Loading...
Staff Notes ZBA Packet Wed July 19 2017 S�aff Note�� ZBA Meeting Wednesday, July 19, 2017 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Meeting: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 Time: 7;00- 11,00 pm Queensbury Act vities Center-742 Bay Road Agenda subject to change and may be found at- wvw_queensbury.net Approval of iueeting minutes; Junc 21,2017 A0minibrrative Item: Request to Furtlier Table PTojcct: Suaton Property tioldings,LLC(A-1 Tree Works) Z-AV-2$-2017 Request to Furthcr Table Projeet= James Beaty(Mara Pars,Inc.)Z-AV-35-2017 OLE]BUSINESS: Applicant(s) Robcrt Fsdmcr Area Variance No 'L-AV-29-2017 Owner(s) Robert hulmer $E RA'i p2 T] A nt s nla Lot Size 3.2 ages Location 54 Country Club load(County Club Manor) Zoning MDR Ward No, Ward 1 Tax Id No 2%14-1-49 Seelig 179-5-020 Cross Rer P-SP-31-2017;P-FWW 3-2017;BP 2007-0$4 2-car att. 'Warren County Planning April 2017 Gar.1res.add, Public Hea rinit Aril 26 2017•July 19 2017 1 Adirondaek Park A ane Two Proj eel Description: Appl io&rot proposes oonstrualon of a revised,924 art, R. 3-door detached garage_ Revised project includes removal of 1,840 sq.&blacktop pad, Relief requested for a second garage, Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Freshvrater Wetlands mview required for silo work within 104 fl_of a vretland. Applicant(s) I Aviation Haa]iry,LLC Area Variance No SAV-42-2017 Owner(s) PMF Newco,LLC S f QRA T'v e Type 11 A cn s Bohler Engincuring Lot Size 4.57 acres(utilift 2.5 acres Location 524 Aviation Road Zoning ESC Ward s!o. Ward 2 Tax!d No 342.5-I-9lr,1,302,5-1-93.1 Section 179L-3-040,. 179-4-WO Cross Rer P-SP-45-2017 Warren County Planning June 2017 Public Ifearing t July 14,2017,July,26 2017 Adirondack Park apney I n!a Proleet Description Applicant proposes construction of a new 62,624 sq.$.,4-story,92 room hotel(former site of Howard Johnsons), Project includes lot J ine adj ustmenl connector road%with adjoining lot to Aviation Mal]ring T'osd and acoeas realign niant with Ambrosia Dincr. Relief re ucsted From front setback on 1147 sod road fronlage. P lannin.g Board. Site Pian Review re uired. Applicant(s) Aviation Hospitality,LLC Sin Variance No Z-SV-6-2017 Owne s PCCF Nov o,LLC SE RA Type Unl istcd A ens Sohler Engineering Lot Size 4,37 acres; 134 acres Location 524 Aviation Road Zoning ESC Ward No. War4 2 Tax td No 342.5-1-96.1.302.5-1-93.1 Section ter 140-5. 144-6 Crass Ref P-SP-45-2417 Warrea Coun tY PlanninJunc 2017 ar P"blicHein I July 19,2017,Jul26,2017 Adirondack Park A n n/a Pro mcbgt Deseri ntio n Applicant proposes 3 wal I signs for a new hotel;Home2 Suites by Hilton. Also Proposed is a Freestanding sign 10 be on a separate lot'Ho=2 Suites by Hilton". P eliefreques[ed For number of ufall signs_ Re lie F also for freestanding 819nun separate property and setback- Pagc i d2 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Meeting: Wednesday, Jujy 19, 2017 Time; 7;00- 11:00 pm Queensbury Activitles Center-742 BcLy Road Agenda subject to change tend maybe found at. www,queensbury.net NEW BUSINESS: Applicant(s) Ouden World Assoc.,LLC Arra Voriance No Z-AV44-2017 he Silo Restaurant Owner(s) Oarden world Assoc LLC SE RA Type [[ Fi ent s Na Lot Sin 0.76 Acre(s) Location 537 Aviation Road Zoning Ward No. Ward 2 Tax Id No 302.5-1-50 Section 179-3-044; 1794-080 Cross Ref P- P-49-2017 Wkrren County Planning hly 2017 Public Hearing Ril 19,2017 Adirondack FarkAgency Twa Pro jeet Uescriptton Applicant propose to remove cxisting 270 sq_I deck and construct a new 400 sq,ft,deck for restaurant's outdoor seating. Project includes construction of a 64 sq.fl,eritrywuy over existing concrete ramp.Relief requested from minimum front yard setback and Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setbacks. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required Fpr expa}ulon of outdoor deck for seating and addition of oovered en Applicant(s) David and Morgan Stanhope .arca Variance No Z-AV-45-2017 Qwne s David and Morgan S1orho e SE RA Type 11 Agent(s) John X.Caney IV Esq. Lot Site 4.43 A s Location Corner of Sweet Road and Country Club[toad ,Zoning MDR Ward No. Ward I Tax Id No 296.15-1-1 Seeliian 179-3-040•Chapter 94 Crass Ref 71P-$P-52-2017•)?