Loading...
Minutes Flynn AV 34-2020(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN AGENT(S) TREVOR FLYNN OWNER(S) JAMES S. DENOOYER ZONING RR-5A/LAKE GEORGE CEA LOCATION 19 LOCKHART LOOP APPLICANT PROPOSES TWO PORCH ADDITIONS: AN 81.4 SQ. FT. COVERED FRONT ENTRY PORCH; A 224 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH; AND 213 SQ. FT. OF ROOF-DORMER OVERHANG AREAS. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,540 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND FULL BASEMENT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 44-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-22 SECTION 179-3-040 & 179-4-080 (PORCHES); 179-13-010 (NONCONFORMING) TREVOR FLYNN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2020, Trevor Flynn, Meeting Date: October 21, 2020 “Project Location: 19 Lockhart Loop Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes two porch additions: an 81.4 sq. ft. covered front entry porch; a 224 sq. ft. screen porch; and 213 sq. ft. of roof-dormer overhang areas. The existing home is 1,540 sq. ft. (footprint) and full basement. Relief requested for setbacks. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for new construction in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new front entry porch is 72.5 ft. from the south property line where 100 ft. is required, the new screened porch is located 58.50 ft. from the south property line where 100 ft. is required. The new dormer on the north side of the building is to be 88.50 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: MR. URRICO-An 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 on a 7.84 ac parcel in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested from the south property line is 41.5 ft. and the north is 11.5 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct two porch additions, two dormer areas and relocate the driveway area to assist with stormwater. The plans show the location of the additions and the driveway. The plans indicate there is existing plantings and new planting to be installed in rain garden areas on the site.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board introduced a motion and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and that was adopted October 20th, 2020 by a unanimous vote. MR. FLYNN-Hi. Good evening. My name’s Trevor Flynn, representing Mr. and Mrs. James Denooyer at 19 Lockhart Loop Lake George, NY. Currently our clients have a property located on the lake. It’s a three story structure and they’re aging in place so they purchased this property and are looking to the fut ure, a one story ranch with the idea that they could live on one story. They’ve done some site improvements since then. So looking at the existing structure there’s currently a garage that is right here on the structure itself and also with the Zoning Code trying to limit the amount of garages on the site, so keeping the existing detached garage intact for the vehicle storage, vehicle access. As mentioned, moving into this new (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020) 2 house, it’s a smaller footprint compared to what they’re used to. So they’re trying to create a somewhat larger space with an open floor plan and re-locating some of the rooms, having a master bedroom and bathroom in case they ever have to be in a wheelchair, a universal design. Once we started to look at the interior floor space, and considering the detached garage, idea of an attached front entry came into play. We looked at depressing that front entry into the existing footprint, but it really started to eat up what was left of that existing footprint, and it’s an existing nonconforming lot. So this small area here, since the entire site is a front yard setback, at 100 feet there wouldn’t be enough area to build within to be compliant, since it’s an existing nonconforming structure. The screen porch was another effort to expand on the space they have outdoors and patio area, fire pit. So the idea of creating that other space that could be one story and off the side of the structure itself. Since the client has purchased the property, they’ve planted over 90 trees, and that’s been an effort to screen from the road. I’m sure you guys are all familiar with what this structure has looked like over the past 15, 20 years. So it’s just been a brown, board and batten house. The idea was to bring it back to life and also bring the landscaping and really address some of the stormwater issues as well. So even looking at the existing driveway and grading, at kind of the top or crest of the hill after 9, the water slopes off, hits the hill, and then continues to slope down to Lockhart Loop. Their goal is to try to prevent that with additional plantings, and also re-routing the driveway. Currently the water just runs right down the driveway and kind of blocks up this storm drain. So in an effort to re-create an approach to the house, and then also mitigate the runoff to the front of the driveway from the west, and we are still working on a planting plan with our civil engineer, but there would be some additional plantings and raingardens or shallow grassed area to absorb some of that runoff as well as the front on the two sides and towards the rear to capture most of the previous runoff. As far as the setbacks, we discussed the front entry and the porch. The front dormer that faces Lockhart, that was added for more of an aesthetic approach, looking at the existing structure and rooflines we wanted to add that roof. So the existing setback from Lockhart Loop is 75 feet, where this dormer is at 88.5. Similar for the screened porch. You have the existing setback over by the detached garage which is 46 feet, where the screened porch is only asking for 58.5 feet, and then again the entry porch, too, from 9 is 72.5 feet away from the property line. Again, you know, as we start to look at the floor plan overall, you can see we’ve increased t the size of the master bedroom and bathroom in an effort for wheelchair access throughout., three foot doors, and that ended up moving the two bedrooms that were here down to the other side of the house, and we did look at, again, this entry encroaching here, but there’s just, there wasn’t enough room at the end of the day to squeeze it in, and then connecting kind of a kitchen, dining room and living to the exterior, that was the reasoning for the screened porch towards 9N, and we’re really u sing that vegetative buffer of all the trees that they’ve been planting to kind of create this kind of small oasis here in the center, the two roads. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. FLYNN-And as far as the additions themselves, all the dormers do not increase the height of the building. They stay within the zoning envelope. So we’re really trying to minimize the overall aesthetic of the structure. MR. MC CABE-No questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’d like to open the public hearing and invite anybody from the outside who’s watching to give us a call at 518-761- 8225 if you want to comment on this particular application. Roy, is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this particular application. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening, again. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We would actually like to commend the applicant for the work that they’ve done on the property. We are not opposed to what they are asking. We just wanted to recognize their investment in the property with the vegetation. I forget when it was, 10, 15 years ago, the property was basically clear cut with great impact to that little Loop. So we just want to recognize their environmentally responsible approach to the property. The only comment I would have is that they reference stormwater management, raingardens as one of their criteria, but then they don’t have it. I imagine they’ll have it for the Planning Board. I suspect they will, but it would just be good to see if they’re getting a variance, but anyway, we support it. That’s all. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Your concerned with the stormwater management. The permeability is way above what’s required. Your concern with the raingardens and that, the stormwater management, but the permeability is really quite good there. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020) 3 MR. NAVITSKY-The permeability is good. I just, when people say they’re putting it in, but then it’s not there. So that’s just my only comment. I imagine when they go to the Planning Board it will be there. Not a real big concern. MRS. MOORE-That’s accurate., It should be present before the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Flynn, would you like to comment? MR. FLYNN-As far as the stormwater, we do plan to have that for the next Planning Board meeting. As far as I’m aware, we can only just provide enough stormwater management for the runoff of the newly added structures, or pervious area, and we’re going to provide that, and that’s the overall goal, an as mentioned, we’re really trying to bring this back to a wooded site, a natural site, in between the two roads. MR. HENKEL-When were the original buildings built? Quite a few years ago, weren’t they? MR. FLYNN-I want to say was the house was in the 70’s. MR. HENKEL-It’s been there a long time. MR. FLYNN-And then there’s a couple of additions to the garage itself. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time, I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-I’m a little confused about this setback exactly, the numbers. So we’re looking for what? MR. MC CABE-We’re looking for relief on three setbacks, south property, so it would be the north and I guess the porch is on the south property line. So two setbacks on the south property line. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. Well one of them is kind of substantial, but still, with the permeability being as good as it is, and taking in all the improvements they made to the property. So I would have to say yes as presented. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Neither of these additions as requested is going to trigger anything in my mind as far as negative here. It’s all driven strictly by the fact that it’s five acre zoning, and I think if it was one acre zoning we wouldn’t even be here at all. So I think that it’s minimal relief requested. I don’t think there’s any negative physical effects on the environment. It’s a positive for the applicant. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-In my judgment they meet the test and I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s a weird shaped property because it’s got all fronts. Wherever they go they’ve got to deal with the front setbacks and they’re still way off the road. So it’s no problem at all. It’s a good project. Aesthetically it’s going to be nice for the neighborhood, curb appeal. It’s a great project. Good looking. I’m all for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-If this was Waterfront Residential we wouldn’t be here. I think t’s a good project. It’s a shame it’s in the five acre zone but it’s a good project. I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. It’s also improving the environmental conditions in the area and I think it’s a modest request, given the neighborhood. It’s basically surrounded by much smaller lots. I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, commend the applicant for the work that they’ve done to help the environment here, and I think that the setbacks are basically caused by where the house was placed originally. So I don’t see any big problems. So at this particular time I’m going to ask for a motion from Ron. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/21/2020) 4 MR. KUHL-Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn. Applicant proposes two porch additions: an 81.4 sq. ft. covered front entry porch; a 224 sq. ft. screen porch; and 213 sq. ft. of roof-dormer overhang areas. The existing home is 1,540 sq. ft. (footprint) and full basement. Relief requested for setbacks. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for new construction in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new front entry porch is 72.5 ft. from the south property line where 100 ft. is required, the new screened porch is located 58.50 ft. from the south property line where 100 ft. is required. The new dormer on the north side of the building is to be 88.50 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 21, 2020. 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this is a large piece of property (1.83 ac) in the 5 ac zone requiring the 100 ft. setback 2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered by the Board, are reasonab le and have been included to minimize the request; 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the lot is in the 5 -acre zone; 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district; 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because lot is within a 5-acre zone; 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. 34-2020 TREVOR FLYNN/DENOOYER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21st Day of October 2020 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.