Loading...
Staff Notes Meeting Packet ZBA Wed., November 14, 2018 'n-1 t2ff Ncte5 ZBA Meeting Wednesday, November 14, 2018 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Meeting; Wednesday, Novernber )4, 2018 Time: 7:00- 11:00lain Queen sbury Activities Cenier- 742 Bay Rood Agenda subject to change and may be found at: www.queen sbury.net Approval of meeting minutes: October 17,2018 OLD RUSJNp.S : Applicant( s) Flintlock C ."aAdirondmkGunRan a Sign Varianee No Z-SV-8-2018 Owners Flintlock C22. SEQRA Tlype Unlisted Agent(s) EC Stumpf, Infamous Graphics Lot Size 133 Acres Location 1540 State Route 9 zoning Cl Ward No. Ward 1 Tax Id No 288-8-1-14 1 Section Chapter 140 Croas Ref SIGN 259-2018;$]GN 260-2018 Warren County Plasaing September 2018 Public Hearing September 26,2018:November 14.2018 Adirandiack Park A nt rda Project Description Applicant proposes a revision for the installation of 2 wal1 signs on the building where only one is allowed for the business Ad irondaek Cwn Range, Sign No. I is to be 27.33 sq.ft.and Sign No.2 is to be 68.8 sq. ft. Relief requested From number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet f om the front property h ne- A lican s French Mountain Inn Aftab Bhatti Area Variance No Z-AV-53-2018 Owners Aftab Bhatti SEQRA Type lI Agent(s) Gary Hughcs Loot SizE 1-01 Acres Location 1449 Statc Route 9 Zoning C] Ward No. Ward 1 Tax Rd No 288--1-56 Section I79-3-040 Cross Ref AV 48-2012,SP 54-20I2;AV 24-2011 Warren County Planning August 2018 Public Hearing August 22,2018:October 17.2018; Adirondack Park Agency n1a November 14 2018 Prof eet Description Applicant proposes a revision to an existing ],I ID sq,fl.area as blacktop where a previous approval was for this area to remain as lawn. Revision is an 882 sq-ft-lawn and 228 sq,&permeable pavers to be installed, proper[}'un is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested approvals in year 2412 for addition to lobby,storage ewer lobby,sign tours,handcap ramp location and a canopy area- Relief requested from peuwabil&rc uircmcnm Applicant(s) Tra.Tom Developrnmt Area Variance No Z-AV-55-2018 Owns s Tra Tom D"clopment SE RA Type ]I Agent(s) Torn Center—Hutchins Engineering;VanDusen Lot Sine 29.06 Acres do Stever Location Richmond Hill Drive—Barringer Heights Zoning M DR Ward No. Subdivision northern ponionX Ward 3 Tax]d No 308-7-148 Section 179-3-040 CMS Ref SUB 4-2003 Mod.(October 2009—Lots 3 thru Wflrren County Planning rd8 10;Lots 18& 19) SUB 4-2003(33 lots);]~W W 6-20D3 Public Hearing August 22,2018;October 17,2019; Adirondack Park Agency Wa November 14.2018 Project Description App]icant proposes a revision from a five lot to a four lot subdivision of Lot I in Barringer Heights. Thrce lots to be residential; remainder of lot;25,78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision- Lot 1A to be 1-2 acres;Lot t8 to be 1-01 acres; Lot I C to be 1-04 acres- Rel ief requested from the rn ini mum lot size requirement of 2-acres for newly created lots within the M DR Zoning district. Planning Board; Subdivision r uires review. Page 1 of 2 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Meeting: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 Time: 7:00- 11:00 pm Queerisbvey Activifies Center-742 Bay Road Agenda subject to change cnd may be found at: www.queensbury.net NEW BUSINESS, Applicant(s) Michael White Area Variance No Z-AV-71-2019 Owners Michael White "RA Type II Agent(s) n/ai LA#Size 1.01 Acres Location 20 Pinion Pine Lane, Van I-lowe Subd_Section 1 Zoning A-20 at time PI.Board approval Wart) No. Ward 3 MDR current Tax ld No 301-6-1-18 Section 174-4$0 Crass Ref AST468-2019,SB 9-84,Section I Warren Cauntw PlanningIva Public Hearin November 14,2018 Adirondack Park Agency n/a Prof eet Description Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 23 i t.by 12 ft.post and beam cover over an existing deck in the rear yard of the architectural entrance on Queens Lane_ Relief requested from rear yard setback requirement of 20 fL for SR-20 zoning district at the time of Planning Board approval April 16, 1985, A licaut s [Melissa Freebern(Artisan Ink Area Variance Na Z-AV-70-2018 Owners Melissa Freebern SLQRAType II Agent(s) rya Lot Size 034 Acres Location 928 Stale Routc 9 Zoning CM Ward No. Ward 1 Tax Id No 296.13-1-14 Section 179-4-OW Cross Ref SP 71-2018,AV 18-2009,SP 28-2009 Warren County Planning November 2018 Publip-Hearing November 14,2018 AdirandackParkAgency I n(a Project Description Applicant proposes removal of the existing porch with handicap lift(1 l3 sq.ft,+/-)and construction of a ADA compliant handicapped ramp(213 sq. ft.+/-). Relief requested from rninirnum setback requirements for the Cho zoning district. Planning Board, Site Plan Rcvicw rcquired for modification to a previolisly approved Site Plan(SP 28-2009). A lieant s Mao Jun 4i&Carol YES Area Variance No Z-AV-72-2018 Owner(s) Mao Jun Li&Carol YMS SE RA Tyn 11 A ens Vision En ineerin ,Dan Ryan La#Size 0.24 Acres Lucatian 21 Nathan Street Zoning NR Ward No. Ward 2 Tax Id No 30%6-146 Section 179-3-040 Crass Ref n(a Warren County Flannin n& Public Hearing Nevcmbcr 14,2018 Adirondack Part[A enc n a. Project Description Applicant proposers construction of 22 A. by 16 ft,residential addition to the existing single-family home. Relief requested from minimum setback req uirements for the NR zoning district. A licant a Curtis D_Dybas. Area Variance No Z-AV-73-2019 Owners Sara N.Kelly SCQRA Type II Agent(s) Curtis D_ has Lot Size 1.3 Acres Location 17 Cliff Hollow Road Zoning WIC Ward No. Ward 1 _ Tax Ed No 239,18-1-32 Section 179-13.040; 179-13-010 Cross Ref SP 67-2018 Warren Couaty Planning November 20 IS Public Hearing November 14 2018 Adirondack park Ann Anncy ALD Project Description Applicant proposes construction of a 711 sq.fL singic-story residential addition to the main floor for a new bedroom Adjacent to the new bcdroorn a 211 sq_ft_enclosed porch is proposed_ Alterations to home include kitchen area expansion(conversion of exiA ng main bedroom to a great room off kitchen area),second floor bedroom,ceiling to be raised and Mahal of two porch areas. Structure will remain as a 4�bedroom home. Rcl ir<t requested from mini mum setback requirements and height restrictions far the WR zoning district. Plannin Beard= Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconfprm in use_ Any farther business that the Ckairmnn determines may be properly brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals. Fluff Venim Apndue ii-XIMS Noe 2 of 2 Town of C ueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development DepaTtrnent Staff Notes Sign Variance No.: 8-2018 Project Applicant: Flintlock Corp. dlbfa Adirondack Gun Range Project Location: 1540 State Route 9 Parcel History: SIGN 254-2018; SIGN 260-2018 E RType, Unlisted Mecting D:mtc: Novcmbcr 14,2,018 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a revision for the installation oft. wall signs on the building where only one is allowed for the business Adirondack Chin Mange. Sign No. 1 is to be 2 7.33 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 6 8.8 sq. ft. belief requested from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line C1 zoning district. Section 140 signage —Commercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes to place 2 wall signs on an existing building Sign Wo. 1 is to be 27.33 sq. ft, and Sign No. 2 is to be 68,8 sq. ft.. The property is only permited one wall sign at 30 sq ft up to 100 sq ft with a building setback of 100 ft or max of 2 00 sq ft for a sign �,Ath a building setback greater thou 100 ft at 10 sq ft increments. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Tow a 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 sign variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the signs are larger than allowed, . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the signage and number of signs. . Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The, relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The signs exceed the number allowed and the size allowed. One wall sign is allowed for the property at 30 sq ft sign. 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 conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-created_ Staff eamuxents: The applicant proposes two signs Mth Sign No, 1 to be 2 733 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 to be 6 8,8 sq. ft.. Both of the signs are to have red lettering and to be internally lit. Sign No 1. is to be about 78 ft from the property line and Sign No. 2 is to be about 74.8 f1 from the property line. The plans show the location of the signs to be installed. The board had tabled the application at the September meeting indicating concern for the number of sighs and the size of the signs also the board inquired the use/intent of the freestanding sign. The applicant has reduced the size of the signs and has indicated there are no plans to change the free standing sign at this time. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Zoning Board of Appeals—)(]record of ResoluGoo To r? of ueensbujy 742 Bay Road Queensbu y, NY 12804 �518) 761-8238 Tcniw of{ asc�ast�s�ty Sign Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Flintlock Corp. dlbla Adirondack Gun Range File N urn ber. Z- -8-201 Location: 140 State Route Tax Map Number: 288,8-1-14 ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from F]intlock Corp. d1b/a Adirondack Gun Ranee for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of ueensbury. Applicant proposes a revision for the installation oft wall signs on the building where only one is allowed for the business Adirondack Gun Range. Sign No- 1 is to be 27.33 sq. ft. and Sign N 0 L 2 is to be 68.8 sq. ft. Relicf requested from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of a]lowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line CI zoning district. Section 140 signage —Commercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes to place 2 wall signs on an existing building Sign No. ] is to be 27.33 sq. .11r- and Sign No. 2 is to be 68L8 sq, tt.. The property is only permited one wall sign at 30 sq ft op to 140 sq ft ,-,�ith a building setback of 100 It or max of 200 sq ft for a sign with a building setback greater than 100 ft at 10 sq t increments, SEAR`I"ype: Unlisted E resolution 1 Action Required for SEQRJ Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-8-2018 Flintlock Corp., dlbla Adirondack Gun Range and based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provirled by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by who moved far its :adoption, seconded try Duly adopted this 14'h day of Nevernber 2018, by the following vote, AYES, NOES, public hearing was advertised and held on September 26, 2018 and November 14, 2018 Upon review of the application materials, iriformation supplied daring the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria speci fied in Section 179-14-08O(A) of the Q ueensbury To'Am Code and Chapter 2.67 ofN YS To,,%,n Lave and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will there be an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? . Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? INSERT RESPONSE 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We do not feel that it's substantial with the changes that have been made. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the pb sical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? rN SERT RESPON E 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? INSERT RESPONSE . In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outwei would be outweighed by the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board aiso finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO A-PPROVEMENY Sign Variance V-8- 018 Flintlock Corp. dlhla Adirondack Gun Range, Introduced by _ , who moved for its adoption, seconded by As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following, ing, A. <nsert conditions 1 cominents>: B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (I) year time frarne expires; C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA.'s review is completed; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' E, Subsequent issuance of further permits. includin- sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application;review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit ftom the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 14"' day of November 2018, by the following vote: AYES: IDES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals ommunity Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance-Na.: 53-2018 Project Applicant: French Mountain Inn Project Location: 1449 State Route Parcel History: AV 48-2012; SP 54-2012; AV 24-2011 EQR Type: 'I pe II Meeting Date: November 14, 2018 Nseription of Proposed 1'rojcct: Applicant proposes a revision to an existing 1,110 sq. ft. area as blacktop where a previous approval was for this area to remain as lawn. Revision is are 882 sq_ It. lawn and 2,28 sq, ft_ permeable pavers to be installed. Property use is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested approvals in year 2012 for addition to lobby, storage over lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location and a canopy area. Relief requested from permeability requirements. Relief Required The applicant requests relief from permeability requirements of the Commercial Intensive zoning district. 17 -3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to modify the existing 1,110 sq. ft. hard surfaced area with 882 sq ft of lawn and 228 sq ft of permeable pavers. The permeability existing is 2 . 9 o and proposed is 5%. The approved plans of 2012 indicate the proposed permeability was to be 25%. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In maldng 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. . 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 include converting the hard surfaced area to lawn as previous approvals required. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The requests may be considered moderate relative to the code. Relief is 5.0% in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The property is existing non compliant in regards to permeability and maintaining the hard surfacing may have an adverse effect concen-iing stormwater. . Whether the alleged difficulty w as self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comrnents The applicant proposes to modify the existing hard surface area between two of the lodging buildings for French Mtn Inn. There is to be 8 92 sq. #t. lawn and 22 8 sq. ft. permeable pavers for a permeability of 251/o. The Code Compliance Officer notified the applicant in 2017 the plan was not completed per the approved plan for zoning board and plaming board. Zoning Boar ! of Appeals Community Development Department Staff dotes r - - Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Torn of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbiary, NY 12804 518) 7 1, 238 Town cd(Liwunsbrrry Area Variance Resolution To: Appmve/ Disapprove applicant Nam French Mountain Inn File Number. -A -53-2018 {. Location: 1449 State Route 9 Tax 14'lrap Number: 288.