Loading...
Minutes AV 58-2021 (West) 2.16.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 58-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE) AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) BRETT & PAMELA WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 108 BAY PARKWAY (REVISED 10/4/2021 – NO REVISION FOR DEC.) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME WITH 3,437 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA AND 2,250 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE HOME IS TWO STORY WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A COVERED WALKWAY FROM THE HOME TO THE PROPOSED ADJOINING HOME AND INSTALLATION OF PERMEABLE PAVER AREAS FOR DRIVEWAY AND PATIO. SITE WORK INCLUDES STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH A RAIN GARDEN, NEW SITE PLANTINGS, NEW SEPTIC, AND NEW LINE FOR DRINKING WATER. PROJECT INCLUDES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BUT NO CHANGE TO LOT SIZE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, ACCESS FROM ADJOINING LOT, AND STORMWATER DEVICE LESS THAN 100 FT. FROM SHORE. CROSS REF SP 52-2021; SEP 343-2021; AST 433-2020; DEMO 803-2019; PT 802-2019; AV 52-2009; SP 54-2009 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021, FEBRUARY 2022 (SETBACKS STORMWATER DEVICE) ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.15-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; 179-4-050; 147 JON LAPPER & CHRIS KEIL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. MC CABE-I’ll open the public hearing for AV 58-2021. MR. URRICO-Shouldn’t I read that in, too? MR. MC CABE-And then, well, if there’s anybody that would like to speak separately about that particular item. MR. URRICO-Don’t I have to read that in? MRS. MOORE-I’d rather have Roy read that into the record. MR. MC CABE-Okay. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 58-2021, Brett & Pamela West (Guest House), Meeting Date: February 16, 2022 “Project Location: 108 Bay Parkway Description of Proposed Project: (Revised 1/18/2022) Applicant proposes construction of a new home with 3,210 sq. ft. floor area and 2,160 sq. ft. footprint. The home is two story with an attached garage. The project includes a covered walkway from the home to the proposed adjoining home and installation of permeable paver areas for driveway and patio. Site work includes stormwater management with a rain garden, new site plantings, new septic, and new line for drinking water. Project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, access from adjoining lot, and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shore. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home and associated site work needing relief for setbacks and access from adjoining lot for the construction of a new single-family home in the Waterfront Residential Zone –WR. The parcel is 0.34 acres. The additional variance noted for the shoreline setback for the infiltration device. Section 179-3-040 dimensional Revised February 2022. The covered walkway is to be 0 ft. from the east side setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. The home is to be 10 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Note – the East property line has been adjusted to accommodate a setback with no changes to the lot size. Relief is also requested to access the parcel from the adjoining lot and not the lot the project is on. Relief for the infiltration device to the shoreline – three proposed at 45 ft., 49 ft., and 72 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is required. Note permeability is proposed at 78.5% and 75% is required –no permeability relief is requested; floor area is proposed at 3,210 sq. ft. and the maximum allowed is 3,212 sq. ft. – no floor area relief requested. 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. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022) 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 possible to reduce the overall size of the home, increase permeability. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested covered walkway 20 ft. The east property line relief is 10 ft. Relief for access. Relief for stormwater device within 100 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. The applicant has included new stormwater measures that did not exist prior and proposes a new septic system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes the new home to be constructed is 2,160 sq. ft. footprint home with an attached garage. The project includes patio areas, and a covered walkway section to connect to the adjoining property owners proposed home –the same individuals own the properties. The new home is to be 3,210 sq. ft. floor area. The first floor plan shows dining room area, living room area, kitchen, garage, a bedroom. The second floor shows two bedrooms, bathrooms, loft area, sauna. The garage is an open area with no second floor. The plans show the location of the proposed home on the site with associated driveway area, patios, holding tanks, plantings.” MR. URRICO-The Planning Board passed a motion that based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and that was passed February 15th, 2022 by a six zero margin. MR. LAPPER-So for the record, again, Jon Lapper with Chris Keil and John Witt, and I guess perhaps when we discuss this there might be four members that would be in favor of this one compared to the main house only because here we don’t have any setback variance from the lake for the house, no permeability, we don’t have any floor area. The variances here are just connecting the covered walkway, the fact that we’re using one driveway for the whole project rather than have two curb cuts, which is a good th ing for the neighborhood because it is a busy road, and then the stormwater devices which obviously on this site can’t be 100 feet from the lake. So you may see this as a similar project. MR. MC CABE-So, let’s see. So now do we have questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody has any input on AV 58-2021. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN PAM LESTER GOLDE MRS. GOLDE-My name is Pam Lester Golde. I am the next door neighbor to this parcel and if you can see that there is a perforated underdrain basically that will be picking up half of this house and it sends it down to the southwest corner of the property. That southwest corner, if they showed to pography that went beyond the property line, you would end up seeing that that water would drain onto my property and flood out where we have our boat, and I don’t mean a boat in a slip. I’m talking we have our sunfish there. So now I’m going to end up having to deal with their stormwater on my property. The one thing that I think you should understand, at last night’s Planning Board meeting, there was a request to be able to see the engineer’s report. Well we can’t see the engineer’s report. It’s not part of the Staff comments, and we would have to FOIL it, but by the time we get it, there’s not enough time for us to be able to review it and get comments back to you. I also don’t think you’re even looking at the engineering report on the storm drainage that might have an impact. So I think that I would strongly request that the Zoning Board take a look at the storm drainage that would affect a variance that they are asking for. Seven of them on the other parcel. But again on this parcel as w ell. And again, they have taken out the second floor of the garage, have not reduced the roof line and so the stairs are in it. So all they have to do is, after they get their C of O, they can put in this office space. So again I think that this is ju st smoke and mirrors by the client to turn around and get around the FAR, and I request that you strongly deny this one as well as the previous one. MR. MC CABE-Would you like to speak also? LORRAINE RUFFING MRS. RUFFING-Lorraine Ruffing, Assembly Point. I only have two very brief comments. During the, let’s say the rebuttal period for our remarks, there was reference made that the stormwater plan will be (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022) 3 reviewed by the Town Engineers and I think that’s very important before this project gets passed that the Town Engineer verify what is happening to the stormwater, and also a comment was made that maybe some of the properties next door, particularly the O’Keefe property, was not engaging in good stormwater management. That property was, let’s say, recently worked on by the Town Highway Department. They tried to improve what’s coming off of Otyokwa underneath the road onto the O’Keefe property, but there is a berm on the West property which is keeping all the water that would normally flow onto the W est property and exit via the West property. It’s keeping that water on the O’Keefe property and now you’re going to have a large garage abutting the O’Keefe property. You’re going to have a grass depression. Will that grass depression really be deep enough to catch all the water coming off the roof, plus, you know, whatever flow might come from Otyokwa and as Mrs. Golde has said, all the vegetation that is now on that particular border with the O’Keefe property is going to be removed. So the situa tion is just going to get worse, but I go back to my first point that I think the stormwater plans should really be reviewed by the Town Engineer before a decision is made on this project. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anyone else that would like to speak on this particular project? Is there any written? MR. URRICO-Yes, the same letters as the last. MR. LAPPER-So on Ms. Lester who is to the south of this, you can see where the setback line is on the map. So this is actually dramatically away from her property and this was on purpose moved north so she has more of a buffer. My understanding is that her site has a non-conforming septic and no stormwater. So she could address her stormwater issues by doing some stormwater work, but certainly w hat’s happening here is not really going to exacerbate it. It’s going to improve the stormwater by infiltrating it on this. If the Board had a majority that could see that these variances are pretty minor because we don’t have lake setback and we don’t have a big house it would at least let John Witt get started on constructing this house while we’re still working on finalizing the main house. JOHN WITT MR. WITT-I’m John Witt, designer of the home. Just, I’d like to speak as a public commenter as a boater on Lake George. I spend my summers boating around Lake George and it’s phenomenal to go across the shoreline and look at the great houses and the great camps, if you go up to the Narrows, and I think if you dumb down this project enough he’s not going to do it, Number One, and I think we’ve got a great opportunity to have a great camp and something that’s going to be very visually attractive. It’s not super large. There’s not nine bedroom. There’s six bedrooms for two houses. That’s not huge. It’s a great camp. It’s not supposed to be small, but it’s not gaudy, it’s not huge. It’ll fit in with the character of, the vernacular of great camps on Lake George. So I think, you know, I would hope we could get four votes for the whole project as is. I mean if you look at what the original project was from 19 feet to whatever, 46 feet on that north side, that’s substantial from what’s there, and if you look at the original footprint to what’s there, it’s not that much different. So as a neighbor on the lake I just would say I’m very supportive and I can say I’ll be 90% of the neighbors on the lake would say the same thing as I’m saying tonight. So that’s all. Thank you. MR. KEIL-Chris Keil. I’d just like to add a little bit. We talk about vegetation being removed. I mean right now we’re respecting both on the O’Keefe and Golde side, that edge there, you know, we’re not grading right up to the edge including like the mature tree on the O’Keefe side. So I’m not sure exactly what the reference is, and I think more importantly the question is, is it enough. I mean I think it is. I think if you look at the recent letter from LaBella, the Town Designated Engineer, who we respect and are working with in this regard, you can see that the comments are minimal at this point. So, yes, I think as per the Code of the Town, we’re meeting the stormwater regulations to the tee and furthermore I think on both of those properties, you know, for the main house at the edge and for the guest house, I mean we’re creating depressions that will intercept some of that water that are additive to the current situation where that water is draining towards the property boundaries as is. So I think any way you look at it we’re making improvements to both those conditions. 