Loading...
Staff Notes AV 14-11_Carte_03 16 11 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 14-2011 Project Applicant: Kelly Carte Project Location: 659 West Mountain Road Meeting Date: March 16, 2011 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a boundary lot line change. Specifically, the applicant proposes to create a one acre parcel fronting on West Mountain Road from an existing 4.45 acre lot and add 1.13 acres to remaining lot that is currently an access to a 53.88 acre parcel to the west. The applicant further proposes to combine the two (2) western parcels to form an overall landlocked parcel of 88.96 acres. Exsiting parcels total four (4) and the proposed parcels total four (4). Relief Required: The proposal will require area variances for proposed Lot 1 and are as follows: 1.Lot width- Applicant requests 62 feet of lot width relief from the 200 foot requirement per §179-3- 040. 2.Road frontage - Applicant requests 62 feet of road frontage relief from the 200 foot requirement per §179-3-040. The proposal will require area variances for proposed Lot 2 and are as follows: 1.Lot size – Applicant requests 1.0 acre of lot size relief from the 2 acre requirement as per §179-3- 040. 2.Lot width – Applicant requests 59.25 feet of lot width relief from the 200 foot requirement per §179-3-040. 3.Road frontage - Applicant requests 59.25 feet of road frontage relief from the 200 foot requirement per §179-3-040. 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 would be to propose a shared access that is not 48 feet wide. This would eliminate the road frontage and lot size variances requested for both lots. Staff recommends a 20 foot access. Note: The intent of the code is to promote safe vehicular egress and ingress onto roads, in this case a Local Arterial Road; please see §179-19-010 for further clarification on intent. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. For Lot 1: The request for 62 feet or 31% relief from the 200 foot lot width requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 62 feet or 31% of road frontage relief from the 200 foot requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. For Lot 2: The request for 1.0 acre or 50% relief from the 2 acre minimum lot size requirement for the MDR zone may be considered moderate to severe relative to the ordinance. Further, the request for 59.75 feet or 30% relief from the 200 foot lot width requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Finally, the request for 59.75 feet or 30% relief from the 200 foot road frontage requirement for the MDR zone as per §179-3- 040 may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. 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 moderate impacts or adverse effects may be anticipated as a result of the size of the access proposed. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created . The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): BP 95-299: addition w/ 2-car garage 11/3/95 BP 93-601: deck 11/10/93 BP 92-325: pool 6/15/92 BP 91-702: demo of house 10/30/91 BP 91-700: single family dwelling 3/6/92 Staff comments: 1.The proposal essentially has two separate driveways that do not promote safe access onto West Mountain Road. See Criteria comment # 2 above. 2.Existing conditions to include all structures and driveway location should be placed on survey for clarification purposes. Currently, an existing single family dwelling is located on proposed Lot 1. 3.The determination of whether the requested area variance is substantial is based on an empirical calculation and not a subjective review. SEQR Status: Type II-no further review necessary L:\Keith Oborne\2011 Staff Notes\Zoning\March 16\AV 14-11_Carte_03 16 11.doc Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes