Loading...
Minutes 3.27.24(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 1 TABLED ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II REDBUD DEVELOPMENT INC. AGENT(S) GEFF REDICK OWNER(S) LAKE PARKWAY RETREAT LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 226 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 565 SQ. FT. PAVILION ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AND ALTER TWO DORMERS OF THE HOME. THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES IMPROVING PERMEABILITY ON THE SITE, A NEW PLANTING PLAN, UPDATED PATIO WALKWAY AREAS, RETAINING WALL NEAR HOT TUB AREA AND NEW BOULDER WALLS ON THE SITE. PROJECT INCLUDES EXISTING AND NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE SHORELINE AREA IS TO BE IMPROVED WITH PLANTINGS NAD RETAINING WALL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN THE CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, FLOOR AREA, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 13-2024; AV 72-2005; SP 53-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19 -1-82 SECTION 179-3-040; 147 MATT DENNIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 16-2024, Redbud Development, Inc., Meeting Date: March 20, 2024 “Project Location: 226 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 565 sq. ft. pavilion addition to an existing home and alter two dormers of the home. The project work includes improving permeability on the site, a new planting plan, updated patio walkway areas, retaining wall near hot tub area and new boulder walls on the site. Project includes existing and new st ormwater management. The shoreline area is to be improved with plantings and retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and stormwater management setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, floor area, and stormwater management setbacks. The project is located on a 0.62 ac site in the Waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-6-065 new floor area, The applicant proposes a new open side pavilion addition to the existing home to be 13 ft. 8 inches from the south side of the home where a 20 ft. setback is required, a covered walkway is to be 13 ft. 5 inches from the south side setback. The shoreline setback is to be 36 ft. 7 inches where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new stormwater management along the retaining wall area is less than 35 ft. The new floor area is to be 9,292 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 5,929 sq. ft. and existing is 8,740 sq. ft. (house built in 2005 may not have included basement area in original floor area). 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 for side setback of the pavilion is 6 ft. 4 inches, the covered exterior access for basement is 13 ft. 5 inches, the shoreline setback is 13 feet 5 inches. Floor area relief 3,363 s f remainder new floor area is for an outdoor pavilion of 565 sf (house built in 2005 may not have included basement area in original floor area). Relief is requested for stormwater device less than 35 ft . to the shoreline. 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 2 Staff comments: The project is for an open side pavilion of 565 sf addition, a covered access entry for basement and site alterations to improve the shoreline planting and stormwater management for the site. The plans show the location of the addition and walkway including elevation renditions. The plans also show the extensive planting and site work to improve the shoreline buffer and stormwater management.” MR. URRICO-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 five zero on March 19th, 2024. MR. DENNIS-Good evening. My name’s Matt Dennis. I’m from Redbud Development, representing Dave Prescott at 226 Lake Parkway. As was just stated, the house was built about 20 years ago. There hadn’t been a ton of improvements made upon the house since it was built. The Prescotts purchased the house approximately three years ago and got ready to make the improvements. The current use is a private residential that will remain unchanged. We’re proposing construction of several things. First, as previously mentioned, a covered outdoor living space, which you can see on the front here, on the top left portion of the house, and there are several goals for this particular space. First is to provide some shade for the Prescotts and their family and friends to gather during the hot summer months. Right now the space is fully exposed. So giving them a space to go outside and actually enjoy the outdoors on the hotter days and get some shade is the primary focus here. Next is to create a covered b asement access, which is actually just below in that plan, again, the front left portion of the house. Currently there’s only one point of access in the basement. You have to go through the house. So adding this additional access makes it easier for potential facilities in the future and any kind of changes to the basement. It just gives them a better point of access or secondary point of access. Also cover this space as well, make sure that, considering this would be lower, we want to make sure w e try to keep as much rainwater out of it. We are going to have a drain at the bottom of the stairs, but covering it will again help us prevent water from getting towards the house. Next on the list is some new dormers on the house, which