Loading...
Meeting Minutes 1.20.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 1 OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 31-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BILL POGONOWSKI AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL – RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) BILL POGONOWSKI ZONING WR/LAKE GEORGE CEA LOCATION 24 RUSSELL HARRIS RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A DETACHED 672 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) GARAGE WITH FLOOR AREA OF 1.114 SQ. FT. THE GARAGE HEIGHT IS TO BE GREATER THAN 16 FT. IN WR ZONE (NEW HEIGHT 18 FT. 1 0 ¾ INCHES). THE E XISTING HOME IS 1,954 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 3,195 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR FLOOR AREA & HEIGHT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. CROSS REF SP 42-2020; BP 99561-7931; BP 99562-7930; AV 27-1999; AV 28-1999; P20020807 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.3 ACRES (7); 0.09 ACRES (60) TAX MAP NO. 239.8-1-7 & 239.8-1-60 SECTION 179-3-040 ETHAN HALL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-So this application has already been heard back in October but the applicant has made some changes. Roy, can you read the changes into the record please. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 31 -2020, Bill Pogonowski, Meeting Date: January 20, 2021 “Project Location: 24 Russell Harris Rd. Description of Proposed Project: (Revised): Applicant proposes to construct a detached 672 sq. ft. (footprint) garage with floor area of 1,114 sq. ft. The garage height is to be greater than 16 ft. in WR zone (new height 18 ft. 10 ¾ inches). The existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (foot print) with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. Relief requested for floor area & height. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for floor area and height. Section 179-3-040, 179-5-020 Garages – Waterfront Residential WR The garage is to be 672 sq. ft. with a new site floor area of 4309 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 3,956 sq. ft. Relief is also requested for the height where 18 ft. 10 3/4 inches is proposed and 16 ft. is the maximum height allowed- the applicant has revised the application to reduce the height. 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 neighboring properties as the garage is located near Russell Harris Road. 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 to reducing the height and floor area may be possible. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 2 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the floor area is 353 sq. ft. more than allowed and height relief is 2 ft. 10 3/4 inches more than allowed. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self - created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new garage on the site with associated site work. The revised plans show the garage height has been reduced. The plans show the g arage and floor plan. The lots are to be merged as part of the project.” MR. MC CABE-Do we have the applicant or Ethan here tonight? MR. HALL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Ethan that’s you? MR. HALL-Yes, it is. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to talk about the changes that you made? MR. HALL-So, yes, I went back and spoke with Bill and Wendy Pogonowski about the project and about what we could do to knock the house down and make it a little bit lower. We’ve actually lowered the door so that you have to com e through the back door in the attic space and then go up a couple of stairs so that we could get the door in, in the peak of the building. We’ve reduced the size of the overall height to 18 feet 10 inches, which gives us an 8/12 pitch which is significantly lower than what the existing house is, but it’s something that they can live with . It does give them enough space upstairs that they can store things, and still walk around and not have real bad head bangers or anything like that, and it is, you kn ow it gives them the ability to have some additional storage up there. Obviously this is all under seven foot eight which is the required headroom for habitable space. So we’ve shown that we don’t have the habitable space up there. This could never be used as an apartment or anything like that. MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-You did a good job. MR. MC CABE-There is a public meeting advertised for this evening, and so at this time I’ll open the public hearing and I’ll take any input from the public. So do I have anybody that would like to speak on this particular project? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 3 MR. BROWN-Mike, what I did first was I put in, there’s a caller who’s somebody who’s called in with the number. I don’t know their name or what project they’re here for. So if they’re listening right now they can, I think, press *6 to try and unmut e and make comment.. Otherwise I will look in the lobby for anybody with their hand up and we’ll get you in for the public hearing. MR. MC CABE-Laura, do we have any written correspondence on this particular project? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I’ll read that in. So this is “To Whom It May Concern: I’m the neighbor to Bill and Wendy Pogonowski’s parcel located at 24 Russell Harris Rd. Queensbury, NY 12804. My parcel is located immediately next to theirs. It is my understanding that the Pogonowskis’ are interested in constructing a garage structure on their property. Please accept this correspondence as official notification that we are in support of this proposed construction project. The garage structure, as proposed, will not hinder our view and/or encroach on our property lines. I am confident that the garage structure will improve the appearance of the property as well as the neighborhood. Thank you for your consideration. Kind Regards, Kimberly Mariani” MR. MC CABE-And that’s it? MRS. MOORE-That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So, Craig, have we identified anybody calling in? MR. BROWN-We have not. I don’t see any hands up in the lobby right now. MR. URRICO-There is somebody asking how they can get into the meeting, but I’m not sure. MR. BROWN-I’m working on a response there. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So we’re all set with public comment on this particular project. So at this 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 John. MR. HENKEL-I think the Pogonowskis and Mr. Hall have done a nice job of reducing the height of it with what we asked. So now he’s only asking for two feet ten inches which is favorable, and there still is a floor ratio problem of 357 feet or whatever. It’s over the allowable, but I can live with that. So I think he’s done a good job and I think it fits the balancing test. So I’d be in favor of it. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. I appreciate the changes that were made. They’re sensitive to the area and it’s the minimum necessary if we pass it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m happy with the revision. I think that will satisfy my initial concern. So I think they fit the test and I would be in favor of it. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 4 MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m satisfied with the end result. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I think with the changes, they’ve responded well to our request and I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It appears as if the Pogonowski’s and Mr. Hall were diligent in the revisions here going from the original 12/12 pitch to the 8/12. They did a nice job reducing that height. As Mr. Hall indicated additionally, you know, this, I would be maybe concerned if this could be used as an apartment or anything like that. It cannot. As well as good to hear from Ms. Mariani, the neighbor next door, supporting it. So with that I would be in favor of the project as proposed. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support this project. I’m impressed that the applicant made the changes basically that we requested, and so at this time I’m going to ask Michelle to make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Qu eensbury has received an application from Bill Pogonowski. (Revised): Applicant proposes to construct a detached 672 sq. ft. (footprint) garage with floor area of 1,114 sq. ft. The garage height is to be greater than 16 ft. in WR zone (new height 18 ft. 10 ¾ inches). The existing home is 1,954 sq. ft. (footprint) with a floor area of 3,195 sq. ft. Relief requested for floor area & height. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for floor area & height . Section 179-3-040, 179-5-020 Garages – Waterfront Residential WR The garage is to be 672 sq. ft. with a new site floor area of 4309 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 3,956 sq. ft. Relief is also requested for the height where 18 ft. 10 3/4 inches is proposed and 16 ft. is the maximum height allowed- the applicant has revised the application to reduce the height. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 20, 2021. 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. This structure does fit in with the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and changes have been made to the plans to further fit in with the neighborhood as well. 3. The requested variance is moderately substantial, but that is acceptable to the Board. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/20/2021) 5 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self -created. 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. 31 -2020 BILL POGONOWSKI, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 20th Day of January 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. HALL-Thank you very much, Board. I appreciate it.