Loading...
Minutes 10.23.24(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 57-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVE & SHANNAN CARROLL AGENT(S) FLYNN DESIGN STUDIO (TREVOR FLYNN) OWNER(S) DAVE & SHANNAN CARROLL ZONING WR LOCATION 21 HERON HOLLOW RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING GARAGE OF 1,322 SQ. FT. TO REPLACE WITH A NEW GARAGE WITH THE SAME FOOTPRINT AND AN UPPER LEVEL OF 548 SQ. FT. THE OVERALL FLOOR AREA IS BEING REDUCED FOR THE ENTIRE HOME WHERE EXISTING IS 7,980 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 7,812 SQ., FT. THE PROJECT WAS PART OF A RECENT APPROVAL AND., UPON BUILDING INSPECTION, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS NOT SUITABLE FOR ORIGINAL PROJECT. THE GARAGE WILL BE REBUILT IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT AS THE 2024 PROJECT PLANS AND WITH THE UPPER LEVEL CONSTRUCTION AS WELL. RELIEF FOR SETBACKS AND GARAGE SIZE. CROSS REF AV 37-2024; SP 37-2024; SP 55-89 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD ZONING 0.6 ACRES TAX MAP NO 227.17-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040 TREVOR FLYNN, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 57-2024, Dave & Shannan Carroll, Meeting Date: October 23, 2024 “Project Location: 21 Heron Hollow Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing garage of 1,322 sq ft to replace with a new garage with the same footprint and an upper level of 548 sq ft. The overall floor area is being reduced for the entire home where existing is 7,980 sq ft and proposed is 7,812 sq ft. The project was part of a recent approval and, upon building i nspection, it was discovered that the foundation was not suitable for original project. The garage will be rebuilt in the same footprint as the 2024 project plans and with the upper level construction as well. Relief for setbacks and garage size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and garage size for the construction of a new garage as existing garage is not suitable for previously approved project. Section 179-5-020 garage, Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new garage is to be 1,322 sf and the maximum allowed is 1,100 sf. The garage is to be located 15.3 ft from the front setback where a 30 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 be considered to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby 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. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the existing house location. The garage may be reduced in size to be compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for front setback 14.7 ft and garage size is 222 sf. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is for the removal of an existing garage and construction of a new garage. The project is part of a house renovation that received approvals for site plan and variance. The new garage would be in the same location as the previous. The plans show the location of the existing and proposed. The project includes removal of floor area on the main level and modifying the floor area on the partial second floor.” MR. MC CABE-So this looks familiar. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024) 2 MR. FLYNN-Yes. Apologies for being in front of you guys again. I do also have another image of the foundation that’s, too, but Trevor Flynn with Flynn Design Studio, representing Dave and Shannan Carroll at 21 Heron Hollow Road. Shannan is with us this evening as well if you have any additional questions, and I do have a correction on one of the square footages as well. We started the demo process, got a demo permit, and they were removing some areas and checking around the garage and we noticed a crack in one of the corners and we realized that we’re doing all this work up on the second floor to re-build roof and those spaces above and the garage was only 18 inches below the soil. It was more of a monolithic slab. So as we slowly started to move things out of the garage and in certain areas we found that it was failing in multiple spots and the loads would not be adequate for the additional work. I do want to state that we were, the existing, if you go to, Laura, please, go to Page Seven, it’s the floor plans, the existing footprint was 1,322 square feet. We’re removing the two sections of the garage and the one shed roof side. So the proposed square footage is 1,215 square feet. So we are reducing that footprint of the garage. MR. MC CABE-So one of the reliefs that you’re looking for is only 115 square feet. MR. FLYNN-Yes, and the main goal was to keep that existing footprint intact for excavation purposes, too. Stepping back, we have decreased the FAR on the site and we’ve stayed within the impervious areas, reduced as much as we can in areas on the project and in short we’re adding on to the breezeway and the connection between the two spaces, that’s the area table that we provided, that’s both on the site plans. MRS. MOORE-So this is what you’re saying then. MR. FLYNN-Yes. And then you’ll see from this diagram, too, the red areas are what we’re removing square footage wise. So we’re removing this and the side of it, and then this upper area is existing area, we’re removing that, and then adding the dormer for light egress and then connecting it to the second floor. So these are really the only two additional areas on that upper level portion and as far as what we presented at our last meeting, we have not changed the envelope at all from what we previousl y presented. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-So we’re still adding 7,812 feet, is that what it is? MR. FLYNN-Yes. MR. HENKEL-All right. So you’re still over 2,000 feet. I mean when we approved this it was based on, because you thought that garage was going to stay there. Now this is a new project. Still, that’s a lot of square footage over what’s allowed. We approved it based on saying that that was a stable building. MR. MC CABE-Well, it’s the same square footage. MR. HENKEL-Right, but I’m just saying we approved it based upon. MR. MC CABE-So if we held him to this then we’re going to make him put that structure on an unsafe foundation. MR. HENKEL-Right, but when he came to us we thought it was stable, but now he’s telling us it’s not. It’s basically a new project. That’s 2,000 square feet over what the FAR variance allows. MR. MC CABE-That doesn’t say that we have to approve FAR. MR. HENKEL-But we’re approving a new project, though. MR. KUHL-You can have your opinion. MR. HENKEL-Right. We approved it based on thinking that garage was going to stay there. Now the garage is not. So it’s a new project. Is it not a new project? MRS. MOORE-It’s a new project for a garage. There’s not a new variance for the floor area. MR. HENKEL-I realize that, but we approved that floor area because thought that that was a good, stable garage. Okay. That’s just my opinion. To me it’s a new project. MR. MC CABE-That’s okay. Other questions? MR. FLYNN-And I’d like to add to that, if we didn’t remove the garage and didn’t do any of the additions to the second floor areas, both here and here, and ended up keeping the footprint, we would end up increasing the FAR if we left the existing garage as is. So we’re still reducing the square footage of the garage. And I do want to say we’re also, it’s still reducing the side yard setback requested relief. We were at 17 and a half feet. Now we’re at 21 and a half feet, and if you go back to the site plan notes from our (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024) 3 approvals in July, you’ll also see we’ve added 100% more of what’s required for buffer for the lake for the raingardens as well. So we’ve actually gone overboard and it’s in the client’s best interest to protect the lake and what was required by site plan with the Town. MR. HENKEL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’d like to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody out there who would like to approach us on this particular project? Do we have anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comments. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Poll the Board and I’m going to start Ron. MR. KUHL-We approved this project before, and what can you do when you find that there’s a problem and you’ve got to tear it down and completely re-do it. John wants a new project. I don’t believe so. I’ll approve this as presented. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I’ve stated my opinion. I think it’s a new project because it’s a new garage, and like I said when we approved it before the garage was going to stay and there was less disturbance to the lake by doing that, but now you’re probably going to disturb the lake anyway by doing that construction there. So to me I think it needs to be smaller. So I’m not for it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think my opinion on this project was that it was way overbuilding on such a small, .6 acre lot, but at the same time what you’re proposing here is less than what you proposed previously. So I would approve it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I think there’s actually a gain for the environment so I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I understand John’s objection, but I think based on what we approved before, I would approve this now. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the project. I don’t think we were mislead or anything on this. It’s something that happened. It wasn’t built and then he came to us for approval afterwards. It was something he discovered during the building and now they’re trying to adjust. So I’m in favor of it. It’s still a minimized project compared to what was there before. MR. MC CABE-And so we’ve actually had this situation a couple of times in the past where we got into construction and found out and it was basically approved because it was in the same foundation as it was before, but it’s not. An argument was made that it’s a new project because it’s not the same foundation, but it is the same foundation. It wouldn’t be right to force the applicant to use an unsafe foundation. So I support the project. So with that in mind, I wonder, Dick, would you make a motion. MR. CIPPERLY-Yes, I would. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Dave & Shannan Carroll. Applicant proposes demolition of existing garage of 1,322 sq ft to replace with a new garage of 1,215 square feet and an upper level of 548 sq ft. The overall floor area is being reduced for the entire home where existing is 7,980 sq ft and proposed is 7,812 sq ft. The project was part of a recent approval and, upon building inspection, it was discovered that the foundation was not suitable for original project. The garage will be rebuilt in the same footprint as the 2024 project plans and with the upper level construction as well. Relief for setbacks and garage size. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/23/2024) 4 Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and garage size for the construction of a new garage as existing garage is not suitable for previously approved project. Section 179-5-020 garage, Section 179-3-040 dimensional The new garage is to be 1,215 sq ft and the maximum allowed is 1,100 sq ft. The garage is to be located 15.3 ft from the front setback where a 30 ft setback is required SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on October 23, 2024. 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 it’s just basically within the envelope of what we approved the first time. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. It’s an unsafe situation. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s in the same footprint as the original. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really is self-created because of what they discovered during construction. 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. 57-2024 DAVE & SHANNAN CARROLL, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan: Duly adopted this 23rd Day of October 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Henkel MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a second project. MR. FLYNN-We get to keep going. Thank you.