Loading...
05-26-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 26-2021 Steve Dempsey 1. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-49 Area Variance No. 25-2021 Nathan Smith 4. Tax Map No. 308.8-2-67 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 26, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY CATHERINE HAMLIN RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL BRENT MC DEVITT, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of th Appeals, May 26, 2021. Our procedure here is fairly simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We’ll call each application up, read the application into the record, allow the applicant to represent his application, ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, then we’ll open the public hearing and take input from the public. I’ll also allow people to call in and voice opinion on the project, and our number is 518-761-8225. At the end of the public hearing we’ll poll the Board, find out where we stand on the project and proceed accordingly. We don’t have any administrative items. So we’ll call the first application which is AV 26-2021,. Steve Dempsey, 3239 State Route 9L. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEVE DEMPSEY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) STEVE DEMPSEY ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 3239 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME OF 1,905 +/- SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT TO INCLUDE 111 SQ. FT. ADDITION ON THE MAIN FLOOR OF THE HOME, A 327 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, 407 SQ. FT. NEW DECK, AND TO REPLACE A 125 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH WITH A BATHROOM ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18- 1-49 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2021, Steve Dempsey, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 3239 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home of 1,905 +/- sq. ft. footprint to include 111 sq. ft. addition on the main floor of the home, a 327 sq. ft. second floor addition, 407 sq. ft. new deck, and to replace a 125 sq. ft. screen porch with a bathroom addition. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural Residential zone –RR-5A Section 179-3-040- dimensional The additions to the existing home where the new addition is to be 34 ft. to the west property line where a 75 ft. setback is required and is to be 32 ft. to the rear setback where 100 ft. is required. The deck is to be 34 ft. to the west property line where 75 ft. is required and 26 ft. to the rear property line where 100 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. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021) 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 house on a 1.05 ac parcel. The parcel is located in the Rural Residential 5 ac zone, where almost any work on the home would require a variance. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the west setback for both the deck and the addition is 41 ft. The rear setback relief for the addition is 68 ft. and the deck is 74 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may not be considered self-created as the lot is a pre-existing non-conforming parcel. Staff comments: The applicants propose to improve an existing home with a second story addition, alterations to the main floor and a new deck. The plans show the interior renovation floor plan and the location of the additions and deck to the existing home.” MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins. I’m here with owner and applicant Steve Dempsey and the Staff Notes described it well. 3239 Route 9L. It’s an older residence. It needs a fair amount of work. It is actually in the RR-5A zone and it’s a one acre parcel. So it has 100 foot front setback and a 100 foot rear setback and the lot’s 180 feet deep. So there’s no compliant building area. What Steve’s proposing I think makes a lot of sense and it’s relatively modest. He’s got a small addition off the rear of the parcel, a new deck across the rear of the parcel, a re-built porch/entry room that’s going to become an additional bathroom and one section of the roof to the rear of the parcel is coming up to get a second floor addition. He’s not compliant with the rear setback. Although I would note the setbacks for the additions are greater than the existing setback of another portion of the house, in both cases, side setback and rear setback. So with that I guess we’d turn it over for any questions from the Board. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? It’s pretty straightforward I think. No questions? So 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 speak on this project, and invite anybody on the outside who’s watching to give us a call at 518-761-8225, and give us your input, and, Roy, is there any written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Thankfully not. MR. MC CABE-So we just have to wait two minutes to allow people to call in from the outside. MR. HENKEL-Obviously in 1915 when that house was built, was that part of any of those other properties like owned by Courtney or anything like that? Does that go back that far? STEVE DEMPSEY MR. DEMPSEY-They were all tied together back in the day. MR. HENKEL-Obviously there was no zoning then. So when they built that house there they didn’t know there would be the setbacks that there are today. 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 with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is pretty straightforward. Noting that the house is on a 1.05 acre parcel and located in the Rural Residential Five Acre zone. Most any work on the home would require a variance. So I have no problems with this. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I think that it’s a minimal request and I’d be in favor of it. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021) MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members. At this point there’s no doubt it’s very minimal I mean it’s a large request, but minimal in my book. So I’d agree with the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree with everybody else. I’m in favor. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I agree with everybody else. It’s based upon the Rural Residential Five Acre zoning. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. I mean it’ s substantial on its face, but it’s minimal compared to what already existing and it’s pre-existing, non-conforming. So I’m in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-So it’s an improvement to the property. So it’s going to enhance the neighborhood as it is, although it’s not really a large neighborhood on that side, and it’s actually minimal when you really look at what’s going on. So I’m in favor of the project also. So I’m going to ask Ron to make a motion for us here. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve Dempsey. Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home of 1,905 +/- sq. ft. footprint to include 111 sq. ft. addition on the main floor of the home, a 327 sq. ft. second floor addition, 407 sq. ft. new deck, and to replace a 125 sq. ft. screen porch with a bathroom addition. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural Residential zone –RR-5A Section 179-3-040- dimensional The additions to the existing home where the new addition is to be 34 ft. to the west property line where a 75 ft. setback is required and is to be 32 ft. to the rear setback where 100 ft. is required. The deck is to be 34 ft. to the west property line where 75 ft. is required and 26 ft. to the rear property line where 100 ft. is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 26, 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 as this is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and we’re just doing minimum adds. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the size of the property which is 1.05 acres and have been considered by the Board, and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is really not self-created as the home is pre-existing, non-conforming. 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. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2021 STEVE DEMPSEY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 26 Day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you, Board. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. MR. DEMPSEY-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So do we know anything about Nathan? MRS. MOORE-Nathan is going to call you at 7:15. He apologies. He did not understand the process at all. I said we still had the method of calling in, and so he’s going to call in and explain a bit of his project to you and you can go through the process, you still have that opportunity. I apologize. It’s unusual. MR. MC CABE-He doesn’t have to be here. So way back in the beginning we did a couple of these like this. MRS. MOORE-So I’ve asked him to call in by phone so that you would be able to hear him, at least provide a description. You’re going to read through it. He can be on the phone. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II NATHAN SMITH OWNER(S) NATHAN SMITH ZONING MDR LOCATION 4 HOWARD STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES A SECOND FLOOR OVER THE EXISTING 426 SQ. FT. GARAGE AREA WITH SOME INTERIOR ALTERATIONS ON THE FIRST AND SECOND FLOOR AREAS FOR THE ADDITIONAL LIVING ND SPACE ON THE 2 FLOOR. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,200 SQ. FT. AND THERE ARE NO CHANGES PROPOSED FOR THE SITE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION. CROSS REF AV 46-2009, AV 87-1995; UV 86-1995 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.16 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 398.8-2-67 SECTION 179-3-040 STEVE DEMPSEY (ON THE PHONE) (Phone ringing) MR. MC CABE-Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. So here’s what’s going on, Nathan. I’m going to put you on speaker phone here. We’re going to address your application and if need be we’ll ask you some questions. So just hang on. So our next application is AV 25-2021, Nathan Smith, 4 Howard Street. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2021, Nathan Smith, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project Location: 4 Howard Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a second floor over the existing 426 sq. ft. garage area with some interior alterations on the first and second floor areas for the nd additional living space on the 2 floor. The existing home is 1,200 sq. ft. and there are no changes proposed for the site. Relief requested for setbacks for the new construction. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the new construction in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new addition to the existing home is over the garage area where it is to be 19 ft. 6 inches from the front setback where 30 ft. is required and then 10 ft. from the rear setback where 30 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 proposed 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021) project may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties. 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 and lot configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for front setback is 10 ft. 6 inches and rear setback relief is 20 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 relief requested may be considered to have minimal environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project includes constructing a second story addition of 426 sq. ft. that is to be a new bedroom. The plans show the existing floor plan and proposed floor plan shows the interior alterations. The exterior of the building only changes where the existing garage is. The new construction will match the existing home.” MR. MC CABE-So it’s pretty straightforward. Nathan, do you have anything to add? MR. SMITH-No. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised, and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing, ask if there’s anybody in the audience who’d like to speak on this particular project and invite anybody on the outside to give us a call at 518-761-8225 for input on this particular project. Nathan, I’m going ask you to hang up for three minutes here to give people on, anybody that wants to call in an opportunity to call in. So I’m going to hang up on you right now and I’m going to ask you to call back in three minutes. Can you do that? MR. SMITH-Yes, no problem. MR. MC CABE-So, Roy, is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no public comment. MR. MC CABE-So, Laura, as things open up, does it look like we’re going to have some live training opportunities from the Planning Federation, or you don’t have any? MRS. MOORE-At the moment I haven’t seen anything that’s that living training. I’m assuming that over the next, I would say probably few weeks, I think people will start. MR. MC CABE-So do you think that they’ll have the event up at The Sagamore? MRS. MOORE-I don’t know. MR. HENKEL-That was April. MR. MC CABE-Nathan, okay. I’m going to put you back on speaker phone here. Okay. Can you hear us all right? MR. SMITH-Yes. 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 with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I mean he’s pretty much building within the same footprint. So the rear yard is kind of substantial, but, again, he’s really building within the footprint. So I would be in favor. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021) MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a 426 square foot addition of a bedroom on top of the garage, and I don’t think it’s any big deal. It’s a .16 acre lot so it’s a reasonable request. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I’m in agreement. I think it’s a minimal project compared to what’s already there so I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-It’s the only way to increase the floor space without increasing the footprint. So it’s a fair request. So I’d be on board. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with my Board members. It’s a minimal request and I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I agree with everyone. It’s a minimal request, and I, too, am in favor of the request, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-So this area in general is pretty tight. So considering that, what’s being asked for in forgiveness of setbacks is really quite minimal, and I think it will improve the look of the property. So I’ll support the project. So I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Nathan Smith. Applicant proposes a second floor over the existing 426 sq. ft. garage area with some interior alterations nd on the first and second floor areas for the additional living space on the 2 floor. The existing home is 1,200 sq. ft. and there are no changes proposed for the site. Relief requested for setbacks for the new construction. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the new construction in the MDR zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The new addition to the existing home is over the garage area where it is to be 19 ft. 6 inches from the front setback where 30 ft. is required and then 10 ft. from the rear setback where 30 ft. is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 26, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered and they would increase the footprint and therefore what has been presented here is considered reasonable to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is somewhat substantial on its face, but in terms of the fact that there’s no increase to the footprint, we see it as minimal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 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 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021) 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. 25-2021 NATHAN SMITH, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 26 Day of May 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So, Nathan, congratulations, you have an approved project here. MR. SMITH-Is there a time limit on this to move forward? MR. MC CABE-You have one year to complete this project. If you can’t do it within that time, then you can come back to us and ask for an extension. MR. SMITH-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to make a motion to adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 26, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 26 day of May, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Thank you very much for your attendance. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 8