Loading...
Staff Notes Packet Wed May 24 2017 Mtg StRfff NCDt(eS ZBA Meeting Wednesday, May 24, 2017 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Meeting: WedneSdayr May 24, 2017 Time= 1:00- 11:00 tom Cueensbury Activities Center- 732 Bay Road Agenda subject to change and may be found at: www_goeensbury.net NEW RUSIXESS: Applicant(s) Sereena Coombes ArLA Variance No SAV-32-2017 Owne s Sereena Coombes SEQRA Type U Agent(s) n/a Lot Siam 0.18 Acres) Laca#fun 1 Ward No. 108 Birdsal€ Road- Ward 1 zolling WR Tax Id No 289.17-1-39 and 56 els to be merged) Section 179-5-MO Cross Ref n/a Warren County Planning May 2017 Public Hen ring May 24 2017 Adirondack Park A en n/a Pro'eet Descr3 tion Applicant proposes to remove existing 3 t1.by 33 ft.dock and replace it with a 4 ft.by 36 ft,dock. Relief requested from minimum side yard setbacks re ulrernents for a dock in WR zon ing district Applicant(s)) Kelly Carte Area Variance No Z-AV-37-2017 Owner(s) Kelly Carte SEQRA Tye 11 Agents} nAa Lot Size $5.99 Acro(s) Location/ward No, 207 Fuller Road- Ward 3 Zoning LC-10A Tax ld No 300.16-1-3 Section 179-3-040 Cross Ra SP 45-2011;AV 8-2009;AV 19-2007; Warren County Planning n/a AV-1993 Pub lie Hearing May 24,2017 1 Adirondack Park AgenEy ALD Proieet Description Applicant proposes wnslruction of second s[ngle-family dwelling on the existing 45 +l_acre parcel where single-family dwellingalready exists. Re]ic(requested From number of allowable single-family dwellings on a parcel in the LC-IDA zoning district_ At lieant s Daniel and Denise Abell Arca Variance No Z-AV-34-2017 Owners Daniel and Denise Abell SEQRA Type lI Agent(s) Jacquelyn P. White,M il ler,Mannix, Lot Size OS2Acre(s) Schachner 8c Hafner,LLC __-- Location 1 Ward No. 474 Upeer Sherman Avenue-Ward 4 Zoning MDR Tax id No 308,$-1-5 Section 179-3-040 Cross Rei n/a Warrea County PLannln n/a Public Hen ring May 24,2017 Adirondack Park A en n/a >Prolcct Description Applicant proposes [o rep]ace 1,360 sq. ft.roof portion on existing home and to change roofline prol11c. Rclicf requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. A licant s Rasheed 13hafti(King Handrick Motel Area Variance No 7-AV-3-�-2017 Owns s Rasheed Bhatti SEQRA Type I€ Agent(s)) nJn Lot Slee 3,95 Acrc(s) Lecation 1 Ward No. 1602 State Route 9-Ward I zoning C1 Tax id No 288.8-1-11.2 Section 179-4-030 Cross Ref AST 169-2017 Warren County PlIfinkilag iia 2017 Public Hearing May 24 2017 Adirondack Park A cnc ala Frn3eet 13escrl i o Applicant proposes construction of two[lock additions onto existing motel_ The north deck is to be 296 sq_ft. and south deck to be 200 sq, ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the Travel Corridor Over]ay(TCO)districe in the CI zoning district. Page 1 of 2 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Meefing: Wednesday, May 24, 2017 Time: 7:0C�- 1 1:00 pen Queensbury Activ€ties Center-742 Bay Road Agenda subject to change and maybe found at: www.queembUry_net A lienmt s1 13 Hospitality LLC Sian Variance No Z-SV-5-2017 Owner(s) 1$ Hospitality LLC SEQRA Tv a Unlisted Agent s Jonathan C.Lapper,Esq. BPR Lot Size 6.76 Acre(s) Location I Ward No. 216 Corinth Road-1Ward 4 ?;Dain CI-18 Tax Id No 309.13-1-73 SecEion Chapter 140 Cross Ref SIGN 114-2417 Warren County Planning May 2417 Public Heu ring a ' 24,2417 Adirondack PnrlkAgeacy nda Pro 0wt DescAntlon Applicant proposes installation of a 2 wall sign to be 161.17 sq.fr.which will be located on the east faQade facing Interstate 87. Relief requested from maximum allowable sjSp size and number of allowable wall si ns. Any further business that the Chairman detemines may be properly brought before the Zoning Board of Appeal_ Final Version: 4,27.2017 8{I.1vllsh Page 2 of 2 Town of Queensbury Waning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 32-2017 Project Applicant: Screens Coombes Project LocRtion: IN Birdsall Road Parcel History: n/a SEAR Type: Type 11 Meeting Date: Miry 24,2017 Description of Proposed Piject: Applicant proposes to remove existing 3 ft, by 33 ft, dock anal replace it with a 4 it, by 3 6 ft, dock, Relief requested from minimum side yard setbacks requirements for a dock in WR zoning district. Relief Requ fired: The applicant requests the following relief. Relief requested ihm minimum setback requirements for a dock. Seddon 179-5-060 Docks. boathouses. moorings—Waterfront Residential Zone. WR The applicant proposes to replace an exishng 3 ft by 33 1t dock wi(h a a 4 ft by 3 6 ft dock where a 2 0 ft setback is requires and a 0 ft setback is to remain. Existing dock was approved as a 3 ft x 40 ft dock at a Oft setback A 3 -2,006 C'riterin for considcrin g an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Lsw: 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. The applicant is replacing a dock in the same location and expanding the dock width by one foot, . 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 may be limited as the dock was approved in the location per a court decision arrangement. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial, The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 20 ft the cast side of the property where the existing setback is to remain, 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The dock width is within the applicant's property. . Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may he considered self-created. Staff comments: The application is similar to one previous for a 40 ft dock that had been withdrawn. The applicant proposes replacement of a 3 ft x 33 ft dock with a 4 ft x 36 ft dock at 0 ft setback from the east property line. The dock location was previously approved as part of AV 36-2006 with a 0 ft setback and a aft x 40 ft dock. The applicant has indicated during discussions with dock builders that a Oft width is a common width. The applicant has explained there are four sections with the first three being rolled and the fourth to be a floating segment. The narrative submitted indicates the neighbors with deeded access are in agreement with the dock as proposed. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals ornmunHy Development Department Staff Nates Area Variance No.: 37-2017 Project Applicant: Kelly Carte Project Location: 207 Fuller Road Farrel History: SP 45-2011; AV 8-2009, AV 19-2007, AV-1993 SEAR Type: Typc H Meeting Date- May 24,2017 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a second single-family dwelling on the existing 45 +/- acre parcel where a single-family dwelling already exists. belief requested from number of allowable single-family dwellings on a parcel in the LC-1OA zoning distract. Relief R.egnired: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable single-family dwellings on a parcel in the LC-10A zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-area requirements LC-I OA zone Section 179-4-0100 one principal building per lot The applicant proposes to construct a second dwelling unit on the property where only otte dwelling unit is allowed Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 oif'1'o�vn LGa�v: In making a determination, the board shall consider; 1, Whether ars 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 no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. . 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 may be available to apply for a subdivision, however the lot arrangernent may still require a variance due to the nature of the home locations to the proximity of the road. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The requested relief 2 residential units on one parcel where only one residential unit is allowed . +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 will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments; The applicant proposes to construct a second liame on a 42 ac parcel that has an existing home. The information submitted indicates the existing home is about 73& sq ft and the near home would be about 2,800 sq ft, The new home would be located on the parcel to be compliant with the setback requirements. The project would also maintain an existing 4,480 sq ft barn building. The applicant has submitted plans show the location of the proposed home with elevations and floor plans. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance Nn.: 34-2017 Project Applicant: Daniel & Denise Abeil Project Location: 474 Upper Sherinan Avenue Parcel History: 1119 SEAR Type: Typc II Meeting Date; ,May 24, 2017 Description of Proposed Pro]ect: Applicant proposes to replace 1,360 sq. ft. roof portiori on existing home and to change roof-I hie profile, 1 elief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district, Relief Required The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Section 173-3-040 establisluuent of districts-dimensional uiiements MDR zone The applicant proposes a new roof section and to change roof profile so to be 24.3 ft setback where a 30 ft setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of"I'u n Lsr�v; In malting a determination, the board shall consider- 1. onsider:1. Whethcr an undesirable change wi11 be produced in thc chaxracter of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Mirror to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can he achieved by some method, feasible far the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered Iiinited due to the location of the existing house. . Whether the requested arca variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevaut to the code. Relief is requested for 5,7 ft for the front setback on 131irnt Hill Dr. 4. Whether the proposed variance +v ill have an :adverse effect or impact on the physical or enviroPmcntal conditions in the neighborhood oar district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Wbetbcr the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficult} may be considered self-created Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove a portion of the existing roof and replace with a different roof line. The proposed new roof Bute construction does not meet the required setback along Burnt Hi 11 Dr. The applicant has indicated the existing roof is separate portions and incl tides a portion of roofing over an older roof section. The applicant has explained the existing roof configuration has caused issues -,A thin the home. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 33-2017 Project Applicant: Rasheed 13hatti (King Hendrick Motel) Project Location: 102 State Route 9 Parcel History: AST 169-2017 SEAR TI pe: Type 11 Meeting Date: May 24,2017 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of two deck additions onto existing motel. The north deck is to be 296 sq. ft. and south deck to be 200 sq, ft. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the Travel Corridor Overlay (TCO) district in the Cl zoning district. Relief Re nit-ed: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the OI zone ( onunercial Intensive) and Travel Corridor Overlay district in the C1 zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Q1 zone Section 179-4-030 travel corridor ovedgy Route The applicant proposes construct a north deck is to be 246 sq. it. is to be 54.5 ft from the front property line and south deck to be 200 sq. ft and to be 54 ft from the front property line. The required setback is 75 fL Criteria for considering as Area Variance according to Chapter 2.67 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an andesirable change will he produced in the cliaracter of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will he created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated, . 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 may be considered limited due to the location of the existing building. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 20.6!21 ft respectively for the 1 travel corridor overlay. +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 no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created Staff corooae>nts: The applicant proposes to construct ground level decks to an existing motel building. The project includes the 296 sq ft deck to be on the north side and will allow access for the lower units to an outdoor space_ On the south side will be a 200 sq lft deck and will also provide access for the lower units to an outdoor space. The plans submitted show the location of the decks on the building, Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Motes Sign Variance No.' 5-2017 Project Applicant: 18 Hospitality, LLC Project Location: 216 t~orinih Mond Parcel History: SIGN 114-2017 ER Type: Unlisted Meeting Date: May 24,2017 rweription of Proposed Prefect: Applicant proposes installation of a 2°d wall sign to be 161.17 sq. ft. which will be located on the east fagade facing Interstate 87_ Reliefmquested from maximum allowable sign size and number of allowable wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable sign size and number of allowable wail signs. Section 140 SignWe—wali sign size and number The applicant proposes to place a second sign on the east side of a hotel currently under construction_ The sign is to be 161,17 sq ft_ Relief is requested for p lacement of second sign where only one is allowed and to exceed the 30 sq ft maximum size wall sign allowed. The building setback where the sign is to be located is 100,2 ft. Criteria far considering a Sign Variance aecording to Chapter 267 of Tow Law* In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether as andeslrable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign vorionce.Minor impacts to the neighborhood maybe anticipated as the building farrtade faces the Northway where the sip is to be located . Whober the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variante. ]Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the orientation of the building with one facing Corinth Rd and the other building fayade facing the Nonhway. . Whether the requested sign variance is Substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is for I additional wall sign for a total of two walls signs where only one is allowed_ One wal I sign may be 30 sq ft and relief is requested for 131,17 its excess.A wall saga size may be increased ff a building setback is greater Than 100 ff from the front property line, a wall sign can be increased 10 sq for Bach additional}0 ft wfrh maximum nar ro exceed 240 sqft 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or env i M uFn ento I conditions in the nelghborhood a district. The additional sign may have minimal impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created, taiT comments: The app licant proposes placement of a second wall sign on the east side of a hoteI=ently under construction. The sign is to be 161.17 sq ft and the applicant has indicated the scale is appropriate for the bui Iding size_ In addition the applicant has indicated travelers on the south bound side of the A1orthway would not be able to see the monument sign or the south facing sign of the hotel, The plans show the location of the signage and the details of the sign.