Loading...
AV 67-2021 Minutes 9.22.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEVE MC DEVITT AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNER (CHRIS KEIL) OWNER(S) STEVE MC DEVITT ZONING WR LOCATION 32 NORTH LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1 ½ STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE ADDITION IS TO BE A 320 SQ. FT. GREAT ROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR WITH A 128 SQ. FT. OPEN DECK. THE ADDITION INCLUDES A 448 SQ. FT. BASEMENT AREA AND A 224 SQ. FT. OFFICE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 2,721 SQ. FT. AND THE PROPOSED IS 3,755 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 58-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.26 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-58 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-13-010 CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 67-2021, Steve McDevitt, Meeting Date: September 22, 2021 “Project Location: 32 North Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 1 ½ story addition to an existing home. The addition is to be a 320 sq. ft. Great Room on the first floor with a 128 sq. ft. open deck. The addition includes a 448 sq. ft. basement area and a 224 sq. ft. office on the second floor. The existing floor area is 2,721 sq. ft. and the proposed is 3,755 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and floor area for the construction of additions to an existing home. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 0.26 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 -dimensional The addition is to be 20 ft. from the north side and 29 ft. from the east side where a 30 ft. setback is required. The site permeability is to be 72% where 75% is required. The floor area is to be 33% where 22% is the maximum allowed. 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 method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the additions. Noting the location of the existing home is not compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code as the additions make it further non-compliant. Relief is requested for north side of 9 ft. and the east of 1 ft.; floor area is 11% in excess and permeability is 3 % additional hard- surfacing. 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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The existing home is a 3,600 sq. ft. is a two story home. The addition is 320 sq. ft. great room on the first floor and 128 sq. ft. open deck. The second floor is to have 224 sq. ft. addition as an office. The project also includes a 428 sq. ft. basement addition. The first floor plan shows two bedrooms with living room and kitchen area. The second floor maintains the two bedroom and a new office area.” (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 2 MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review identified the following areas of concern: size of the increase on a small lot and that motion was adopted unanimously on September 21st, 2021. MR. UNDERWOOD-Mr. Keil. MR. KEIL-Chris Keil with Environmental Design Partnership. As you know we were at the Planning Board yesterday to discuss this project and we know on face value it might seem like a pretty big ask. So little bit of back story on the project. The applicant in this case is an older couple getting ready to retire. They’re looking to make this their permanent residence. They really want to achieve single story living which is typical of this sort of design, the one and a half story house. So the goal is to create the Great Room so they don’t have to go up and down stairs. The laundry is in the basement. I think the first floor would kind of serve most of their needs is the primary driver behind this project. There’s no increase in bedroom count in this case and it’s my view, you know, you can see that there’s some challenges with this lot being a corner lot. They’re up against having two rear yard setbacks where the originally house was placed and tucked up against those setbacks. Based on the internal layout of the building and floor plan it makes it difficult to sort of expand towards the street or to the west which wouldn’t incur that setback relief request and if you look at the site photos of the surrounding buildings, it’s again in my view in keeping with the character of the existing homes in that street, and mainly that addition is towards the north. So it wouldn’t be visible from the main street frontage there. I’m happy to answer any questions you may have. MR. UNDERWOOD-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. URRICO-Is there any room for compromise on any of these? Because it just seems like an awful lot to be asking for. MR. KEIL-Understood, and I think there is, frankly. I sort of anticipated for there to be some push back. We had this discussion with the applicant who unfortunately couldn’t make it. They want the project to happen. So I think there’s definitely some things that we could look at a little bit closer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. At this time I’ll open the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public wishing to speak? Any letters? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There are no letters. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. Then I guess I’ll start to poll the Board members. Brent, do you want to go? MR. MC DEVITT-I was glad to hear what you just indicated. As Roy made mention, I think there’s a project to be had here. It feels in some capacities to be a relatively big ask. So I’d like to see what the rest of my piers have as thoughts relative to that, but generally speaking when we’re able to work, kind of constructively here and work something out. So I think as it is it feels kind of like a big ask to me. I do understand that being a corner lot with two rear yard setbacks, I do follow that. Okay. I understand where you’re coming from and I certainly appreciate individuals getting older and achieving single story living. So let me hear what the rest of the Board has to say? MR. UNDERWOOD-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with Brent. Not that the permeability’s that bad. You’re not far off on that, and the setback isn’t a whole lot. I’d rather see that a little bit less, but I think being 1275 feet over the allowable FAR variance is something that could be worked a little bit better on. So I would not be in favor of it as is. MR. UNDERWOOD-Ron? MR. KUHL-I guess I’m the oldest guy here. I don’t think it’s that bad an ask. I’d be in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. UNDERWOOD-Roy? MR. URRICO-I don’t think it’s too much of an ask also. I would like to see some compromise here on the various variances that are asked for. So I would be a no at this time. MR. UNDERWOOD-Brady? MR. STARK-I would be in favor of the project. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/22/2021) 3 MR. UNDERWOOD-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I would like to see a little compromise on the greater of the two rear yard variances. Everything else is pretty okay with me. It’s minor, but that one corner, you’re going from 30, required 30, you’ve got 25 now you’re going to 20. I understand the need for sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-At this time I’m going to have to agree with the majority of the Board, although I think Ron makes a valid point here. This is not direct waterfront property , and I think that does some into place because I think we differentiate between the impacts in the greater sense when we look at strictly on the waterfront, but at the same time, you’re stuck with a very small, tiny lot, and so that basically puts a noose around the whole project. You’re going to have to shrink it down somewhat to make the Board more amenable to approving what you’re asking. So I think at this point the best thing for y ou to do is to table it, I assume and go back and talk to your client and see what they want to do. So does somebody want to make a tabling motion? MR. HENKEL-Do we have a date? MRS. MOORE-I’m going to tell you to November at this time because I don’t have any room on the October agenda. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So you’ve got November, there’s only one meeting in November, the 17th? Is there only one meeting for November for us, or no? MRS. MOORE-At this time there’s only one meeting. MR. HENKEL-The 17th? MRS. MOORE-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve McDevitt. Applicant proposes a 1 ½ story addition to an existing home. The addition is to be a 320 sq. ft. Great Room on the first floor with a 128 sq. ft. open deck. The addition includes a 448 sq. ft. basement area and a 224 sq. ft. office on the second floor. The existing floor area is 2,721 sq. ft. and the proposed is 3,755 sq. ft. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability, expansion of a nonconforming structure, and floor area. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 67-2021 STEVE MC DEVITT, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Tabled to the November 17th, 2021 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with any new information due by the 15th of October. Duly adopted this 22nd day of September, 2021, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-And just for the record, you’ve left the public hearing open. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Underwood NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McCabe