Loading...
Minutes AV 36-2022 (Randles) 8.24.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 1 NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JEFFREY RANDLES AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) JEFFREY RANDLES ZONING WR LOCATION 42 OLD ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH A SECOND STORY ADDITION AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE ADDITIONS INCLUDE ADDITIONAL BASEMENT AREA. THE MAIN FLOOR WOULD ALTER THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE WITH A NEW DINING AREA AND A NEW GARAGE AND BEDROOM AREAS. THE SECOND FLOOR WOULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LIVING SPACE AND STORAGE. THE NEW FLOOR AREA WOULD BE 6,968 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FOOTPRINT OF THE HOME WITH THE ADDITIONS WOULD BE 3,348 SQ. FT. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA AND ALTERATION TO THE EXISTING HOME. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 51-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-11 SECTION 179-3-040 BRANDON FERGUSON & CURT DYBAS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 36-2022, Jeffrey Randles, Meeting Date: August 24, 2022 “Project Location: 42 Old Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing single family home with removal of the first story down to the foundation and to reconstruct the first floor with a second story and an attached garage. The project includes additional basement area. The main floor would alter the north and south side with a new dining area and a new garage and bedroom areas. The second floor would include additional living space and storage. The new floor area would be 6,968 sq. ft. and the new footprint of the home with the additions would be 3,348 sq. ft. Project also includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area and alteration to the existing home. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for removal of the first floor, reconstruction of the first floor and construction of second story, with an attached garage. Parcel is 0.83 acres and in the WR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 147 stormwater The applicant proposes the new home on the existing foundation. The home is to be 8 ft. where 20 ft. is required to the north side. The home on the west side would be 51 ft. from the shoreline where 56.1 ft. is required due to the adjoining home setback. The stormwater devices to be installed would be 48 ft. and 88 ft. where 100 ft. setback 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 possible to locate the home in a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the north side addition is 12 ft., the shoreline side addition is 5.71 ft., and the stormwater devices 12 ft. and 52 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 impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The project includes adding stormwater management to the site. The project has been provided to the Town Designated Engineer for review and comment. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 2 The applicant proposes project work to remove the existing home to the foundation. The project is a new home to be constructed upon top of the foundation with work for some additional basement area. The plans show the elevations and floor plans.” MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury 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 motion was passed August 16th, 2022 by a unanimous vote. MRS. MOORE-So I just want to offer, just to clarify, that in reference to the house being brought down to the foundation, it’s being brought down to the first floor and then they’re constructing the first floor up to the second floor. MR. FERGUSON-Good evening. Brandon Ferguson from Environmental Design. I’m here tonight with Curt Dybas who’s the architect on the project and the applicants, the Randles, are also here tonight. So quickly this is their existing parcel, 0.83 acres. This kind of box right here I’m kind of making, that is the location of the existing house on the property right now. So as was just previously talked about, they are planning on tearing it down to the first floor and re-building from there. So the foundation’s remaining and the first floor structure as well as the existing fireplace. They are going to be remaining, and they’re building off of that and around that. So the variances requested are for a screened porch that will extend towards the lake, on the lakeside of the house. So typically the building setback zone is 50 feet. However, looking at the average of the two adjoining homes they’ve upped that setback to 56.7 I believe, and that was counting off of the actual main structures of the house themselves. The neighbor to the south actually has a deck out front but we had to measure from their existing structure itself. So our proposed setback is 51 feet, which meets the typical minimum. However, because of the two adjoining owners, especially the one to the north being set so far back off the lake, it pushes that to a higher standard. Both these applicants have spoken out in favor of this project and I believe they issued letters for tonight as well. The second variance is a side yard setback. So are holding the existing foundation there because they’re re- using it. So that existing setback is eight feet and that will be held. The third variance is for stormwater management. We have a stormwater management here that is going to be taking runoff from portions of the existing driveway as well as portions of the roof. So that runoff will be directed to this stormwater device that’s 88 feet from the lake. We do have another stormwater device on the lakeside of the house that’s a little closer to the lake. However, that one is taking only roof runoff from the house so I did n’t think it actually needed a variance. I don’t believe that it does because this is a minor stormwater design. So we have this stormwater management here that’s 88 feet, and we put it in this location in order to try and kind of save some of the existing oak trees here. For the house and the driveway, this is the location it had to be. So those are the three variances we’re looking for tonight. I don’t know if Curt has any additional stuff on architecture. MR. DYBAS-A couple of things on the house. MR. MC CABE-First just tell us who you are. MR. DYBAS-I’m Curt Dybas. The house was originally built in about ’63. It’s been in the Randles’ family since ’65. Jeff and Nancy bought out their siblings five years ago. So it’s been in the fam ily for 56 years, and the reason for keeping it is obviously there’s a two hole fireplace, masonry fireplace, which is a bit pricy to replace and also the foundation and first floor framing we’re keeping. So all told probably somewhere in the $150 to $200,000 savings in using that part of the house. The reason we took it down to the first floor is the existing walls are basically two by four studs. They’re Swiss cheese with a bunch of sliding glass aluminum doors, terribly inefficient. The roof structure is 40 foot long trusses and we just said, look, let’s take it down. We’ll make the house energy compliant to the new Building Code and everything I’m building is I’m doing the res check to the new Code. I’m not doing an alteration and addition as I’m approaching it as a totally new structure as far as the energy code and I know there was a question about erring. All the new second floors and really most of the roof will be on new columns and new footings within the existing house. The garage of course is basically all new will be trussed and fully framed, steel beams. So that’s a summation of the dwelling. I don’t know what else I can add. Any questions? MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Anything written, Roy, or, excuse me, I’m getting ahead of myself. 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 who has input on this particular project. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I just had one question. I don’t know, Laura, if you could go back to it was site plan three. I have a question where the shoreline setback is actually taken from. If you look at the zoning drawing which was Sheet Three, there are actually two lines, right near the shoreline. The shoreline setback is taken from the outside wall, and then there’s an inner one which is about five feet in which says mean high water 320.20. That’s where the (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 3 shoreline setback should be taken from. I’m believing that this setback is actually taken from a line five feet out and that it’s a black line and it seems to kind of be worked into the adjoining property. So I don’t think it’s from the right shoreline. So that’s my question, if that could be identified. I do think there are alternatives, but they explained on the stormwater, they’re saving trees. That’s always a benefit, but I clearly think there’s some problems with that shoreline identification. MR. MC CABE-So do you want to address the shoreline setback? MR. FERGUSON-My understanding is that it was taken from the actual, from the mean high water mark. I’m not quite sure why the difference, the markings there on the plan. I know this was kind of gone over with the Staff as well. MRS. MOORE-I didn’t identify anything. Neither did Craig. MR. MC CABE-So you still think that the 50 feet that they. MRS. MOORE-What they presented it accurate. MR. DYBAS-I believe the survey was done by Van Dusen & Steves. MR. HENKEL-Is there a way of getting a porch in there still and be at the existing, you know, away from the shoreline, three feet? MR. FERGUSON-So the porch, I mean we’re at 51 feet now. So it would be 5.7 feet. You’d have to lop off that porch, which would kind of render it not as usable as it would be as it’s shown now. MR. HENKEL-What’s the dimensions of the porch? MR. DYBAS-14 by 24. MR. HENKEL-So you’d have room there a little bit to get it to the existing. MR. FERGUSON-You’re saying to get it to the existing setback as it currently stands now? MR. HENKEL-Yes, 54 feet. MR. DYBAS-We could angle the corner. MR. HENKEL-I’d like to see it to the original. Everything else I’m good with. MR. DYBAS-I’m going to speak up on something that, when I was designing this, I based it on the 50 foot setback because the average between the two properties was taken from the two houses after the fact. Now if I built that deck in front of my house, I would be before you for a variance. Correct? It’s a raised deck. The reason that was said to me is it’s not attached to the house so therefore we have to go to the house. So it seems like a double-edged sword to me that if I need a variance to build that deck, but I can’t use it for a setback, I have to go to the house. MR. MC CABE-So I guess we’ve got to ask Staff for some advice here. What are we actually? MRS. MOORE-It’s to the porch. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So the number that we’re given is the number that we’re going to use? MR. DYBAS-The number you’re given is what I was told when we, in fact we did the survey and we had the average for the deck, and we had to go back. Van Dusen & Steves had to re-do the survey and re- submit it at the 56 feet because he took it from that neighbor’s deck originally. I know that because I have that survey. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. DYBAS-We were proceeding along the fact that all right we had an average of the 50 we met, and all of a sudden, I think I talked to Craig about it, he said, no, you’ve got to go from the house. I said it’s the structure. He said it’s not attached to the house so therefore I have to go to the house. So then we turned around. MRS. MOORE-So it’s the adjoining house. It’s not this house. It’s the adjoining house that they’re taking that information from. The adjoining house, that deck is not attached to the structure and so that’s why that occurred. Otherwise if they had taken it, if it had to be from the deck, it had to be attached to the house. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 4 MR. MC CABE-Okay. Do we have anybody else that would like to comment on this particular project? So, Roy, is there anything written? MR. URRICO-Yes, I have a letter here. “We are seeking the necessary permits to complete a renovation of our home for the purpose of residing in Queensbury as full-time residents. We have been thoughtful in our planning to stay within the building requirements, but are seeking a variance to build a larger front porch. We have five children and with their future spouses and children we would like to better accommodate our large and growing family. Please consider the following points as you review this variance request. Request is within the baseline 50’ setback from the lake front, both neighbors have provided letters of support, the porch does not interfere with any neighbors’ view (see aerial view of homes), This variance request is for a small corner of the porch. When averaging the neighbors’ setback, there is a 56’ setback requirement from the lake. The estimated non -complying area is 25 sq. ft. which is less than 7% of the total porch area (see shaded area of porch on attached plan). Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully, Jeff & Nancy Randles 42 Old Assembly Point Road Lake George, NY 12845” Now I want to point out they mention two letters of support. I don’t see any other letters of support. MR. FERGUSON-I know they have talked to neighbors and they are supportive. They were going to write letters. MR. URRICO-For the record I want to say that there are no letters of support for the record. MR. MC CABE-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 Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’m satisfied with the application as proposed. I think that the 51 feet from the shoreline is more than adequate. It’s much more than we see with most of the projects up on the lake. I think the stormwater, your primary stormwater basin, is 88 feet back, which I think is well over what we consider to be reasonable. Even though it’s not within the 100 foot setback as proposed by the Town Code, and I think that the minor stormwater collection device in the front is not going to be an issue So I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Jim. I support it as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I’d support this project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes, I look at it as really not much of an impact to add onto the existing site the way it is. Sort of the negative is we’re going to have a couple of hundred feet of paved driveway, but on a very positive note we’re going to have stormwater control that we did not have before. So all in all I would be for it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think the relief that is being requested is very minimal and I think this is a good project. So given that, Jim, I’m going to ask for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeffrey Randles. Applicant proposes alterations to an existing single family home with removal of the first story down to the top of the first floor framing and to reconstruct the first floor with a second story and an attached garage. The project includes additional basement area. The main floor would alter the north and south side with a new dining area and a new garage and bedroom areas. The second floor would include additional living space and storage. The new floor area would be 6,968 sq. ft. and the new footprint of the home with the additions would be 3,348 sq. ft. Project also includes stormwater management and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area and alteration to the existing home. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for removal of the first floor, reconstruction of the first floor and construction of second story, with an attached garage. Parcel is 0.83 acres and in the WR zone. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 5 Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 147 stormwater The applicant proposes the new home on the existing foundation. The home is to be 8 ft. where 20 ft. is required to the north side. The home on the west side would be 51 ft. from the shoreline where 56.1 ft. is required due to the adjoining home setback. The stormwater devices to be installed would be 48 ft. and 88 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 24, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives could be to build in a more compliant site, but it’s 51 feet back from the water. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s minimal setback relief for what currently is existing on site. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created., but they’re following the same footprint as currently exists on site. 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. 36-2022 JEFFREY RANDLES, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 24th Day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. FERGUSON-Thank you. MR. DYBAS-Thank you.