Loading...
Meeting Minutes 2.24.2021(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021) 1 OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II ADK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS OWNER(S) LLC ADK REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS ZONING WR LOCATION 123 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A 4,709 SQ. FT. PORTION OF THE EXISTING GARAGE TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 2,440 SQ. FT. WITH 514 SQ. FT. PORCH/DECK AREA FOOTPRINT WITH A FLOOR AREA 5,108 SQ. FT. HOME (INCLUDES AN ATTACHED GARAGE) AND TO MAINTAIN A 720 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. SITE WORK IS PROPOSED FOR MUCH OF THE SITE TO INCLUDE DRIVEWAY AREA, SEPTIC SYSTEM, NEW HOME WITH A DECK, WITH SITE PLANTINGS AND SHORELINE PLANTINGS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 7-2021; AV 17-1996; AV 25-1991; SP 10-96; SP 03-93 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.59 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-52 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020 DEVIN DICKINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 5-2021, ADK Developers & Builders, Meeting Date: February 24, 2021 “Project Location: 123 Seelye Road Description of Proposed Project: Revised: 2/24/2021 information submitted 2/22/2021: Applicant proposes to remove a 4,709 sq. ft. home and a 978 sq. ft. detached garage to construct a 2,776 sq. ft. home with a 514 sq. ft. deck/porch area. The new home includes a 3 bay garage. Site work is proposed for much of the site to include driveway area, septic system, new home with a deck, with site plantings and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, The new home is to be located 13.8 ft. where 20 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. 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. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location and design of the new home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief requested for setback of 6.2 ft. may be considered moderate to minimal relevant to the code. 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 difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The project includes the installation of a new septic system, stormwater controls and shoreline planting. The plans show the new location of the home. The elevations and floor plans detail the arrangement of the home and the views.” MR. MC CABE- So perhaps ADK Developers and Builders could explain what they’ve done. MR. DICKINSON-Hello, everyone. Can you see and hear me? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021) 2 MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. DICKINSON-Okay. Excellent. My name is Devin Dickinson from Dickinson Associates. I’m here on behalf of Peter O’Neil who’s the developer and owner. So, yes, we were here last week. Do you want me to recap some of the background of the project? MR. MC CABE-No, I think we’ve got a pretty good idea of the project. MR. DICKINSON-Okay. MR. MC CABE-You’ve eliminated the second garage and you’ve made the attached garage larger. Is that true? MR. DICKINSON-That’s correct. Yes. So we went back to the drawing board so to speak. We eliminated the detached garage. We added another bay to the attached garage. We changed the driveway a little bit. In doing that, we’ve actually reduced our impervious area even further. We’re roughly 80% permeable right now. All other things stand, new septic. New stormwater, vegetative buffer. The only thing we’re still requesting is we’re really still requesting that relief from that southerly property line. Currently we’re at 7.6 feet. We’re looking to move it back to 13.8. Other than that we meet all the other regulations and requirements. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So does the Board have questions of the applicant? Hearing none, is there any written information, Laura? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-No. So the public hearing would be considered still open and I don’t have any new information from public comment. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So that was what I was going to say. I believe I left the public hearing open on this particular application. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-I think the changes were good changes. So I think to me that satisfies the problems I was having with the application. I think the setback is about 14 feet. So I think we’re okay. I’m fine with it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-The setback is to the north side, not the south side. Right? MRS. MOORE-No, it’s to the south side. MR. HENKEL-Is it really? MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So south is on this side here. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I mean it doesn’t matter anyway. It’s a great looing project. You really came back with a good looking project with increasing the permeability at 80% and you’re only looking at 6.2 feet of relief. So I think it’s very acceptable just with that one small variance. So I’d be in favor of it as is. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. They’ve minimized the variance tremendously. So it’s a great project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m so glad they made these changes because I was sort of begrudgingly for it before, but then I started having second thoughts. I’m much happier with this and it’s a great improvement to what’s there. So, yes, I’m in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Jim? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021) 3 MR. UNDERWOOD-The applicant should be complimented for listening to the request of the Board and I think that the relief on the side lines is something that we can all live with. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good changes. I’m in agreement with the rest of my peers. The variance is minimal. It’s a very nice looking project. As Jim indicated, they should be commended. So I’m in support of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I want to thank the applicant for working with us and I think we end up with a better project here. So I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from ADK Developers & Builders. Revised: 2/24/2021 information submitted 2/22/2021: Applicant proposes to remove a 4,709 sq. ft. home and a 978 sq. ft. detached garage to construct a 2,776 sq. ft. home with a 514 sq. ft. deck/porch area. The new home includes a 3 bay garage. Site work is proposed for much of the site to include driveway area, septic system, new home with a deck, with site plantings and shoreline plantings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, The new home is to be located 13.8 ft. where 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 & remained open to Wednesday, February 24, 2021 when it was closed. 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 because they actually have reduced some of the non-compliance at this point and are asking for lesser relief this time in particular. 2. Feasible alternatives, it’s a very small lot. They’ve been considered, but what we have here is reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial. It’s just a small little bit of a setback in the one variance. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact they’ve improved permeability. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they are building a new home on a substandard lot. 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. 5-2021 ADK DEVELOPERS & BUILDERS, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 24th Day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021) 4 ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So I made a little error there. I neglected to ask Roy to read anything into the record. I was thinking we did that the last time, but we did have the changes. So is there anything that we should, or how should we correct this, Laura? MRS. MOORE-It’s acceptable because all that information has been posted online already. So those changes are already noted as documents that folks can read. So I don’t think you need to read anything else additional into the record. You asked the applicant to identify what those changes were and they were done as part of this record. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So ADK Developers and Builders, you have a project. Thank you very much. MR. DICKINSON-And thank you guys. I just want to mention, too, that the changes and input that you guys suggested actually really did make it a better project and we appreciate it. So thank you very much.