-1-5 BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town ofueensbury has received an application from French Mountain Inn. Applicant proposes a revision to an existing 1,110 sq. ft. area as blacktop where a previous approval was for this area to remain as lawn. > evision is " 882 sq- ft. lawn and 2,28 sq. ft. permeable pavers to be installed. Property use is an existing lodging facility. Applicant requested approvals in year 2012 for addition to lobby, storage over lobby, sign towers, handicap ramp location and a canopy area. Relief requested from permeability requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from permeability requirements of the Commercial Intensive zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to modify the existing 1,110 sq. ft. hard surfaced area with 892 sq ft of lawn and 228 sq ft of permeable pavers. The permeability existing is 22.6% and proposed is 25%, The approved plans of 2012 indicate the proposed permeability was to be 25% FQR Type H —no further review required; public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 22, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified ire Section 17 -14-080�A) of the Q ueensbury Town Code and Chapter 26 7 of NYS Town Law and alter discussion and deliberation, we find as follows, PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because . Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Boai-d, are reasurnable and have been included to mintrrrize the re€Iuesl OR are not possible. 3. The requested variance is 1 is not substantial because 4. There is 1 is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-created because 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh a royal / would be outweighed b denial 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; S. 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 MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE/DEN Y AREA VALIANCE -AV-53-2018 French Mountain hm (After 33hatti-, Introduced by '---,., who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 14'b day of November 2018 by the following vote.- AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals ommunity Development Department Stoff Notes Area Variance No.: 55-201 Project Applicant: Tra Tom Development Project Location: Richmond Hill Drive Parcel History: SUB 4-2003 Mod. (October 2009—Lots 3 thrn 10; Lots 18 .fie 19). SUB 4- 00 (33 lots); FWW 6-2003 SEAR Type: Type II ?Fleeting Date: Pluvembcr 14,2018 Ilescription of Propose(] Project: Applicant proposes a revision from a five lot to a four lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. Three lots to be residential; remainder of lot; 2 5.7 8 acres not to be developcd per previous subdivision, Lot I A to be 1.2. acres; Lot l B to be 1.01 acres; Lot 1 C to be 1.04 acres. Relief requested from the minimum lot size requirement oft-acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district. Planning Board. Subdivision requires review, Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the rninimurn lot size requirement of -acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district Section f 79-3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes 3 residential lots and lots are to be less than 2 acres in the Moderate Dcnsity zoning district. Lot 1 A to be 1.2 acres,Lot 1 B to be 1.0 I acres; Lot 1 C to be 1.04 acres. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a detennination., 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 proposed project may be considered to have rninirnal impact ors the oharacter of the neighbmhood and nearby properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than are area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of parcels to meet the 2 acre requirement of the MDR zone. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Rellefrequested foir lot IA, is 0.80 acres, and the lots I is 0.99 ac and l C is O.96 ac. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The relief requested may be considered to have tninimal to no environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood. The proposed lots are to have septic systems, connect to Town water, and a no cut buffer along the power line. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty ►vas self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-Created as the previous subdivision Barringer Heights in 2003 was a conservation subdivision and the proposed area to be subdivided was not clone at the tune the 2003 subdivision occurred. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 4 lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. "Three lots to be residential; remainder of lot; 2.5.78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision. The plans slow the Barringer Height subdivision and the subdivision of the three residential lots with access to Richmond Drive. In adition the lots show an approximate home location the board may consider requesting additional information about accessovy structures ie deAslporches, pools, or sheds to confirm setbRck distances can be rnet. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Zoning 13oard of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queembury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 {518) 761- 238 Tarn d(lucrnsbury Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Tra Tom Development File Number: -A -55-2018 Location: Richmond Hill Drive, Lot 1 Tax Map Number. 