-FWW-4-2017 WArren Coun Planning July 2017 Pu bile Hearing I Suly 19.2017 AdirondackFarkA cn nfa Projeet Descripflon Applicant proposes construction of a 304 sq_fL single-family dwelling. Rclicf roqucsted From minimum shore lire setback re uirements. P[annjU Hoard: Site Plan Review and Fresh Water Wetlands application mview rtguired. A e licant s Frank&Isobel Munoff,A el[ant Notice of A ea1 No Z-AIOA-2-2017 Own e s Harald and Lyn Halliday,Frop"Ownor SE RA Type A Agent(s) Wa Lot Sbrc 1.66 Ac,*S) Locution 25W State Routc 91,Property owner_ Harojd fit.Lyn 'Lowing WR Ward No. Halliday; Ward I Tax Id No 244,5-1-32 1 Section Rift Cross lief NOA 1-2017 MwtioITm: I la[liday Parcel; SUP 1-2017; Warren County Planning nfa SP 2-2017 PUbtiC HCAHME July 19 2017 Ad iron daelEPark Agency arta Project Description Appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrators issuance of the Building Permit(Our Ric Number AST 14E-20 17 [[am Hall iday issued on April 13 201 far constnoction o f a 300 sq,&wes%ory structure bu ildin . Any furihcr business that the Chairman determines may be properly brought before t[ie Zon i ng Board of Appca Is. R"iced Agenda'7.03.2017 C13 i.Mlsh Final Version ZaA Agenda' 06.29.20 17 CTLMfsh Page 2 of 2 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 29-2417 Project Applicant: Robert Fulmer Project Location: 54 County Club Road Parcel History: I P-31-2017; P-FWW 3-2017; BP 2007-084 2-car att. Gardres. add. SEAR Type: Type H Meeting Date: July 19,2417 Description.of Proposed Pro'ect: Applicant proposes construction of a Tevised, 924 sq. it. 3-door detached garage. Devised project includes removal of 1,800 sq. fl. blacktop pad. R.eliefrequested for a second garage. Planning Board: Site Plan review and Freshwater Wetlands review required for site work within 100 A. of a wetland. Relief Required• The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. Criteria for considering an Area'Vnriance according to Chapter 267 of Town In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will ire produced in the character of the neighborhood or-a detriment to nearby properties will lie created by the granting of this area variance. The praject may be considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant ca Pm be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited as the applicant would like to use the building for storage of lawn equipment and recreational vehicles. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. belief is requested for second garage where only one garage is allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variancet will have an adverse effect or impact on the physieal 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. $. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed rimy be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has revised the plans to now show a 924 sq ft garage, the 1800 sq ft black top area to be removed and that area to be replaced with lawn. The plans show the garage to have 3-garage doors and an open floor plan. The garage is to be 20 +J- ft in height and the area in front of the garage is to remain lawn no drive is to be instmlled. The applicant has included photos of the existing and proposed conditions where the garage is to be located including locations from the bike trail. The applicant has indicated there will be no stairs or pull down stairs and the rear of the building is to be the same as the front without doors. The plans also show a regular door on the south side of the building. The applicant has indicated the garage is to be used for the recreational vehicles and lawn equipment for yard maintenance. 0 111111111 Zoning Board of Appeals— Record of Resolution L. Town of Queensbury 742 Buy Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 'Rowe (3(Q Lleojsbary Area Variance Resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove Applicant Name- Robert Fulmer File Dumber: -A -29-2017 , fel Location: 54 Cowivy Club Road Tax Map Number. 296,14-1-49 ZBA Meeting Yate: July 19, 2017 Applicant proposes construction cif a revised, 924 sol. ft. 3-door de#ached garage_ Revised project includes removal of 1,800 sq. ft, blacktop pad, Relief requested for a second garage. Planning Board: Site flan Review and Freshwater Wetlands review required for site work within 100 ft, of a wetland. The applicant requests relief for a second garage. Section 179-5-020 —Aecessp;y Structures—garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached. SEAR Type 11 —no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and lie Id on Wednesday, April 26, 2017 and tabled to July 19, 2417 Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public healing, and upon considermion of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of thv. Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of N YS Town Law and aifte[-discussion and deliberation, we find as follows, 1. There is lis 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 rnip-)mite the request OR are not vossible, 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? S. Is the alleged difficulty is 1 is riot self erea#cd because Page 1 of 2 f. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would oum,eigh. (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 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 1 DENY AREA VAMANCE A -29-2017, Robert Fulmer, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by ]duly adopted this 19`h day of July 2017 by the following vole: AYES: NOES: Page 2 of 2 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff dotes Area Variance No.. 42-2017 Project Applicant: Aviation Hospitality,LLC Project Location: 524 Aviation Road Parcel History: P4 -2017 SEQR Type: Type U Meeting Date: ruly 19,2017 Description of Propose Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new 62,620 sq. ft., 4-story, 92 room hotel (former site of Howard Johnsons). Project includes lot line adjustment connector road with adjoining lot to Aviation Mall ring road and access realigrnnent with Ambrosia Diner. Relief requested from setback and road frontage. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from setbacks and road frontage in the ESC zone (Enclosed Shopping Center). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements ESC zone The applicant proposes a hotel that is to be located 50.2 ft from the front setback where a building over 40 ft in height requires a 100 fl setback—the building is proposed to be +{- ft in height. Section 179-4-050 frontage on public streets The hotel is to be located on a parcel that is to have no road frontage but will be accessed from the construction of a common drive for the diner and the hotel along with a connector road from drive to the Mall ring road. Criteria for oousidering as Area Varianee aceording to CUapter 267 of To vrr I,a3v; In quaking a determination, the board shall consider- 1. :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 to no impact on the neighboring properties where the project is located over 500 ft from Aviation Road and as part of the project common access drive is to be constructed as the main access to the diger and the hotel. . Whether the henefit sought by the applicant can he achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than sin area variance. Feasible aiternatives may be limited due to the lot configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is sabstantiai. The relief requested may be considered modcrzte to substantial relevant to the carie. The relief for setback is 49.8 ft and the frontage is zero ft 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact 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 comments: The applicant proposes construction of a new 62,£2.0 sq. ft. (floor area),4 story, 92 room hotel with associated parking. Project includes a connector road on adjoining property to Aviation Mall ring road. Included in the project will be a lot line adjustment between 302.5-1-96.1 and 302..5-1-93.1 with the former reduced to 2.5 acres and the later to be increased to 3.81 acres. The plans show the location of the hotel and arrangement of the site for the access drive with the diner and the connector road to the ring road. Zoning Board of Appeals Conrimunity Development Department Staff Noes Zoning Board of,appeals —Record of Resolution Town of Queensbmy 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 Area Variance Resolution To: Approve I Disapprove Applicant Name: Aviation Hospitality, LLQ File Number: Z-A 42-2017 and S -6-2017 Location: 524 Aviation Road Tax Map Number- 342.5-1-96.1 8A Meeting Date: Wednesday,July 19, 2017 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Aviation Hospitality, LLC. ,Applicant proposes construction of a new 62,620 sq. ft., 4-story, 92 room hotel (former site of Howard Johnsons). Project includes lot line adjustment connector road with adjoining lot to Aviation Mall ring road and access realigivnent with Ambrosia Diner. Relief requested from setback and road frontage. PIm ming Board: Site Plan Review required. The applicant requests relief from setbacks and road frontage in the ESC zone (Enclosed Shopping Center). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements ESC zone The applicant proposes a hotel that is to be located 50.2 ft from the front setback where a building over 44 ft in height requires a 100 ft setback—the building is proposed to be 66+1- ft in height. Section 1794-050 frontage on public streets The hotel is to be located on a parcel that is to have no road frontage but will be accessed from the construction of a common drive foT the diner and the hotel along with a connector road from drive to the Mall ring road. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 1 , 2417; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public bearing, 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: PFR THF: DRAFT PJ�OVIDFD RY STA IT 1. There is f 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, arc reasonable and have been included to rninimire the request R are not possible. 