Loading...
04-20-2016 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING APRIL 20, 2016 INDEX Sign Variance PZ-120-2016 Family Footwear Center 2. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15 Area Variance PZ-107-2016 Adam & Sara Pearsall 5. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-44.2 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) APRIL 20, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE RONALD KUHL KYLE NOONAN HARRISON FREER JOHN HENKEL LAND USE PLANNER -LAURA MOORE MR. JACKOSKI-All right, everyone. Welcome. We apologize for not starting on time, but this evening we must have an awful lot of students who waited until the last minute to fulfill an obligation to school. So the good news for them is we only have a two item agenda, and those classmates who’ve come in the past that have seen six and seven or eight items on the agenda. So you’re going to get out of here possibly fairly early. Here we go. So for those of you who haven’t attended a Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting before, I am going to open the meeting now at 7:04. Welcome to everyone. The process is quite simple. There is an agenda. We have some housekeeping to do first. We call each application to the small table. The applicant can join us there. Roy will read the application into the record. We will then ask the applicants to address the Board with anything additional that they would like to present to us. Sometimes that’s not necessary. The Board members will ask questions. We will open a public comment period when a public comment period has been advertised and in this case both of these applications have had one advertised. We will listen to the public comment. The Board will then have some more discussion with the applicant. We will poll the Board to see which direction we’re leaning towards on the application, whether it’s going to be approved, tabled or denied, and then we’ll make a motion and move on to the next item. So some housekeeping first. If you don’t mind, I need a motion to approve the meeting minutes from February 17, 2016. APPROVAL OF MINUTES February 17, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 17, 2016 , Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE March 16, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 16, 2016 , Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE March 23, 2016 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF MARCH 23, 2016 , Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: 2 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Moving on, we’re done with our housekeeping. New Business. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0120-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED FAMILY FOOTWEAR CENTER c/o LAURA FEATHERS OWNER(S) GORDON DEVELOPMENT ZONING CI LOCATION 1498 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 42 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN TO IDENTIFY THE BUSINESS PLAZA AS FAMILY FOOTWEAR CENTER TO BE LOCATED ABOVE THE FRONT MAIN ENTRANCE DOOR. IN ADDITION THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 32 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON THE NORTHERN ENTRANCE TO IDENTIFY NEW BALANCE/NIKE BRAND OF FOOTWEAR. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR WALL SIGNAGE IN EXCESS OF THE ALLOWABLE NUMBER OF SIGNS PER TENANT OCCUPANCY IN A BUSINESS PLAZA. CROSS REF BOTH-018- 2016 WALL SIGN 42 SQ. FT. FAMILY FOOTWEAR CENTER (MAIN ENTRANCE FRONT); BOTH-019-2016 WALL SIGN 32 SQ. FT. NEW BALANCE/NIKE (NORTHERN ENTRANCE) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE 1.61 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION CHAPTER 140 LAURA FEATHERS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Note from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0120-2016, Family Footwear Center c/o Laura Feathers, Description of Meeting Date: April 20, 2016 “Project Location: 1498 State Route 9 Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installationof a 42 sq. ft. wall sign to identify the business plaza as Family Footwear Center to be located above the front main entrance door. In addition, the applicant proposes to install a 32 sq. ft. wall sign on the northern entrance to identify New Balance / Nike brand of footwear. Relief requested for wall signage in excess of the allowable number of signs per tenant occupancy in a business plaza. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for wall signage in excess of the allowable number of signs per tenant occupancy in a business plaza. Section 140 Sign – number of wall signs in a business complex per tenant The applicant proposes two walls signs for Family Footwear center where one sign is in place for Family Footwear and a second sign indicating brands of “Nike” and “New Balance” is proposed for above the door entry. Criteria for considering a Sign 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 sign 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be available to utilize the existing family footwear sign-wall or freestanding to include brand names. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The proposed project is minor relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed project may have minimal impact on the physical and environmental conditions of the area. 3 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created . The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes an additional wall sign for Family Footwear Center for “Nike” and “New Balance” as one block at 32 sq. ft. The applicant shows the location of the proposed sign. The applicant has indicated that the store previously had 2 signs and with the new building upgrade the store requested upgrades to the signs.” MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. A very straightforward application. I don’t know if you need to add anything to the record, but if you wish to, now is the time, or we’ll just ask you questions. MS. FEATHER-We had a sign before. They did have a sign for everyone. So when they removed both signs I assumed I would be able to automatically put another sign back up in its place, and also just for the building to look nice and even because you have a sign. There’s three signs currently now on the last section of the building but it looks weird without it. So it would look much nicer with this sign, and it’s under the 100 square feet which is allowed. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time? We all know the building and the location. MR. MC CABE-It came out nice. MS. FEATHERS-It did. It really looks a lot better. MR. JACKOSKI-Having no questions from Board members, I am going to open the public comment period. Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address tis Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Given there’s no written comment and given there’s no public comment by the people attending in the audience, I’m going to poll the Board. I’ll start with anybody who wants to volunteer. MR. NOONAN-I’ll go first. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-I have no problem with the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I’m used to looking at the Nike and New Balance. I can’t see it. So I’m confused. So I think I’ll go along with the project so I’m back on stable ground. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support this request for a variance. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? Welcome back. MR. KUHL-Yes, thank you. No, it’s a good request. I support it. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I support it also. I wish it was a little bit smaller. I think it could have been seven by three and still would have been enough, but I’ll support it. Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Having polled the Board, I’ll close the public comment period. 4 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And seek a motion for approval. We have to do SEQR first. Motion regarding Sign Variance PZ-0120-2016, Family Footwear Center c/o Laura Feathers; based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided 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 Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th 20 day of April 2016 Duly adopted this , by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-We have approval for a Negative Dec. May I have approval for the project, please. MR. NOONAN-I’ll make the motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Family Footwear Centerc/o Laura FeathersChapter 140 for a variance from of the Sign Applicant proposes installation of a 42 sq. ft. wall sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. to identify the business plaza as Family Footwear Center to be located above the front main entrance door. In addition, the applicant proposes to install a 32 sq. ft. wall sign on the northern entrance to identify New Balance / Nike brand of footwear. Relief requested for wall signage in excess of the allowable number of signs per tenant occupancy in a business plaza. Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] SEQR Type: Motion regarding Sign Variance PZ-0120-2016, Family Footwear Center c/o Laura Feathers; based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided 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 Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th 20 day of April 2016 Duly adopted this , by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE Wednesday, April 20, 2016; A public hearing was advertised and held on 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. Will 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? Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? Feasible alternatives have not been discussed. We find this request is fitting with the nature of the corridor. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? The proposed project is minor relative to the Code. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The proposed project may have minimal impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This may be considered self-created. 5 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE PZ- 0120-2016, FAMILY FOOTWEAR CENTER C/O LAURA FEATHERS , Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. <insert conditions / comments>: 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 (1) year time frame 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, including 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 from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. th Duly adopted this 20 day of April 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Sorry it took so long. MS. FEATHERS-Thank you very much. Do we wait until we get the piece of paper in the mail before we call West Sign, or is it okay to call them and say go ahead and make the sign? MRS. MOORE-Can you could just give me a call tomorrow? MS. FEATHERS-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. In the morning is fine. Perfect. MS. FEATHERS-Have a great night. AREA VARIANCE PZ-107-2016 SEQRA TYPE II ADAM & SARA PEARSALL OWNER(S) ADAM & SARA PEARSALL ZONING WR LOCATION 9 RIVERSIDE DIVE (SUBDIVISION OF GLENS FALLS NATIONAL BANK & TRUST CO.) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 260 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO THE REAR PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE WHICH INCLUDES A 360 SQ. FT. DECK AROUND THE NEW ADDITION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF ADMIN. 2-LOT SUB.. AD 1-2002; BP 2002-723 SFD; BP 2005-932 2-CAR ATT GARAGE, CARPORT & PORCH; BP 2013-414 SHED WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2016 LOT SIZE 1 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-44.2 SECTION 19-3-040 6 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) ADAM & SARA PEARSALL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-107-2016, Adam & Sara Pearsall, Meeting Date: April 20, 2016 “Project Location: 9 Riverside Drive (Subdivision of Glens Falls National Bank & Trust Description of Proposed Project: Co.) Applicant proposes construction of a 260 sq. ft. residential addition to the rear portion of the structure which includes a 360 sq. ft. deck around the new addition. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements Proposed construction does not meet the rear setback where 14.3 ft. is proposed and 30 ft. is required. Relief requested is 15.7 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the 1. 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 impact on the neighboring properties as the project occurs to the rear of the home. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, 2. feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot size and current location of the home. The applicant has indicated a water line, propane tank and septic limit the location of the addition. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be 3. considered minimal relevant to the code. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the 4. physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. The applicant has proposed locating the addition in the area of the existing deck to minimize impacts on the environment. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created . The project as proposed may be 5. considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a 260 sq. ft. addition and a 380 sq. ft. porch area. The applicant has indicated the new addition is the location of an existing porch area that is to be removed. The existing porch is to be used for the new porch area and new decking will be added for the side access to the addition. The porch and access step are at grade level. The submission includes two letters from neighbors supporting the project. The information also includes the photo simulation of the addition as well as interior layout for existing and proposed.” MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. PEARSALL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Would you like to add anything? You are asking for a significant amount of relief. 7 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) MR. PEARSALL-Understood. Would you like me to walk you through how we got to where we are? I’ll try to keep it short. Basically when Sara purchased the property years ago she was a single school teacher in Queensbury and she was thrilled to buy a piece of land next to her parents, adjacent to property her grandfather used to own, and she designed a modest home, 26 by 26, and I showed up and just kind of ruined all of her plans. Fell in love, got married. A couple of years later we wanted to start a family so we did an addition for a bedrooms for kids and an art studio for her. That’s something we previously came before this Board for. At this point we realized that the house being built originally primarily for two people really is kind of small for a family of four, particularly when the grandparents come over or friends’ family come over. So the living room is small, and the kitchen/dining area is fairly small, and we were trying to think what direction we could go out to make, to enlarge that a little bit. Between the way the roof slopes down on each side, and existing, again, propane lines and water lines, we can’t go out to the sides. The direction we can go out, for better or for worse, is towards the river. When the house was originally constructed, the setback was 25 feet. So the existing porch is 25 feet from that lot line. I guess Codes have changed between now and then. It’s now 30 feet. Our original thought is we just go out 10 feet, remove the deck, not worry about it too much, but we enjoy using the deck. So we’ve come before the Board to see if we can move forward the building 10 feet, which would be the same setback as we had when the house was originally constructed, but it meant putting the deck back as well. The one thing that’s a little bit different, perhaps, than some waterfront residential zoning is the first 50 feet back from the river we do not own. That is owned by Brookfield. So even with a variance reduced to 15 feet, between us and the river it’s still going to be 65 feet. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. So, Staff, help me understand. This would be considered a rear setback and not a waterfront setback. MRS. MOORE-It’s their rear yard. Correct, not at all. MR. JACKOSKI-So that’s good news. MR. PEARSALL-It is, yes. It gets complicated, I guess, because they treat it as two front setbacks because of the river. Otherwise, the rear setback, I guess, would only be smaller, if we were not in the Waterfront Residential. MRS. PEARSALL-Matt Steves, of Van Dusen and Steves, always rolls his eyes whenever he comes down and sees Brookfield lines, because he has two lines to have to deal with. The nice thing for us is that extra 50 feet gives us quite a buffer from what you would consider the rear view, where we have beautiful views of the river, but the river doesn’t have too much walk to our house. There’s a lot of deciduous trees which are nice right now. We have solar panels right now on all of the existing tops. So we have beautiful sun in winter but then the deciduous trees hide us all summer long and give us great shade, which is nice. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further questions from Board members? There’s a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who’d like to address the Board on this particular application? We have one person who’d like to address the Board. If you could give up the table for a minute. If you could identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JAMES CORNICK MR. CORNICK-James Cornick. I’m the neighbor to the immediate west. We are one of the supporting neighbors and we’re totally in support of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Because you spoke this evening, do we also need to read the letter into the record? MR. CORNICK-No. You already have it in the file. MRS. PEARSALL-The other neighbors on the other side are my mom and dad, but they’re babysitting the kids so they couldn’t come so that’s why the letter is in the package. So they’re hoping for the bigger kitchen table as neighbors actually have people over around the kitchen table without children on top of them. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So there’s no one else in the audience for this application? Seeing no one, Roy, there are two letters? 8 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) MR. URRICO-There is a second letter. I’m sure your mom and dad haven’t changed their minds since they sent the letter? MRS. PEARSALL-I hope not because she’s got the kids right now. No. They have not. MR. JACKOSKI-We’ll read that one into the record. MR. URRICO-It says “To Whom It May Concern: Our daughter and son-in-law, Sara and Adam Pearsall, have spoken to us concerning their desire to build an addition on their house located at 9 Riverside Dr. in Queensbury. The addition would increase the living spaces and provide a larger kitchen area which, with our two grandchildren joining our family, would definitely be an asset. The construction of the addition may possible encroach upon certain lot setback requirements. Our property adjoins the Pearsall property on the east and southeast lot lines and we have no objections to their building plan. In fact, with the increased space we might get invited to more dinners and summer cookouts. We fully support Sara and Adam’s plans to expand their current home. Please do not hesitate to contact us should you have any questions or need anything further, and it’s signed Peter and Susan Bishop, 68 Richardson Street. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. No further public comment? MR. URRICO-No, that’s it. MR. JACKOSKI-I’ll leave the public comment period open. I’ll ask to poll the Board. Would anyone like to go first? MR. MC CABE-I took a look at the property. I took a look at the plans, and I think it’s an enhancement to the property and I don’t think it’ll be seen by anybody else. So I don’t see it as a disruption to the neighborhood in any way, shape or form, so I would support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I also have no problem with this project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I think given the explanation of how we got to this point, I think I’m satisfied and given that it’s not going to really encroach any further than the previous setback did, I am in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the addition is in the current porch location, but the deck is actually an extension of the encroachment, yes. MR. URRICO-Given the changes, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with my Board members. I looked at the property also, and it’s really not going to bother anybody. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison. MR. FREER-So the only concern I had was floodplain. Because the river seems to be, has the floodplain changed since you guys bought? MR. PEARSALL-No. We are 25 feet above the river. So Saratoga is likely to flood before we are because of the other dams. MR. FREER-I support this. MR. JACKOSKI-I’m going to close the public comment period and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 9 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Adam & Sara Pearsall. Applicant proposes constructionof a 260 sq. ft. residential addition to the rear portion of the structure which includes a 360 sq. ft. deck around the new addition. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. SEQR Type II – no further review required; Wednesday, April 20, 2016 A public hearing was advertised and held on ; 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 because nearby properties of the confinement of this property. are 2. Feasible alternatives limited because of the location of the house and the surrounding terrain. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is the alleged difficulty is not self-created because the house was there before. 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. PZ-107-2016, ADAM & SARA PEARSALL , Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: th Duly adopted this 20 day of April 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Good luck. Welcome. MRS. PEARSALL-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Anymore business in front of the Board? MR. FREER-I’d just like to make a comment about the training that we went to. We sat through a solar story about how we zone solar in the future, which was good. The State promises a draft law that Queensbury will probably adopt. The other good news was I went to a session on legal battles and it seems like the court is pretty good with SEQR protection, and three or four of the cases they talked about said that if you do your SEQR correctly and the Lead Agency does their job, the court seems to recognize that. So a couple of good sessions, and people probably know, Chris Hunsinger got an award at the lunch. So it was a good training. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Harrison. Anything else in front of the Board? Motion to adjourn, please. 10 (Queensbury ZBA meeting 04/20/2016) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 20,. 2016 , Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 20 day of April, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 11