Loading...
Minutes AV 41-2022 (Brown) 8.24.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 41-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JAMES S. BROWN AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERS, PLLC OWNER(S) JAMES S. BROWN ZONING LC-10A LOCATION 1918 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME OF 1,936 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT. THE ACCESS DRIVE TO THE NEW HOME FROM AN EXISTING PRIVATE ROAD “SHOP ROAD” THROUGH AN ADJOINING PROPERTY TO THE HOME. THE REMAINING DRIVEWAY LOCATED ON THE APPLICANT’S PROPERTY USING SOME PORTIONS OF PREVIOUS LOGGING ROADS. SITE PLAN FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOME WITHIN THE LC-10A ZONE WITHIN THE APA AND NEW STRUCTURE WITHIN 50 FT. OF 15% SLOPES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR ACCESS TO PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. CROSS REF SP 54-2022; PZ-DISC 6-2021; SP 32-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 15.75 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.-1-23 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050 TOM JARRETT, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Staff Notes, Area Variance No. 41-2022, James S. Brown, Meeting Date: August 24, 2022 “Project Location: 1918 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a new single family home of 1,936 sq. ft. footprint. The access drive to the new home from an existing private road “Shop Road” through an adjoining property to the home. The remaining driveway located on the applicant’s property using some portions of previous logging roads. Site plan for construction of new home within the LC -10A zone within the APA and new structure within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief is requested for access to public right-of-way. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for access to public right-of-way. Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets The applicant proposes a driveway that will start from Shop Road a private right of way, and be developed on property 253.-1-22, then access the applicant’s lot 253.-1-23. 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 to be limited due to the topographic on the applicant’s property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for the side setback less than 3 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the phys ical 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a driveway for a new home as the driveway will start in a right–of- way and be constructed over adjoining property to the owners property. The driveway will be constructed on old logging trails and pathways.” 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 that motion was passed on August 16th, 2022 by a unanimous vote. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. My name is Tom Jarrett with Jarrett Engineers. To my left is Jim Brown, the sponsor of the project. To my right is Mrs. Stark. She owns the property to the north where we propose access, an easement for access to the Brown property. I would call your attention to an access (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 2 plan on Drawing A-1. That may be the best illustrated drawing to look at for the variance. Mr. Brown’s property, both front on Ridge Road, but any of you who have driven up Ridge Road, you know that that terrain is very steep and very rocky. The driveway was started there some, almost 10 years ago. It was a real problem. Building a driveway up there would require an awful lot of environmental da mage. So Mr. Brown talked to the Starks and has permission to pursue an easement, or will pursue an easement with their permission, to use Shop Road, go up about 500 feet. Then we would traverse south along an existing logging road for the most part to his house that is shown on A-1. The variance is because we were supposed to build access through our own frontage. We feel that’s impractical and detrimental to the Town and to the neighborhood. We propose using the Stark driveway, Shop Road for that access. That’s our variance request in a nutshell. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. CIPPERLY-I have one question. Maybe it’s my eyes. What’s the elevation of Shop Road and Ridge Road? MR. JARRETT-We climb roughly 210 feet to that landing where we take off from Shop Road. It’s about a 200 foot elevation change. MR. CIPPERLY-And the grade is? MR. JARRETT-Over 20%. Excuse me, Shop Road is 20%. The grade on the natural terrain is about 25 to 30. So a driveway would be very serpentine with a lot of switchbacks to get to our house site. Does that answer your question, Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I think so. 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 provide input on this particular project? Do we have anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, nothing written. 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 Dick. MR. CIPPERLY-Yes, I can approve it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m in favor of the project. I think it’s a good idea. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Interesting, interesting project. Good luck. Yes, I’d be in favor, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It makes perfect sense to me. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, approve the project. It’s kind of out in the middle of nowhere and I don’t think you want a lot of access points to Ridge Road. It makes sense. MR. JARRETT-Follow up to Dick’s question earlier. The grade of our proposed driveway is about five, less than 10%, roughly five percent on average. So we’re coming across almost constant elevation once we get up to. MR. CIPPERLY-Once you get up to the elevation. Yes. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 3 MR. JARRETT-We’re eliminating all the problem with trying to climb that 200 feet. MR. MC CABE-So, Dick, I’m going to ask for a motion on this particular project or application. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James S. Brown. Applicant proposes to construct a new single family home of 1,936 sq. ft. footprint. The access drive to the new home from an existing private road “Shop Road” through an adjoining property to the home. The remaining driveway located on the applicant’s property using some portions of previous logging roads. Site plan for construction of new home within the LC-10A zone within the APA and new structure within 50 ft. of 15% slopes. Relief is requested for access to public right-of-way. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for access to public right-of-way. Section 179-4-050 Frontage on public or private streets The applicant proposes a driveway that will start from Shop Road a private right of way, and be developed on property 253.-1-22, then access the applicant’s lot 253.-1-23. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on 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: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. The property owner owns the adjacent property. That’s not a big consideration. 2. Feasible alternatives are probably this is it. This is the best you’re going to get. They’ve been considered by the Board and, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is really not substantial. It’s the best you’re going to get to get to this lot. 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. That’s where you want to put your house. 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. 41-2022 JAMES S. BROWN, Introduced by Richard Cipperly, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 24th Day of August 2022 by the following vote: MR. JARRETT-Well, there’s really no house site there down on 9L. If you’ve driven it, there’s no house site. MR. CIPPERLY-I drove by this site many times and saw an ATV parked there and wondered how you were going to get up there. AYES: Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/24/2022) 4 MR. JARRETT-Thank you much.