Loading...
Minutes AV 8-2023 Serini 3.22.23(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II SHARON SERINI AGENT(S) NICK ZEGLEN (EDP) OWNER(S) SHARON SERINI ZONING WR LOCATION 15 PRIVATE ROAD # 1 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2-STORY HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 972 SQ. FT., PORCH AREA OF 240 SQ. FT., AND A FLOOR AREA OF 2,113 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE PLAN INCLUDES A VEGETATIVE PLAN FOR REMOVAL AND PLANTINGS TO REMAIN. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN THE CEA. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. CROSS REF SP 10-2023; FWW 2-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY: ALD LOT SIZE 0.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 240.9-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040 NICK ZEGLEN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; SHARON & MICHAEL SERINI, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2023, Sharon Serini, Meeting Date: March 22, 2023 “Project Location: 15 Private Road # 1, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2-story home with a footprint of 972 sq. ft., porch area of 240 sq. ft., and a floor area of 2,113 sq. ft. The project includes a septic system and stormwater management. The plan includes a vegetative plan for removal and plantings to remain. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks, floor area a nd height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and height for the construction of a new home. The project is on a 0.19 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone, Lake George; the current site is vacant. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new home is to be 10.0 ft. from the south property line where 12 ft. setback is required. The height of the new home is to be 31.35 ft. where the maximum height allowed is 28 ft. Floor area relief is also requested where 2,113 sq. ft. (25.6%) is proposed and the maximum allowed is 1,815 sq. ft. (22%). 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. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the neighboring properties. 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. The feasible alternatives may be considered to construct the new home within the requirements. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief for setback is 2 ft., the height is 3.5 ft. and 3.6% for floor area. 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 as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the construction of a new home on a vacant parcel. The new home will have access to Cleverdale Road from Private Road #1. The plans show the home to be two-story constructed on a slab. The plans include stormwater management, clearing, vegetative plantings.” MR. ZEGLEN-Good evening. I’m Nick Zeglen with Environmental Design Partnership with the applicants, Michael and Sharon Serini. We’re here tonight seeking a variance proposal for a proposed modest 972 square foot footprint, three bedroom residence located on Private Road #1 off of Cleverdale Road. So the existing vacant lot is 8,250 square feet and only 50 feet wide. So it’s a small lot and so that’s why we’re here tonight seeking variances. The first variance for building height for 31.35 feet versus the 28 feet required. This is a relief of 3.35 feet. So the nature of this variance is the house itself, measured from finish grade to peak, is actually around 20.7 feet. However, how the Town interprets building height, it’s measured from the road’s natural adjacent grade. So when we place the house on the site, and the (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) 2 topography of the site, it slopes down towards the lake. So on that lakeside we’re measuring from the existing lower grade, results in a variance of 31.35 feet. Now the elevation of the house is where it has to be to promote proper drainage around the house and provide adequate separation for stormwater management. So both the house to the north and the proposed house to the south of this lot are both higher, significantly higher, than this lot. It creates sort of a backfill effect, and in order to prevent water from ponding where that house is proposed, we had to get down to the elevation that’s shown on the plans. It’s still a little bit lower than both the house to the north and the house to the south, but it is raised up higher. The second variance is for side yard setback. We’re requesting a side yard setback of 10 feet versus the 12 feet that’s required, for relief of two feet. We don’t feel that that is a substantial amount of relief, especially looking at the width of the lot is 50 feet, and when you take the 12 foot setbacks on either side, we’re only left with 26 feet of building width. Furthermore, the lot that is directly affected by this setback is also owned by the applicants. So if there were an objection by anyone it would be the applicants themselves. The surrounding would really not be affected. It would not be a detriment to them. And the third variance is for floor area ratio. So we’re requesting a floor area ratio of 25.6% versus the 22% that’s required. Again, we feel that this number is not substantial, especially given the size of the lot, only 8,250 square feet. The house that’s proposed is very modest. It’s just a little over 2,000 square feet which is a very standard house size. So again we feel that it’s not substantial, and with the cost of construction these days and the price of the lot and building, it didn’t make sense for the applicant to build something that didn’t meet their daily needs. So that’s why we’re here for this variance. Other site improvements are on- site stormwater management. We did see the comments from the Designated Town Engineer yesterday, which we addressed and submitted today. We do have on-site septic system that was approved by the Town Board of Health back in November of 2022 and we are proposing additional plantings within the shoreline buffer. Again, we feel like this house i s not substantial. It’s not a mega mansion. It’s very reasonable. It’s just unfortunately on a small lot. So we’d be happy to answer any questions that you have or that the public may have tonight. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-The first application, the square footage was less than this, 475 feet less than, and now we’re at. MR. ZEGLEN-We’re at 2113. Yes. So with that first application, the applicants sat down with their architects, started laying out houses and what not, and just realized that it just, there just wasn’t enough room. It didn’t work for them. MR. HENKEL-So you’re 600 feet over now. The problem, in the future, there’s no shed on that property, no garage. So now you’re going to eventually probably have to come back to us for something like that. You have no storage. You have a slab. No storage. No cellar. Where are you going to put everything? I would be happier going with the square footage of 298 feet above the FAR variance if there was a garage on that property. I do struggle a little bit with having that 298 feet over the FAR variance, without a garage or a shed. MR. ZEGLEN-The applicants do own the property next door and that will have a garage. It’s a two acre property. There is a lot of room on that property if they needed storage. MR. HENKEL-So why don’t they combine the two pieces of property? Then they could build their McMansion. MRS. SERINI-This we’re building is large enough. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised, and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody who would like to comment on this particular project? Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. The concern regarding their FAR variance and their request along the shoreline is that really defines the allowable building size and development for adequacy and sustainability of the site. I wonde r if a viable alternative is a lot line adjustment between the parcels. It’s the same property owner that owns parts of these adjacent to it. That would increase the parcel acreage and increase the allowable building square footage. In theory if you do that it may not change anyway because it’s just a line and it’s going to be the same amount of building. Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) 3 MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to speak to us on this particular project? Is there anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-I want to read two things in. The Planning Board based on its limited review has identified the following areas of concern: One, the recommendation that a compliant structure that would not require a south setback variance, and, Two, a recommended floor area ratio to be reduced or to be Code Compliant, and that motion was passed on March 21st, 2023 by a unanimous vote. And there’s one other letter. “There are some concerns regarding the proposed 1440 square foot home at parcel 240.9-1-4 containing .20 acres. The current setbacks for this property are 12 feet from the property line and 28 feet high. While these are minimal setbacks to begin with, there are setbacks for a reason. Our biggest concerns are proximity, noise and view obstruction. The first concern is proximity. According to the Town of Queensbury’s GIS system, the property is 55 ft. wide. That leaves a building width of 31 feet, which would give plenty of space to build within the current setbacks. Our log cabin was built in 1976 and is probably pre-existing and non-conforming to today’s current setbacks. According to the Town of Queensbury’s GIS system, our home is 10.5 feet from the property line. Our log cabin is also a true log cabin which does not have HVAC system. We rely solely on open windows for ventilation. Having a neighbor so close by brings us to the next point. Noise is inevitable with any neighbor, but the proposed home would be about 20 feet away from our current home. Another issue would be view obstruction and privacy. If this proposed home is 30 feet high, that has the potential to block part of our view or look over and into our home. We have concerns regarding outdoor lighting that may impact the windows facing the shared side of our properties. We also have 2 questions: 1 – Since the Serini’s also own the adjoining lot, could they move the proposed dwelling closer the larger lot? 2 – Are the neighbors provided with a copy of the survey to see the exact location of the proposed dwelling? Thank you for your consideration in this, Peter & Mary Iwanyckyj”, and that’s 195 Roses Grove Road in Water Mill, New York. MR. HENKEL-They wrote the letter based on the first application of 1440 square foot house instead of 2100. MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to comment? MR. ZEGLEN-Yes. So just a couple of things to add. The shoreline setback, specifically for the house, so this lot, you know, it’s either 50 feet or the average of the two parcels, whichever is greatest. So this is a situation where the 50 feet is thrown out the window. We measured from the Iwanyckyj’s house to the north, and then the proposed house to the south, and that’s how we got to it. The setback’s actually 64 feet. So this house would be right in line with the neighboring property and would not obstruct any views of the lake or anything like that. And another point. We did move the setback closer to this other lot, that’s where the two foot setback is so it does meet the 12 foot setback. So we did try to move that setback, and as far as the lot line adjustment goes, I don’t know, I know that it’s an existing, lawful, non-conforming .2 acre lot and the allowable lot size is two acres. I don’t know how that works, taking from a lot that is two acres and make the lot bigger, if you’re creating two non-conforming lots. I don’t know. MRS. MOORE-It would trigger a variance. MR. ZEGLEN-Yes, it would trigger a variance to do that as well. MRS. SERINI-Sharon Serini. We are not touching the tree line, there was a tree line, and we had spoken with our neighbors and we said, you know, are fully, we do not want to inhibit their privacy. I want privacy, too. So we’re in agreement that whole tree line so they can have their privacy, and we also a re planting additional plantings. So we talked to them and explained to them what we were doing, if they had any suggestions at the time, they didn’t say anything, but we explained to them that we respect them. We pay a lot of money to be on this lake. Everyone deserves to have their privacy, and I would not take that away, no way. So we had decided, we walked it with the tree people. We are not taking any of those trees down. 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 Dick. All right. So, wait a minute. So I have to re-open the public hearing. You need to use the microphone there because somebody’s transcribing all this. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. SERINI-Mike Serini, owner of the property. They made the comment of seeing one house from the other, with the second story. Well we have a first story. The first story lines up with their first story. So if you add a one story house to a two story house, the visibility to their house and their lot. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) 4 MR. MC CABE-Right. So at this particular time I’m going to re-close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING RE-CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Dick. MR. CIPPERLY-Thank you, Mike. I think I tend to agree with the Planning Board comments. There’s sort of two ways out of it. You can downsize a little bit, or move the lot line and we grant two variances which would probably be pretty simple. It just seems they’re on an 8,000 square foot lot. It’s an awful lot. There’s really nothing left. MR. MC CABE-So you’re a no? MR. CIPPERLY-For now, yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement. I think this can be scaled back a little better. We may not need the variances if that were the case, and I must say I’m a little bothered by the height. Even though it’s in somewhat of a valley, I still think it’s three feet above what’s allowed and these things tend to spread if we do allow them. So I would be against it as presented right now. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I would not be in favor of it. I think there are considerations that still need to be pursued. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I think I agree that either the lot line adjustment or a little smaller building site so that we don’t have to deal with the variances almost. Obviously with the lot line adjustment you would have the variances, but I think that would be a good solution here. I don’t know as I have too much of a problem with the height of the building, considering the contours of the lot, but that would be my recommendation. So, no. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-In a practical sense here I think we have to be realistic about what people propose up on these smaller lots. This is only a .2 acre lot. There’s no cellar in here. There’s no storage available for any storage whatsoever in the building. Anybody who builds a house up on the lake wants a garage eventually. I think that would be inevitable that there would be a request for that. So I think they’re going to have to substantially shrink this down to a one bedroom or maybe a two bedroom place, but it’s going to have to have a garage and all the amenities that go with year round living up there. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. There’s no doubt. There’s one good thing, though. Your septic system is 138 feet from the lake which is a good thing. So you’ve got one good positive thing, and you guys are lucky you have some options because of the property you have next door. So I would not be on board. The height definitely bothers me. The setback, that could be changed with a lot line adjustment or something. You’re lucky you have options. Not everybody has that. I’m not in support of it. MR. MC CABE-So I have a problem with the FAR. It just opens Pandora’s Box. It’s like too big a building on too small a lot. I have no problem with the height. As you say, you know, the average height is not larger than what we require. If it was flat, I would have a problem with the height, and I have no problems with the setbacks, but I do have a problem with the FAR, and so I’m not in favor of this project, either, and I would have to say that I would find it much more acceptable if a lot line adjustment was made to make this lot a little bit bigger. We can’t count on you being the neighbor all the time. You could either sell your property or you could sell this one. So I think to me this whole, it would be better to make this a bigger lot. MR. ZEGLEN-We request to table until the next available meeting. Is that possible, in case there’s an opening on the April. If we get everything in on time for the April agenda. MR. HENKEL-We’re shooting for May, right? MRS. MOORE-Right now we’re on May because March was the deadline for April. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/22/2023) 5 MR. HENKEL-We’re looking at May 17th. Is that okay? That’s still open? Okay. MR. ZEGLEN-Just to reiterate. So the lot line adjustment would be favorable? MR. HENKEL-It sounds like it. MR. MC CABE-It would be certainly to me. MR. ZEGLEN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So the applicant would be responsible for submitting an updated application of this project, and then if they wish to pursue the lot line adjustment, they would trigger a variance for the other lot. MR. MC CABE-Does that have to be two separate meetings? MRS. MOORE-No. So it would be two applications. MR. HENKEL-You said the other property is two acres? MR. ZEGLEN-I believe it’s more than that. MR. CIPPERLY-On the ground it looks reasonable. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sharon Serini. Applicant proposes a 2-story home with a footprint of 972 sq. ft., porch area of 240 sq. ft., and a floor area of 2,113 sq. ft. The project includes a septic system and stormwater management. The plan includ es a vegetative plan for removal and plantings to remain. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA. Relief is requested for setbacks, floor area, and height. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2023 SHARON SERINI, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mary Palacino: Tabled to the May 17th, 2023 Zoning Board meeting with any new information due by April 17th, 2023. Duly adopted this 22nd day of March, 2023, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Keenan, Mrs. Palacino, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. ZEGLEN-Thank you.