Loading...
Minutes 8.25.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II VINCENT & ANNETTE O’NEILL AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) VINCENT & ANNETTE O’NEILL ZONING WR LOCATION 91 PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER. THE PARCEL IS 1.41 ACRES AND IS TO BE REDUCED BY 0.1 AC. TO BE 1.31 AC. THE PARCEL IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND HAS IMPROVEMENTS/EASEMENTS TO ACCESS PARCELS AT THE LAKE. THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO INSTALL A SEPTIC SYSTEM TO SERVICE 85 PILOT KNOB RD.; 91 PILOT KNOB RD. WILL REMAIN VACANT AT THIS TIME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR REDUCING A NON - CONFORMING PARCEL TO LESS CONFORMING WHERE 2 ACRES IS REQUIRED. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 & FORT ANN ADI RONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.65 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-6 SECTION DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; VINCE O’NEIL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2021, Vincent & Annette O’Neill, Meeting Date: August 25, 2021 “Project Location: 91 Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels owned by the same owner. The parcel is 1.41 acres and is to be reduced by 0.1 ac. to be 1.31 ac. The parcel is currently vacant and has improvements/ easements to access parcels at the lake. The applicant intends to install a septic system to service 85 Pilot Knob Rd.; 91 Pilot Knob Rd. will remain vacant at this time. Relief requested for reducing a non-conforming parcel to less conforming where 2 acres is required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for reducing a non-conforming parcel to less conforming where 2 acres is required. The parcel is located in the Waterfront Residenti al zone, WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The existing 1.41 acres is to be reduced to 0.10 ac for a 1.31 acre parcel. The parcel requires 2 ac. 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 be considered to include constructing the septic system on the adjoining parcel wi th no-lot line adjustment. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 0.69 acres. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the ph ysical 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. The applicant is proposing a new septic system. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) 2 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to reduce an existing vacant parcel by 0.1 ac to be added to an adjoining parcel. The vacant parcel is to remain vacan t at this time – the survey shows different access to adjoining parcels. The parcel to gain 0.1 acre is installing a new septic system.” MR. MC CABE-Your name for the record, please. MR. MAC ELROY-I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Annie and Vince O’Neil on this application. Vince is here with me. The O’Neils have owned the property at 85 Pilot Knob Road for seven years and that’s a waterfront property with a house. At the time of purchase they installed a holding tank system for their wastewater and subsequently they’ve been able to purchase the property, the vacant lot, the 14 acre parcel at 91 Pilot Knob Road which happens to be contiguous to 85. So by a boundary line adjustment they’ll be able to grab some of that land from 91, add it to 85 and have an area for an on-site wastewater absorption field, but it takes a 1.4 acre lot, technically pre-existing, non-conforming, and makes it a little less non-conforming. Thus the need for the variance. MR. MC CABE-So pretty straightforward. 91 was famous a while ago because we found out that the tennis courts were partly on that property. So we’ve visited this site before. So any questions of the applicant here? It seems pretty straightforward. Seeing none, is there any written communication, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. On 8/18/2021, Staff Karen Dwyre received a phone call from Brooks Teele at 10 Fishing Hole Loop , Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Teele is in full support of the project, in particular the new septic system. He has seen first-hand the work that Dennis MacElroy has done on other property on the lake and praises Dennis’ work, mentioning that that kind of work is needed on the lake. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-Any time you bring septic farther away from the lake it makes total sense. So the relief of the two acre property, it totally makes sense there, granting the one tenth and adding it to the O’Neil’s property to keep the septic system away from the lake. It definitely makes sense. So it’s a good project. I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it’s minimal relief and I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) 3 MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the application as well, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m in favor to grant. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s an environmentally sound project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. The request is minimal, and so at this particular time I’m going to seek a motion from Brent. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Vincent & Annette O’Neill. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels owned by the same owner. The parcel is 1.41 acres and is to be reduced by 0.1 ac. to be 1.31 ac. The parcel is currently vacant and has improvements/easements to access parcels at the lake. The applicant intends to install a septic system to service 85 Pilot Knob Rd.; 91 Pilot Knob Rd. will remain vacant at this time. Relief requested for reducing a non-conforming parcel to less conforming where 2 acres is required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for reducing a non-conforming parcel to less conforming where 2 acres is required. The parcel is located in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The existing 1.41 acres is to be reduced to 0.10 ac for a 1.31 acre parcel. The parcel requires 2 ac. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 25, 2021. 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and this is the minimum request.. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. As indicated 0.10 acres. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) 4 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It, again, may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. The alleged difficulty, while it could be construed as self-created, as we’ve discussed, it is minimal. 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) __________ b) __________, c) 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. 52-2021 VINCENT & ANNETTE O’NEIL, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 25th Day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. O’NEILL-Thank you.