. the wetland delineation, that is necessary to determine the potential impacts of this project. It is recognized that mitigation measures are proposed, stormwater management, but that fails to balance the numerous variances and the encroachment into the protective wetlands setback, excessive grading, hardening of the site, and lack of shoreline buffer. We also question why there’s not a variance to the setback to the wetland. Wetlands, by definition of the Town, are considered shoreline. By the APA mapping that’s part of the Town, or part of the County’s GIS, wetlands extend into that northern, or I’m sorry, the western area where that re- graded driveway is. There needs to be, there’s stormwater up there. There needs to be a variance for that. That’s not noted at all. They don’t even recognize the wetlands and it’s clearly shown on the County maps. The proposed variance will result in an undesirable change. I appreciate the applicant’s description, but they’re increasing the height. They’re increasing the size. They’re decreasing the setback. So that, clearly, I feel, is an undesirable change. I question, the drawings that were submitted said that they needed a variance for hardening of the shoreline, the retaining wall setback, but that wasn’t mentioned during the presentation. A structure that is within the setback. It appears that that would need a shoreline variance. Clearly alternatives are available to reduce the size of the buildings, re-configure the stormwater, and again, we just feel there’s going to be adverse effect and impact on the environmental conditions. Again, the cumulative impacts are not balanced by the mitigation proposed and they fail to even recognize the wetlands on the property or recognize that the stormwater, they need variances and setbacks for that. So I feel this needs to be tabled. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, I wonder if you’d give us input on the wetlands. MRS. MOORE-So the wetlands were denoted. They’re over towards the top off of their property, I believe it is. So it was a disturbance within that wet area. I guess I’d have to look at that stormwater device if it’s considered a stormwater device within, if it’s less than 100 feet, but right now it was described, my understanding, the way I viewed it was it was a disturbance within 100 feet that triggered the Freshwater Wetlands under Site Plan Review. That’s where that is. MR. MC CABE-I guess, is there anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. “I live on Assembly Point at 66 Bay Parkway, Lake George, NY. The unique thing about the Carlson proposal is that the Carlson lot is larger than most on Assembly Point, even though its configuration is unusual. Nevertheless there are two aspects that are concerning about the site plan. First, the infiltration devices are too close to the Lake. Given the 15% slope it is important to re -locate these devices. Possibly, a good storm water management could assist the Carlsons in pulling the infiltration devices back from the Lake. Second, the eight of the garage is way out of line with Town code. From the architectural design, it appears that there will be room for a second floor in the garage that could accommodate additional bedrooms. This will change the FAR ratio. I ask the Board Memb ers to table this proposal and ask for revisions for the infiltration devices and clarification on the garage design. Yours sincerely, Lorraine Ruffing Assembly Point Water Quality Coalition” The second letter is “After a review of the plans and drawings on line as well as speaking with Mr. Carlson, I have a concern, regarding the buffer zone of Mr. Carlson’s project as well as the proposed change in existing driveway. Our property is at 61 Brayton Lane, Queensbury, NY and abuts the Carlson property on the North side. Mr. Carlson’s plans show the new home will be further set back on the lot, as well as the re -direction of the existing driveway. He proposes a new driveway parallel with our driveway. As cars would travel parallel on the proposed new driveway, they will turn south towards the new garage on the south side of the property. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022) 4 This means we may see headlights where we never saw them as the driveway is on the Southside of the property. If this new driveway is moved to the north side, as vehicles drive in it will be as if they are driving down our driveway with lights etc. There is not a lot of trees anymore down that north side of the property and in the winter and spring we will see all the lights as well as the new house lights. We would like the Board to consider requiring Mr. Carlson to put plantings, taller shrubs or trees from the front of the new home down that north side of the property, so we have a sufficient buffer zone on the north side of property based on his filed plans. The current plans on file, do not appear to show any buffer zone on the north side of the property. Sincerely, Lori A. Shay, Trustee of Joe and Mary Shay Irrev. Trust” And they’re at 61 Brayton. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to comment on any of the public comments? MR. DANNIBLE-Yes. Certainly. One of the things I would like to mention is the current property it is developed with a single family home, a garage, driveway not only for this lot but also a driveway serving three other residents. There is no stormwater management on the existing property. Proposed improvements to the property slightly increase the overall impervious area on the site, and we’re proposing six new stormwater management devices which is a significant upgrade to the current conditions of the site and increasing water quality in and around Lake George. We would like to point out also the re - designed driveway. As we were talking about, which is within proximity of a wet area on an adjacent parcel, currently it has no stormwater devices. We’re adding two stormwater devices to re-align that driveway, again to enhance the water quality in those areas of the site. The discussion about the buffer areas to the north, certainly it’s something we can look at during site plan review. It’s not something that we’re asking for a variance for, for location of our driveway, but it is something that we’re willing to look at and work on with the Planning Board for that adjacent driveway to the north. Their driveway is als o immediately adjacent to the property line. So it would be two driveways on top of each other. There is no buffer on that property either. Their driveway is in that location. So it’s just something, again, we’re working with plantings adjacent to and around the lake to enhance those areas as well. MR. HENKEL-I’ve got a question. You haven’t explained the height of the garage. I mean that’s awful high for storage. It’s a garage with storage you’re saying. That’s awful high. MR. DANNIBLE-Correct, it is a garage with storage, and again, I think it’s hard to understand. Laura, is there building elevations or perspective views. That would definitely help the Board understand what we’re actually talking about, the variations in height. Could you zoom in on, let’s go to the front rendering, the upper right corner of the screen. This is a good view of it. So the accessory portion of the site is not that entire building. For whatever reason, the portion of the building that has the higher foundation is all that is defined as a garage and the accessory structure itself. MRS. MOORE-Actually the whole structure is an accessory structure because it’s not attached. So the whole building is considered an accessory structure, whether it’s a bunkroom and a garage together. I apologize if that’s not clear, but it is, the whole building is an accessory structure. MR. MC CABE-That’s the way I understood it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DANNIBLE-So, again, we would generally disagree. We have an attached foundation and an attached roof from the house to that building. With that being said, again, there’s maybe some discussion within the Code, one of the elements we could do, and it would make it an attached structure and eliminate the height variance, is to rather than have an open breezeway, we could enclose the breezeway on top of the foundation with the roof, in order to eliminate the height variance. It would change nothing about the property itself. We wouldn’t have to change the height variances. It would be considered a single family structure with an attached garage. We like the idea of having the open connection between the rooms. If somebody was to come to the site, they could walk through the area that is open, not have to enter the residence to get around to the lakeside where the entertaining could be occurring on the lakeshore. So again, if need be we can make this an attached structure and eliminate the need for that variance. That would be the one way to go, again, but we’d like to keep it without the walls or glassed area connecting them with walls. Again, the foundation is connected. The roofs are connected and we don’t believe that it’s a substantial variance because it could be changed just by adding walls. I guess that’s the argument. MR. MC CABE-Sure. 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 Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-I think what you just said is pretty important because that is a lot in terms of height. So if that’s something you’re willing to do, I’m good with that. I’m not a stormwater engineer and I do see, I mean I’m glad that you really have pushed that building itself back from the lake and you’re not really (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022) 5 building a much bigger footprint. You’re well within the FAR and so forth, but I respect the opinions of people who come to our hearings and I think I would want to wait until I knew more about the stormwater provisions towards the lakeside and the wetland is the jurisdiction of the Planning Board, I’m not sure. Also I’m never fond of a lot of the grass in the front like that. So part of that mitigating the stormwater might be this lady mentioned the steps that you have. I mean some other kind of vegetation could be had there in the front that could do some absorption. So at this point I’m not against the project down the road here. I just think I’d like to see some more input on the stormwater and possible improvem ents to that, and I don’t think I would have been in favor of the height. The side setback I’m fine. MR. MC CABE-So you’re a no? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m a no now, yes, as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I understand what you’re trying to accomplish here with your garage not being attached. Keeping it detached makes sense in this sense here. You’re close enough as far as that goes. So I’m not that concerned with the height of the garage, even though it’s way over the top as far as the height goes when you view it from the water, but I think the stormwater could be improved. It could be dramatically improved to ensure that you’re not going to be, that you’re properly going to infiltrate stormwater into the ground. I think also on the lakeshore you could use some buffering. You could improve that also. So at this point in time I don’t think I’m ready to give you any kind of approvals. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I think there’s a project to be had here. Definitely you do a nice job I think with moving the driveway. It makes sense. I’m not happy with the side setback of five feet, though. I think that’s something that should be addressed, and like Jim says, it kind of makes sense what you’re doing with the garage, but I still don’t like the height of it. You could still drop that height down a little bit with having it still detached. So as is I’m not on board with the project. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-One of the things that upsets me is you come and you play if I do this then I get that, or if I do this it’ll pass. The way it’s presented I would not approve it. The height of the garage is too high. If somewhere along it there were 16 foot, somewhere at some point, growing to something else, fine, but because of the height of the garage, and I respect the stormwater devices. I think that’s got to be looked into more. So I would not be in favor of it at this time. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-It’s always better when you’re not asking for a variance for anything. That assures the project goes through, but in this case we’re dealing with what we have in front of us. What we have in front of us is a garage that’s, the height is way over what it should be, and we have some questions that need answers about the stormwater device as well. So if I were to vote today, I would vote no, but I’m willing to wait and find out more about the stormwater management system and what the Town Engineers find. MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, have a problem with okaying the height variance. It’s just that, although I understand your point that it’s technical, it’s not technical for us because we’ve forced people to stay within six inches of our height requirement. We’ve been pretty strict about that and this would be kind of a backdoor way to get around that, and I guess I, too, would like to see a little bit more definition in terms of stormwater runoff management. So I can’t support the project either. So you have a couple of choices here. You can ask for a vote, but that’s not going to go well, obviously, or you can table and address some of these items. The choice is yours. MR. DANNIBLE-I believe we’ll table the application. MR. MC CABE-Okay. When would you be prepared to provide something different? MRS. MOORE-I’m going to interrupt. So it would be into July at this point. MR. MC CABE-The first meeting? MRS. MOORE-The first meeting in July. MR. MC CABE-Which would be the 20th. MRS. MOORE-If they can prepare information and submit it by June 15th. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/18/2022) 6 MR. DANNIBLE-I think the main thing that we need is the review letter from the Town’s Engineer to look at stormwater. MRS. MOORE-Right. So that’s been done and we’ll be receiving that letter this week. So you’ll see that information, the applicant will see that information shortly. MR. MC CABE-So the first meeting in July, July 20th, is okay. Or do you want to wait a little bit longer? MR. DANNIBLE-Certainly plenty enough time for us. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. DANNIBLE-I’d like to get it earlier, but if that’s the best you can do. MR. MC CABE-So, John, if we could have a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Eric Carlson. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and detached garage to construct a new 3-bedroom home with a footprint of 2,381 sq. ft. which includes porches/deck areas and living space of detached building. The project includes a detached garage with an 873 sq. ft. footprint. The new floor area of 6,194 sq. ft. The project includes new stormwater management, alteration of shared driveway and parking arrangement, grading, and erosion control. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard -surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, new structure within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, driveway greater than 10%, and Freshwater wetland work within 100 ft. of the wetland. Relief requested for setbacks, height of garage, and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shoreline. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 20-2022 ERIC CARLSON, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the July 20th, 2022 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information to be submitted by June 15th, 2022. Duly adopted this 18th day of May, 2022, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCab e NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-We’ll see you in a few weeks. MRS. HAMLIN-Mr. Chairman, before we move on, could I ask a question? With regards to Laura and the engineering. Does the engineer create an English language, not jargon, summary of his report by any chance? MRS. MOORE-Yes, they provide an actual letter. Typically it’s given to the Planning Board, but I understand in this case it sounds like the Zoning Board would like that letter included in their informational packet. So you’ll receive that as part of your next review, and for purposes of this application, you should re-open the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Can I make a request, too, on the vegetation in the front, instead of just having a plain lawn all the way down to the water, come up with a vegetative plan so you have a buffer zone between houses. MR. DANNIBLE-We can certainly work on the area. MR. MC CABE-So I guess we’ve had a pretty extensive public hearing. Is it okay if we re -open the public hearing, with you? MR. DANNIBLE-Certainly. There were comments. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to re-open the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED