Loading...
Staff Notes AV 8-11_Cunningham_02 15 11 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 8-2011 Project Applicant: Richard & Karen Cunningham Project Location: 384 Ridge Road Meeting Date: February 16, 2011 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant is proposing a boundary line adjustment for the two adjacent parcels they own on Ridge Road in order to segregate the two existing structures currently situated on the southern lot. Currently the north parcel is 0.28 acres and will expand to 0.33 acres resulting in a more compliant lot size, not requiring a variance for lot size. Conversely the south lot is currently 0.27 acres in size and will be reduced to 0.23 acres resulting in a less compliant lot size, thus requiring a variance for lot size. The applciant has no intention of any site changes in relation to the buildings, parking and lighting on both lots. Relief Required: Parcel will require Area Variances as per §179-3-040 for the MDR zone as follows: North Lot: 1.Sideline setback relief: a.Request for 15.5 feet of west sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the SFD. b.Request for 14.5 feet of south sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the SFD c.Request for 16.4 feet of southeast sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the SFD 2.Road Frontage relief: a.Request for 50 feet of road frontage relief from the 100 foot requirement. South Lot: 1.Sideline setback relief: a.Request for 15.2 feet of east sideline relief from the 25 foot side setback for the commercial structure. 2.Lot width relief: a.Request for 47.7 feet of lot width relief from the 100 foot lot width requirement for the parcel. 3.Lot area relief: a.Request for 1.77 acres of lot size relief from the 2 acres lot size requirement for the parcel. 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. 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 appear limited due to the existing location of the structures and existing lot limitations. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. North Lot: The requests for 15.5 feet of west sideline relief, 14.5 feet of south sideline relief and 16.4 feet of southeast sideline relief or cumulatively 62 % relief from the 25 foot side setback in the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 for the SFD may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 50 feet or 50% of road frontage relief from the 100 foot requirement in the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may South Lot: be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. The request for 15.2 feet or 61% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement in the MDR zone for the commercial structure as per §179- 3-040 may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 48 feet or 48% relief from the 100 foot lot width requirement in the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 1.77 acres or 89% relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Note: The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not a subjective calculation. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental condition in the neighborhood are anticipated as there will be no change to existing on-site conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created . The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 2007-297: Residential alterations-removal of commercial fixtures - Completed 7/23/07 UV 77-1992: Add parking spaces - Approved 7/29/92 Staff comments: The Zoning Board of Appeals may wish to direct the applicant to denote the correct zoning on the final submittal as MDR and not NR. SEQR Status: Type II – no further review required L:\Keith Oborne\2011 Staff Notes\Zoning\February 16\AV 8-11_Cunningham_02 15 11.doc Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes