Loading...
Minutes AV 24-2022 (Lynch) 6.22.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ALICE & JACK LYNCH AGENT(S) REDBUD DEVELOPMENT (GEFF REDICK) OWNER: ALICE & JACK LYNCH ZONING WR LOCATION 14 HIGHVIEW RD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW OPEN DECK ADDITION OF 563 SQ. FT., INSTALL A POOL OF 123 SQ. FT., AND CONSTRUCT A COVERED PORCH OF 166 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER CONTROL MEASURES, SITE LANDSCAPING AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS.. THERE IS AN EXISTING SHED OF 169 SQ. FT. THAT REQUIRES REVIEW FOR AFTER-THE-FACT WORK. THE EXISTING HOUSE IS 2,775 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH NAN EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 4,773 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND POOL LOCATION. CROSS REF SP 36-2022; AV 45-1996; SP 42-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.69 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-19 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 GEFF REDICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; ALICE LYNCH, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2022, Alice & Jack Lynch, Meeting Date: June 22, 2022 “Project Location: 14 Highview Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct new open deck addition of 563 sq. ft., install a pool of 123 sq. ft., and construct a covered porch of 166 sq. ft. Project includes installation of stormwater control measures, site landscaping and shoreline plantings. There is an existing shed of 169 sq. ft. that requires review for after-the-fact work. The existing house is 2,775 sq. ft. footprint with an existing floor area of 4,773 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and pool location. Relief Required: The applicant relief for setback of a shed and pool location in the Waterfront Residential Zone WR. Section 179-3-040 WR, 179-5-020 Shed and Pool The applicant proposes a 123 sq. ft. spa and under Town Code meets the definition of a pool where relief is requested for locating a pool in the front yard. The shed is located 23 ft. to the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The applicant has identified a retaining wall on the eastside that is located 6 inches to an easement area – this is not subject to a variance. 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 character 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 available to relocate the shed but may cause additional disturbance on a steep slope site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested 52 ft. for shed setback. Relief for the pool location in the front yard. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to maintain the existing shed in the current location as there is an existing fire pit area and items are stored in the shed. The update to the deck area on the house with the pool is to upgrade the house. The plans show the location of the shed and new deck area.” MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on a limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And they passed that motion on June 21st, 2022 by a unanimous vote. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 2 MR. REDICK-Good evening. My name is Geff Redick from Redbud Signs. I’m here with Alice Lynch, the owner. I’d like to just give you a brief introduction of the project description, what we’re trying to do with the project. So I’ll start with the shed variance request. With some description to understand that the shed was built and the owner acknowledges that they did not build in compliance becaus e they didn’t realize that they needed a permit or needed to go through the process, and essentially what happened was they placed the shed here because that was really the only flat piece of property on the land, and there had already been, from the previous owner, an area that was filled with debris and what not. So they cleaned and then placed the shed. The use of the shed is basically for supplies for both boating and/or the dock. It’s probably understood the contours of the land are extremely steep. There’s also a tremendous amount of bedrock on the property in general which makes it very difficult for them to be able to bring materials back up to the house and store them in the house, and then it also kind of helps to define that this is reasonable location to put the shed because of all the bedrock and what not that’s on the site and the steepness of the slopes. We did also look at other potential alternatives for where the shed could be relocated, but if you see here the sort of squiggly line that actually carries all the way out through here, and it also is here. It’s a little bit hard to see, but if you actually look you can see it in here. So the existing tree line kind of does this. It also does this, but if you were coming up the lake and you tried to put the shed and you were on this side, you would be looking right at it all the time. Placing it in here where they actually did provides for a location that’s actually hidden in the trees, and then our proposal is also to introduce even more vegetation in here to help that, again, disguise or hide the shed, hide this patio space that’s in front of it, and then the third thing to note is, with the residence as far away as the shed is now, there’s actually no storage in the house. There is no basement. It’s just basically a crawl space because the house was built all on bedrock, and then the garage, the size that it is, it’s just literally enough room for two cars. So it is, we again recognize, not a legal location for where the shed could go, but trying to even move it farther uphill requires either some significant challenges with bedrock and/or the removal of ore mature trees, which I think is a detriment. Then the other part of our request is what is again defined in the Town Code is there is a spa, there is a pool, which let me explain the project a little bit further first. We were proposing to remove an existing deck here, replace it with a new deck, essentially the existing deck is just dated and not in great shape anymore. This deck is actually going to be a little bit smaller than the previous deck, and then if you follow this line here, this is the foundation of the house. We’re proposing another deck on this side of the house that’s going to come down a set of s tairs and then go to the spa, and then there’s going to be a series of retaining walls that are out here because our grade elevation change from this part of the house to literally right about here at present is somewhere around 18 feet. So there’s a significant grade change between the actual back of the house and the existing grade. So we want to bring that up and place this, again, what we’re defining as this therapy spa significantly up on the slope. What’s happening right now is this retaining wall is going to be somewhere around eight feet to nine feet depending on this location. This is another four to five foot wall and the spa sits up on top, and then we’re going to have significant plantings, here, here and on the bottom of this wall to hide it. So in essence this spa won’t be visible from the lake. It’s going to be elevated so high that when you’re at the lake and looking up all you’ll see is either plantings and/or retaining walls and then you won’t be able to see that spa. The other thing that we’re introducing as part of this project is a stormwater retention area. So currently on the property there is no stormwater management. It’s just a steep slope from the house straight to the lake. There is a lawn. We’re introducing the stormwater management area and capturing rain water from both this general area and also from all the roof gutters in the backside of the house. So about half of the roof gutter or half of the roof system on the house is now going to go into this retention system which is part of this project, which, again, there is no stormwater management on the site at present. So I’d also like to speak a little bit to why the owners would like the spa. They’re aging. They would like to have a hot water body that is closer to the house, they can literally just go out and have something that can reach 104 degrees. All the controls for the spa are going to be in the house. So it’s really for helping them to enjoy the lake and enjoy their property without having to necessarily go swimming in the lake which is obviously a colder body of water. So in essence that kind of closes out the application, or excuse me the description. Do you have any questions? MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m not finding what is the relief for the pool? MR. MC CABE-It’s in the front yard. MRS. HAMLIN-No, but I mean what’s the? MRS. MOORE-So that’s the definition. So a pool is not allowed in the front yard currently, and so just to let you know, the way the Code is written, anything with 100 gallons or more is considered a pool. I understand that our Code is not necessarily New York State Building Code, but right now our Code is more restrictive than New York State Building Code. MRS. HAMLIN-So because it’s got two front yards. MRS. MOORE-That’s how it’s classified in the Town Code. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 3 MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, 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 out there who has input on this particular project. Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board and I’m going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-Well I mean looking at the topography, I don’t like after the fact, but you really don’t have any place else, I don’t think, to put it. So it’s a lot of relief, just so you know, but I guess I will vote for granting relief. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-There’s a significant grade change on the property. There’s a lot of slope. It is what it is, and so it is a good amount of relief. Understanding that, I also believe that the plantings, the stormwater management area, catching waters from the roof gutters, etc., is very, very important. So I think it’s a positive, not a negative. I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The placement of the shed is logical and I think that we can make the distinction between the pool and the spa. So I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with my Board members. I’m on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with everything that’s been said. I think it’s minimal and I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project, too. MR. MC CABE-So I’ve got to dissent. I don’t have a problem with the shed, but if we approve a pool in the front yard, lakeside, that sets a very dangerous precedent, and so I oppose the project. However, I’m only one vote. So, at this time I need a motion. So, Ron, could you give us a motion. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Alice & Jack Lynch. Applicant proposes to construct new open deck addition of 563 sq. ft., install a pool of 123 sq. ft., and construct a covered porch of 166 sq. ft. Project includes installation of stormwater control measures, site landscaping and shoreline plantings. There is an existing shed of 169 sq. ft. that requires review for after-the-fact work. The existing house is 2,775 sq. ft. footprint with an existing floor area of 4,773 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and pool location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setback of a shed and pool location in the Waterfront Residential Zone WR. Section 179-3-040 WR, 179-5-020 Shed and Pool The applicant proposes a 123 sq. ft. spa and under Town Code meets the definition of a pool where relief is requested for locating a pool in the front yard. The shed is located 23 ft. to the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The applicant has identified a retaining wall on the eastside that is located 6 inches to an easement area – this is not subject to a variance. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 4 SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 22, 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 as it blends in with the existing property with the sloping. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited and due to the sloping of the property, have been considered and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial again because of the slope of the p roperty and the pool being in the front yard. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty you could say is self-created only because of the property and the distance to the lake. 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. 24-2022 ALICE & JACK LYNCH, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 22nd Day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt NOES: Mr. McCabe MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. REDICK-Thank you. MRS. LYNCH-Thank you very much.