Staff Notes for All Applications Staff Notes
Includes Agenda, :ft ZBA Resolutions
Z + nn
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Queensbury, Zoning, Board of' Appeals, Agenda
Meeting: Wednesday, March 29', 2017 Time., 7.,00- 11:00 pm
Queensbury ActiVities Cenier— 742 Bay Road
Agenda subject to change and maybe found at. www.que,ensbu:ry.net
NEW BURNES
John J.Jarosz Area Vorlanot No Z-AV-14-2017
Jr ner John J.Jaron SEQ.RA'.rype 11
AgenlWA Lot Size 0.69,acres
Location 21 Ch areli 41.6 oad Zoning WR-IA
Ward No. Ward 1
Tax Id No 227,17-2-24 Section 17%5-020,
Cross Ref POOLAS-2017 Warren CounlL,
Public Hen ring March 29 20,17 A,Irondack Park Agency ALD
Project Description. Applicant proposes construction of a swimming pool in the side yard facing;south. Refiefrequeswd from placement
of a p I in a yard other 144 the re unreel rtaT ymrd.
Applienniffl Paul.I'loirler Area Variance No Z-A,V-16-2017
Owner(s) Paul PoirIcT SE RA T ic 1:I.
Agengs) Tom Center—N ace Engineqrl'ng Lot Size 18.91 acres
Location Bvtivccn Island View DFiVU and,Rivcrside Zoning WR
war(]Nth Dri%le;Wwrd 4
Tax.1d No 309.14-11A6 Section 179-3-040
Cross�Rer P-SB Prelim -2017,F-FWW-2-2017 Warren County Plannin March 2017
Public Hea ri n March 29,2011 Mironda.cKf u k A ens. rJa
Frog ect Description: Applicant proposes to sobdivide as I�,5 acre pas Q0 intra(Okit two-acre residentiol,lots where lots 1,2,3 and 4 do not
have the required roRIftRRq2,.Relief re nested from mirihnum road fron"ge reqUjfeffkeJJt5r for(lie developmeat of siew lots.
Aftnqz.
Applicant(O WgiQul SboTe Acres,LLC Area Variance No Z-AV-20-2017
Owner(s) Magical Shore Acres,LLC _12EQRA Ty)c 1I
.L
.-A ent r Dennis MacFlroy Lot Size 2.63 acres
Location 10 Wood Point Lane zoning 'WR
Ward No. war(l I
Tax Id No 239,18-11-21 ---sectio," 179-3-040;,179-13-010
Cross Rtf P- 1"20-2017;SP 18-1992.AV 34-1992, Warren County Planning March 2017
$P 8-1997
Public flearing March 2912017 Ad Iron4ack Park,Agency ALD
Project Description- Applicant proposes a t"2""'I-,sq, R,(floor Area)residential addition. The project also includes construction,ofa MO
!pq. ft.,three-carr garage with now access pati�.iway ff oin existing,driveway to a new 33,6 sq- ft,carport and new]rouse ertiry%uyarea, Re]ief
re quested from minimurn setback requirements and for a new carport as the second garage, Planning Board-- Site plan Review fbr project
with i n 541.of 15" slopes.and for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA.
Any further business that the ChaIrman determ ines may be properly brought before the Zoning Bowl of Appeals-
Final Agenda.Version-, 20'2W2017 [Mish
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Devellopmeni Department Sta,ff Noies,
Area Variance No 14-2017
Project Applicant: John I Jar z,
Project Location: hurebill Roaf)(Ward I
Parcel.History: 1 OOL-45-2017
SEQR Type. Type H
Meeting Date: Mareb, 29,2017
Description of Proposed
Applicant proposes construction of a swimming pool in the side yard fiacing,south.
Relief R22,ulred.
The applicant requests relieffrom placement of a pool in a yard other than.the required rear yard,
179-5-020 Accessory Structures --pool
The applicant proposes location of a pool in the side yard
Criteria for considei(mg,an Area Variance according,to Chapter 267 of Town Law.
In making an 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.
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 for the
location of the pool due to the lot configuration.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief"requested may be considered moderate
relevant to the code. The relief is for location of the pool to be in the side yard where the rear yard is
required.
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 im, pact on the physical or the enviromnental condition of'th,e area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. 'The difficulty may� be considered self-created.
'
Fs—ta tT—co ni
The applicant proposes to install a 12 R by 23 ft pool on the south side of the:existing hom,e. The applicant's
home l is located at the end of Churchill Rd. The location of the pool is for privacy due to the neighboring
properties
Zoning Board of Appeals —Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 1.2804 (518) 71-8238
T611w VdQ:Ileam
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve / Disapprove
Applicant Name: John J. Jarosz
File Number. Z-AV-14-20 17'
Location- 23 Churchill Road
Tax Map Number: 227,17-2-24
ZBA Meeting Date- Wednesday, Match 29,20,17
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John.J. J'arosz.
