Loading...
Minutes AV 53-2022 (West) 10.19.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 53-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RENEE & TOM WEST AGENT(S) ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN PARTNERSHIP OWNER(S) RENEE & TOM WEST ZONING WR LOCATION 79 KNOX RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN EXISTING HOME TO CONSTRUCT A NEW HOME OF 3,315 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH A DETACHED GARAGE OF 1,100 SQ. FT. AND A TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF 7,000 SQ. FT. THE HOME IS TO BE 27 FT. 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND THE GARAGE IS TO BE 27 FEET 11 ½ INCHES ON A 1.22 ACRE PARCEL. THE PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC SYSTEM, STORMWATER CONTROLS, PERMEABLE DRIVEWAY AREAS, AND LANDSCAPING. SITE PLAN FOR FLOOR AREA, HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FEET OF SHORELINE, AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS FOR WORK WITHIN 100 FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND GARAGE HEIGHT. CROSS REF SP 70-2022; SP 71-2022; AV 42-2022; FWW 14-2022; FWW 15-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.22 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.7-1-16 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-065; CHAPTER 94; 147 DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TOM WEST, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 53-2022, Renee & Tom West, Meeting Date: October 19, 2022 “Project Location: 79 Knox Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new home of 3,315 sq. ft. footprint with a detached garage of 1,100 sq. ft. and a total floor area of 8,720 sq. ft. The home is to be 27 ft. 8 inches in height and the garage is to be 27 ft. 11 ½ inches on a 1.22 acre parcel. The project includes new septic system, stormwater controls, permeable driveway areas, and landscaping. Site plan for floor area, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and freshwater wetlands for work within 100 ft. Relief is requested for setbacks and garage height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of stormwater device and garage height in the WR zone on a 1.22 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional and Chapter 147 Stormwater The stormwater infrastructure is to be located 40 ft. from the wetland and 81 ft. from Lake George where a 100 ft. setback is required. Relief is requested for the height of the garage building where 27 ft. 11.5 inches is proposed and accessory structures in the waterfront zone are limited to 16 ft. 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 reduce the height of the garage and to reduce the scale of the project so the devices meet the required setback. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered minimal moderate relevant to the code. The relief for height would be 11 ft. 11.5 inches greater than 16 ft. The setback relief is 7 ft. to the lake and 49 ft. to the wetland. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The project includes additional shoreline plantings and stormwater management for the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new home and new garage. The home will have a height of 27 ft. 8 inches, the garage height will be 27 ft. 11.5 inches on a parcel of 1.22 acres. The project includes a new septic system, stormwater controls, permeable driveway areas and landscaping. The applicant’s request is similar to AV 52-2022 where the house and garage are one building where the proposal for two separate buildings would reduce the appearance of a large structure.” (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 2 MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they passed that motion on October 18th, 2022 by a six zero margin. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you. I’ll give you a little background first. The property, 1,2 acres on Knox Road at the point where the road becomes private. It is a dead end road. I happen to be a neighbor next door to this property . We’ve known each other for a long time. This property has been in Renee’s family ownership for over 60 years. They’ve shared it with a sibling for a number of years, and within the last year there’s been a transfer. So they are sole owners of the property and would like to make improvements so that the residence is a year round property. It’s currently, as beautiful as it is, it is a seasonal structure. It’s on piers. There’s no real heating system . It’s just not easily retrofitted to be a year round property. So the idea was to construct a true year round residence. The house as proposed meets all the normal, I should say the standard requirements for permeability, floor area ratio, yard setbacks. The issues and the three variances that we’re requesting in this proposal is for two setbacks for the stormwater devices to, Number One, one of them to the lake, Number Two a second one to a wetland which falls in a similar category as a shoreline in Queensbury’s regulations. So that in those regulations as you may know are subject to being updated and revised at some time in the future. The Lake George Park Commission, the originator of the stormwater regulations which the townships have adopted and are given the right to administer, Queensbury has accepted that right. So they’ve always administered the stormwater regulations, but the Town has yet to update their standards to meet th e Park Commission standards that were updated about a year and a half ago. So that 100 foot setback for a stormwater device for a Major project was changed in the Park Commission’s regulations to 35 feet. So if the Town had updated their regulations at this point to be consistent with the Park Commission’s, then this wouldn’t be necessary, but they still haven’t. So that’s two of the requests. The bigger issue here is the height variance request for the detached garage, not connected. That gives the opportunity to move the garage a little further away from the main house and lake. Again, I’ll let Tom get into some of his reasoning behind that, which makes sense. Whether it’s acceptable to this Board, that’s what we’re here to find out. So that request, they would like to have living space above the garage, and that structure turns out to be 28 feet, just like a residence height standard would be, but detached from the house so it becomes a separate accessory structure, and if it’s helpful, I’ll let Tom do a little explanation of the reasoning. There’s another site plan that shows the comparison of the detached structure if that’s helpful. MR. WEST-Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Board. I’m Tom West. This is my wife, Renee. We are the owners of the property. Laura, is it possible to put the existing survey up? Actually we can work off of this one. This is the existing survey of the existing property. As Dennis mentioned, this is an old camp that’s been cobbed together and expanded over time. It sits on concrete blocks. It’s two by four construction with little or no insulation in it. So it’s very difficult to heat. We’re already closed up. The water’s drained. This is a pavilion which is separate. It’s kind of our sitting area in the summer area and then this is the existing garage which is way back by the road, single story two car garage. When we decided that we might embark upon building a new house, it was our goal to see if we could come up with a project that would require no variances whatsoever. I’ve done a lot of work on Lake George and I believe in trying to do everything in conformity with the regulations to the extent that you can. So if we can go back to that one, or we could actually look at the one I handed out. We decided that the main building should be very close to and similar in size to the existing building. There was a reason, Dennis pointed that out a few minutes ago. There was a reason that was put there, because if you look at the lot, it’s very steep going to the east and the southeast, and it comes down steep on that side, and then the rest of it is very flat, and so the developable property is back up here, but if you go too far you’re cutting into the bank and you’re now tiering your building or doing something like that. We wanted to re-produce the concept of the house and the pavilion and we wanted to have a garage. So in order to achieve the goal of not requiring any, I’ll call them traditional variances, this is versus the stormwater setback variance, we had to work with a connector. So the diagram that we handed out shows you the difference between the two applications that are before you tonight. The one that’s further to the back and is in white is the variance that’s before you. The area is in red is the garage as connected to the main house. So when we started on this, we started way back in the spring, and we actually had contractors lined up and we were probably overly optimistic that we could get into construction this year, and we didn’t realize how backed up the Town was. So it’s taken us a long time to get here, and we appreciate how busy Staff is and we’re not criticizing them in any way. It was just our mistake to misunderstand that. So once it was going to take more time, I said to Dennis, I said, Dennis, you know, that’s not really what we’d like to do. What we’d like to do is figure out if we could get permission from this Board to disconnect the two structures, and I’ll explain the reasons why we feel that’s better, and so we had more time on our hands and so we made the second application and I think it was a little bit confusing to Staff and I don’t blame them, but when you see this diagram with the two together you’ll understand. So if you go to the diagram and look at the connected structure you’ll see by eliminating the connector we reduce impervious area, and we reduce floor area. We also eliminate what’s effectively a concrete dam across most of the property, starting at the upper edge of the house and going all the way across the garage, and if you look at the contour map above that, you’ll see that we have a steep hill, and it doesn’t stop at the road. It goes up there. It goes up much higher. I don’t know what the total height is on the other side of the road but it’s very steep. Now we own the property across the road. We have about 900 feet of road frontage going down behind several of the houses, a little over six acres. We don’t have any intention of doing anything with that at this point (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 3 in time. It was bought as a buffer property to protect us. So now if you could look at the photograph that we handed out, which isn’t part of the site plan, it may give you a better understanding of what we’re trying to do. So you’ll see that we have a very flat lawn, which is not very deep to groundwater. I don’t know exactly what it is in the front, but as my wife points out it’s a clover lawn. We don’t use any fertilizer. We don’t treat the weeds. We have almost pure clover for the first six weeks of the summer, and a lot of bees, they now call them pollinators, and for the second, the last six weeks, it’s all crab grass. In fact wherever I don’t have a patch of crab grass I’ll actually put a couple of plugs in to try and make it uniform, but it’s a very hearty lawn and the other thing I can tell you about this picture that I think is important is that most of the trees you see in the foreground my wife and I planted over the years. We planted the trees along the front there. You’ll see there’s some kind of spindly little trees over by the boathouse. When we were in high school we bought the trees that are further back and a number of the trees along the front, the cedar trees etc. were all planted by us, the two of us, because, you know, we believe in tree plantings. So if you look at this picture you’ll see we’re trying to put the new house where the old house is, kind of tuck it into the hill there. The pavilion stays in almost exactly the same spot and under the variance that’s not before you, the one with the connector, you’d see the connector and the garage immediately through that gap. By disconnecting the garage and pushing it back a little bit, we actually get it in behind those trees that you see to the left, on the left side of the lot there. So to summarize this, this is a very unique situation. First of all it’s a unique lot. It’s got it’s challenges because of the steep terrain, and then the very flat terrain and the shallow groundwater, but this is a very unique situation because in asking for a variance on the height, we can actually make the project better, for all the reasons that I stated before, and it’s very rare, I think, in zoning practice, where you grant a variance and you make the overall project