Loading...
Meeting Minutes 2.24.2021(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 8-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) DANIEL GRASMEDER ZONING WR LOCATION 3222 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES A SINGLE STORY 84 SQ. FT. LIVING ROOM/KITCHEN ADDITION TO BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE EXISTING HOME, A 436 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY BREEZEWAY/MUDROOM ADDITION TO THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE HOME CONNECTING THE EXISTING 1,315 SQ. FT. GARAGE TO THE MAIN HOME. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INTERIOR ALTERATIONS ON THE SECOND FLOOR FOR THE MASTER BEDROOM THEN ALTERATIONS TO THE THIRD FLOOR TO INCLUDE A 48 SQ. FT. STUDY NOOK AND A NEW ROOF OVER THE EXISTING BATHROOM AREA. THE PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES CONSTRUCTION OF A DETACHED GARAGE WITH UPPER LEVEL OF 1,344 SQ. FT. AND THE LOWER LEVEL OF 786 SQ. FT. EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINTS INCLUDE THE HOME OF 2,172 SQ. FT. AND DETACHED GARAGE 1,315 SQ. FT.; NEW FLOOR AREA 6,582 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA, NEW BUILDING WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SHORELINE SETBACK OF MAIN HOME, HEIGHT OF THE ALTERATIONS TO THE MAIN HOME AND TO THE NEW GARAGE, NUMBER OF GARAGES, SIZE OF GARAGE, AND NUMBER OF STALLS FOR A GARAGE. CROSS REF SP 9-2021; AV 43-02; 76-2002; AV 27-2002 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 3.27 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-48 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-020; 179=13-010 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TREVOR FLYNN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 8-2021, Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture, Meeting Date: February 24, 2021 “Project Location: 3222 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Revised 2/24/2021 information received 2/22/2021. Applicant proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage t o the main home. The project includes interior alterations on the second floor for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor to include a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes construction of a detached garage with the upper level garage area of 576 sq. ft. and the lower level garage area of 672 sq. ft., then a workshop area of 572 sq. ft. (total detached garage building floor area of 1,920 sq. ft.). Height of detached garage 21 ft. 4 inches (reduced from 26 ft. 3 inches). Existing building footprints include the home of 4830 sq. ft. (includes existing detached to attached garage). and detached garage 1,248 sq. ft. (reduced from 1,344 sq. ft.); new floor area 6,390 sq. ft.(reduced from 6 ,582 sq. ft.). Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and stormwater management. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home and to the new garage, number of garages, size of garage.. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home and the new garage, number of garages, and size of garage. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure, The single-story addition to the main home is to be located 56.6 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The two roof dormer additions of the home are to be 33 ft. 6 inches where 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. The new garage is to be 21 ft. 4 inches in height where an accessory structure is limited to 16 ft. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and size of the garage 1,248 sq. ft. where maximum size allowed on lot would be 1,100 sq. ft. 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 impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some meth od, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to orientation of the existing building on the parcel and parcel shape for height and setback. The second garage may be eliminated to reduce the number of garages; although the second garage is storage and workshop for classic vehicles. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021) 2 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the single-story addition to the main home is 18.4 ft. setback. The relief for the two roof dormer additions is 5 feet 6 inches in excess for height. The new garage relief is 5 feet 4 inches in excess for height. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and to have a garage greater than 1,100 sq. 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 residential additions to the main home, alterations to portions of the three floors, then construct a detached garage. The project includes new stormwater controls, site work to reduce runoff, landscaping for the site. The plans show the additions and the portion of the dormer roof additions that are above the 28 ft. but match the existing structure height. There are elevation views and floor plans for the proposed work on the home and the new garage. The second garage has been revised to reduce the height, square footage and number of bays.” MR. MC CABE-Okay. So is the applicant here? Is Trevor Flynn here? MR. LAPPER-I’m going to start, Mike. This is Jon Lapper. MR. MC CABE-Jon, okay. MR. LAPPER-And then I’ll pass it over to Trevor. So as Roy just read, basically you left us last week with instructions to work on the detached garage. I believe that everyone was comfortable with the relief requested on the main house. So over the course of a week and the weekend the applicants and the architects were able to work together to push the detached garage farther into the hill substantially, reduce the roof height so that the relief, the last time we were at a 27 foot high garage and now what we’re requesting is 21’ 4”, and we also removed 97 feet of garage area as well as one of the car bays. So now it’s three cars, and as Roy read, 1248 square foot garage. So I hope that the Board sees this as a significant change. That still gives Dan the workspace that he needs separate from the house to work on his classic car collection, but it’s certainly a lot less relief than what we had previously requested. At this point I’ll ask Trevor to just show you the details. MR. MC CABE-I’ve just got one little question there. It says that they’re looking for 245 square feet of relief for the second garage, but that doesn’t add up to the 1100 which is allowed and the 1245 which is where you’re at. MR. FLYNN-So that should be 148 square feet. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. I’ll let, Trevor, if you want to get on, you can. I’ll kick my information off. MR. MC CABE-Go ahead, Trevor. MR. FLYNN-So as Jon mentioned, without reiterating all the points, you know, we spent time over the weekend to really look at bringing down the height of the structure, everything from looking at heights and how it’s raised on the site. It took some great time and struggle, too, to bring it down without losing the architectural character to match the existing house and historic nature, and with that we brought the footprint down. We’re requesting less relief, the 148 square feet relief from the 1100 square feet and also eliminating the garage door in the process as well at the lower level. Again, we wanted to reiterate that this garage is not seen from the view corridor or also the lake. You see the updates to the floor plans with the single garage door at the lower level, and re-locating the door that was on the one side to the front which also necessitated that reduction in the square footage in one single garage door to three bays total. MR. MC CABE-Is that it? MR. FLYNN-Yes, and then these are just the diagrams that go along with it, with the overall.. So still indicating we’re at the 21 feet 4 inches. However, on what’s perceived mostly is 19 feet 10 inches on the entire garage. It’s just this one point which is the highest point of the structure, and then we do have, the client is prepared to dive more into his hobbies, but these are some of the classic cars that he’s working on. You can see this is one image of one of the vehicles. It’s completely torn apart, and this was a two bay garage at the time, and you can see the space taken up and allocated just for one car, and as he mentions, he has multiple cars that he’s consistently working on. So with that I can hand it over to the ow ner, or I don’t know if you guys have any additional questions for us. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021) 3 MR. MC CABE-So does the Board have questions of the applicant? Hearing none, I can’t remember whether I closed the public hearing on this or not, Laura? MRS. MOORE-So this public hearing was closed. MR. MC CABE-I’m going to re-open the public hearing at this particular time and ask if there’s anyone who has input on this particular project or ask if there’s any written input on this project. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MRS. MOORE-There’s no new written information on this project. MR. MC CABE-Yes, we had the letters from the neighbors saying that they approved of the project before. That’s in the record already. Right? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So if there’s folks in the audience that wish to speak, then there’s an opportunity to raise your hand function on your Zoom, that if you wish to speak you can simply hit that raise hand function, or you can send a chat and I can move you to be able to speak. I don’t see anybody that is raising their hand. MR. MC CABE-There’s one chat out there. MRS. MOORE-Is there a chat? MR. MC CABE-I show a chat. MRS. MOORE-There’s nothing on it, though. MR. MC CABE-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 this time with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think that the house, as far as the request for variance goes, none of us have any real concerns on that. Even though it’s over height, the dormers I think are lower than the present roof line on the house and I think that would be the only issues that we would be concerned with as far as that goes. As far as the garage goes, I think it’s an improvement, but I still have my concerns. Even though this is a hobby, as advertised by the applicant, I think at the same time we should be concerned because, you know, if you’re restoring vehicles and cars you have to be very careful, you’re using industrial solvents and paints and things like that that are very toxic and we are in close proximity to a Critical Environmental Area, i.e. Lake George. So at this point in time I’m still not in favor of it. I think there would have to be safeguards written in or obtain a Use Variance because I don’t think that this is a normal garage that we would approve. If it was just a garage for storage of vehicles I would have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I tend to agree with Jim on this. I believe there’s a project to be had, but I, too, share that concern that the lake being as precious as it is, and some of the potential things that are needed to really restore vehicles, some of them being relatively concerning to me in terms of just their overall structure and their toxicity. So again I do believe that a project can be had here, and I’m just at this point not in favor of the project myself. MRS. MOORE-Could I just interject a quick second, just in reference to, this project still has to go back to the Planning Board, so some of your concerns can be addressed by the Planning Board or if it’s a concern of the Zoning Board. So I just wanted to interject that. Sorry, Mike. MR. MC CABE-That’s all right. So, Roy? MR. URRICO-I share the same concerns, but I think the applicant demonstrated, if he’s reliable in terms of how he treats his hobby, you know, in terms of how he goes about his business there. So I’m not as concerned about the potential catastrophe, because that could happen with anybody that has a boat up there. It can happen with anybody that works on anything on their property. I realize this is going to be done a little bit more frequently, but as Laura said, this is going to be reviewed by the Planning Board as well. So I’m happy with the changes he’s made. My only concern is that he has one called Christine, but otherwise I’d be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-John? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021) 4 MR. HENKEL-I agree with Jim and Brent and I also agree with Roy, and I think with this size property and with that garage being so far from the lake, and it seems like this man is very passionate about his hobby and I don’t see him having a concern. I’ve been on that lake for 50 years and I’ve seen gas go in that lake from every time someone fills a boat, you know, people checking their oil. So there’s more damage to that lake done with the boaters than this man could ever do with that garage. I think they’re very passionate people about their property and would definitely be good people, stewards of the lake. So I would definitely be on board with this project as is. I think they reduced that roof down as good as they can do, and it’s a garage that you can’t see it from anywhere. So I would definitely be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I support the changes they’ve made. It’s a wonderful project, and I believe that the Planning Board will address any environmental issues associated with it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m still a little leery, like what Jim said. When you have, this technically isn’t a commercial activity, but it has elements of a commercial activity, somewhat scale, but in terms of what goes on in the garage, and, yes, the Planning Board may address some of those, but I would personally be more in favor if we made some sort of condition that suggests that it’s up to, I think it might be a uniform Code question more than it is, I mean it wouldn’t apply because it’s not a commercial activity, but if they could comply with commercial activity Code requirements for drainage and things, that would make me happy. As far as the height and the shape and the number of bays, I’m good. I just want to make sure that nothing’s getting into ground water or what have you. MR. MC CABE-So you’re a yes with conditions that. How are we going to condition this? MRS. HAMLIN-I don’t know, well worded. Some kind of wording as to just sort of what Michelle just said, the Planning Board, and that Code Enforcement would make sure that the clients installed whatever is necessary. I don’t know what it is. I’m not a Code Enforcement Officer, but what a commercial garage might have to protect groundwater runoff and things like that of transmission fluids and all those things that might come in the activities that will go on there. Again, like Jim said, it’s not storage. I mean he’s working on cars, and great it’s a hobby, but it could still, you know, there could still be a lot of, regardless of what goes on with the boats we’re approving this. So I think we should have some sort of p rotection for the lake if we could. MR. MC CABE-Okay, and so I support this project, and the reason I do is because this is a very private property. It’s much larger than the normal Lake George camp that we deal with, and I think the applicant has done a very nice job re-creating or keeping the character of the old house and adding the new garage in a very inconspicuous manner. So I’m going to support the project also. So at this particular time I’m going to, did I close the public hearing? MRS. DWYRE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Michelle to try and craft this motion here, and I suggest that we condition it with the fact that a garage meet appropriate safeguards for any of the hazardous chemicals that may be involved in re-conditioning the old cars. Does that make sense? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m writing this down. Okay. I think I’ve got it. Thank you. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Trevor Flynn, Balzer & Tuck Architecture. Revised 2/24/2021 information received 2/22/2021. Applicant proposes a single story 884 sq. ft. living room/kitchen addition to be on the west side of the existing home, a 436 sq. ft. single story breezeway/mudroom addition to the south side of the home connecting the existing 1,315 sq. ft. garage to the main home. The project includes interior alterations on the second floor for the master bedroom then alterations to the third floor to include a 48 sq. ft. study nook and a new roof over the existing bathroom area. The project also includes construction of a detached garage with the upper level garage area of 576 sq. ft. and the lower level garage area of 672 sq. ft., then a workshop area of 572 sq. ft. (total detached garage building floor area of 1,920 sq. ft.). Height of detached garage 21 ft. 4 inches (reduced from 26 ft. 3 inches). Existing building footprints include the home of 4830 sq. ft. (includes existing detached to attached garage). and detached garage 1,248 sq. ft. (reduced from 1,344 sq. ft.); new floor area 6,390 sq. ft.(reduced from 6,582 sq. ft.). Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, new building within 50 ft. of 15% slopes, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and stormwater management. Relief is requested for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home and to the new garage, number of garages, size of garage. Relief Required: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/24/2021) 5 The applicant requests relief for shoreline setback of main home, height of the alterations to the main home and the new garage, number of garages, and size of garage. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-5-020 garage, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure, The single-story addition to the main home is to be located 56.6 ft. from the shoreline where a 75 ft. setback is required. The two roof dormer additions of the home are to be 33 ft. 6 inches where 28 ft. is the maximum height allowed. The new garage is to be 21 ft. 4 inches in height where an accessory structure is limited to 16 ft. Relief is also requested to have more than one garage and size of the garage 1,248 sq. ft. where maximum size allowed on lot would be 1,100 sq. ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 17, 2021 & Wednesday, February 24, 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 is a historic house and the changes have been made with particular referen ce to the history of the home and will certainly fit the character of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and have been included to minimize the request. They have been deemed reasonable. 3. The requested variance is substantial because there is a second garage, but because of the size of the property in total it’s been deemed minimal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The Planning Board will be considering these as well. 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) The garage will meet appropriate safeguards for any hazardous chemicals involved in reconditioning old cars. b) 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. 8-2021 TREVOR FLYNN, BALZER & TUCK ARCHITECTURE, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 24th Day of February 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So congratulations you have a project. MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everyone. MR. FLYNN-Thank you all. I appreciate your time.