Loading...
Meeting Minutes(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/15.2023) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DR.’S MARC & BETSY FUCHS AGENT(S) HAROLD GEURTZE & CO. INC. D/B/A GEURTZE BUILDERS OWNER(S) DR.’S MARC & BETSY FUCHS ZONING WR LOCATION 19 WOOD POINT LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 272.25 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) PARTIALLY OPEN CARPORT ADDITION TO THE EXISTING GARAGE OF 509 SQ. FT. THE CARPORT IS TO BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE GARAGE. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,910 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT IS TO REMAIN. THE FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 3,686 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT IS AN EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA (179-6-065). RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 7-2023; AV 17-2014; AV 36-2010; AV 48- 02; SP 15-2014; SP 49-98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.65 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.14-1-2 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040 PATRICK MOONEY, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2023, Dr.’s Marc & Betsy Fuchs, Meeting Date: February 15, 2023 “Project Location: 19 Wood Point Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 272.25 sq. ft. (footprint) partially open carport addition to the existing garage of 509 sq. ft. The carport is to be on the North side of the garage. The existing home of 2,910 sq. ft. footprint is to remain. The floor area is to be 3,686 sq. ft. The project is an expansion of a non-conforming structure. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA (179-6-065). Relief is requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability for the construction of a carport addition. The project is on a 0.69 ac parcel located in the Waterfront Residential Zone, Lake George. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage The applicant carport addition is to be 12.9 ft. from the header to the property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The permeability is to be 69.70% where 75% is required. The previous area variance did not identify the permeability for relief. 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 garage. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 7.1 ft. to the setback. Permeability relief is 5.3%. 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 has proposed to complete construction of a carport addition that does not meet the side setback. The plans show the location of the addition on the garage in relation to the property lines. The elevations show the carport to be open and to be consistent with the existing garage.” MR. MOONEY-Patrick Mooney from Geurtze Builders representing Mr. and Mrs. Fuchs. So obviously what we’re looking for is the side yard setback. The current garage has a 12.5 foot setback and we’re going to be a little less than that, 12.95 square feet setback. The existing area underneath the proposed carport already is blacktop area. So this lends itself to. They have a carport now, they’re just wishing to keep it covered from the tree sap. MR. MC CABE-So the permeability is for past sins. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/15.2023) 2 MR. MOONEY-Well, actually if you look at it, and I believe I submitted a letter to Laura, when I got into this and all the permeability prior included a full basement, all the numbers included a full basement, and the existing structure house, and the garage are slab on grade. So it reduced the previous permeability by almost 3,000 square feet. MRS. MOORE-So that’s in relation to floor area. MR. MC CABE-I just wanted to make sure that this project wasn’t really increasing permeability. MR. MOONEY-No, we’re not. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? 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 would like to speak with regard to this particular project? Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-I just want to read in the motion, 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 passed on Valentine’s Day 2023 by a unanimous vote. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-I’m going to say yes on this. I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes, also. I think the lake gets a little bonus on this one with the crushed stone that wasn’t there before. So that water went somewhere and now it’s going to go somewhere different. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s definitely minimal relief. So I’d be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a minor request. I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I concur. I have no issues. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I don’t have any issues with the project. I think it looks good. MR. MC CABE-And, I, too, support the project. It’s a minimal request, put a little cover over what’s already a hard top. So at this particular time, Jim, I’m going to ask if you’d make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Drs. Marc & Betsy Fuchs. Applicant proposes a 272.25 sq. ft. (footprint) partially open carport addition to the existing garage of 509 sq. ft. The carport is to be on the North side of the garage. The existing home of 2,910 sq. ft. footprint is to remain. The floor area is to be 3,686 sq. ft. The project is an expansion of a non -conforming structure. Site plan review for new floor area in a CEA (179-6-065). Relief is requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability for the construction of a carport addition. The project is on a 0.69 ac parcel located in the Waterfront Residential Zone, Lake George Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/15.2023) 3 The applicant carport addition is to be 12.9 ft. from the header to the property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The permeability is to be 69.70% where 75% is required. The previous area variance did not identify the permeability for relief. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on February 15, 2023. 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 because nothing really is going to change except the addition of a carport. 2. Feasible alternatives aren’t really feasible because of the location they wish to load the carport. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It requires only minimal relief. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district in the immediate vicinity of the project. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they do want to create this. 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. 5-2023 MARC & BETSY FUCHS, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 15th Day of February 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Keenan, Mrs. Palacino, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project.