Loading...
Meeting Minutes 10.20.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC & CURT DYBAS, R.A. OWNER(S) MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ ZONING WR LOCATION 113 SEELYE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 700 SQ. FT. 2-CRAR ADDITION AND TO CONVERT THE EXISTING 2-BAY GARAGE TO ONE BAY AND OTHER BAY TO BE A LAUNDRY/BATHROOM. THE GARAGE IS TO BE A TOTAL OF 1,050 SQ. FT. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 5,715 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW FLOOR AREA IS 6,765 SQ. FT. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND EXPANSION OF A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 61- 2021; AV 5-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.96 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-49 SECTION 179-3-040; 179- 5-020; 179-13-010 CURT DOBIE & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 69-2021, Michael & Susan Kajdasz, Meeting Date: October 20, 2021 “Project Location: 113 Seelye Road. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 700 sq. ft. 2-car addition and to convert the existing 2-bay garage to one bay and other bay to be a laundry/bathroom. The garage is to be a total of 1,050 sq. ft. The existing floor area is 5,715 sq. ft. and the new floor area is 6,765 sq. ft. Site plan review for construction of new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests for construction of an addition needing relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR and the parcel is 0.96 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The addition is to be located 15.1 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant has not ed the existing home was considered compliant when constructed in 1979 and the zoning has since changed. 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 to locate the addition in a more compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 4.9 ft. to the side setback. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 2 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 self-created. Staff comments: The proposed addition is for the two bay garage to the existing home. The existing attached garage would be converted from 2 bays to one bay where the other bay is to become a bathroom and laundry area.” MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that motion passed seven, zero on October 19th, 2021. MR. MC CABE-So I didn’t attempt your last name. MR. DYBAS-I’m not going to attempt the last name, either. I have known Michael and Susan for 50 years and I remember when they built this house with their own sweat equity and at the time it was constructed in ’79, it was compliant to the current zoning setbacks, but as you move on in years, Michael and Susan want to set this house up for aging in place. They have an office on the main floor and they have the bathroom. The idea is to eventually they’ll use that office as a bedroom, but they need a full bathroom and a the laundry room and the walkout basement up to the main floor. So the logical approach, we looked at it and we said we’ll take the second bay of the garage and we’ll put a full bathroom in there and the laundry room and we’ll add on a two bay garage. By doing so, they are now in the current zoning of a 20 foot setback. So we’re before you tonight to ask for a 4.9 foot relief for the zoning. And basically that is the scope of the project. Any questions? MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Well you said nine feet relief? You said that for a total relief, nine feet of relief? MR. DYBAS-No, 4.9 feet of relief. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised for this particular project, and so at this time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this particular project. Roy, do we have any written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. “We are adjacent property owners at 111 Seelye Road, Queensbury. I have reviewed the application of Mr./Mrs. Kajdasz regarding the proposed addition to existing garage space. The proposed addition does not meet the setback requirements on the north side of the property. The proposed addition has a setback of 15 feet versus the requirement of 20 feet. We would ask the Planning Board to consider the following conditions of our/their approval: 1. Construction be completed in a timely basis. 2. All construction equipment/material/debris be removed from the site and landscaping complete before a certificate of occupancy is issued. 3. A wooden fence of approximately 6-8 feet in height be constructed, at the cost of Mr. Kajdasz, between his property and the property of John and Bette Madej to the north. This fence would take the place of an existing fence that is in disrepair. The fence would run (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 3 along property to Seelye Road. The construction would include the appropriate trimming of various bushes/shrubs and removal lf fallen/intrusive limbs on existing fence and removal and disposal of existing fence. This should be completed at the beginning of the construction process of the addition so as to limit the intrusion of the project. 4. The approval is also conditional on the pre-approval of/by the Kajdasz family on any similar additions/projects that may be considered by the Madej family where the future setbacks may not meet the current setback limits. Similar to this project, any future setbacks would not be closer than setbacks of the existing structures on the Madej property. We are gone for the winter returning in early May, or we would appear at the hearing. If you have any questions we can be reac hed. Thank you. Sincerely, John and Bette Madej” They don’t give an address and I don’t see them on the distribution list. MR. MC CABE-Didn’t they say 111? MR. URRICO-Yes, that’s right. MR. MC CABE-So that’s a pretty big project in its own right, but we don’t do that. So that’s up to you. So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Brady. MR. LA SARSO-I’d be in favor. It seems pretty simple. Nothing major. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I think the relief is minimal. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the Kajdaszs have lived there for a long period of time. I think they’ve always done a good job as far as getting along with the neighbors. I’d be in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-They’re not asking really for anything more other than what’s pre-existing for setbacks. So I’d be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with my other Board members talking about it. It is the same offset as it was before the request for this variance. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m also in favor of the project as is. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. The relief that is being requested here, non-conforming structure. You can’t do anything about that, and 4.9 feet is pretty minimal compared to a lot of the requests that we have. So I’ll support this project. So, I wonder, Cathy, could you give us a motion here. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 4 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael & Susan Kajdasz. Applicant proposes a 700 sq. ft. 2-car addition and to convert the existing 2-bay garage to one bay and other bay to be a laundry/bathroom. The garage is to be a total of 1,050 sq. ft. The existing floor area is 5,715 sq. ft. and the new floor area is 6,765 sq. ft. Site plan review for construction of new floor area in a CEA and expansion of nonconforming structure. Relief requested for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. Relief Required: The applicant requests for construction of an addition needing relief for setbacks and expansion of a nonconforming structure. The project is located in the Waterfront Residential zone –WR and the parcel is 0.96 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The addition is to be located 15.1 ft. from the north property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for expansion of a nonconforming structure. The applicant has noted the existing home was considered compliant when constructed in 1979 and the zoning has since changed. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 20, 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 not considered by the Board. We didn’t think they were necessary in this particular case. 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. Being that it’s added to the non-lake shore side. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created somewhat although they owned the home prior to the zoning change. That’s a little mitigation. 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 5 BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 69-2021 MICHAEL & SUSAN KAJDASZ, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 20th Day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations you have a project.