Loading...
Minutes AV 25-2022 (Gazetos) 8.24.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 1 TABLED ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MORGAN GAZETOS AGENT(S) MORGAN GAZETOS OWNER(S) GREG FRANCIS ZONING WR LOCATION 2930 STATE ROUTE 9L (REVISED) APPLICANT REQUESTS APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF DECK ADDITION NOT CONSTRUCTED AS APPROVED. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT HAS COMPLETED ADDITIONAL WORK WITHOUT APPROVAL INCLUDING DECK AREA NEAR SHORELINE, SHORELINE PATHWAY DECKING, AND A RECONSTRUCTED SHED/CHANGING ACCESSORY STRUCTURE NEAR THE SHORE. EXISTING HOME FOOTPRINT 1,306 SQ. FT. REMAINS THE SAME. THE DECKING AREA EXISTING IS 1,508 SQ. FT. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 1,116 SQ. FT. THE SITE WORK WITH ADDITIONAL WOODEN WALKWAY ETC. IS 2,384 SQ. FT. ; PROPOSED IS 2.074 SQ. FT. UPDATED PLANS SHOW OVERLAY OF EXISTING AND PREVIOUSLY APPROVED. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR HARD SURFACING. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS OF UPPER AND LOWER DECKS, SHED AND WOODEN WALKWAY. CROSS REF SP 35-2022; AV 84-2014; SP 72-2014 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.92 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.20-1-9 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 MORGAN GAZETOS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; GREG FRANCIS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2022, Morgan Gazetos, Meeting Date: August 24, 2022 “Project Location: 2930 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: (Revised) Applicant requests approval for construction of deck addition not constructed as approved. In addition, the applicant has completed additional work without approval including deck area near shoreline, shoreline pathway decking, and a reconstructed shed/changing accessory structure near the shore. Existing home footprint 1,306 sq. ft. remains the same. The decking area existing is 1,508 sq. ft. previously approved 1,116 sq. ft. The site work with additional wooden walkway etc. is 2,384 sq. ft.; proposed is 2,074 sq. ft. Updated plans show overlay of existing and previously approved. Site plan review for hard surfacing. Relief requested for setback s of upper and lower decks, shed, and wooden walkway. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of upper and lower decks, shed, and wooden walkway. Section 179-3-040 dimensions, Section 179-4-080 decks 1. Upper Deck – The as-built for the upper deck addition indicates is 24 ft. from the shoreline where the 2014 approval was for 24.4 ft. from the shoreline. Relief needed 25.6 ft. for shoreline. Relief is also required for the side setback where 14.3 ft. furthest extent, is proposed and 25 ft. is required. The deck addition at the house 11.2 ft. to the side setback where 25 ft. is required. 2. Lower Deck-The as-built survey shows the Deck addition to the house the closest point is 22 ft. where the 2014 approval was for this portion of the deck to be 22 ft. (built as approved) 3. Shoreline Deck – The as built indicates 0 ft. from the shoreline for the landing connection to the dock and 6 ft. from the shoreline dock to the shoreline. The 2014 approval was for the shoreline deck to be 12 ft. from the shoreline. Relief needed for the landing of 50 ft. and the shoreline dock of 46 ft. 4. Shoreline Shed – As built indicates the shed of 46 sq. ft. is 2 ft. from the property line. The 2014 approval indicates an unlabeled square near the shoreline. Relief needed for 48 ft. 5. Wooden walkway path from shoreline deck to covered boathouse; length 198 ft. and 5 ft. to the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. Relief needed of 45 ft. Note the 2014 approval does not identify a wooden walkway. Not subject to variance but additional hard surfacing review under site plan – permeability is greater than 75% even with the deck additions - 6. Upper and lower deck size 73 sq. ft. of additional decking – approved was 828 sq. ft. existing is 901 sq. ft. 7. Shoreline deck size 121 sq. ft. of additional decking- approved was 288 sq. ft. and existing is 409 sq. ft. 8. The decking is 194 sq. ft. in excess of what is approved- specific to the deck elements at the house and shoreline. 9. Total existing for decking and includes boathouse deck areas and wooden walk existing 2,384 sq. ft. and proposed 2074 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed to remove 310 sq. ft. of deck area; this includes 64 sq. ft. of boathouse rear deck, 48 sq. ft. of the shoreline deck at the dock, and 198 sq. ft. of the wooden path. (noting the boathouse decking and the wooden walking path were not in the 2014 calcs) 10. The proposed 310 sq. ft. removal from the existing unapproved 392 sq. ft. leaves 82 sq. ft. over built Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 2 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 limited due to the existing house location in close proximity to the shoreline and the steep topogra phy of the site. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The Upper Deck relief -25.6 ft. to the shore, -10.7 ft. .& 13.8 ft. to the side. The lower Deck was constructed and is 22 ft. setback as approved in 2014. Shoreline Deck relief is 44 ft. from the shoreline, landing relief is 50 ft. Shoreline Shed relief is 48 ft. Wooden walkway 45 ft. relief. The applicant has already proposed to remove 310 sq. ft. of decking area from the site. 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 to no 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 applicant has provided plans that show the existing conditions on the site with the decking location to the shoreline. The applicant is aware the work was done without approvals and would like to rectify the situation as some of the work was done due to the topography constraints and other work was done to accommodate elderly parents on the site. The applicant has had the surveyor overlay the approved decking on the existing deck where the primary issues are for the work at the shoreline. The applicant proposes to maintain the 46 sq. ft. shed in the current configuration, remove the shoreline deck pathway and replace with mulch, stone landscape areas with native plantings. Also to be removed is a portion of the lower deck to dock area, and a portion of the boathouse deck area.” MR. URRICO-Then the Planning Board, based on its limited review, had a motion that did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and that was passed on August 16th, 2022, and it was passed unanimously six zero. That’s it. MR. FRANCIS-Good evening. I’m Greg Francis. I’m the applicant. I just want to apologize for letting this get out of hand and go on for so long. I thought I had someone taking care of it and they were not and that’s why we’re here tonight. So I just want to apologize for letting it get to this poi nt, and Morgan is going to go and rectify it. MR. GAZETOS-I’m Morgan Gazetos from Lake George Docks, and I’m not the original builder. Mr. Francis asked me, after someone else constructed the decks, the walkway, etc., if I could help him through the process. So I worked with Laura and a surveyor, looked at the most egregious stuff which is highlighted in pink on the copy you all received. The biggest item being a wooden walkway, but then also the two overhangs next to the stairs, the little platform and then for good measure we threw in the deck in the back with the shed. So the difference was about 82 square feet versus the original proposal Mr. Francis had approved with you guys back in 2015, ’14. So actually in 2014 I built the one side of the dock, all approved, and then, so I saw it beforehand and then last year I did the other side, again approved by LGPC, and he said, hey, can you help me with this. So the upper deck, as we call it the two ones against the house, I can sort of understand what the guy was thinking. He should have stopped during the process. He should have called Bruce Frank or whatever the mechanism is, and said, hey, I’ve got to come back in, I’m having an issue with my stairs. There’s a huge ledge outcrop there and I think sometimes you draw things on paper and then you’re standing on the site and you’re going, oh. I think he had one of those moments and instead of raising his hand and saying, hey, I’ve got a problem, the guy went right ahead, and so again the application, and Laura can tell you all about this, I had a hard time with his numbers. I had a hard time with the previous impermeable surface versus everything else. So everything that’s on here is the best I could do following up after the fact. I had the surveyor come out three different times just to try to get a handle on this. We got everything that’s actually there trying to figure out what was there before from the pictures. It’s a big task. So obviously it’s within 50 feet of the mean high water mark. It couldn’t be. So everything that we feel was additional we’re going to crop off, and then the big ask is, and the side line setbacks didn’t change. The setbacks from the waterfront for the two upper decks didn’t change. It’s just by moving the one set of stairs and changing his configuration, he added a couple of feet. They’re big decks to start with. So when you add six inches, you know, something six inches wide, you’re adding, you know, 40 square feet. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 3 MR. KUHL-Have you got pictures of what you’re doing? I mean I have the original pictures, and this is kind of like a bunch of red on the map. I mean I’m a little dense, you know, I need pictures. MR. GAZETOS-It’s hard. I can’t take it out until I get approval to do so. MR. KUHL-I can’t understand what you want. That’s effectively what I’m saying. I see this with a lot of red, okay, and I have, like I said, the original pictures. I’m trying to understand it. Okay. Because this is not an easy thing. I’m not trying to challenge you. I’m trying to understand what you’re doing. MR. GAZETOS-I appreciate that. Sir, you want to see the current pictures, correct, what’s currently there now? MRS. MOORE-Is this what you want? MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. GAZETOS-Originally, this wasn’t supposed to be here. There’s a, actually it’s different even than in this picture, there’s two little four by fours on each side here, and then a wooden walkway extends from here, gotta be 60 to 70 feet to the other boathouse. MR. KUHL-Right. That walkway’s going away. Right now Mr. Francis has these two sets of potted plants on each side. Those things are going away, and then on the other boathouse which isn’t pictured because it pre-dated, whatever, there’s an eight by eight deck on the back of that. MR. KUHL-That’s going away? MR. GAZETOS-Yes, sir. So I know they’re red drawings on the map, but it’s 64 square feet. It’s a sizeable chunk in the back here. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. GAZETOS-But the most egregious thing is the walkway. Impermeable space inside a 50 foot setback is a no no. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. GAZETOS-And then when they re-did the stairs here, it was just a set of stairs before they did a wider platform here and so I’m just going to return it to the access stairs. MR. KUHL-The stairs. Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-Also was the original permit granted for the shed? MR. GAZETOS-The shed was pre-existing. MR. HENKEL-That’s a different shed than the original, a lot different. MRS. MOORE-So I can shed a little light on this, no pun intended. In reference to the shed, there’s only information on the previous application that says there’s a square. It doesn’t label it. It doesn’t mention the size. MR. HENKEL-That’s all it was was a square. MRS. MOORE-Right, and the same as the RPS information. I can’t obtain any additional information about what it was previously. My understanding is it was a pump house. MR. HENKEL-And the roofline. MR. GAZETOS-The roofline was changed. They sided it to match the house. It’s thicker, but as far as the overall size, I mean it looks different from the RPS pictures. It looks like it’s moved, but it hasn’t. I just think when he re-did the one side. MR. HENKEL-The door looks different. MR. GAZETOS-The door is different. I mean he re-did the shed. MR. HENKEL-That’s a pump house. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 4 MR. GAZETOS-Right. MR. HENKEL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other 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 who would like to address this particular project. No one? Roy, do we have anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-No. MRS. MOORE-Not in the Zoning Board, but there are in the Planning Board. I will say there are two letters in the Planning Board file, but they did not make it into the Zoning Board because they were addressed at the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. MOORE-And they’re for the project. MR. MC CABE-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 Roy. MR. URRICO-Thank you. I think, obviously we have a tough one here to consider, but to me it seems like some mistakes were made, some serious mistakes, and they’re doing the best they can to rectify those mistakes. I think the corrections are enough for me to approve the project and say w hile there is some relief involved here, it’s not as much as it would have been. Although it’s not the original project, it’s far better than the one that was there prior to them fixing it. So I would be approving this. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I agree. It appears that they certainly tried to mitigate whatever the issues were that were there before the best you can. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I’m satisfied with the changes as they’re proposed. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members. If there was a problem with permeability, as the permeability is pretty good there, I would be a little bit against it, but I think they are doing their best to take care of the problem. I would support this project. Yes. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes I agree with what was said. After the show and tell, I’m not against it. It shouldn’t have happened originally but it did. MR. MC CABE-And I cannot support this project. Eight years is just a little bit too long and I think it shows total disrespect for the Town and our attempt to control building, but I’m only one vote. So at this particular time, I’m going to ask Ron if he’d make a motion here. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Morgan Gazetos. (Revised) Applicant requests approval for construction of deck addition not constructed as approved. In addition, the applicant has completed additional work without approval including deck area near shoreline, shoreline pathway decking, and a reconstructed shed/changing accessory structure near the shore. Existing home footprint 1,306 sq. ft. remains the same. The decking area existing is 1,508 sq. ft. previously approved 1,116 sq. ft. The site work with additional wooden walkway etc. is 2,384 sq. ft.; proposed is 2,074 sq. ft. Updated plans show overlay of existing and previously approved. Site plan review for hard surfacing. Relief requested for setbacks of upper and lower decks, shed, and wooden walkwa y. Relief Required: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 5 The applicant requests relief for setbacks of upper and lower decks, shed, and wooden walkway. Section 179-3-040 dimensions, Section 179-4-080 decks 1. Upper Deck – The as-built for the upper deck addition indicates is 24 ft. from the shoreline where the 2014 approval was for 24.4 ft. from the shoreline. Relief needed 25.6 ft. for shoreline. Relief is also required for the side setback where 14.3 ft. furthest extent, is proposed and 25 ft. is required. The deck addition at the house 11.2 ft. to the side setback where 25 ft. is required. 2. Lower Deck-The as-built survey shows the Deck addition to the house the closest point is 22 ft. where the 2014 approval was for this portion of the deck to be 22 ft. (built as approved) 3. Shoreline Deck – The as built indicates 0 ft. from the shoreline for the landing connection to the dock and 6 ft. from the shoreline dock to the shoreline. The 2014 approval was for the shoreline deck to be 12 ft. from the shoreline. Relief needed for the landing of 50 ft . and the shoreline dock of 46 ft. 4. Shoreline Shed – As built indicates the shed of 46 sq. ft. is 2 ft. from the property line. The 2014 approval indicates an unlabeled square near the shoreline. Relief needed for 48 ft. 5. Wooden walkway path from shoreline deck to covered boathouse; length 198 ft. and 5 ft. to the shoreline where 50 ft. is required. Relief needed of 45 ft. Note the 2014 approval does not identify a wooden walkway. Not subject to variance but additional hard surfacing review under site plan – permeability is greater than 75% even with the deck additions - 6. Upper and lower deck size 73 sq. ft. of additional decking – approved was 828 sq. ft. existing is 901 sq. ft. 7. Shoreline deck size 121 sq. ft. of additional decking- approved was 288 sq. ft. and existing is 409 sq. ft. 8. The decking is 194 sq. ft. in excess of what is approved- specific to the deck elements at the house and shoreline. 9. Total existing for decking and includes boathouse deck areas and wooden walk existing 2,384 sq. ft. and proposed 2074 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed to remove 310 sq. ft. of deck area; this includes 64 sq. ft. of boathouse rear deck, 48 sq. ft. of the shoreline deck at the dock, and 198 sq. ft. of the wooden path. (noting the boathouse decking and the wooden walking path were not in the 2014 calcs) 10. The proposed 310 sq. ft. removal from the existing unapproved 392 sq. ft. leaves 82 sq. ft. over built SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 22, 2022 & Wednesday, August 24, 2022. 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. This is removing work that should have never been done and it will make things the best they can be under the circumstances. 2. There are many feasible alternatives. What we’re doing with this is removing as much as we can to make it livable for the residents. 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 definitely self-created because this individual let somebody build some decking that never should have been there without approvals. 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) __________ b) __________, c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 6 BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2022 MORGAN GAZETOS , Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 24th Day of August 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood NOES: Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. GAZETOS-Thank you, sir.