Applicant proposes construction of a swimming pool in the side:yard facing south.
The applicant requests relleffrom placement of a pool in a yard other than the required rear yard.
179-5-020 Aggessory Structures -pool
The applicant proposes location of a pool in the side yard
SEQR Type 11—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday
,March 29,2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria.specified in Section 179-14-08,00) ofthe Queensbury'rown Code and, Chapter 267
of'NYS Town Law mid after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
11HRITIE" STAI;T
1- There is / 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 regp
_pableand have bgpn
included to,minimim the request OR are not Wgsible.
3, The requested variance is / is not substantial. because
4. There is, / is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district?
5. Is the alleged difficulty is / is not self-created becau
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant, from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (approval) /,would be outweighed by (denial the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welffire of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the rninimum necessary;
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAK A M MON TO ALPI�QVE,LDENY ARE VARIANCE-14- 017 John J. Jarosz, Int Toduced by_,, who moved fo�r its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 29�1' day of March 2017 by the follovAng vote:
AYES:
NOES,
Town, of Queens,bury Zoning Boarcl of' Appeals
Community Development Dep arlment Staff Notes
AreR Variance No. 16-2017
Project Applicant: Paul Poirier
Project Location: Between Island View Drive& Riverside DrivetWard 4
Parcel History: P- Pk (Prelim) 6-2017'; P-FWW-2-2017
SEER Type- Type 11
Meeting Date: March 29, 2017
De,%erj,ption of Proposed Project:I
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 18,5 acre parcel into four two-acre residential lots where lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 do
not have the required,road fi-ontage.
ReliefRNuiLrcdJ
The applicant requests relief from minimum road frontage requirements for the development of new lots.
179-4-050 Frontagge-on public or prLyate streets
The applicant a 4 lot subdivision where lots 1, 2, & 3 access is,from Island View Drive and Lot 4 access is from
Riverside Drive, Parcel size is Lot I —4.9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 —2.1 acres, Lot 4 —9.4 acres. Both
streets are private
Criteria for considering an Ares Variance a"ording to ha ter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be
considered to have minor impact on the, neighboring properties as the access ffi-ough private drives exist the
project extends the road for the proposed homes.
2. Whether the benefit sough( by the applicant can be ac�hieved, by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance., Feasible alternatives, may be limited due to 'the lot
configuration and location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. The project utilizes existing private drive for access where relief is for not having
direct access to the Town road,.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effeet or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions ipm the oeighborhood or district. The project may be considered to halve
minimal, irapact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the:area,.
5., Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty array be considered self-created.
staff e0acnewtM
The applicant proposes a four lot subdivision— lots 1, 2., access is frn Island View Drive and Lot 4 access
is from. riverside Drive. Parcel size to be Lot I — 4.9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 — 2A acres, Lot 4 — 9.4
acres, The Board may request further discussion in regards to lot 4 where there, wetland racy interfere with the
house location and a,varimice array be needed.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Deparimeni StaffNotes
7Aning Board of Appeals—Record of''Res,olutioto
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
To Vir dQ!,ourrshury
Area Variance Desolation To:: Approve/Disapprove
Applicant Name- Paul Poirier
File Number: Z-AV-16-2017
Location: between Island View Drive and Riverside Drive
Tax Map Number: 309.14-1-46
ZDA Me:eting Date: Wednesday, Match 29, 2017''
The Zoning Board, of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury,has received an application ftom Paul Poirier.
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 18.5 acre parcel into, four two-acre residential lots,where lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 do
not have the required road frontage.
The applicant requests,relief frorn minimum road frontage requirements,f"or the development of new lots,
179-4-050 Frontaae on Dublic or.,private streets
The applicant a 4 lot subdivision where lots 1, 2, & 3 access is from Island View Drive and Lot 4 access is from
Riverside Drive., Parcel size is Lot I —4,9 acres, Lot 2 - 2.1 acres, Lot 3 —2.1 acres,Lot 4— 9.4 acres. Both,
streets are private
SEER Type 11 —no ffirther review required,;
A public hearing was advertised and held oil Wednesday, March 29, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, inBorniation, 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:
P FIJI
? '1 11h 11)KA FT ["ROV I D ED 11,x" STA f"T'
1. There is, / 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 andhave been
included to minimize the request OR are not pcjssiblq.
. __
3. The requested variance is/ is not substantial beeause
4. There is / is not an adverse impact on, the physical or envitorn'nental conditions in the neighborhood or
district?
5� Is the alleged difficulty is /is not self-created because
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (gavroval) / would he outweighed by (denjal) the resulting detriment, to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. 'The Board also finds fl-tatthe variance request under consideration is the mini tnuni necessary;
8, The Board also proposes thel'ollowing conditiom
a)
)
c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON JRE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE / DENY AR VARIANCE A-
V-1 6-2 01,7,,Paul Poirier, Introduced by_, who n owed for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 29anti day of March 2017 Iby the following vow
AYES-
NOES:
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appealls
Community Development Department Staff Ntes
Area Variance No.: 20-2017
Project Applicant. Magical Shore Acres,LLC
Project Location: 10 Wood Point Laue/Ward I
Parcel History- P- P" 20-2017; SP18-1992; AV 34-199,2; SP 8-1997
SEER T'ype: Type 11
Meeting Date: March 29, 2017
[Des—cription of Prmos
Applicant proposes a 1,284+/- sq. ft. (floor area)residential addition® The project also includes construction of
a 960 sq. ft. three-car garage with new access pathway from existing driveway to a new 336 sq. ft. carport and
new house entryway area.,
Relief Req
The applicant requests,relief from minimum setback requirements and for a new carport as the second garage.
179-3-040 Establislunent of Districts —dimensional requirement WR zone
The applicant proposes a 447.3 sq ft residential. infill in the court yard area of the home where 197.3 sq ft is 61 ft
from the shoreline and there is 187 sq 0 residential infill, in the lower level where 91 ft is ft from the
shoreline,where a 75 ft setback is required,.
�+ txqp 179-5-020 accessory
The:app I icant proposes3 3 6 sq ft car port area for the utv parking -a car port is considered a second garage, where only
one gjarage is allowed
179-13-010 Expansion of non gpjj�fdrmin�
The existing horne is pre-existingnon-compliant and,the addition furthers the non compliance towards the
shoreline.
Kriteria for considei ing an Area Variance according to ;ba pter.267 of Town Law.
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable charge will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to
the design of the home and location on the site.,
3. Whether the requested area variance: is substantial. The relief requested may be considered modetate
relevant to the code. Relief is requested for shoreline of 14 ft for the: courtyard and 10 ft for the lower level.
Relief is also requested for the second garage.
4. Whetber 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.
5. Wbether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The, difficulty may be considered self-created
FS—ta f—fC 0_MM—en t—S i lu
Applicant proposes to renovate the existing home with two infill areas, additions for a new entryway and
carport, and a new garage. The project includes a new Eft wide path from the existing driveway to the,new
entryway carport.area. The purpose is f6r a utv usage from the new garage area for grocery and other items for
easy transport. The applicant has Provided elevations and floor plans detailing the location of each improvement
to the home and site.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Zoning Board, of Appeals —Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 1,2804 (518) 761-9238
7b V11F ftartj�!njrs
Jury
Area Variance Resolution, To- Approve / Disapprove
Applicant Name: Magical 'shore Acres, LLC'
File Number-, Z-AV-20-2017
Location: 10, Wood Point Lane
Tax Map Number: 239.1$-1- ,1
ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 2 9, 201"7
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the:Town of Queensbury has received an application.Nrn Magical Shore
Acres, LLC. Applicant proposes a 1,284 +/- sq. ft. (floor area) residential addition. The project also includes
construction of a 960 sq. ft three-car garag!e with new access pathway from existing driveway to a new 3sq.,
11. carport and new house en'try"way area.
The applicant requests ie:lief from minimum setback requirements and for a new carport as the second garage.
179-3-040 Establishrnent of Districts —dimensional re uirement WR zone
The applicant proposes a 4473 sq ft residential infill in the court yard, area of the home where 197.3 sq ft is 61
ft from the shoreline and there is 1,87 sq ft"residential infill in the lower level where 91 ft is 6 5 ft from the
shoreline where a, 7ft setback is,required.
Section 179-5-020,awesso!y structures-garag,e,
The app]ircant pi oposeO 3 6sq ft car port area f6r the utv parking -a, car port is oonsidereda second garage, where only
one garage is allowed
179-13- 1 0 Expansion of noUS21jfoc�
The existing home is P re-existing non-compliant and the addition furthers the non-compliance towards the
.
shoreline,
SEQR Type 11 —nc fkther ie:view required;
A public hearing was,advertised and held, on Wednesday,March 29, 2017;
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 N YS Tom Iaw and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
P F,yr
11111k ITIE DRAI T R.OVIDED
1. There is, I 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 minimize ther uest 0
R ire not Mossible.
3. 'The:re quested variance is /is not substantial because
4. There is / is not an, adverse impact on the Physical or environmental conditions in, the neighborhood or
district?
5. Is the alleged difficulty is / is not self-created because
.......................
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant frorn granting the requested variance would
outweigh (gpproval) / would be otitweighed by (denial) the resulting, detriment to the health, safety and
well"are of the neighborhood or commlinity;
T The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the rninimurn necessary;
8. The Board, also proposes the following conditions:,
a)
b)
0 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 / DENY AREA VARIANCE Z-
AV-20-2017,,Zeal Shore Acres., ELC, Introduced by _, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 2 91h day of March 2017 by the following vote:
,AYES.�
NOES: