Loading...
Meeting Minutes 1.20.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 1-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID R. WHITE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID R. WHITE TRUST – LAKE GEORGE QPRT AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O’CONNOR, JOHN MASON & HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) SAME AS APPLICANT ZONING WR LOCATION 5 WILD TURKEY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 471 SQ. FT. ADDITION TO AN EXITING HOME ON THE UPPER LEVEL OF THE HOME, NO INCREASE IN BUILDING FOOTPRINT. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,575 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH 431 SQ. FT. DECK AREA. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 4,198 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 4,669 SQ. FT. PROJECT IS SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, EXPANSION OF THE NONCONFORMING STRUCTUREIN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT, SETBACK, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS RE F SP 5-2021; AV 37-2002; SP 10-2002; AV 6 -1990; SP 1-92; P20020068; 92068 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.15-1-4 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6 -065; 179-13-010 MICHAEL O’CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 1-2021, David R. White, as Trustee of the David R. White Trust – Lake George QPRT, Meeting Date: January 20, 2021 “Project Location: 5 Wild Turkey Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 471 sq. ft. addition to an existing home on the upper level of the home, no increase in building footprint. The existing home is 1,575 sq. ft. footprint with 431 sq. ft. deck area. The existing floor area is 4,198 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,669 sq. ft. Project is subject to site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of the nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief requested for height, setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height, setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement, 179-13-010 expansion of a non-conforming structure The proposed addition will have a height of 32.5 ft. where the existing home i s at 34.5 ft. and 28 ft. is the maximum height. The setback to the shoreline is to be 35.5 ft. where a 75 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 project may be considered to have little to no impact on the nei ghboring 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the proposed addition on the upper level. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The height relief is 4.5 ft. in excess. The setback is 39.5 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 as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 2 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-cr eated. The project as proposed may be considered self - created. Staff comments: The site has an existing 2 story house and a detached garage. The project includes 471 sq. ft. addition to the existing home on the upper level. The project includes a new septic system. The addition includes a bedroom, bathroom, access to the balcony, access to the dog run, access to the exterior walkway to the driveway area and access door to home.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board met and based on a limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And they approved that. That’s it. MR. MC CABE-Mr. O’Connor, do you have anything to add? MR. O'CONNOR-If you look at the site data, you’ll see that the proposed setbacks and what not are pretty much just what the addition wh ich is on the upper level, not very noticeable to anything. Some of them are actually, the proposed setbacks are improvements over the existing house that’s there. They purposely put the addition so that it didn’t extend out beyond the footprint or exp and the house basically other than the bedroom and the bathroom area that’s going to be built on the upper level. The shoreline existing was 20 feet. The addition is going to be 35 feet. One side yard is 14 feet now. It’s going to be 30 feet, and t his is from the addition part, and the second one is now 45 feet and it’s going to be 70 feet. The height existing is 34.5, and the addition is only going to be 32.5, and they’re going to raise the roof but not over the full length of the house. It’s only a portion of the roof that gets raised. So they’re still within what is existing there and probably is not going to be noticeable to anyone. There were some sketches and elevations that we’ve submitted and there were photographs that we submitted. When we were before the Planning Board the only question they had is that there was some type of air conditioner or air handler that was on one of the flat roof areas and they asked whether or not, was there any intention to relocate that, and the answer is no. They’re going to accommodate it either internally in the house or use a smaller system to do what they have there. That was the only question that came up that I’m aware of. I guess there was a question about the buffer at the front of the house and the lake and if you look at some of the photographs, particularly the one from the west elevation, you’re going to see that there’s very extensive plantings between the house and the lake, both on the west elevation and even on the east elevation, and I think somebody had talked about, because of the 30 foot buffer they’re talking about 7 three inch trees being planted, was the suggestion, and I think there were 14 or 24 shrubs that were suggested, and in all honesty this is an area that is like rock ledge. I don’t know how you would plant that without causing more disturbance than benefit. These people have taken great care of this property. If you take a look at the photos that we submitted, I think you’ll see that, and they have not cleared the area between the house and the lake. So I would just ask that it be approved as submitted.. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward. So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised so I’m going to open the public hearing and seek comment from anyone who would like to provide information on this particular project. So, Laura, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There’s no written comments. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 3 MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody, it looks like we still have 15 participants out there. MR. BROWN-Nobody waiting to speak. Fifteen is the total including you guys. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Essentially infill. It’s not going to be any higher than what previously exists on the lot. I don’t think it’s going to have any negative impact. I think the positive on this one is putting in the new septic system which is going to be a plus for the lake. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I agree with Jim. I don’t view any negative impact. I do like the new septic going in. Frankly you could argue the proposed setbacks are frankly improvements. So with that said I’d be in favor of the project . MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, it looks as though everything proposed is as good or better than what exists. So there’s really no added encroachment anywhere. So I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I think the addition really will be hardly noticeable based on the elevations that we were provided. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’ve been to John Kelly’s house next door and none of those houses can be viewed from the road. So any kind of height would not really hinder anybody’s view or anything. The only place you’d see it is from the lakeside. So what they’re doing is very minimal, working on the same footprint. So even though it sounds like a big height variance it really isn’t becau se of the location. So I’d be on board also with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in agreement with everybody else. It’s an improvement to the property and I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-So as I view it in reality what’s being asked for here in terms of variances is minimal. It’s better than what exists and for doing this we get an upgraded septic system. So this is a winner as far as I’m concerned. So, Brent, would you feel comfortable making a motion? MR. MC DEVITT-I should be fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman MR. MC CABE-Okay. So if you’d give us a motion here. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 4 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David R. White, Trustee. Applicant proposes a 471 sq. ft. addition to an existing hom e on the upper level of the home, no increase in building footprint. The existing home is 1,575 sq. ft. footprint with 431 sq. ft. deck area. The existing floor area is 4,198 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,669 sq. ft. Project is subject to site plan for new floor area in a CEA, expansion of the nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief requested for height, setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height, setback, expansion of a nonconforming structure. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement & 179-13-010 expansion of a nonconforming structure SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. Upon review of th e 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 the proposed setbacks may well be improvements and no negative impact regarding that. 2. Feasible alternatives could be considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because there’s no negative impacts regarding that. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty while it could be suggested is self -created, it does not appear to give any real negative impacts. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested vari ance 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 followin g 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. 1- 2021 DAVID R. WHITE, AS TRUSTEE OF THE DAVID R. WHITE TRUST – LAKE GEORGE QPRT, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Catherine Hamlin: Duly adopted this 20th Day of January 2021 by the following vote: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 5 AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevit t, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So congratulations. MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you.