Loading...
Minutes 4.21.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II PETER RIENZI AGENT(S) NICHOLAS ZEGLEN (ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERS) OWNER(S) PETER RIENZI ZONING WR LOCATION 374 CLEVERDALE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REBUILD AN EXISTING 422 SQ. FT. DECK AREA AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 365 SQ. FT. EXPANSION TO THE DECK FOR A TOTAL OF 787 SQ. FT. DECK. THE EXISTING 2 STORY HOME OF 1,414 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) TO REMAIN. SITE PLAN FOR EXPANSION OF NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTI NG PERMEABLE WALKWAY FROM THE HOME TO THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY. CROSS REF SP 24-2021; AST 423-2020; AV 1452; SP 25-97; SP 26-97; SP 2-89 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.12-1-60 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 23-2021, Peter Rienzi, Meeting Date: April 21, 2021 “Project Location: 374 Cleverdale Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to rebuild an existing 472 sq. ft. deck area and construct a new 304 sq. ft. expansion to the deck - totaling 776 sq. ft. deck. The existing 2 story home of 1,414 sq. ft. (footprint) to remain. Site plan for expansion of nonconforming structure in a CEA. The site has an existing permeable walkway from the home to the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability for the construction of deck to an existing home in the Waterfront Residential zone -WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure. The new deck is to be located 42 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The side setback to the north is to be 19 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. The permeability is to be 70.3 % where 75% 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. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief is for 8 feet to the shoreline and 1 foot for the side. Then relief 4.7% for permeability. 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 to no 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 a new deck on an existing home that is an upper level of the home. The project does not alter existing conditions under the deck area or area to the shore. The plans show the deck area to be constructed in relation to the home.” MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board, based on its limited review, passed a motion that did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was passed unanimously on April 20 th, 2021. MR. MAC ELROY-I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design, representing Mary and Peter Rienzi. They have the property at 374 Cleverdale Road. The proposal, as described, is the addition and replacement of a deck with some additional square footage. This results in setback variance and a slight (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) 2 permeability. If you look at Sheet S-2 in the dark gray area, it’s the coverage of the existing deck, and by the way, the Rienzi’s are in the audience tonight as well. The existing deck is the original deck from the 80’s. The Rienzi’s have owned the property since ’97. It’s necessary to replace that deck for structural reasons. So while going through that process they thought that it would be timely to request an expansion of that deck. All the area to the north, as shown on the screen, that Sheet S -3, and that shaded area, that is basically all within setbacks. There’s a four foot bump on the lakeside which increases the relief requested in that area, and there’s a couple of reasons for that. From the Rienzi’s standpoint, between age and health issues they would like to have more space on that deck area. The patio below is not as usable for them. The main floor is the primary living space. The walkout below is less actively used these days. The expansion of the deck is primarily over the existing impermeable or actually because of block pavers, there’s a certain permeability to those. Part of that expansion involves new coverage over grass area and as Queensbury considers decks as impervious, that increases slightly 161 square feet of new impervious which is the reason why variance three is requested is the permeability change. So there’s four feet on the front side. There is one foot in that northeast corner of the deck that exceeds the side yard setback. So those are the three variances that would be requested, and I’m glad to answer any questions. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It looks like it’s pretty straightforward. So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and ask if there’s anybody in the audience that would like to present information on this particular project, and invite anybody on the outside who has comment to give us a call at 518-761-8225. Anybody? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-We have a couple of letters. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. URRICO-There’s a letter from an Ann Marie Mather, “We totally support the Rienzi deck>” And unfortunately I don’t know what address she is. She has a Clifton Park address that was used to mail to her. MR. MAC ELROY-She’s an adjacent neighbor. MR. URRICO-Yes. We don’t know which house. MR. MAC ELROY-Three houses north. MR. URRICO-Okay. So Mather is three houses north, and I have Chris Martin. “Just a note to let you know I’m fine with the proposed project for the Rienzi house on Cleverdale. I’m their abutting neighbor to the south.” Okay. MR. MC CABE-So we do have input from the public. We have Chris Navitsky here. So let’s see if I can put you on speaker phone. Go ahead, Chris. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Hello. Thank you. It’s good to see everyone at that meeting. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. We’ve had some concerns about the requested variances, especially the decrease in permeability within the Critical Environmental Area. In our opinion the application fails to offer mitigation measures to balance the benefits achieved by the applicant with the applicant’s request, and increase the shoreline setback and the site permeability, which could include a reduction in impervious cover to provide benefits as well as providing stormwater management. Or additional shoreline buffering. We do think the variance may produce undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood and the detriment, decrease in permeability, and th e variance would reduce shoreline setbacks can be a detriment. There are alternatives available that would include reduction of the existing impervious surfaces or utilizing existing gathering areas and the variance would have an adverse impact and effect on the environmental conditions. The application does not provide any measures to mitigate the requested variances, especially permeability requirements along the shoreline of the lake, and therefore would contribute adverse effects. We do not support the variance and would request the Zoning Board deny the variance. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’m going to close the public hearing at this particular time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Michelle. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) 3 MRS. HAYWARD-I think my biggest concern, and it’s not a huge request, is the shoreline setback. It appears from the drawings here that the extension of the porch overhangs the patio underneath, which is already non-permeable. So to me it’s almost a wash. MR. MC CABE-Well isn’t it part of it? Part of it overhangs the patio, part of it overhangs grass? MRS. HAYWARD-Right. So that’s what I’m saying. MR. MAC ELROY-The shoreline side expansion overhangs the patio, t he existing patio. MRS. HAYWARD-Right. So to me it’s kind of a wash because it’s already overhanging something that’s impermeable. MR. MAC ELROY-Right. MRS. HAYWARD-So for that reason I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-So you support the project? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, I’m in favor. So, let’s see. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Can I ask a question? Is the patio? MR. MC CABE-Wait a minute. So we’ve closed all the public hearings and that sort of thing. We’ve asked the questions. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So then all that I would say is if that patio is old and impervious, I would think it would be a tradeoff, that that would be replaced with something more impervious. MR. MAC ELROY-Well it’s impermeable block pavers as it is. So it doesn’t increase the permeability in those areas of the deck. MRS. HAMLIN-No, the deck doesn’t, but as a tradeoff for the increase in impervious surface. You are going farther away from the goal of the permeability, to even it up. You’re losing some shoreline as well, but you’re really close to the 50 as it is. So I’d just like to see something done more to avoid having to give this variance for permeability. I can accept the shoreline. So as it is I guess I’m saying I’m not in favor unless some more mitigation can be done. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-And I look at this, and it appears that they have pavers already. I don’t know where they could pick up any permeability, and I think it’s a minimal request. I mean they’re looking for four feet additional from what they have towards the lake. So I’d be in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. MC CABE-So, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Ron. I’d be in favor of this project as it is. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I have a little bit of a problem. I h ave no problem with the side setback that they’ve got. They’re extending the deck. With them having a nice deck over their dock, there’s not many like that there, that they’ve got plenty of use of this in view of the lake. They don’t really need to ext end that deck any more I would say towards the lake and they’ve already got a patio that’s usable downstairs that can be used, and they could actually do away with that concrete pad that they have going into their garage which would give them better permeability. So I’m not in favor as is. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The permeability pretty much already exists due to the patio being beneath the deck on the lakeside as proposed in this project. No significant change is going to result if we approve it, but I think that we should consider, if we’re going to allow this upgrade, that there should be some vegetation placed out on the shoreline there, and I think, Dennis, you could probably come up with a plan that would be in the interest of everybody. It’s kind of a stark contrast with the neighboring side properties without any trees out in front and things like that. I know people would prefer to have an unobstructed view of the lake, but I think it’s important since you’re a waterfront property owner that you observe the fact that we’re trying to improve the situation. MR. MC CABE-So if we conditioned this request, you’d be in favor of it? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) 4 MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, if there were a vegetative plan proposed, and that can be done with the Planning Board. MRS. HAMLIN-Mr. Chairman, I would agree with him. That’s the kind of mitigation that would make me happy. MR. MC CABE-So you’re going to change if we condition this? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I asked for mitigation and that’s a good choice of landscaping. MR. MC CABE-And so with a condition that we provide some landscaping to collect runoff to make up for the permeability loss, I would okay this also. So I’m going to ask Cathy for the motion and then you can configure the condition the way th at you’d be happy with. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Peter Rienzi. Applicant proposes to rebuild an existing 472 sq. ft. deck area and construct a new 304 sq. ft. expansion to the deck for a total of 776 sq. ft. deck. The existing 2 story home of 1,414 sq. ft. (footprint) to remain. Site plan for expansion of nonconforming structure in a CEA. The site has an existing permeable walkway from the home to the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and permeability. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and permeability for the construction of deck to an existing home in the Waterfront Residential zone -WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements, 179-13-010 expansion of non-conforming structure. The new deck is to be located 42 ft. from the shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The side setback to the north is to be 19 ft. where a 20 ft. setback is required. The permeability is to be 70.3 % where 75% is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 21, 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. We’ve had input that there’ll actually be some improvement to the aesthetics. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered by the Board and are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. They’re looking at increasing their existing shoreline setback by four feet and they’re looking for a very slight decrease in permeability which will hopefully mitigate that. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Provided the mitigation is done. 5. The alleged difficulty is definitely 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 condition : a) That the applicant consider a combination of practices, removal of impervious pavement and additional landscaping for additional erosion and sediment control to help with the permeability of the site on the north side of the property. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/21/2021) 5 BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 23-2021 PETER RIENZI, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 21st Day of April 2021 by the following vote: MRS. HAMLIN-The Board also proposes the following condition. That the applicant consider vegetation to control erosion and runoff, some sort of landscaping that will mitigate some of the requested permeability. MR. UNDERWOOD-I would just make the recommendation that the addition, if you look at the adjacent properties, look at the trees that are out in front of those properties, as opposed to this property, and make it the same, make it. MR. MC CABE-Well, could we go better and get some raingardens in there? MR. MAC ELROY-Well, I think to supplement some of the existing vegetation is you see the house to the north, the property to the north, that house is out on and even over the shoreline. So that’s not a good representation. That’s what the neighborhood to the north is in that case. So I think by maybe supplementing some of the parking to the north side where that north deck is the new impermeable area, that we would supplement it. That would be perfect. Because otherwise they have a nice tiered ef fect there of existing vegetation, but we can supplement it on the north side if it’s appropriate to achieve what you are suggesting. MRS. HAMLIN-Since we haven’t voted on this, are we able to play with the words and? MR. MC CABE-Well you’re doing the motion. So you’re the wordsmith. MRS. HAMLIN-So I can. So take it all out and put back in something to the effect of a combination of practices, whether it’s removal of impervious pavement and additional landscaping for additional erosion and sediment control to help with the permeability of the site. MRS. MOORE-On the north side of the property. MRS. HAMLIN-On the north side of the property.. Okay. All right. MRS. MOORE-Prior to you calling the vote, I just want to confirm that usually the t op part of the resolution is read into the resolution and that you would like to have that included as part of the resolution? That means that typically you put in the relief being requested. Which is fine. You don’t have to read it now. MR. MC CABE-Just state per Staff Notes. MRS. HAMLIN-Per Staff Notes. MRS. MOORE-Thank you. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Henkel MR. MAC ELROY-Great. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project.