Loading...
Minutes AV 34-2021 (Stark)(Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 06/23/2021) 1 NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2021 SEQRA TYPE II SETH STARK OWNER(S) SETH STARK ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 1640 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 280 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK TO REPLACE WITH A 280 SQ. FT. DECK WITH A COVERED ROOF. THE EXISTING DECK WAS COVERED WITH A TEMPORARY AWNING AND THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE COVERED DECK TO MINIMIZE WEATHER RELATED DAMAGE TO THE HOME AND DECK. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,516 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT AND BARN ARE TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 137-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.54 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3 -1-55 SECTION 179-3-040 SETH STARK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 34-2021, Seth Stark, Meeting Date: June 23, 2021 “Project Location: 1640 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete a deck addition where the existing 280 sq. ft. open deck has been removed to replace with a 280 sq. ft. deck with a covered roof. The existing deck was covered with a temporary awning and the applicant proposes the covered deck to minimize weather related damage to the home and deck. The existing home of 2,516 sq. ft. footprint and barn are to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-080 decks The deck is to be 28.7 ft. to the south property line where a 75 ft. setback is required and 60.2 ft. to the west property line where 100 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 th e 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 the parcel size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for the front setback is 39.8 ft. and for the side setback is 46.3 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 not self-created as the house was pre- existing condition in a zone that requires 5 ac per lot. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to complete a deck addition to an existing home. The project included the removal of an existing deck and replacement of the deck with a new roof over it. The plans show the location of the deck, the roof overhang, and photos.” MR. MC CABE-Good evening. For the record, we’d like your name. MR. STARK-My name is Seth Stark. MR. MC CABE-Do you have anything to add? MR. STARK-No, I tried to be pretty thorough with my application. It’s a deck that was there. (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 06/23/2021) 2 MR. MC CABE-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. STARK-It’s pretty straightforward. MR. MC CABE-You’re not any closer with the new arrangement than you were before. Is that a true statement? MR. STARK-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-How old is that house? It’s got to be 18 something? MR. STARK-Yes. It’s close to 200 years old, right around there. At one point, it’s the home I grew up in. My parents dated it by the hardware on the doors. Some real old hardware. It’s constant. I love it, but something always needs to be fixed o r painted. MR. HENKEL-Sure. At one time they probably owned a lot of that property around there, too. MR. STARK-Yes. That must have been the original farmhouse. Someday when I retire maybe I’ll have time to dig more into the history. MRS. HAMLIN-Actually I did have a question. I forgot. This is the house where you discovered the cistern underneath? MR. STARK-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. So have you been approached with any way that you need to deal with the cistern before building over it? MR. STARK-It was already half crumbled and filled with rock. MRS. HAMLIN-So it’s already filled. MR. STARK-It wasn’t like it was functioning. It’s too bad because what I did see of it was incredible mason work. It was shaped like an egg. MRS. HAMLIN-So it’s actually not just filled but it’s capped as well? MR. STARK-No. It was filled with rocks and half broken in and filled with dirt. I had no idea it was there until the current deck was falling apart. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. If I would suggest by Code do they need to look at that, to be capped? MRS. MOORE-So it has to go through the variance process first before he can get his building permit. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Once he completes this then he’ll go for this building permit with the Bui lding and Codes Department. MRS. HAMLIN-They’ll check that out. Okay. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, 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 has input to this particular project. Roy, do we have any written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no comment. 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-I think this is a pretty straightforward replacement. There’s no further infringement from before, so I would be in favor of it. (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 06/23/2021) 3 MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I agree with Roy. There’s no doubt, with it being a small piece of property, and with the setback being 75 feet, it’s really going to be hard to do anything there, and like Roy said, it’s not outside the perimeters of the house that exists now. So I’d be for it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-It’s important, obviously, to protect the history of the building. So I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It dates back to horse and buggy days. I don’t see where we should superimpose new regulations on that. MR. MC CABE-Nor do I. It’s a rather simple request as our requests go and so I certainly support the project. So I’m going to ask Brent for a motion here. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Seth Stark. Applicant proposes to remove an existing 280 sq. ft. open deck to r eplace with a 280 sq. ft. deck with a covered roof. The existing deck was covered with a temporary awning and the applicant proposes the covered deck to minimize weather related damage to the home and deck. The existing home of 2,516 sq. ft. footprint and barn are to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, 179-4-080 decks The deck is to be 28.7 ft. to the south property line where a 75 ft. setback is required and 60.2 ft. to the west property line where 100 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 23, 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. Mature landscaping prevents view from the property and it is seeking to replace a 40 year old deck. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and this is the minimum request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. There was an existing deck that was approximately 40 years old and this is, frankly, an improvement to the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty, while it could be viewed as self-created, we don’t believe that it is. Again, the house has been in existence since 1850 and this would frankly be improving the lifespan of the area and of the property. 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, safe ty and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; (Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals 06/23/2021) 4 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. 34-2021 SETH STARK, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 23 rd Day of June 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. STARK-Thank you all for your consideration.