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 Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Unlike the other side of this project, I approve of this side of the project. I think it’s appropriate in size. I think it’s appropriately set back from the lake and I think your stormwater is going to be handled because it’s a smaller dwelling that you’re creating on the property. As far as the variances for the drive, being a single drive accessing both properties, I don’t have a problem with that either. I think it makes more sense since you own both properties. It cuts down on maintenance, too. My comments on the other project are still germane to this.. Your permeable pavers that you have proposed are well thought out and everything else, but all these things are manmade objects. It’s not preserving what natural flow (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022) 4 allows as far as infiltration. I think even in the best scenarios, we’re looking at these are probably going to work most of the time they’re probably going to be adequate, but you’re probably going to have times when you’re going to be inundated and you’re going to have sheet flow into the lake, but you’re going to get that anyway when you get major rain events up in the whole basin. It’s not something germane just to this property, but I think as far as this property goes on the south side here I don’t have a problem with it at all. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-There’s no doubt, we keep on talking about stormwater, but if you look at the other side of that island or that peninsula on the Harris Bay side you’ve got a road that’s right on the lake where everybody’s water sheds across that into the lake. No one talks about that. This man here is trying to do everything to keep his stormwater on his property and he shouldn’t have to worry about stormwater going across his property from everybody else’s property. So that’s just my comment on that, but he’s not asking for a whole lot here, very minimal. There’s no FAR variance needed, no permeability which was at one time and they reduced that to nothing. So I’m on board definitely with this project. I think it’s a great project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m hung up on this 100 foot thing because that is our Code. Nonetheless, in the infinite wisdom of the Park Commission, I think 35 is acceptable and from our Code perspective it’s quite substantial, but in general I think I would be voting in favor of this because pretty much what Jim applies here. I think I would vote in favor of this one, and I’m not very far off on the other one, to be honest with you. More evidence in terms of what you’re doing in terms of your proposed infiltration would help me, just knowing that nothing is going off of your property would be helpful to me moving forward? MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think our job is to allow minimal relief, not no relief. That’s what our job is, and I think we’ve done that with this project, with this one specifically. I think what you’re asking for is not what you’re asking for when you first came in, but I think it’s a much better project now and I would be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. STARK-I am also in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I think what you are asking for here is minimal and I think overall it’s going to improve the situation in that particular area. So I’m going to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett & Pamela West. (Revised 1/18/2022) Applicant proposes construction of a new home with 3,210 sq. ft. floor area and 2,160 sq. ft. footprint. The home is two story with an attached garage. The project includes a covered walkway from the home to the proposed adjoining home and installation of permeable paver areas for driveway and patio. Site work includes stormwater management with a rain garden, new site plantings, new septic, and new line for drinking water. Project includes a lot line adjustment but no change to lot size. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks, access from adjoining lot, and stormwater device less than 100 ft. from shore. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a new home and associated site work needing relief for setbacks and access from adjoining lot for the construction of a new single-family home in the Waterfront Residential Zone –WR. The parcel is 0.34 acres. The additional variance noted for the shoreline setback for the infiltration device. Section 179-3-040 dimensional Revised February 2022. The covered walkway is to be 0 ft. from the east side setback where a 20 ft. setback is required. The home is to be 10 ft. from the east property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Note – the East property line has been adjusted to accommodate a setback with no changes to the lot size. Relief is also requested to access the parcel from the adjoining lot and not the lot the project is on. Relief for the infiltration device to the shoreline – three proposed at 45 ft., 49 ft., and 72 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is required. Note permeability is proposed at 78.5% and 75% is required –no permeability relief is requested; floor area is proposed at 3,210 sq. ft. and the maximum allowed is 3,212 sq. ft. – no floor area relief requested. SEQR Type II – no further review required; (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 02/16/2022) 5 A public hearing was advertised and held on September 29, 2021, October 27, 2021, December 15, 2021, & February 16, 2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and up on 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. We feel that the architecture provided here is going to make a very substantial beautiful looking property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are generally not reasonable because of the shape and size of the property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s actually an improvement from what previously existed. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Because we feel that a water management plan is going to be superior to no plan at all. 5. The alleged difficulty, of course, 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. 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. 58-2021 BRETT & PAMELA WEST (GUEST HOUSE), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 16th Day of February 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt MR. LAPPER-Thanks very much.