Loading...
Minutes 8.18.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 1 NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH ZONING MDR LOCATION 1616 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A TWO-LOT SUBDIVISION OF A 3.8 ACRE PARCEL. ONE LOT TO BE 1.3 AC. WITH EXISTING 1,590 SQ. FT. 2-STORY HOME AND DETACHED GARAGE TO REMAIN; THE OTHER LOT TO BE 2.5 AC. FOR A NEW HOME AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR CREATING A LOT LESS THAN 2 ACRES. CROSS REF AV 45-2020; AV 37-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 4.07 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.3-1-59 SECTION 179-3-040 MATTHEW WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2021, Harrisena Church, Meeting Date: August 18, 2021 “Project Location: 1616 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 3.8 acre parcel. One lot to be 1.3 ac. with existing 1,580 sq. ft. 2-story home and detached garage to remain; the other lot to be 2.5 ac. for a new home and associated site work. Relief requested for creating a lot less than 2 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for creating a lot less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density zone- MDR. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The project proposes two lot subdivision where Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 to be 2.5 acres, lot size required is 2 acres in the MDR zone. Lot 1 will maintain an existing house and then lot 2 would be sold for a future home. 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. The project may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties. 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 considered limited as one lot is to be compliant and the other lot with existing home is to be non-compliant. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for Lot 1 is 0.7 ac. 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 to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 2 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide a 3.8 ac parcel into two lots. The Harrisena Church will retain Lot 1 that has the existing home. There are no changes to lot 1. Lot 2 is to be sold for future house. Lot 1 access on Ridge Road will remain the same and Lot 2 will have access on Ridge Road. The subdivision plan shows the two lots and proposed house location and septic. In addition, the subdivision plan indicates an existing tree line and no additional clearing is proposed. The proposed driveway would be between 1609 and 1613 Ridge across the street. The ZBA reviewed an application for this parcel that was to be a three lot subdivision. The ZBA had granted the relief requested for lot size and the APA had reversed that decision.” MR. URRICO-And, Mr. Chairman, I’d like to recuse myself from any discussion on this. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Now you can go ahead. MR. WEBSTER-Okay. My name’s Matthew Webster with Van Dusen & Steves Land Surveyors. I’m here on behalf of the Harrisena Church which as you can see is an integral part of the community, and we’re back before you. Just as the summary stated, we’ve previously been here for a three lot subdivision which you guys granted the necessary variances for and our friends at the Park Agency decided would be too much density. As such we have revised our plan and come back with a plan that does not increase density as much. Of course it’s half the number of potential new building sites. In this case it’s relatively straightforward. They’re asking for relief for the existing lot so as to maximize the potential building space for the potential new lot. MR. MC CABE-So any questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Just curious. I mean this is good, but no matter which way we cut it we’re going to have a variance. So what is your thinking in the differentiation between the existing lot and the size there and having the 2.5? You could make the other one a little bigger and make it closer to two. What was the thinking? MR. WEBSTER-So as you said either way a variance will be required. In this case this maximizes the potential buildability if you will for the new lot so that whomever purchases it could decide where they want to put their house. The way we’ve shown the concept plan here minimizes a clearing of the lot as well, so as to disturb the area as little as possible. Because this is already a cleared area on the site. MRS. HAMLIN-And you don’t think in any way you’re hampering the way the existing house is in making that lot size that it is? MR. WEBSTER-No because this was the decision of the Church of course and they don’t really use that area at all. So they would much rather see someone else potentially put it to good use rather than just have MRS. HAMLIN-Thank you MR. WEBSTER-Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 3 MR. MC CABE-Any 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 is anybody in the audience who has input on this particular project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MRS. MOORE-I do have a public comment, if you want me to read that into the record. MR. MC CABE-Do you have it? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So this is from John and Barbara Keyworth. They live at 31 Clements Road. “We are writing in reference to variance AV 59-2021 for the Harrisena Church property. Our main concern is the storm water runoff from building on the new lot described in the variance. 1. We feel that the area in question for the requested building lot on the corner of Ridge Road and Clements Road provides some buffering for storm water runoff and that building a house on this lot will only add to the problem. 2. The water runoff from that area is already a problem for us. In the winter we have had 2 to 3 i nches of water over our driveway that would freeze and thaw depending on the weather conditions. 3. The original variance (AV 45-2020) called for a waiver for Storm Water Management. Even if this was not granted in the future we would still worry that the results of ay septic system failure or chemical use will also end in our yards regardless of the time of year. 4. It should be noted that the dense growth on this property has also become a wildlife refuge and transition point for animals of all types as they pass through our area. Thank you, John and Barbara Keyworth” MR. MC CABE-Is that it? MRS. MOORE-That’s it. I apologize to the individual that’s stepping up to the mic. I must not have the public comment that you believe was provided. We’ll read it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Thank you. BRIAN WILLETTE MR. WILLETTE-Hi. My name is Brian Willette. I am one of the neighbors that adjoins, is close to that property in question, and this is Katherine Standbridge. KATHERINE STANDBRIDGE MS. STANDBRIDGE- The owner of 8 Clements Road on the corner of Clements and Ridge Road, and I talked to Craig Brown yesterday. On the phone I gave him my concerns which are very similar to the first, but this, I have since seen this information last night later than I talked to Craig. So my comments have changed a bit. It sounds like they have listened to what we said last time and we appreciate that. Do you want me to read those first? And then Brian has some additional comments. MR. MC CABE-Sure. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 4 MS. STANDBRIDGE-So my original concerns and still are, if this changes at all, I would still have this concern, is that our driveway, from the original print that we saw, it would come, our driveway is there now. The new one would come out directly opposite our driveway. Very inconvenient and very close to the road and we’re concerned about the traffic. We have an awful lot of traffic coming down Clements Road and Ridge Road. So I’m really concerned about having another driveway here in that vicinity at all, but this seems to address it. This new plan says the driveway will come out onto Ridge Road. So that plan states, my concern is, I guess my questions, are we informed if this changes? Now is that a normal procedure? MR. WILLETTE-The facsimile of the drawing at hand is not appeasing us as well as where the driveway is located, where the structure is and what there is for non-disturbance of both. MR. MC CABE-Of course you know this is just conceptual. There’s no structure planned. MR. WILLETTE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-At this particular time all we’re doing is subdividing the lot. So there’s no, you know, we’re not okaying any building or any control of runoff or anything like that. All we’re doing is splitting the property into two lots. MR. HENKEL-We could put a condition that the driveway is on Ridge. Right? MR. MC CABE-You could, but, again. MRS. MOORE-I’m sorry. So that potentially could be something that the Planning Board reviewed and taking your concerns to the Planning Board. MR. MC CABE-That would be more their. MR. WILLETTE-As was stated earlier as far as taking more property for that 1.3 and that would reduce the variances for that second garage, but if that one lot, the second lot was to exit, enter through Ridge Road it would be more preferable than off of Clements. Because as of right now we have a business that’s at the other end of Clements and there’s cars and high volume of traffic that goes down Clements. So now we’ve got to cause more concern for people coming and going. So if this drawing is pretty much standard for the exit and entrance for Ridge Road, you know, when we looked at it, this was more appealing to us. MS. STANDBRIDGE-Currently. MR. WILLETTE-Yes. MS. STANDBRIDGE-So in addressing what you had said, though, I agree that they’ve gone to the 1.3 on the smaller and the 2.5 on the larger lot. With that, though, if you, as the Zoning Board, agree to the 1.3, a subset of that decision forces the corner to be 2.5 and a structure that would be built there is again our concern. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MS. STANDBRIDGE-And secondly, I was concerned about the stormwater issue that flows down the road. There’s a large amount of water that flows down almost like a stream, down Clements Road, but that was addressed by John Keyworth, these comments in his e-mail. And so he covered that. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 5 MR. WILLETTE-Some of the basements, the dwellings down that road are, and that kind of encourages the possibility of mold. So we want to prevent that as much as possible. MS. STANDBRIDGE-The folks down the street. We don’ t have that issue. The water is across from us going down by the new, where they may put a structure on that corner down Clements Road that corner there. It comes from across Ridge Road down Clements Road. MR. WILLETTE-Into a culvert. MS. STANDBRIDGE-And again the third thing I had was like John’s concern, the environmental. There’s a lot of very wonderful, and that’s why we moved to the country, wonderful animals, turkeys, birds and everything else over there, deer, rabbits, everything. So anyway, it’s a beautiful spot, and our concern at first was to have anything done but as I saw the second appeal from the applicant I said okay at least they’/re listening to us and they even stated in part in their application to address, in quotes, to address the neighborhood concerns. We do appreciate that. MR. WILLETTE-To preserve some of the habitat. MS. STANDBRIDGE-And I wanted to say, too, that, those are basically my major concerns, but I wanted to say that it’s real important that we have this Zoning Board and the Planning Board. By the same token it takes people that are on these Boards maybe 15, 20 minutes to make this decision and a briefing of what’s going on, but those of us that live there, have lived there for 20 years or more. So just something stated. So our concerns at this point are these things, plus the fact that if this changes, the new proposal changes, we would like to somehow, as neighbors, be informed. Because we’re okay with what they’ve done , mostly, but if that changes and like you said we don’t put it in the minutes or whatever we need to do to say we don’t want driveways on Clements Road, that would be a lot of help, but if we don’t do that w e’re concerned that that might happen, once Harrisena sells, the contractor builds it and then he sells it, it could bring up all these concerns again. MR. MC CABE-Or nothing might happen. MS. STANDBRIDGE-That’s right. MR. HENKEL-As a contractor, you look at that property there’s no way you’re going to build a road that’s going to enter on Clements Road. There’s a big gully there on that side. It makes total sense to put it on Ridge Road because it’s right there. MR. WILLETTE-And that’s one of the concerns and that would be greatly appreciated . MR. HENKEL-It’s commonsense anyway. MS. STANDBRIDGE-That would be wonderful if you could put that in, whatever you people need to do. I don’t know your process, but that would be wonderful if you could consider that. That’s what I have to say. Is there anything you’d like to say? MR. WILLETTE-I think that was pretty good, and thank you for taking the time to listen to our concerns. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Thank you. Anybody else who has input on this particular application? So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 6 MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a 3.8 acre parcel and I think the 1.3 acres that will house the Church and the current building that exists on site is adequate because that’s what’s utilized presently for the use of the Church and the gathering room in the back part. As far as creating the new lot at 2.5 acres, I think that’s more than adequate in size. I think we could go with a recommendation from our Board that the access be located off Ridge Road. It doesn’t make any sense to put it off of Clements Road. We could craft it that way. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you. I agree. I believe that that access off of Ridge, by default, when a contractor goes to do what they’re going to do, it’s probably going to occur anyway, but we hear you loud and clear relative to everything you’ve said, but I do believe that that would occur. The other way doesn’t work, but we heard you. As a screaming environmentalist, I do have a little bit of an issue with this habitat that’s being referenced here, etc., but I’m going to set that portion aside and believe that this is fine. I think it’s relatively well thought out. So it has my support. MR. MC CABE-Brandon, how do you feel on this? BRANDON STARK, ALTERNATE (FILLING IN FOR ROY URRICO) MR. STARK-I feel good. I like the fact that the access would be on Ridge Road rather than on Clements Road and I agree with what the previous Board members said. I’d vote in favor of this project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m very happy that we got to the two lots. I think prior to, if I’m correct, al l three were substandard in the process. So at least we have one that is, as was mentioned, more than adequate above the two minimum. I think I might, as a screaming environmentalist, we could make some sort of condition. I don’t know, this is probably the most buildable spot anyway. So like you all have said before, it’s unlikely that it would be built anywhere. MR. MC CABE-Well, just let’s make it clear. All we’re doing tonight is determining whether there’s a subdivision here. MRS. HAMLIN-I’m wondering though, I mean, conditions are conditions. MR. MC CABE-Yes, but you also have the Planning Board and that’s more their bailiwick. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, I wouldn’t mind some sort of comment that hopefully, well, does the Planning Board do a Planning Board review on a single residential? MRS. MOORE-They have to do the subdivision first and sometimes Boards have done site plan review for, if there’s a future development on the site. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. So if none is proposed at the time of subdivision, then they may not do future site plan. MRS. MOORE-Correct. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 7 MRS. HAMLIN-And what’s the minimum soil disturbance for stormwater review? MRS. MOORE-One acre. What we require if someone, if the applicant comes before the Planning Board, the Planning Board has been, I guess, pointed about being aware of those things and asking those questions about stormwater. So I don’t think it’s going away. MRS. HAMLIN-Regardless of whether they did that. Okay. Yes, I’m for it and hopefully future developers will heed what we see here in front of us, because it does protect that habitat and it’s just the most logical place to put something. Hopefully future Planning Board review will catch all of this. MR. KUHL-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think no matter what we would have done, with two acre zoning they would need a variance, no matter what, when they split this up. I think it’s a good project the way it’s presented and it should satisfy everybody’s needs. So I would be in favor of it the way it’s presented. MR. HENKEL-We’ve got to remember we’ve approved this with three lots and this is a much better project with the two lots and where they have the house shown on this survey makes more sense. So I’d go with the project. MR. MC CABE-I, too, support the project. I supported the previous one and so I guess it would be only right if I continued my support. So with that in mind I’m going to ask Ron for a motion here. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, Mr. Chairman, before I go any further, are we going to put a condition on the access from Ridge Road or are we going to leave that for the Planning Board? MR. MC CABE-I think we’re going to leave that for the Planning Board. MR. KUHL-Okay. Fine. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Harrisena Community Church. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 3.8 acre parcel. One lot to be 1.3 ac. with existing 1,580 sq. ft. 2-story home and detached garage to remain; the other lot to be 2.5 ac. for a new home and associated site work. Relief requested for creating a lot less than 2 acres. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for creating a lot less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density zone- MDR. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The project proposes two lot subdivision where Lot 1 is to be 1.3 acres, Lot 2 to be 2.5acres, lot size required is 2 acres in the MDR zone. Lot 1 will maintain an existing house and then lot 2 would be sold for a future home. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 18, 2021. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/18/2021) 8 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 this is just subdividing 3.8 acres into two lots. One being the lot with the house on it and the other being the lot with the Church on it. 2. Feasible alternatives really have been considered and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not really substantial as it was only 3.8 acres and to split it into two they would have had to get a variance, and this division seems to be very good. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest 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. 59-2021 HARRISENA COMMUNITY CHURCH, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 18th day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Stark, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. WEBSTER-Thank you.