better. Normally you’re looking at a variance in isolation and you’re saying we’re going from 16 feet to 28 feet and you’re going to look at the height and what is the impact of that height. Well here by allowing that, and allowing us to put a bunkroom over the garage for grandchildren, we keep that mass out of the main house and it allows us to keep the mass down in the main house. It also eliminates the impervious area that I talked about, opens up some groundwater flow and just makes it a better overall aesthetic presentation both from the lake and from the roadside. It’s not so massive. If we had to look at alternative designs, putting them all together, doing what some people do where they attach the garage right to the house and then have the pavilion sticking out in front, it would be like all the other houses on Lake George. MR. MC CABE-I think we get the general idea here. MR. WEST-All right. MR. MC CABE-So why don’t we see what kind of questions we have from our panel. MR. WEST-That would be great. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-I have a question. What are you offering us, one from Column A or one from Column B? MR. WEST-It’s Door Number One or Door Number Two. MR. KUHL-That’s not what I’m here for. I’m here for what are you presenting? MR. WEST-We are presenting the option that is before you. We do need the setback for the stormwater structures that Dennis mentioned. It will be our goal to develop this site in a way so that there’s no stormwater discharge. We actually manage the site today with no stormwater discharges. We’ve put the plantings along the front. It’s depressed behind those plantings. Water does sit there and pool, but we take all of that very seriously. So we are asking for a height variance so that we can eliminate the connector and reduce the overall impact of the project. MR. KUHL-How old are your grandchildren? MR. WEST-We have 14, 12, and two 6 year olds. MR. KUHL-Okay. There’ll be about three more years they won’t come. MR. WEST-No, they actually love the lake, but you never know. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Obviously down the road, we could put a condition to allow this, down the road if we don’t want them to turn this into an air b and b, the second dwelling. That’s the problem. MRS. MOORE-That room above the garage has no kitchen. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 4 MR. HENKEL-I mean you’ve got a bathroom in there, of course, the mechanical room. Eventually there could be obviously a kitchen put in there. I’m just saying we should have a condition to make sure that this doesn’t become a second dwelling later on. MRS. MOORE-You can, but the idea is that’s why there’s not. We’ve had folks put notes on the plan set that said no kitchen. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So obviously if comes later and you find out, they’d be in trouble. Okay. MR. WEST-I’ve given a lot of consideration to that issue, and first of all my wife and I are absolutely against air b and b, whether it’s for the entire house or part of the house. MR. HENKEL-That’s you, but the next person that buys the place. Down the road. MR. WEST-It’s possible. So what I’m willing to do, sir, to put my money where my mouth is, to so speak, is I’m willing to deed restrict the house so that there will not be any separate rental of any part of the house to non-organic family members. MRS. MOORE-So the Board doesn’t get involved in deed restrictions. So in reference to, if the Board conditions it, putting a note on the plans saying there will be no kitchen in the garage area, that would address the question of whether it’s a second dwelling or not. RENEE WEST MRS. WEST-This is Renee West and I just have a question. Why, if it is attached, that could be then livable? We don’t want the kitchen. We just want it to be a bunkroom, but then you could, not that we would want to, but that, what makes that different from renting that than your concern about being an air b and b? MR. HENKEL-It’s just the rules. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I know, and that’s an area that’s kind of loose right now. MRS. WEST-Because I appreciate the concern of air b and b because it’s been, you know, a serious issue on Lake George and everywhere else. MR. MC CABE-But people on Lake George have rented their camps out for a long, long time. So whether you admit it or not, air b and b’s have existed on Lake George for a long time. MRS. WEST-Right. Exactly, but I just wanted to say. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and seek input from the aud ience on this particular project. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Waterkeeper. I’m glad I saw and heard the explanation. Thank you. Because I had concerns about th at driveway, and there’s a bump out from the driveway to the garage which is different from the two scenarios. Is that correct, Laura? Because the driveway on the other actually has a bump out going towards the lake. It required a closer setback on stormwater, but if this is the plan, then. So I guess that was a question of mine. We’re not opposed to the variances requested, and regarding the more restrictive stormwater setbacks for the Town, the Town has that obligation. They don’t have to go and follow the Park Commission which went with less protective restrictions and we’re glad the Town wants more restrictive. We feel that there should be the consideration of a condition for a compliant shoreline buffer, especially with the reduction to th e wetland. 179-6-050 requires buffer restoration on the shoreline as well as along wetland because they consider wetlands shoreline. So we feel that if there is a reduction in stormwater setbacks there can be compliant buffers on those shorelines. MR. MC CABE-So you’re looking for some raingardens? MR. NAVITSKY-No, I think the Town has, they’ve got stormwater. As I said, there’s a lawn going to the lake, concern about more groundwater being put in and the more buffering we can put there, which is a 35 foot requirement in Town Code, that’s what we’re asking, compliant. They take into consideration the existing trees and everything, which are part of the buffer, and then offset that to meet the Town’s requirements. So thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 5 MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to comment on this particular project? Is there anything written, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, there are two letters. “My family and I own the house 67 Knox Rd., Lake George. We are in support of the West’s proposed project and improvements they are bringing to Knox Rd. Feel free to reach out of you have any questions. Best regards, Stephen Ballas” “My wife Bonnie and I own the property to the south of the Wests at 73 Knox Road. We are writing this letter in support of the improvements proposed in their application. We have shared a common bay and lakefront with the West family since we purchased our home in 1985. They have always been conscientious in their support of Lake George, as well as ardent supporters of the LGA and Lake George conservancy.. Mr. West has volunteered countless hours in legal and environmental advice and advocacy to both groups. We feel their proposal will only improve the character of our neighborhood and will not in any way be detri mental to nearby properties. Furthermore, the upgrades to a state of the at wastewater and stormwater system will only improve and enhance our beautiful and pristine lake. Thank you for your attention to this matter and know that we are fully supportive of their proposed changes. Sincerely, Stuart and Bonnie Rosenberg” That’s it. MR. MC CABE-So would you like to comment on any of the public comment? MR. MAC ELROY-The shoreline buffer requirement is typically a site plan. MR. MC CABE-Right. That’s normally Planning Board. 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. So let’s be clear here. So what we’re talking about is the second, and it’s really just the height variance and the location of the stormwater devices. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think the stormwater devices as proposed are adequate. As usual I support people having these over height garages if they have an explanation as to what the purpose of the extra height is for. I think in this instance here if you compare the two plans and you look at the sprawl of that one, versus the gap that’s going to be created on the other plan, as you propose to have, I think I could support what you want to do. I think it’s understandable. Even though it’s a grand variance to give an over height variance, I don’t think it’s bad. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the project. The stormwater devices are adequat e and as Jim indicated, comparing the two plans, I actually believe this is the better one. I think it’s almost intuition to think the other way when you look at this, the way that I initially read it, and now that I’ve reviewed it and the presentations have been given, it makes good sense. So I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I also am in favor of the project. The setback from stormwater is fine. The garage height, especially when you see the garage from Knox Road, it’s not going to make any difference at all. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the setback for the stormwater devices. I am not in favor of the height of the garage. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Given our charge here, we’re responsible for minimum relief, as minimal as can be, I would not want to start allowing the height of this garage the way it is. I’m in favor of the house. I’m in favor of the stormwater, but I’m not in favor of the height of the garage. So I’m not in favor as presented. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I somewhat agree with some of the members here with the height of the garage, but I think overall it makes sense with this project to have less disturbance on the property and the stormwater devices are definitely a need located where they are. It’s a good location. So I’d be in favor of the project as is. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 6 MR. MC CABE-And so I’m normally pretty strict on garage height, but in this particular case, I think y ou guys have thought this out well, and I’m going to change my mind on this project and I’m in favor of it. I think that this design with the taller garage is a much better solution than the compliant garage and all the other stuff that goes with it. So, given that, Jim, would you make us a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Renee & Tom West. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new home of 3,315 sq. ft. footprint with a detached garage of 1,100 sq. ft. and a total floor area of 8,720 sq. ft. The home is to be 27 ft. 8 inches in height and the garage is to be 27 ft. 11 ½ inches on a 1.22 acre parcel. The project includes new septic system, stormwater controls, permeable driveway areas, and landscaping. Site plan for floor area, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and freshwater wetlands for work within 100 ft. Relief is requested for setbacks and garage height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of stormwater device and garage height in the WR zone on a 1.22 ac parcel. Section 179-3-040 dimensional and Chapter 147 Stormwater The stormwater infrastructure is to be located 40 ft. from the wetland and 81 ft. from Lake George where a 100 ft. setback is required. Relief is requested for the height of the garage building where 27 ft. 11.5 inches is proposed and accessory structures in the waterfront zone are limited to 16 ft. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 19, 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: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. As presented by the applicants they have a strong desire to have the detached garage as opposed to a connected garage to the house which would be permitted without a variance. So we’re just looking the other way on that small issue as far as that goes. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and are not possible given the request by the applicants. 3. The requested variance is substantial, but it’s not substantial in this case it’s permitted by a majority of the Board members because it will be mitigated by the height of the road behind the project. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created because they wish to create this detached garage. 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. AV 53-2022 RENEE & TOM WEST, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 19th Day of October 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/19/2022) 7 MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you.