Loading...
AV 27-2021 Burnett Minutes(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II THE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, STEPHEN A. BURNETT (TRUSTEE) AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) THE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, STEPHEN A. BURNETT (TRUSTEE) ZONING WR LOCATION 11 ANDREW DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE WORK ON AN EXISTING 1.5 STORY CABIN. THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT IS 1,365 SQ. FT. THE CABIN FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 1,793 SQ. FT. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY WITH A FOOTPRINT OF 1,496 SQ. FT.; TOTAL SITE FLOOR AREA IS 4,641 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED IS 4,985 SQ. FT. THE APPLICANT HAD STARTED WORK IN 2019 AND WAS ISSUED A STOP WORK ORDER. A PORTION OF THE EXISTING HOME WAS DAMAGED BY A TREE AND IS NOW BEING RECONSTRUCTED; THE EXISTING DECK HAS BEEN REMOVED AND A NEW SMALLER DECK IS TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THE INTERIOR MAIN FLOOR AND BASEMENT AREA ARE TO BE RENOVATED; THIS INCLUDES THE FOUNDATION AND WALL SUPPORTS. EXTERIOR IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDE A NEW ENTRY ROOF FEATURE, DOORS AND SLIDER DOORS ON LOWER LEVEL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 28- 2021; RC 561-2020; PZ 14-2015; PZ 21-2015 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-12 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 27-2021, The Burnett Family Trust, Stephen A. Burnett (Trustee), Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 11 Andrew Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete work on an existing 1.5 story cabin. The existing footprint is 1,365 sq. ft.; the cabin floor area is to be 1,793 sq. ft. The site has an existing house on the property with a footprint of 1,496 sq. ft.; total site floor area is 4,641 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,985 sq. ft. The applicant had started work in 2019 and was issued a stop work order. A portion of the existing home was damaged by a tree and is now being reconstructed; the existing deck has been removed and a new smaller deck is to be constructed. The interior main floor and basement area are to be renovated; this includes the foundation and wall supports. Exterior improvements include a new entry roof feature, doors and slider doors on lower level. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of non-conforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR. Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements The new construction on the north side is to be 22.8 ft. where 25 ft. 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 2 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 and the repair of a damaged part of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The side setback relief is 2.2 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 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 maintain an already constructed repair addition to an existing home. The addition was constructed as that portion of the home was damaged. The project also includes interior alterations that have been started for the basement area, the main floor, the entry deck way and the exterior portion of the home. The applicant intends to install a new septic system as part of the upgrades to the home. The parcel has an existing 1.5 story wood frame home on the property that will remain as is with no changes.” MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins here on behalf of Stephen Burnett and the Burnett Family Trust. This is another structure that dates back to the 1920’s. It’s been in their family since that time, since the early 1900’s and it’s been passed down from a number of generations. You may recall if you’ve been on this Board for a while, that in about 2015 two brothers had basically had exclusive use of the two residences. One brother used one and one used the other. At that time they applied to subdivide the properties because the brothers had different visions of what they wanted to do in the future. That application was denied. Subsequently one brother, Stephen, has taken ownership of the property and it’s in his trustee. So it’s all back in one family and he’s trying to clean up the issues with the cabin. Subsequently they started some work repairing this cabin and the work snowballed and it became a little more than just repairing a little roof damage from a tree falling on it, and he’s under a Stop Work Order now. He wants to make it right and move on and repair this cabin. The cabin is being replaced on the original footprint. We’re not expanding. However part of that, the little wing off the north side is 22.8 feet from that northern property line where that side setback is 25 feet. That little wing is there because it contains stairs and putting stairs anywhere else in that structure would mess up the layout of the thing totally. That’s where the stairs have always been. Historically that may have been added on years ago when they put stairs there, but it’s part of the history of the structure. He’s trying to re=build on the footprint. We’ve reduced some asphalt. We’ve reduced the size of the deck. We are doing a new compliant septic system, and we’re here simply asking for 2.3 feet of side setback relief. Everything else is compliant. It’s over 115 feet from the lake. So we’d like your support for what we feel is a relatively simple project. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing no questions, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to contribute input on this particular project and invite anybody watching on the outside if they have comment to give us a call at 518 -761-8225. Do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 3 MR. URRICO-No, but I should have read this in earlier. The Planning Board, based on its limited review, did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and this motion was passed on May 18th, 2021 by a six zero vote. MR. MC CABE-So, Maria, you’re normally the time keeper here. You’ve got to let me know when two minute are up. MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. HENKEL-It’s 2.2 of relief, not 2.3. Right? MR. HUTCHINS-Yes, did I say 2.3? MR. HENKEL-I thought you did. MR. KUHL-I often wondered what happened with this project. It came back how many times. MR. MC CABE-You were the one that knocked it out. MR. KUHL-I said no. I mean they went to the County, right, to a judge for adjudication on this, right? The judge threw it back and said that it was the Zoning Board because they wanted to subdivide it. MR. HUTCHINS-They wanted to subdivide it. The subdivision required a number of variances. MR. KUHL-But after they got turned down, that’s it. The one brother said he would buy it, the cabin, from the other brother. MR. HUTCHINS-They worked it out. There’s a little more to it than that. MR. KUHL-I mean the second person passed away, as I remember. MR. HUTCHINS-There was a death. MR. KUHL-And it was in the will and everybody wanted their money. MR. MC CABE-That’s good recall, Ron. MR. HUTCHINS-I’ve only been involved for two months. MR. KUHL-The thing that I found really sad for the person that was in the house, he retired there. Right? And it was all under one deed and it was being taxed and then the brother passed and nobody was kicking in expenses on taxes and everything. MR. HENKEL-It probably went all the way back to the civil war. MR. MC CABE-Yes, the real problem was two houses on one property. MR. KUHL-Well now you have one person has the whole thing. He probably had to take a mortgage on his house and sell his car. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 4 MR. MC CABE-Maria, is our two minutes up yet? MS. GAGLIARDI-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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 this is a minimal request and I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I think it’s a small request also, even though there’s two houses on one piece of property. They’re pre-existing really anyway, and it’s 1.2 acres. So I’m all for it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I’m in favor as presented. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I approve. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I forgot Jim. You can do the motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen A. Burnett, Trustee for The Burnett Family Trust. Applicant proposes to complete work on an existing 1.5 story cabin. The existing footprint is 1,365 sq. ft.; the cabin floor area is to be 1,793 sq. ft. The site has an existing house on the property with a footprint of 1,496 sq. ft.; total site floor area is 4,641 sq. ft. and proposed is 4,985 sq. ft. The applicant had started work in 2019 and was issued a stop work order. A portion of the existing home was damaged by a tree and is now being reconstructed; the existing deck has been removed and a new smaller deck is to be constructed. The interior main floor and basement area are to be renovated; this includes the foundation and wall supports. Exterior improvements include a new entry roof feature, doors and slider doors on lower level. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of non-conforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and expansion of a non-conforming structure in the Waterfront Residential zone- WR. Section 179-3-040- dimensional requirements The new construction on the north side is to be 22.8 ft. where 25 ft. is required. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/19/2021) 5 SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 19, 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 because the requested variance for 2.2 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback is deemed to be minimal. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. There really are none because the structure exists and has existed for quite some time now. It’s in been in same family use since the civil war times. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it’s only 2.2 feet from 25 feet. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We do not note any at all from this project. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because of the placement of the building and as it currently exists it’s a staircase violation. 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. 27-2021 THE BURNETT FAMILY TRUST, STEPHEN BURNETT (TRUSTEE), Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19th Day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you, Board. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. Okay. Our next application is AV 28-2021, 333 Cleverdale, LLC.