308.7-1-48 BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 14, 201 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queembury has received an application from Tra Tom Development. Applicant proposes a revision from a five lot to a four lot subdivision of Lot 1 in Barringer Heights. Three Iots to be residential; remainder of lot; 25.78 acres not to be developed per previous subdivision. Lot 1 A to be 1.2 acres; Lot l B to be 1.01 acres; Lot 1 C to be 1.04 acres. Relief requested from the minimum lot size requirement of -acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district. Planting Board: Subdivision requires review. Relief Required- The applicant requests relief from the: minimum lot size requitement of 2-acres for newly created lots within the MDR zoning district Section 17 -3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes 3 residential lots and lots are to he less than 2 acres in the Moderate Density zoning district_ Lot 1 A to be 1.2 acres,Lot 1 B to be 1.01 acres; Lot 1 C to be 1.04 acres. SEAR Type I —zoo further review required; A, public hearing was advertised and held on August 22, 2018, October 17, 2018, and November 14, 018; 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 t ueensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows- PER THE DRAFT PROVrDED BY STAFF 1. There is / is not an utidesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because 2. Feasible altermatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request R are not possible, 3. The requested variance is /is not substantial because 4. There is 1 is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-created because 6. Ire addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) 1 would be outweighed by (denial) the resulting detriment to the Health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request udder 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 seat "ith this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, t MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE i DENY AREA VARIANCE -A -5 5-2 019. Tra Tom Development, introduced b , who moved foir its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 14 h day ofNov"iber 2018 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Qveensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Noie5 Area Variance No.. 71-2018 Proicet Applicant: !Michael White Project Location: 20 Pinion Pine Lane Parcel History: SB 9-84, Section 1 SEAR Type: 'type 11 Meeting Date: November 141 2018 llescriptioin of Proposed Prr►ject: Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 23 ft. by 12 ft. post and beam cover a-ver an existing deck in the rear yard of the architectural entrance on Queers Lane. Relief requested from rear yard setback requirement of 20 & for S R-20 zoning district at the time of Planning Board approval April 16, 1985. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from rear yard setback requirement of 20 ft. for SR-20 zoning district at the time of Planning Board approval April 16, 1985, Current zoning is MDR, Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirement's The applicant has constructed a 276 sq ft cover over a portion of an existing 602 sq ft deck. The deck was constructed without approvals by previous owners. The deck cover is 18.9 ft from the rear property line and the deck is 5.8 f where a 20 f setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance acenrding to Chapter 267 of TavF n 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 varia nee. The feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce the size of the deck cover and deck. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The deck cover relief is 1.2 ft and the deck is 14.2 ft. 4, Whether the proposed varianee will nave any 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 commentsi The applicant requests to maintain an existing deck constructed by prior owners of 2015 and a constructed deck cover completed its May of 2018. The applicant was informed by building and codes the project would need a building permit and the Zoning Administrator explained a variance for setbacks. The applicant has a completed survey and photos of the existing conditions of the deck cover and deck. The submitted information includes letters of support from neighbors. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff motes Zoning Board of Appeals — record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay load Queensbury, NY 1 804 (518) 7 1- 238 "fi��vrr oF(�c�rs,hury Area 'Variance Resolution To: Appi"ove 1 Disapprove App1 cant Name: Michael White File Number. -A -71- 018 Location: 20 Pinion pine Lane Tax Map Number: 301. -1-1$ ZRA Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2.019 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael White. Applicant proposes to maintain already constricted 23 ft. by 12 ft. post and beam confer over an existing deck in the rear yard of the architectural entrance ors Queens Lane. Relief requested from rear yard setback requirement of20 ft. for S R-2 0 zoning district at the time of Planning Board approvaI April 16, 1985. Relief Required The applicant requests relief from rear yard setback requirement of 2 0 ft. for S R- 0 zoning district at the time of Planning Board approval April 1 , 1985.. Current zoning is Iv1DR, Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Re uirernents The applicant has constructed a 276 sq ft cover over a portion of an existing 602 sq ft deck. The deck was constructed without approvals by previous owners. The deck cover is 18.8 ft from the rear property line and the deck is 5.8 ft where a 20 ft setback is required. SEER Type 1t—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on November 14, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified its Section 179-14-4g0(A) of the Queensbury Town Code aid Chapter 267 o f NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because " Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request OR arc not possible. 3. The requested variance is 1 is not substantial because 4. There is 1 is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? . The alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-created because 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweip,h {Wroyal) 1 would be outweighed by (denial} the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideieation is the minimum necessary; . The Board also proposes the following conditions; a) b) , c) Adherence to the items outfined in the follow-up Ieuer sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FIN DIN CIS, I MA E A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARIANCE -AV-71- 018 Michael White, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 14"' day of November 2018 by the following vote: AYES: FIDES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Aria Variance No.- 70-2019 Project Applicant: Melissa Freeborn /Artisian Ink Project Location.; 928 State Route Parcel iiistor.: SP 71-2018; AV 18-2009; SP 25-2009 SEOR Type: Type H Meeting Date: November 14,2018 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes removal of the existing porch with handicap lift (113 sq. ft. +/-) and construction of a ADA compliant handicapped ramp (213 sq. ft. +/-), Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the CM zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests irelief from setback requirements of the ommeircial Moderate zoning district. 17 -3-040 Dimensional Recuirements The applicant proposes to modify the existing site plan with a new handicap ratnp and landing to be located 22.5 ft from Sweet Rd and 70 ft from Route 9 where a 75 ft setback is required. Criteria for considering an Arcs Variance according to Chapter 267 of'l<'owu Lave+: In waking 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. . '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 location of the existing building, entryway and the lot is a corner tot. 3. 'Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for Sweet lid setback of 515 ft and for Route 9 is 5 ft, 4. Whether the proposed variance will have are adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impacts on the physical or env 3ronmen:tal conditions in the neighborhood may he anticipated. �. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. staff eommcuts: The applicant proposes to remove an existing handicap lift and landing area to replace with a handicap ramp and landing. The applicant has indicate the lift is inspected regularly but becomes in operable during the severe weather conditions occurring recently. The applicants has also explained the customers have requested the ramp for access as they have indicated it is easier to use. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Noie5 Zoning]3oard of Appeals— Reeord of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 7 1-8238 Tcntiu oCca�sbaan Area Variance Resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove Applicaint Nam e. Melissa Freebern!Artisan Ink �=` File Number: -A1�-70- 1�18 Location: 928 State pout- 9 Tax Map Dumber: 7b.13-1-14 BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 14, 018 The, Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Q ueensbury has received an application from Melissa Freeb ern 1 Artisan Ink. Applicant proposes removal of the existing porch with handicap lift (113 sq. it. +�-) and construction of ADA compliant handicapped ramp ( 13 sql ft. +/-). Reliefrequested from minimum setback requirements for the CM zoning district. Relief Required: The appIicant requests relief from setback requirements of the Commercial Moderate zoning district. 179-3-{}40 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes to modify the existing site plan with a new hwdicap ramp and landing to be located 22.5 ft from Sweet lid and 70 ft from Route 9 where a 75 ft setback is required. SIR Type II—no further review required; public hearing was advertised and held on November 14, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 17 -14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 2 67 ofNYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because 2, Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to mininAw the re uest DR are not possible. . The requested varianoe is /is not suhst .tial because 4. There is 1 is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-created because . In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh fapR yal}_/ would be outweighed b denial the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; T The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; & The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) , c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-tip letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FENDI GS I MAKE A MUTION TO APPROVE f DEFY AREA VA RIANCE -A -70-2018 Melissa Freebem/Artisan Ink. Introduced by , who moved for its adoption. seconded by Duly adopted this 14t' day of November 2018 by the following vote: AYES- NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Dotes Area Variance No.- 72-2018 Project Applicant: Mao .tun U & t~arol Yang Project Location: 21 Nathan Street Parcel History: n!s E R Type: Type 11 Meeting Date: November 14,2018 -Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 22 ft. by 16 ft. residential addition to the existing single-family home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the Nit zoning district. Relief Required• The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the Neighborhood residential zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional RegWreme7nts The applicant proposes construction of a 352 sq ft addition to be located 11.1 ft on the west side of the hone where a 15 ft setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law; In making a determination, the board "I consider: I. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearly 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 may be considered limited due to the location of the existing home and the parcel is a corner lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 3.9 fit on the west property line. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or e"vironruental conditions in the neighborhood or district. dinar to no impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created Staff comments• The applicant proposes to construct 352 sq ft addition to an existing 1,690 sq ft horns. The parcel is located on a corner lot where the applicant can only place the addition on the west side. The applicant has indicated the septic is at the rear of the property also. The plans show the interior renovations to the home and elevation view of the new addition. Zoning Board of Appeals — record of Resolution Town ol` ueensbury 742 Bay Road ueensbury, NY 12804 (51 S) 7 1-823 ToLvxx c f%cwvsi4ary Area Variance Resolution To- Approve !Disapprove Applicant Name- Xiao Jun Li & Carol Fang File Number. Z-AV-72-201 Location: 21 Nathan Street 5� Tax Map dumber: 309. -1-4 ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received are application from Xisto Jun Li &. Carol Yang. Applicant proposes construction of a 22 #l. by 16 ft residential addition to the existing single-family borne. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the NR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant nquests reIief from setback requirements of the Neigliborhood residential zoning district. 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes construction of a 352 sq ft addition to be located 11.1 ft on the west side of the home where a 15 ft setback is required. SEAR Type II —no fx3rtber review required; A.public hearing was advertised and held on November 14, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-0$0(A) of the Queensbury Town Code anal Chapter 267 of N YS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as fo110 s: PLR THE ll1tAFT FRO IDED BY STAFF 1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because - Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been Inc]uded to minimize the request OR are not possible. 3. The requested variance is I is not substantial because 4. There is / is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is I is not self-created because 6. in addition the Board finds that ifie benefit to the applica�it from granting the requested variance would outweigh (mroval) 1 woutd be out eiphcd by (denial} 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 miuhnum necessary: S. 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 FrNDrNGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARIANCE AV-7 - 018 Xiap Jun U & Carol Yang, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded b Duly adopted this 14°s day of November 2018 by the following vote: AYES NOES: Tower of Qu ensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variancc No.: 73-2018 Project Applicant: Curtis D. DybRs Project Location: 17 Cliff Hollow Road Parcel Iiistory: SP 67-2018 SEAR Type: Type It Meeting Date: November 14,2018 Description of Propased Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 711 sq. ft. single-story residential addition to the amain floor for a new bedwom. Adjacent to the new bedroom a 211 sq. ft. enclosed porch is proposed. Alterations to home include kitchen area expansion (conversion of existing main bedroom to a great room off kitchen area), second floor bedroom, ceiling to be raised and removal of two porch areas. Structure will remain as a 4-bedroom home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and height restrictions for the WR zoning district, Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming use. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Waterfront Residential zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home that includes a 211 sq ft enclosed porch that is to be 64. ft from the shoreline where a 75 ft setback is requirred. (Parcel is located in the APA Land Use district Rural Use —where a 75 ft shoreline setback is required.) In addition, the roof area in the living room area is to be raised where it is to be 30 ft 6 in where a 28 ft maximum is allowed. The existing structure is currently 3bft 6 in. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 27 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider- l, Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearhy properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated, I 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 locations of the existing home on the parcel. The existing home is located 75 ft from the shore and the existing deck is 64.8 11, 3_ Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may he considered minimal relevant to the code. Reh ef requested foie from setback to the deck is 10.E ft, Relief for the height is 2.5 ft In excess. 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 impacts on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comnterjts• The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home for the exterior and interior. The plans show the addition to be at 2 levels of the home. The basement area expansion for storage area. The main floor is for the master bedroom area, adding a screened porch and expansion of the kitchen/dining area. The interior renovation also includes raising the living room ceiling on the west side. The west side of the building facing the shoreline exterior work is to include removal of the 3`d level porch and reducing a main story porch size. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Motes Zoning Board of Appeals— Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Quevnsbury, NY 12.804 (51 ) 7 1-823 Tinni d(LuL asburg Area Variance Resolution To; Approve 1 Disappmve Applicant Name: Curtis D. D bas for Sara N. Kell} File dumber: Z- -73-2018 Location: 17 Miff Follow load Tax Map Number: 23 .1 -1-32 Z BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, November 14, 2018 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Curtis D. Dybas for Sara N. Kelly. Applicant proposes construction of a 711 sq. ft. single-story residential addition to the main floor for a new bedroom, Adjacent to the thew bedroom a 211 sq, ft. enclosed porch is proposed. Alterations to home include kitchen area expansion (conversion of existing main bedroom to a grew#room off kitchen area), second floor bedroom, ceiling to be raised and removal of two parch areas. Structure will remain as a 4- bedroom home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and height restrictions for the WR zoning district. Planning Board: Site Plan review required for expansion of nonconforming use. Relief Required- The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the Waterfront residential zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements The applicant proposes alterations to an existing home that includes a 211 sq fl enclosed porch that is to be 64. ft from the shoreline where a 75 ft setback is required. (Parcel is located in the APA Land Use district Rural Use —where a 75 ft shoreline setback is required.) In addition,the roof area in;the living room area is to be raised where it is to be 30 ft 6 in where a 28 ft maximum is allowed. The existing structure is currently 301t 6 in. SEAR Type II—Ito f u Cher review required; public bearing was advertised and held-on November 14, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 17 -14-0 0(A) of the Queensbury Town Cade and Chapter 267 of N S Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is 1is is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because . Feasible altematives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to min mite the request OIL are not possible. 3. The requested variance is!is not substantial because 4. There is l is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is f is not sell`eieeated because In addition the Board Finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (gpproval) 1 would be outweighed by (denial} 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; S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) c) Adherence to the hms outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FI DT , i MA E A MOTION TO APPROVE / DENY AREA VARIANCE -AV-73- 019 Curtis D. Dybas .for Sara N. Kelly, Introduced byT _, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 14"' day of November 2018 by the following vote; AYES: NOES: