Loading...
Minutes(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/23/2023) 1 NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RENEE & TOM WEST AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP ZONING WR LOCATION 79 KNOX RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW GARAGE IN A DIFFERENT LOCATION FROM A PREVIOUS APPROVAL ASSOCIATED WITH CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME. THE NEW LOCATION ALLOWS FOR LESS DISTURBANCE OF AN EXISTING EMBANKMENT AREA. THE GARAGE IS A DETACHED GARAGE WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,050 SQ. FT. AND IS TO BE TWO STORY WITH A BUNK ROOM AND NO KITCHEN FACILITIES. THERE IS NO CHANGE TO THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THE NEW HOME WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 3,190 SQ. FT. AND PORCH/DECK AREA OF 125 SQ. FT. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED 8,720 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA WHICH INCLUDES BASEMENT AREAS AND BOTH FLOORS OF THE GARAGE AND MAIN HOME. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 53-2022; SP 70-2022; FWW 14-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-16 SECTION 179-5-020 TOM WEST, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2023, Renee & Tom West, Meeting Date: August 23, 2023 “Project Location: 79 Knox Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new garage in a different location from a previous approval associated with construction of a new home. The new location allows for less disturbance of an existing embankment area. The garage is a detached garage with a footprint of 1,050 sq. ft. and is to be two story with a bunk room and no kitchen faciliti es. There is no change to the proposed construction of the new home with a footprint of 3,190 sq. ft. and porch/deck area of 125 sq. ft. There are no changes to the proposed 8,720 sq. ft. floor area which includes basement areas and both floors of the garage and main home. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a proposed detached garage of 1,050 sq. ft. that is associated with the construction of a new home. The project site is 1.22 ac parcel and is within the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 WR and Chapter 94 Wetlands The garage is to be 42 ft. from the wetland where a 50 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. The proposed project may have little to no impact on the neighboring properties or neighborhood character. 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 reduce the size of the building to meet the setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested 8 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 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 to construct a detached garage in a different location than previously approved to reduce the amount of disturbance due to a bank area on the property. The project is associated with the construction of a single-family home. The plans show the approved garage location and proposed garage location.” (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/23/2023) 2 MR. WEST-All right. Thank you very much. You may remember this project from last October. MR. MC CABE-So, first of all you’ve got to identify yourself. MR. WEST-I’m sorry. I’m Tom West. So we came before you last October and I was the guy that came up with the crazy idea to have the two variance applications on at the same time, one with the attached garage with the conditioned connector and the other one with the detached garage. Both the Planning Board and this Board agreed with us that it just made more sense for this lot to have a detached garage. Now, quite frankly, when we did that, we didn’t realize exactly where we were putting the garage i n relation to the embankment. It was our mistake, and so we had the property staked out this spring, which is an expensive proposition every time those guys come out, but we saw that we had made a mistake and essentially what we did here was we had the house, or the garage just a little bit too far into this embankment. Do we have those photos, Laura? You don’t have them? Okay. I did have photos in the package where I actually staked out both designs. So what we want to do to take the garage out of the embankment here, which doesn’t really show on this map very well. There’s a couple of mature trees that we’re trying to preserve. We want to go forward five feet and over eight feet, and in order to mitigate the impact of going eight feet into the 50 foot setback, we took the stormwater facility here and we flipped it from the side of the garage around to the lakeside of the garage. So actually the disturbed area is about the same or less. It will make it a lot easier to construct. It’s all on flat land. We don’t have to build an embankment. We don’t have to cut down mature trees that we’re trying to preserve and it’s just a lot better. When we were here last October we did explain the neighborhood. We own six plus acres behind here. So we’re the neighbor on the other side of the road. This is all beautiful wetland that extends, you know, a good distance up into this Assembly Point. It’s one of the largest wetlands that’s not down at the end of a bay or something like that on Lake George, and we do everything we can to protect that wetland, but going from 50 feet to 42 feet is not going to impact the wetland at all. Also because of that wetland, our neighbors, which are the MacElroys, really aren’t affected. Dennis did a lot of the work on this project, and we had a lot of neighbor support for the last time. Several people wrote me and said do you need letters and I said, no, I think they understand from the last application. So respectfully we’re asking for a change from the variance to allow it to move five feet forward and eight feet closer to the wetland MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No new written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this time I’m going to close the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, after that presentation, how could I say no? It’s very well done. He stood up. He walked around. He moved around. I’d be in favor of it. It’s a minor move. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it’s a good size piece of property. The setback is 25 feet from the property line and they’re way beyond that. They’re just asking for eight feet. So it’s acceptable. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a slight change from what we previously approved. I think it’s better environmentally. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Certainly in terms of runoff it’s better than what we approved the first time. So I’m certainly in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-Yes, I have no issues with the project. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/23/2023) 3 MR. MC CABE-And I, too, approve it. I approved it before and what’s being asked of us here is very minimal. So at this particular time I’m going to see if Ron can conjure up a motion here for us. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Renee & Tom West. Applicant proposes construction of a new garage in a different location from a previous approval associated with construction of a new home. The new location allows for less disturbance of an existing embankment area. The garage is a detached garage with a footprint of 1,050 sq. ft. and is to be two story with a bunk room and no kitchen facilities. There is no change to the proposed construction of the new home with a footprint of 3,190 sq. ft. and porch/deck area of 125 sq. ft. There are no changes to the proposed 8,720 sq. ft. floor area which includes basement areas and both floors of the garage and main home. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a proposed detached garage of 1,050 sq. ft. that is associated with the construction of a new home. The project site is 1.22 ac parcel and is within the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 WR and Chapter 94 Wetlands The garage is to be 42 ft. from the wetland where a 50 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 23, 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. This is a minor move from the previously approved location. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited, and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. It’s just the 42 feet to the wetlands where 50 feet is required. It’s just eight feet. 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. 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. 33-2023 RENEE & TOM WEST, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 23rd Day of August 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. WEST-Thank you very much.