03.15.95 ! OP C.01QA1tTNM !
IQ J NOTE TO FILE
AND °
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
USE ❑
APPLICANT: Jeffrey and Debra Godnick AREA Q
March 15, 1995 SIGN ❑
MEETING DATE: OTHER❑
FILE NUMBER: 71-1994
a
Applicant : Godnick - Revised application
Project Location: Glen Lake Road
Proposed Action: Applicant proposes to construct a residPnr•e of
4 , 379 square feet, of which 3 , 000 square feet is living
space , the remainder of which is basement./utility nr-1 ,
In addition, a 900 square foot attached garage is zr^p
Lot s; ce is . 44 acres . Proposed height at the mszimvm i
29 feet .
Conformance with the Ordinance:
Section 179-60 require- a severity-five ('75 ) foot shorpJirl^
setback, applicant proposes a fifty ( 50) foot shorelin-
setback , so seeks relief of 25 feet .
According to Chppter 267-b of Town Law, in considering an Area
Variance, the Zoning Board of Appeals shall take into
consideration the benefit to the applicant if the variance is
granted, as weighed against the detriment to the health, safety
and welfare of the neighborhood or community by such grant .
In making such determination the board shall also consider the
additional points enumerated below.
1 . Benefit to applicant:
On his application, the applicant stated the benefit a^
being his ability to continue living in Q.teensbury, � 1 ' loual
no information was given as to why that issue was dependent
on this particular lot .
At the January IS , 1995 Zoning Board meeting Mr . Godnicl-
expr. essed dismay at being further from the shoreline than
the existing houses on either side , which he appeared t-
find less than attractive , and an impairment to his vj -w
of the lake .
2 . Feasible alternatives :
If the existing house, set back 30 feet from the lake ,
is in a condition to be added on to, and meet current
building codes , it could be expanded. Site Plan review
would be required for any .expansion, since it is in a
Critical Environmental Area, and a variance would be
required if, the expansion was more than 50% of the
existing gross floor area. Applicant could not remove
the existing house and rebuild on the existing footprint .
The proposed size of the deck is 12 x 40, plus a portion
that wraps around the side . If the width were decreased,
less relief would be needed.
Further decreasing the size of the house could result in
less setback relief required. Apparently, this is a
3, 000 s . f . , 2-bedroom house . Perhaps there is a way to
downsize .
3 . Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?
This does appear to be a substantial amount of relief,
considering the intent of the Ordinance to protect the
visual character of the shoreline and consider environmental
concerns unique to the lake .
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
While the applicant has mentioned that he will be further
from the lake than his neighbors, it should be remembered
that eventually those houses may be replaced as well , and
the Godnick house could become the standard others point
to . The long term impacts of shoreline setbacks should
be considered when evaluating individual projects .
Concerns about noise and visual impacts were expressed by
one neighbor. The applicant has been known to park
vehicles from his limousine service at his other Glen Lake
property, so there was also concern about a limousine
service being operated from this property.
5 . Is this difficulty self-created?:
The desired size of the proposed house could be considered
self-created.
SEAR: This is a Type II action, no further SEQR review required .
Staff Comments and Concerns:
No further comment.