Loading...
Minutes AV 30-2022 (Zotto & Hedderman) 6.29.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DANIEL ZOTTO & CARRIE HEDDERMAN OWNER(S) DANIEL ZOTTO & CARRIE HEDDERMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 306 GLEN LAKE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 400 SQ. FT. DECK TO BE ADDED TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME IS 798 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 1,326 SQ. FT. THE DECK IS TO BE LOCATED FACING THE SHORELINE AREA. SITE PLAN FOR NEW HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 42-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.9-1-86 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080; 179-13-010 CARRIE HEDDERMAN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2022, Daniel Zotto & Carrie Hedderman, Meeting Date: June 29, 2022 “Project Location: 306 Glen Lake Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. deck to be added to an existing home. The footprint of the home is 798 sq. ft. and floor ar ea of 1,326 sq. ft. The deck is to be located facing the shoreline area. Site plan for new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of deck addition in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. The parcel is 0.29 ac. Section 179-4-080 decks/porches The 400 sq. ft. deck addition is to 21.5 ft. to the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required and 8 ft. to the east side property line where 15 ft. 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 limited due to the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor relevant to the code. Relief requested for shoreline setback is 28.5 ft. and relief for the east property line is 7 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 to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. ft. deck addition to the existing home as shown on the survey. The deck is to be 12 inches off the ground per the plans. The deck will allow for additional space for deck items.” MS. HEDDERMAN-Hi. I’m Carrie Hedderman, co-applicant. So to sum it up, just looking to put a 400 square foot deck on our existing home on the lakeside and we’re asking for relief from that setback. MR. KUHL-You’re going to take the chairs off the dock? MS. HEDDERMAN-I don’t want to. If we need to. MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions of the applicant? Does that bother you? MR. KUHL-No, no. It’s something we used to do when I had a camp on Paradox. We always went down and sat by the water. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) 2 MS. HEDDERMAN-Yes. MR. KUHL-Are you going to do it in wood? MS. HEDDERMAN-I think we’re going to do the higher end of the Trex decking, just so no maintenance. MR. HENKEL-It’s actually cheaper than the wood right now. MS. HEDDERMAN-Is it really? We haven’t priced that out. MR. KUHL-Mr. Chairman, I should go to you, Laura. With the Trex, with the separations, does that give us any pervious? No? It is what it is. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a pretty big deck, 16 by 25. Do you need to have it that wide? MS. HEDDERMAN-We don’t. We were just doing that kind of for aesthetic purposes because it just married up with the edges of the house. Actually we were discussing it this weekend. If we do do it that wide, it doesn’t give us access to the kayaks and things like that. So I think that was our ask. I don’t know that we would actually do that. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I mean you’re set back well from the water. So I don’t think it’s going to be an issue. 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 input on this particular project? Seeing none, do we have any written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no letters. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’ll 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-Well again, we’re encroaching into the shoreline, but it seems like a very modest request. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I really don’t see this as a major issue. It is a large request because of the size of the deck that you’re going to put out there, but I think that everybody understands that water goes through decks. It doesn’t really change the runoff into the lake. So I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-No roofs to be set on top of it, right? MS. HEDDERMAN-No. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’d be on board as is. If it had a roof on it, I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no issue. It’s a natural thing. I know you enjoy the property now. You’ll enjoy it that much more. I’m glad you’re doing it with a good product. So I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. It seems very reasonable. So given you have enough votes here. So I’m going to ask Ron if he’d make a motion. MR. KUHL-Why thank you, Mr. Chairman. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022) 3 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Daniel Zotto & Carrie Hedderman. Applicant proposes a 400 sq. ft. deck to be added to an existing home. The footprint of the home is 798 sq. ft. and floor area of 1,326 sq. ft. The deck is to be located facing the shoreline area. Site plan for new hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for construction of deck addition in the Waterfront Residential zone-WR. The parcel is 0.29 ac. Section 179-4-080 decks/porches The 400 sq. ft. deck addition is to 21.5 ft. to the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required and 8 ft. to the east side property line where 15 ft. is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 29, 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 this blends in with the house. I realize that it’s .24 acres but it’s a good addition. 2. Feasible alternatives, again, because of the size of the lot and the desire to have a deck towards the lake are really, they’ve been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s just the natural growth of enjoying the lake. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest the alleged difficulty is self-created, although that was the only way to put the deck towards the lake and they needed this relief. 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. 30-2022 DANIEL ZOTTO & CARRIE HEDDERMAN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 29th Day of June 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Mc Cabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MS. HEDDERMAN-Thank you.