Loading...
Minutes AV 27-2022 (Sheehan) 6.22.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOE SHEEHAN AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) JOE SHEEHAN ZONING WR LOCATION 80 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 618 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AND A 500 SQ. FT. DECK TO REPLACE AN EXISTING DECK. A PORTION OF THE NEW DECK WILL BE COVERED; THE DECK IS OVER A PATIO AREA WITH ACCESS FROM THE BASEMENT. A NEW ENTRY AREA TO BE CONSTRUCTED IS ALSO COVERED. PROJECT INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE PLANTINGS, RETAINING WALL AND STEPS TO BE RECONSTRUCTED. THE HOME WILL HAVE A NEW FOOTPRINT OF 2,500 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 3,728 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE, AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 40-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.13- 2-42 SECTION 179-3-040; 147; 179-5-020; 179-13-010 ETHAN HALL & BRANDON FERGUSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2022, Joe Sheehan, Meeting Date: June 22, 2022 “Project Location: 80 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 618 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing home and a 500 sq. ft. deck to replace an existing deck. A portion of the new deck will be covered; the deck is over a patio area with access from the basement. A new entry area to be constructed is also covered. Project includes stormwater management, shoreline plantings, retaining wall and steps to be reconstructed. The home will have a new footprint of 2,500 sq. ft. and floor area of 3,728 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area. Section 179-3-040 dimensions, 179-4-080-decks The deck addition is to be located 28 ft. 11 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The deck addition is to be 8 ft. 5 inches where 20 ft. is required for the south side. The garage addition is to be 10 ft. 3 inches from the north side where 20 ft. is required. The garage is 12 ft. 3 inches to the front yard where a 30 ft. setback is required. The floor area ratio relief where 40.41 % is proposed and 22% is the maximum allowed. The permeability improved to 67.75% no variance is required as it is an improvement. 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 due to the location of the existing home and the need to make the site accessible. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief for the shoreline setback is 21 ft. 1 inch. The relief for the deck on the south side 11 ft. 7 inches, the garage on the north side relief is 9 ft. 9 inches, the garage front relief is 17 ft. 9 inches. The floor area is 18.41% in excess. 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 to complete a garage and deck addition to an existing home. The project includes the removal of an existing deck and replacement of the deck. The garage addition is to assist the owner access to the home. The plans show the existing and proposed conditions.” (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 2 MR. URRICO-And then 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 June 21st, 2022 by a unanimous vote. MR. HALL-Good evening. For your records,. Ethan Hall. I’m a principle with Rucinski Hall Architecture. With me tonight is Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design Partnership. Mr. Sheehan can’t be here tonight. He did ask me to read a letter in to the Board. I asked Laura if she wanted to read it, but she said she would rather have me read this. So bear with me. I’m going to try and get through this. I don’t know if any of you know Joe. This will give you a little bit of an idea of where we’re at. “Dear Members of the Board: Thank you for allowing me to submit this letter. I wish I could be here in person but unfortunately, I am unable to. I realize your time as well as the time of the attendees is valuable so I will make this as brief as possible. I realize my renovation exceeds the FAR values but please consider the following in making your decision….All I desire is to achieve the finest quality of life I can get! I have been going to Lake George my entire life! I always looked forward to my vacations in Lake George! As I grew older I fell more in love with it and always dreamed that someday I would retire there. Unfortunately I was forced into early retirement……but my dream can still come true. Lake George has given me a lifetime of happy memories including learning how to water ski, snow ski, scuba dive, power boating, sailing, attending Americade every year, hot air balloon rides, and walks through the Village…..But……The greatest memory was when I proposed to my wife during the Winter Carnival. Although my proposal didn’t go as planned she said yes and we were married in August 2009. We even spent 2-weeks honeymooning enjoying the lake and house and celebrating with friends and family. We are still happily married today and look forward to relocating to Lake George and making it our PERMANENT HOME. Unfortunately in 2015 I was the victim of a tragic near-fatal explosion that put me in the hospital for six months with severe burns over 73% of my body.” This was the Fischer’s Marina explosion, the boat that exploded there. “ I had to learn how to walk, talk, eat and go to the bathroom all over again and spent many agonizing hours in physical therapy. So far I have undergone over 30 surgical procedures and am told I may need more. I have been home now for several years adjusting to my new life being permanently disabled and coping with what will be a lifetime of perpetual recovery. That said, I have accepted my physical disability which mostly affects my hands and legs but the most challenging to live with is my difficulty enjoying the outdoors. Each time I go outside, regardless if it’s sunny or overcast, I must wear long pants and long sleeve shirts. T-shirts and shorts are no longer an option for me and are no longer part of my wardrobe as I need maximum protection at all times. My body’s natural chemistry has drastically changed where my ability to sweat and deal with sunlight and heat is non - existent. Exposure to the sun & UV becomes painful and extremely uncomfortable. For the rest of my life, I cannot be exposed to sustained heat, sunlight, or UV light for any period of time! I need permanent overhead protection to cover and shield me if I have any chance of appreciating my home. In the end, I am fortunate to have this house and just want to the same opportunity as anyone else….to appreciate being outside with friends & family and enjoying everything Lake George has to offer. It is imperative for my well-being that my home serve me as I need it to. I am hoping the Board may have some level of compassion and sympathy and try to comprehend what it’s like to live a day in my life. I fully understand the policies that are in place to protect the lake and environment but I believe there are always extenuating circumstances and each case should be dealt with accordingly and individually. All I desire is to achieve the finest quality of life I can get! Your help and understanding in approving this project can provide that opportunity to me and would make yet another Happy Lake George memory that would last for years to come. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Joseph Sheehan” With that said, basically what we’re trying to do here is allow for Joe to utilize the house that his family has owned for years. The setbacks that we’re asking for, if you loo k at the overall site plan, the small shaded area that was on there is where the setbacks would allow a building to be built. The existing building is over the setbacks in all directions. So what we’ve tried to do is put a garage on the north side that an accessible garage can into so that Joe can unload in the garage and not have to be outside. He can go directly from the garage into the house and not have to worry about being outside. The covered deck in the front, the existing deck runs all the way across the front. The lakeside is the front in my opinion. So the deck runs all the way across the front of the building now. We’re proposing to cover a third of that with a roof so that he can be outside and utilize that side of the house, and then the covered front porch is just so that he’s got a spot outside that he can be in the back of the house, the roadside of the house, without being outside and exposed to ultra violet light. So that’s really where we’re at with it. The floor area ratio, again, it seems like a big lift. Eighteen percent sounds like an awful lot. It’s really the garage. The house itself has, it’s already a full finished basement. There’s already a full finished main floor, and then there’s attic space. What we’re doing on the main floor is we’re opening that attic space up so it would be vaulted and cathedraled, so it would be kind of taking away some of the floor area there and we’ve utilized that into the garage. There will not be finished space above the garage. It’s just, we’ve put a high roof on it just so that it kind of matches the existing house. MR. MC CABE-So just a quick question. If there was no construction, the house is already over the FAR ratio required? MR. HALL-Yes. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 3 MR. MC CABE-By how much, do you know? MR. HALL-The existing floor area ratio is 32.9. MR. MC CABE-Questions? So, seeing none, at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who wants to provide input on this particular application. Do we have anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. “The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Lake George Waterkeeper recognizes the difficult site constraints, specifically the lot size, but these are known conditions and the application must improve the balance, especially with the significant requests for Floor Area Ration (FAR) and permeability within the Critical Environmental Area. To improve the balance, it is recommended that the proposed retaining wall expansion be eliminated, which brings disturbance closer to the lake. Additionally, there is a question why a variance is not required for the expansion of the retaining wall that will have an increased height and will now traverse the majority of the property with 5 feet of fill. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179- 14-080 Variance Criteria, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The proposed variances would have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The variances for FAR and permeability have the greatest impact to water quality within the CEA and the mitigation measures proposed will not adequately balance the impacts from the overall site development The stormwater proposed is only for the addition and leaves the existing impervious area/building unmitigated. Additionally, the construction of the retaining wall closer to the lake will require subsurface drains that discharge water, thus eliminating any benefits of infiltration. It should be noted the wall is not required for the stormwater basin as test pits indicate satisfactory soils exist The applicant should be required to eliminate the expanded retaining wall, which should require a variance, and increase stormwater infiltration by utilizing the proposed landscape planter with leader piping as well as expand the proposed stormwater basin. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky, PE Lake George Waterkeeper” “My name is Stephen Kirshon and I own the property at 84 Rockhurst Road, Cleverdale, NY. My property abuts the property owned by Joe Sheehan at 80 Rockhurst Road and is directly north of the Sheehan home. Mr. Sheehan has provided me with the proposed site plan for the renovation he would like to have done on his property, which he intends to make his primary place of residence. I have reviewed the proposed site plan and I am satisfied that the finished product will enhance the neighborhood. It will also help protect Lake George by replacing an aging septic system with holding tanks. I have known Joe Sheehan since I became a neighbor of his family back in 1987. J oe was, unfortunately, involved in a boating accident which caused him to incur severe burns over a large percent of his body. Due to the injuries he suffered, it is important that Joe limit his exposure to sunlight. Thus, having a deck over the patio that faces the lake is essential to his well-being. Furthermore, even though the proposed garage encroaches on the setback to my property, I have no objection should the zoning board of appeals approve that variance. In summary I am happy to see that the Sheehan property is being improved and I encourage the authorities to collaborate with Joe Sheehan and his team to achieve the best possible outcome for the project. Very sincerely yours, Stephen Kirshon” And he’s at 84 Rockhurst Road. “I am the owner of 77 Rockhurst Rd. directly across the street from the Sheehan property. I fully support, as does my family, the renovations that have been proposed for 80 Rockhurst Road. Please note that we are in full agreement with what has been proposed. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Jeffrey Clark” 77 Rockhurst Road. “Per the 80 Rockhurst Road project for the Sheehan Trust, we understand from Joe Sheehan that the variances for the septic system were approved. This unfortunately was at a 2 ft. variance from the South property line. As noted in our email in September (as we are the immediate next door neighbors) we request that the variance of 5 ft. from the South property line be honored. The issue for us is that this area is supp orted by a retaining wall for both the Sheehan’s and our lot. We are concerned that the closeness to the property line will compromise the retaining wall and cause higher costs and risks of water issues for the Lake. The Sheehan’s are in alignment with the 5 ft. request, and we would like the Town to honor this request to provide the variance of 5 ft. to the South property line of 80 Rockhurst Road. We understand there is a review June 21-23 for this project. Please include this request to the Board. Thank you. Matt and Jeanne Lucas78 Rockhurst Road” “We own the home across the road from the Sheehan residence and have followed the Sheehan’s thoughts regarding improving their lake property for several years. We are pleased with their plans to improve the house on the existing footprint and expect that the refurbished structure will enhance the neighborhood. Rockhurst Rd. is a confined neighborhood and most home rebuilds have been the same size as their predecessor, along with significant attention being given by the Town to on-site landscaping improvements, storm water management and septic issues. Concerning septic, we would hope that the Boards will consider the expectation of a “Community Sewer” for Rockhurst which is in the planning phase an d which has been grant funded by NYS DEC. The Sheehan’s should only be expected to install minimal holding tank capacity at this time, tankage winch would be compatible with the proposed sewer. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Steve and Debbie Seaboyer 83 Rockhurst Rd” That’s it. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 4 MR. MC CABE-Do you want to speak? TOM BARBER MR. BARBER-Yes, sir. Good evening. My name is Tom Barber. I live here in Queensbury. I have a cottage just down the road from Joe Sheehan. I live, I have a place at 68 Rockhurst. I am completely in favor of what they’re doing. I’ve known Joe for 45 years, and his family, It’s a beautiful place. I’m really excited he’s coming back. That’s all I’ve got to say. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? MR. HALL-Just to touch on the septic for a minute. We did go before the Town Board. We got variances to do holding tanks there. The intent, Joe understands he’s got a grant to put the holding tanks in, but he does, he has been following the Rockhurst septic plan that’s been in the process for like some time. The idea is that we’re putting the holding tanks in with the intent that eventually one will become his septic tank and the other will become the effluent pump chamber to pump to the new septic. We will maintain the five foot setback. That was the final variance that we got from the Town Board. I’ll let Brandon talk about the stormwater. MR. FERGUSON-There are enhancements being made to connect on this property. This is a minor stormwater project so we are adding stormwater management where there is none now. That is that shallow vegetative depression on the lakeside of the garage that will capture the roof runoff and help it infiltrate through the ground, and we are doing significant plantings along the shoreline as well that will enhance that shoreline buffer. Right now there’s minimal plantings. There’s some brushy stuff right near the shore, but we’re going to do a nice native planted buffer along the shoreline to enhance it as well. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? 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 Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There are projects that come in front of us that have extenuating circumstances, and this is one of them. They’re looking for a lot of relief, but having said that, you know, extenuating circumstances, I’d be in favor of the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement. The neighbors seem to be in agreement as well. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I would actually like to mention that the inclusion of these engineering reports are very helpful and do we have something from the Planning Board? Did I hear that? They saw nothing? Okay. So, yes, it is a really huge ask, however, and generally speaking the plight of the homeowner is not to be considered. It’s the property itself, but the owner of the property probably has the best interest of the lake at heart and I think as long as the Planning Board heeds the engineering suggestions with the retaining wall that should satisfy the neighbor and I will vote to grant the relief. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’ll be voting in favor of this. We have several neighbors, Mr. Clark, Mr. Kirshon, Mr. Barber who’s here, and we have extenuating circumstances. These are opportunities where we can do the right thing for our friends and our neighbors in this community. So I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think under normal circumstances if you were requesting this we would probably give you a big, fat no on it, but I think given the extenuating circumstances I think we can all vote in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’d like to see a little bit smaller garage, but in this case I’d agree with my Board members and I’d be on board. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/22/2022) 5 MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. So at this particular time, Brent, would you make a motion? MR. MC DEVITT-You bet. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joe Sheehan. Applicant proposes a 618 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing home and a 500 sq. ft. deck to replace an existing deck. A portion of the new deck will be covered; the deck is over a patio area with access from the basement. A new entry area to be constructed is also covered. Project includes stormw ater management, shoreline plantings, retaining wall and steps to be reconstructed. The home will have a new footprint of 2,500 sq. ft. and floor area of 3,728 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline, and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area. Section 179-3-040 dimensions, 179-4-080-decks The deck addition is to be located 28 ft. 11 inches from the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. The deck addition is to be 8 ft. 5 inches where 20 ft. is required for the south side. The garage addition is to be 10 ft. 3 inches from the north side where 20 ft. is required. The garage is 12 ft. 3 inches to the front yard where a 30 ft. setback is required. The floor area ratio relief where 40.41 % is proposed and 22% is the maximum allowed. The permeability improved to 67.75% no variance is required as it is an improvement. 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. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They’re limited due to the location of the existing home and to do some things to accommodate some accessibility issues here. 3. The requested variance is not substantial and can be considered moderate relative to the Code. 4. There is not an adverse 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 environmental conditions of the area. 5. The alleged difficulty, while it certainly is self-created, as discussed there are some situations where we have to look out for friends and our neighbors. 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. 27-2022 JOE SHEEHAN, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, 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. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. HALL-We very much appreciate your time.