can be seen in a separate packet, which would be the architectural drawings. So currently the bedrooms are very dark, and the current size of the dormers doesn’t necessarily allow for the proper, out toward the lake. So changing dormers makes them a little bit bigger, and the window size actually allows a little bit more light in. It allows us to create the right furniture layout that we’re looking for, and also makes the A frame in front of the house more prominent. Next on the list was (lost words) also reduci ng the impervious surfaces, reducing runoff on the site. We’re also looking to do some shoreline mitigation as well. If you go to the existing conditions photos, you can see what the current condition of the shoreline is. As of right now it’s in a very busy part of the lake in terms of boat traffic. Unfortunately it’s not going to get any better as the years go by. So creating a better shoreline buffer to limit the amount of erosion from boat waves is definitely a focus here. There’s currently no wall or any kind of shoreline or anything along the shoreline to really help with knocking down wave action. The Code suggests a short wall. We believe this is too short. The Code suggests 18 inches. We’re looking to go up to 48 inches with this wall, and we’re also looking to have a batter to the wall for the passage of marine life, ducks, turtles, anything like that to actually be able to move up over the wall. So it’s not just going to be a straight barrier wall to prevent the movement of marine wildlife. Next is the stormwater management systems. There are currently, there is current stormwater management on site, but we don’t have information as to what it is. So we want to make sure that this is brought up to Code. Considering how the weather has been over the last several years, again, it doesn’t seem to be getting any better, there’s lots more frequent, intense rain events. So we want to make sure that the proposed system is going to go above and beyond to capture all the stormwater from the house and all the impervious surfaces and then a significant amount more, and then lastly we want to introduce a significant portion of native plantings as well to, Number One, help the shoreline buffer mitigation, as well as to stabilize that steep slope going down to the proposed sea wall that we have, and then I guess in closing again this is, but the Town Engineer provided comments that generally approves of the stormwater design with some very minor revisions and I believe on that point we’ll open it up for questions from you guys. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing was advertised. I don’t think I opened it up last week. So I’ll do that formally right now and see if there’s anybody out there who would like to address us on this particular project. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening, Board. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. It’s my opinion that the project does not provide the balance, although there is the, you know, discussion of the shoreline planting and stormwater which would be r equired anyway. We have concerns regarding this application, as it requests two of the three variances that can have the greatest impact to the lake, the floor area ratio and shoreline setbacks, and the property is already, and will remain, non -compliant for permeability. All this within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George and in an area experiencing harmful algae blooms, we really want to provide more protection for the lake, and this also (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 3 raises a greater concern regarding a third variance for requests on reducing the setback for adequate stormwater treatment, which was determined by the Lake George Park Commission. This is an instance of the property owner walking development towards the lake and really not paying attention, fully, to the measures implemented for the protection of natural resources. The variances are substantial, especially within the Critical Environmental Area, such as 30% for the shoreline setback for a seasonal cove red patio that is not really necessary for the enjoyment of the lake. The variances will result in adverse impact to the environment through replacement of a vegetative cover with hard scape within the shoreline setback and reducing the required setback to provide adequate stormwater treatment, especially on a property that fails to meet the required permeability. So we feel that this application should at least be tabled for improvements or denied as is right now due to a lack of balance, the substantia lity of the variances, and increased impact. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular project? Do we have anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-There’s one letter. This is, “Permeable surfaces are extremely important on lakefront properties. Soil and roots filter the excess nutrients and pollutants from going into the lake, contributing to the algae growth. I am asking the Board to reject these proposals. Thank you.” That’s Carol Hunt and I don’t have an address here. So I’m not sure where, it came through the website, right? MS. DWYRE-Correct. MR. URRICO-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So do you guys have any rebuttal, or anything to say? So, just real quick, you said you were going to reduce permeability, but there wasn’t much specific about that. MR. DENNIS-Yes. So I appreciate your concerns. We certainly thought about the impacts to the lake. I mean obviously there’s these rules and regulations that are in place for a reason. So the first thing that I will mention as far as the permeable, or the impermeable surfaces of this property, as of right now we have taken into consideration that the road is actually part of the property. So either the road or the property lines are mislabeled. So there’s an additional I would say four or five hundred square feet of impermeable surfaces that we had to take into account. MR. URRICO-Mislabeled by who? DAVID PRESCOTT, OWNER MR. PRESCOTT-The Town mismarked it when they put the road in. They put the road in based on where they needed to, based on rocks and trees and it doesn’t match this. I went back to the Town as well as the attorney who did the closing and they’re basically, they’re not going to change it, but that’s not where the road’s actually at. MR. DENNIS-So we did certainly have to adjust to that, but in our discussions I believe with Laura knowing that, the existing property that we had to work with was already over the allotted amount. We just had to show that we were reducing the amount of impermeable surfaces in order for this to be considered. Additionally, touching on stormwater and stormwater management, we do understand that we are proposing stormwater within 35 feet of the lake, but the vast majority if not, I mean 95% plus of the actual hard surface where you would be capturing runoff from would be further away, I guess beyond the 35 foot setback, and if we were to go to the detail sheets, that would be Page Eight, there’s a chart at the bottom of that sheet which does show the existing impervious surfaces versus what we are proposing. We’re proposing to reduce, or to knock off, more than 400 square feet of impervious surfaces, and then if you go down to, which also shows the total volume of stormwater that we’re going to capture, w hich is the 1,652 cubic feet, and then going down to the blue area you can see what we are proposing to capture which is over 3,000 feet of, which is well beyond what is required for us to capture, and showing that as far as algae blooms that are any kind of pollution in the lake, again, considering the majority of hard surfaces are beyond the 35 foot setback and considering how much additional stormwater facilities or systems that we are proposing. We feel that this is an adequate, actually well beyond adequate showing of our support for stormwater systems and preventing any kind of runoff from going into the lake. MR. PRESCOTT-I’d like to add another piece, David Prescott. Totally respect the comments that have been made about protecting the lake. I’m a Navy veteran which is what brought me to this area. I’m originally a farmer from Minnesota and Iowa. So de finitely know erosion and know what it does, which is why we’re trying to improve the property. I think that the piece that’s missing from the comments that have been brought to the Board is I can leave the property just the way it is, but that’s a worse situation for the lake and the environment. So the whole point behind this project and the whole point I’m looking to spend the money I’m looking to spend on doing this project is to improve the lake. I drink my water from this lake, and that’s where my drinking water comes from. So it’s very important to me to make sure that I’m protecting and not doing any harm. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 4 MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HENKEL-I have a question for Laura. Obviously from what I read, 2005, when this was built, they screwed up on the floor area ratio, right? MRS. MOORE-No, what happened in 2005, it wasn’t accounted for. The Code didn’t trigger any of that sort of calculation at that point, and so when we updated our Code, that’s when that calculation came into play. So at that point in 2005 it was compliant for whatever that time period was and now that he’s adding additional floor area we have to account for that in our calculations for today’s standards. MR. HENKEL-There are over 3,300 square feet roughly over allowable, and now they’re asking for another 500 some odd square feet. MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-To be honest with you, whether it was okay in 2005 but with the new calculations, that triggers a whole new review. So now we’re working with the new calculations in terms of the floor area. We can’t discount what’s there. So we’re still looking at well over 3,000 square feet in terms of new floor area and I dare say that this is very scary for me to look at and not ask for it to be cut back in some way. So I would not be in favor of this project. MR. TRAVER-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I agree while the project looks good on paper, but should we get into the nitty gritty, I think something needs to be done to protect the lake. I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I kind of agree with my Board members also. For one thing it’s so close to the lake. If it was back 200 feet I might not have a problem with it as much, but I would have a problem with the square footage definitely. So I’m not in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the project starkly contrasts with the neighboring properties nearby. This thing is almost completely cleared with no trees on the property whatsoever. I think continuing suburbanization of the waterfront is a negative, and I would not be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I have an issue with the square footage as well and I think it should be scaled down. While I think there might be some improvements to the stormwater management, I think this issue makes it a no for me. MR. MC CABE-And so my first impression is the property’s way too big for the lot. So I could not approve the additional square footage, floor area ratio. The other requests I don’t have a problem with. I think you’re doing a pretty good job with the stormwater management, but the additional floor area is too much for me. So the situation is, we are down a member, but that one member is not going to help you at this point. So you can call the vote, but that’s probably not going to go well. You can table and take another look at, you know, what you can do here, or you can withdraw. MR. DENNIS-So I guess I’d have a question for you guys. Is this mostly just based on the fact that the Code changed? MR. MC CABE-So we can’t do anything about what was done in 2005. That’s existing. So my problem is any additional floor area at this time. MR. HENKEL-It’s so close to the lake, too. MR. PRESCOTT-here’s nothing I can do about it. It was approved when it was built. All I’m trying to do is improve it. MR. HENKEL-The improvements are all good that you’re talking about. That’s great, but unfortunately the coverage. MR. PRESCOTT-Well it’s just actually a roof is all it is for me. It’s not interior. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 5 MR. MC CABE-Yes, but the roof’s pretty substantial. MR. PRESCOTT-Well it’s a west facing house. So the sun blasts right in. MR. HENKEL-I understand your concerns. MR. MC CABE-So I guess to proceed I need some guidance from you. MRS. MOORE-So if they were to table, it would not be heard until a May application at this point. MR. DENNIS-Do you guys have any suggestions as to what we can do? MR. MC CABE-For me, get rid of the patio, or the outdoor coverage. MR. PRESCOTT-How do you knock down the sun? You brought up the fact that there’s no trees there. Again, that’s the way the property was bought. So somebody here approved all the trees being removed. It’s not my problem or fault that that occurred. I bought it like that. I’m looking to plant more and improve on it and I don’t know about you guys, but the rest of that neighborhood this house is in line with and looks like a lot of the rest of the houses in the neighborhood and are currently in cons truction there. So it’s definitely in line with the look of the neighborhood. MR. HENKEL-And you’re right because I’ve been around the neighborhood. The problem is, like Chris brings out, we need to try and protect the lake more now than we used to so that things are being a little bit more strict. MR. PRESCOTT-No, these are projects that you guys just approved recently. MR. MC CABE-We don’t approve too many floor area ratios like this. MR. PRESCOTT-There’s a lot of tree removal that’s occurred. MRS. MOORE-I’ll just jump in. Sorry. In reference to doing site work and things like that, that’s more of a Planning Board item. What this Board was in charge of to administer is information about setbacks that they’re looking at and the numerical information. So you would be, when you went to visit the Planning Board, they are the ones that would have talked about additional trees and things like that. This Board does get involved when it’s a stormwater and a setback issue. So what, you know, the opportunity here is that you could re-group, table it until May, have additional discussions with me in the office and see if there’s an alternative route. MR. DENNIS-I think that’s our best option, then. MR. MC CABE-Do you want to table it until May, John? MR. HENKEL-Which meeting, the 15th or the 22nd? MRS. MOORE-The first one. MR. HENKEL-The 15th, and new information by. MRS. MOORE-April 15th. MR. HENKEL-The April; 15th deadline. Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING AV # 16-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT, INC. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Redbud Development Inc. Applicant proposes to construct a 565 sq. ft. pavilion addition to an existing home and alter two dormers of the home. The project work includes improving permeability on the site, a new planting plan, updated patio walkway areas, retaining wall near hot tub area and new boulder walls on the site. Project includes existing and new stormwater management. The shoreline area is to be improved with plantings and retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, floor area, and stormwater management setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT INC., Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mary Palacino: Tabled to May 15, 2024 with any new information due by April 15, 2024. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 6 Duly adopted this 27th day of March, 2024, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Palacino, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So we’ll see you in May. MR. DENNIS-Great. MR. MC CABE-I’ll re-open the public hearing until the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED