Loading...
Meeting Minutes 10.20.21(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 1 AREA VARIANCE NO. 70-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STRECK’S INC. AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) STRECK’S INC. ZONING SPLIT LOCATION 1903 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 10.36-ACRE PARCEL INTO TWO LOTS AS THE PARCEL IS NATURALLY DIVIDED BY RIDGE ROAD. THE WEST LOT IS TO BE 1.59 ACRES AND TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING HOME AND OUT-BUILDINGS; THE EAST LOT IS TO BE 17.77 ACRES AND TO MAINTAIN THE BARN BUILDINGS. LOT 1 IS IN RR-3A ZONE WHERE LOT CONDITIONS, (I.E. SETBACKS) ARE PRE-EXISTING. LOT 2 IS IN RR-5A ZONE WHERE LOT CONDITIONS ARE EXISTING. NO CHANGES TO THE LOTS OR BUILDINGS. SUBDIVISION REVIEW FOR CREATING TWO LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE AND LOT WIDTH, SETBACKS, AND RENOVATING THE EXISTING HOME WITH NO EXPANSION. CROSS REF SUB 9-2021; SUB 10-2021; PZ 245-2016 SECTION 179-3-040 LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 70-2021, Streck’s Inc., Meeting Date: October 20, 2021 “Project Location: 1903 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36- acre parcel into two lots as the parcel is naturally divided by Ridge Road. The west lot is to be 1.59 acres and to maintain the existing home and out-buildings; the east lot is to be 17.77 acres and to maintain the barn buildings. Lot 1 is in RR-3A zone where lot conditions, (i.e. setbacks) are preexisting. Lot 2 is in RR- 5A zone where lot conditions are existing. No changes to the lots or buildings. Subdivision review for creating two lots. Relief requested for lot size and lot width, setbacks, and renovating the existing home with no expansion. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a 2 lot subdivision needing relief for lot size and lot width, setbacks, and renovating the existing home with no expansion. The parcel is in a split zone with a portion in Rural Residential 3 acres and the other is Rural Residential 5 acres. The parcel is 19.36 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The west lot is Lot 1 at 1.59 acres and is located in the RR3A zone. The project proposes some work on the existing home but will maintain the existing home footprint and out buildings. Relief is for lot size where 5 ac. is required; lot width where 400 ft. is required and 234 ft. is proposed; setbacks front is 26.5 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required; east side is 50 ft. where 75 ft. is required. The east lot is Lot 2 at 17.77 acres and is located in the RR5A zone. The project will maintain the barn buildings on Lot 2. 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 to include some of the land from lot 2 to be compliant with the 3 acre requirement. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 2 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for Lot 1 is 1.41 ac. The improvements to the existing home are within the footprint where the front setback relief is 73.5 ft., the east side is 25 ft. and lot width is 166 ft. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to subdivide 19.36 acres into two lots. The plans show each lot and the existing buildings to remain on each parcel.” MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on their limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that motion was passed seven, zero on October 19th, 2021. MR. DOBIE-Good evening, Board. Thank you for having us. For the record, Lucas Dobie with Hutchins Engineering, PLLC representing Streck’s Inc. which is the landowner who purchased the, I would call it the farm homestead and the barns which the homestead’s been there for I believe since 1860. We also represent the Cleveland family which is the westerly landowners who have negotiated a deal with the Streck’s group to purchase the lands on the westerly portion of this parcel, west of Ridge Road, the 1.59 acres which contains the farmhouse and with the goal of restoring the interior of the farmhouse, no changes to the exterior footprint, and then eventually convey it to their daughter Katie and her husband to be who is with us, Jason Simms, who works for me. So we’re all in the family, all in the house tonight if you will, and again, there’s no proposed changes to the site, other than minimal landscaping if you will for the farmhouse side and it’s a pretty unique project in that it looks like it should be two lots now. As the farm, parent parcels, were sold off over the years it never got subdivided out and here we are. We believe we have a very nice project to re-do that home, maintain it. It’s a nice part of the neighborhood up there just north of Stevenson Road, and so again we’re asking for relief from the three acre minimum lot size for Lot One, because that is the RR-3 zone west of Ridge Road. So that acreage is 1.59 acres, and then as that lot is pie-shaped, while we meet our 400 feet of road frontage, actually quite a bit beyond that, 475, as there’s no width in the rear, we have deficient average lot width on it due to that geometry, and then the third variance is to re-construct the home, to renovate a non-conforming structure with no change in footprint. It’s a pretty simple project we believe versus some of the stuff you’re used to seeing us with, and again we’re not really doing any significant earthwork or changing any of the buildings on either side of the road. So we’d appreciate any questions the Board may have and we’re here to ask for your approval so we can continue next week with our subdivision approval project. Thank you, Board. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-It seems pretty straightforward. MR. MC CABE-It is. 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 would like to comment on this particular project? And, seeing nobody, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 3 MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’ll poll the Board, and I’ll start with Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-In my opinion this is a subdivision so I will vote in favor of this variance. MR. MC CABE-Brady? MR. LA SARSO-Yes, I would vote in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I’m I favor of the project. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-It seems straightforward. I’m in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it’s already been subdivided by 9L there. So it makes sense. Yes. I’m on board with it. MR. MC CABE-And, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a simple request. I don’t have a problem with it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, approve the project. Again, it’s pretty straightforward. It makes sense, and so I’m going to, Brady, I’m going to ask for a motion here. MRS. MOORE-I’m just going to give you a heads up that that’s not Brady. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. That’s Jackson. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Streck’s Inc. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 19.36-acre parcel into two lots as the parcel is naturally divided by Ridge Road. The west lot is to be 1.59 acres and to maintain the existing home and out -buildings; the east lot is to be 17.77 acres and to maintain the barn buildings. Lot 1 is in RR -3A zone where lot conditions, (i.e. setbacks) are preexisting. Lot 2 is in RR-5A zone where lot conditions are existing. No changes to the lots or buildings. Subdivision review for creating two lots. Relief requested for lot size and lot width, setbacks, and renovating the existing home with no expansion. Relief Required: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 4 The applicant requests relief for a 2 lot subdivision needing relief for lot size and lot width, setbacks, and renovating the existing home with no expansion. The parcel is in a split zone with a portion in Rural Residential 3 acres and the other is Rural Residential 5 acres. The parcel is 19.36 acres. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The west lot is Lot 1 at 1.59 acres and is located in the RR3A zone. The project proposes some work on the existing home but will maintain the existing home footprint and out buildings. Relief is for lot size where 5 ac. is required; lot width where 400 ft. is required and 234 ft. is proposed; setbacks front is 26.5 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required; east side is 50 ft. where 75 ft. is required. The east lot is Lot 2 at 17.77 acres and is located in the RR5A zone. The project will maintain the barn buildings on Lot 2. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 20, 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: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because it’s pretty much already subdivided. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are not necessary. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because again it is pretty much already subdivided by 9L. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty can be considered self-created, but again 9L is there. It’s not really them. 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. 70-2021 STRECK’S INC., Introduced by Jackson LaSarso, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 20th Day of October 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/20/2021) 5 ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt