Loading...
AV 9-2021 Loughrey Minutes(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 1 NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2021 SEQRA TYPE MICHAEL L. LOUGHREY AGENT(S) CULLEN FULLER – RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTS OWNER(S) MICHAEL L. LOUGHREY ZONING WR LOCATION 11 SIGN POST RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES 169 SQ. FT. WITH 81 SQ. FT. DECK/PORCH AREA (FOOTPRINT) WITH A FLOOR AREA OF 1,372 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 1,541 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 10-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.85 ACRES. TAX MAP NO. 239.16-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 CULLEN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 9-2021, Michael L. Loughrey, Meeting Date: February 17, 2021 “Project Location: 11 Sign Post Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 169 sq. ft. of new living space on the upper level of an existing home. The existing home is 706 sq. ft. with 81 sq. ft. deck/porch area (footprint) with a floor area of 1,372 sq. ft. and proposed is 1,541 sq. ft. floor area. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of nonconforming structure. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure The addition is to be 18 feet 7 inches from the North property line where 20 ft. setback 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 neighboring properties as the construction of 169 sq. ft. on the upper level of the existing home. 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 existing home as a portion of the home on the north side 18.77 ft. per the survey. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief for the north side setback is 1.23 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The existing home is 706 sq. ft. with an 81 sq. ft. porch/deck area with an existing floor area of 1,372 sq. ft. The new floor area is to be 1,541 sq. ft. The plans show an upper level addition of 169 sq. ft. There are no other changes to the site.” MR. MC CABE-Is Mr. Fuller here? MR. FULLER-I am. MR. MC CABE-So first I want you to understand that we’re short a person tonight. You still need four votes in the affirmative for your project to be a go, but you do have the option of tabling your application until such time as we have a full Board. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 2 MR. FULLER-I think as of right now I’d like to just proceed. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. FULLER-Okay. So basically 11 Sign Post Road, like was mentioned before, we’re looking to have relief from the side setback for a non-conforming structure. On the side setback we are not going over any more than what’s already there. We will be adding an additional two feet to the rear. That actually tails away from the side setback. We are adding 169 square feet of living space above the existing kitchen. So it will be new space. Yes, exactly there. The shed dormer. This will actually be, as far as the landscape goes, this addition will be, for the most part, if you look at the site plan, it’s almost actually buried into the site. The slope of the grade goes up towards Route 9L. So there’s actually very little visibil ity. There’s no visibility from Route 9. There’s very little visibility from Sign Post Road as well. This is projected to be a dense study area. The square footage is very minimal. They just want a little extra area upstairs. What they have currently right now is very limiting. Other than the existing bedroom where the gable is, where the sliding doors are, there’s very, very little headroom in there. It’s not really a very useful space, and so that’s basically it. Very minimal amount of work done. Trying to stay as much in the footprint. We will not be disturbing any land. So there’s very little disturbance in that aspect. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? So seeing none, at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and I’m going to see if we have anyone who would like to provide us with information on this particular project. Laura, is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-There is. I have a letter from the Lake George Waterkeeper. “The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper is not opposed to the requested variance but finds the application as an opportunity to bring the property into compliance with Town Code environmental protection measures, specifically stormwater management. The Waterkeeper's algae monitoring program has observed excessive algae growth along the section of Dunhams Bay, which can be partially attributed to stormwater runoff. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's regulations, specifically §179-14-150 Imposition of Conditions, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The proposed variance will have an adverse effect and impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the neighborhood. The application states that there will be no environmental impact because there is not increase in surface area, which is incorrect. The project will increase building square footage with the cantilever overhang sections that will increase stormwater runoff. The Zoning Board of Appeals should require a condition to install stormwater management to the greatest extent practicable to reduce runoff and improve water quality and reduce the potential for Harmful Algal Blooms. This can be achieved through Low Impact Development measures such as rain gardens, grading or stormwater planters. It is the recommendation of the Waterkeeper that the Zoning Board of Appeals condition the approval with the requirement of installing stormwater management to the greatest extent practicable. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals to defend the natural resources of Lake George and its watershed. Thank you for your consideration.” MR. MC CABE-So there’s nobody else involved here? MR. BROWN-So I’m only seeing one hand up that wishes to speak, but I think they’re here for the next application. I’ve asked if they want to speak on this application. I haven’t heard back from them. So I can either bring them in and find out? MR. MC CABE-Well, we might as well find out. MR. BROWN-Robin, are you here to speak on this application? ROBIN INWALD MS. INWALD-I’m sorry, no. For the next one. MR. MC CABE-So, Mr. Fuller, do you have anything to add to the Waterkeeper’s suggestions? MR. FULLER-Yes, as far as the Waterkeeper’s comments, yes, we can add an eaves trench. The way that we designed this addition is actually going to distribute the water further up the site than it currently is, and currently the water actually runs off to the side, or running off to the back and it’s actually going over an already in place retaining wall. There is quite a bit of actual tiered area on here because of the slope. When I was speak to Michael, when I was visiting the site originally, even though there’s no documentation about this, which I found kind of unusual that he actually mentioned it, but he said when he did his dock that he had to abide by quite a bit of the landscaping. I don’t think he ever mentioned anything about water beds, but he did mention about having to actually add shrubs, some types of planters (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 3 and that sort of thing, which I didn’t really, at the time I didn’t really take into consideration. I thought that might have been something that might have been added to that dock permit, but as Laura told me, there was no record of that, but as far as he’s concerned, he’s willing to make any exception to bring his property up to compliance. MR. MC CABE-So would this be more appropriate for the Planning Board, Laura? MRS. MOORE-Yes. Correct. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-So we don’t need to put it in our conditions, then. MRS. MOORE-You don’t. Because the applicant has to go back to the Planning Board, the Planning Board typically deals with this. I understand Chris’ point that there’s an opportunity for the Zoning Board to put a condition on it, but because it has to go through two review processes, the Planning Board could do that as well. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular 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-Yes, I think it’s a minor amount of relief. It’s about 17 inches total of relief from the 20 foot setback. I don’t think there’s any real problem with this one. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree with Jim. I think it’s a minimal request. I think it’s going to improve the neighborhood. I saw the elevations of the plans for the exterior. Very minimal impact on the environment. So I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I agree. I agree with what Michelle just said. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, like you said earlier, Jim, it was hard to get down there to look at it, but with what they’re asking it’s very minimal. It’s a very small request. It definitely fits into the neighborhood. It’s not going to be a detriment to the neighborhood and like Jim said, they’re only looking for a foot and five inches of relief, one variance, no big deal. So I’d definitely be on board. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-It’s minimal relief. I think it satisfies all the other conditions. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, consider this to be a very minimal request and see no problem with it. So I’m in favor of it. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Michelle for a motion. MRS. MOORE-Before Michelle makes a motion, I apologize. I know Roy typically reads this into the record, and I had forgotten it, is in reference to the Planning Board recommendation back to the Zoning Board of Appeals. In this case for this project they recommended to the ZBA no significant adverse impacts with the current project proposal, and their recommendation was a seven zero. MR. MC CABE-So go ahead, Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael L. Loughrey. Applicant proposes 169 sq. ft. of new living space on the upper level of an existing home. The existing home is 706 sq. ft. with 81 sq. ft. deck/porch area (footprint) with a floor area of 1,372 sq. ft. and proposed is 1,541 sq. ft. floor area. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/17/2021) 4 Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirement, 179-13-010 expansion of a non-conforming structure The addition is to be 18 feet 7 inches from the North property line where 20 ft. setback required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 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 will actually be an improvement. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the lot configuration there and they’re going to be building on the same footprint, and have already been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. They’re only requesting relief of one foot five inches. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Per the Waterkeeper’s suggestion and this is going to go to the Planning Board for their review. 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. 9-2021 MICHAEL LOUGHREY, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th Day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So congratulations. You have a project here. MR. FULLER-All right. Thank you so much.