3. The requested variance is I is not substantial because 4. There is 1 is not an adverse impact on the physical or enviromnental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged diffif:ulty is l is not self-created because . In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outwei ha(apywval) 1 would be out�v hed 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 cc nsideratiou 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 n'-solution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FIN DINGS, I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVF 1 DENY AREA VARIANCE Z-42-2017, ARIAN E -217. Aviation Hospitality_, LLC, Introduced b , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 19'x' day of July 2017 by the following vote= AYES: NOES; Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals ommuniiy Development Department Staff Note Sign 'Variance No.: 6-2017 Project App]icant: Aviation Hospitality, LLC Project Location: 524 Aviation mead Vareek History: SP 45-2417 EQR Type: Unlisted Meeting Mato: July 19, 2017 Description of Proposed traject: Applicant proposes 3 wall signs for a new hotel; Hcme2. Suites by Milton, Also proposed is a freestanding sign to be on a separate lot"Home2 Suites by Hilton'. Relief requested for number of wall signs. belief also for freestanding sign on separate property, size and setback. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the number of wall signs and a freestanding sign on separate property, size and setback. Section 140-6 Signs ffar which permits are required The applicant proposes three wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. The applicant has indicated the signs are to be 30 sq it, In addition, the applicant proposes a free standing sign to be located on the neighboring property that is 50 sq ft when 45 sq ft is the maximum allowed and to be located two ft from the property line were a 15 ft setback is required. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Taw: 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 due to the unix of signage ira the neighborhood. . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign varianee. Feasible alternatives may be considered to adjust the number of signs and the size of signs. . Wlicthi-)' the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested rmLy be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested for the number of'wall signs is 3 and only 1 is allowed then relief requested for size oflhe free standing sign is 5 sq ft in excess and 13 ft of relief for the setback. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments• The appIicant proposes a new hotel that requires relief for the signage. The applicant also proposes three wail signs where only one is allowed. The applicant has indicated the walls signs each will be 30 sq fk and to be located below the parapet. The free standing sign is to be located on the Aviation Mall property that adjoins the Ambrosia Diner at the new entry drive for the hotel and diner. The sign is to be 50 sq ft and is to be 2 ft from the front property line. The signs are associated with the construction of the new hotel that requires relief for setbacks due to the height along with additional site work. That would occur on A-viation mall property for a connector road to the ring road and a new entryway alignment for the diner and the proposed hotel. Zoning Board of Appol Community Development Department Staff dotes boning Board of Appeals—Rekord of Resoiutxon Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY12804 (518) 761-8238 4 Sign Varinnce resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove Applicant Flame: Aviation Hospitality, LLQ File Number: SV-6-2017 Location; 524 Aviation Road Tax Map Number- 302.5-1-96.1; 302.5-1-93.1 BA Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application frau Aviation Hospitality, LLC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of the Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes 3 wall signs for a new hotel; Home2 Suites by Hilton. Also proposed is a freestanding sign to be on a separate lot"Homc2 Suites by Hilton". Relief requested for number of wall signs. Relief also for freestanding sign on separate property, size and setback. The applicant requests relief from the number of wall signs and a freestanding sign on separate property, size and setback. Section 140-6 Sirens for which permits.are required The applicant proposes three wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. The applicant has indicated the signs are to be 30 sq ft. In addition,the applicant proposes a free standing sign to be located on the neighboring property that is 50 sq ft where 45 sq ft is the maximum allowed and to be located two ft from the property line were a IS ft setback is required. SEQ R Type: Unlisted I Res alu(ion /Action Required for SE R] Motion regarding Sign Variance - - -ZO17, Aviation Hospitality, LLC based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this board finds that this wi11 not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by who moved far its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted 19"{ day of July 2017, by the following vote: AYES; NOES: public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 197 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-0S0(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows; 1. Wil] 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 sitru variance? INSERT RESPONSE 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible For the applif.=t to pursue; other than an sign variance? INSERT RESPONSE 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? INS1:lU RESPON S li 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? WSEI T RES PON SE 5. Ts the alleged difficulty self-created? INSERT RESPONSE , Iu addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would out e% h !would be outweiglied by 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 / DENY Sign Variance Z-SV-6-2017, Aviation Hospitality, LLC, Introduced by ____, who moved for its adoption, seconded by As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. <insert conditions / conlnlents ; 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 b the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the ABA'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 0 Building & codes personnel' E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign pemits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of ficial 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. Dulv adopted this 19'h day of July 2017, by the fallowing vote: A iS: OZR: IdES; _ J 2i' Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community D v lopr ens Department Staff Notes Arca VRrianee No.- 44-2017 Project Applicant: Gardien Wurld Associates, LLC (Silo Restaurant) Project Location: 537 A,viation 'toad Parcel history: SP 49-2017 SEAR Type: Type II Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 DescrEption of Proposer] P��rrjcc#: Applicant propose to remove existing 270 sq. ft. deck and construct a new 400 sq. ft, deck for ivstauru uit's outdoor seating. Project includes evnstruc(ioa of a 64 sq, ft. entryway over existing concrete ramp. ReIiel' requested from minimurn front yard setback and Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setbacks. Plaiming Board: Site Plzn Review required for expansion of outdoor deck for seating and addition of covered entry. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief frons setbacks in the twi 7,oue � ornmercia] intensive). Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements Q1 zone Section 1734-030 travel corridor overlay—Aviation ltd The applicant proposes a 400 scl ft new outdoor eating area deck and an entryway roof 64 sq ft ovor a conereate ramp. The deck is to be located 46.5 ft from the front property line where a 75 ft setback is required. Criteria for considering as Area Variu nee according to Chapter 267 of Town In making a determination, the board shall consider: I. Whether an undesirable chitnge will he produced ire the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Mirror to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasibkc for the applicant to pursue, other than an arca variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing building on the site. 3. Whether the requested arca variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. belief is requested for 2.8.5 ft for the front setback/travel corridor overlay. 4. Whether the propuscd variance will have aro adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or envirorunental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated, S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created Staff comments: The applicant proposes a new 400 sq ft deck and a 64 sq R cover over au existing entTywa . The applicant has included a survey from this April showing the setback to the Silo. The new deck is to be about 2 ft wider than the previous deck to allow better maneuverability from the eating area entryway to the store. A porion of the deck will allow two additional 2 seat tables. Jut 17-13 Warren County Planning Department Project Revkvv and Referral Form Reviewed by Department on July 7, 2017 Project Nance: Garden World Associates Owner: Garden World Associates ID Number- OB -17 AV-44 County Project#: Ju117-18 Current coning: Cl Community: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to remove and replace existing deck with the addition of 100 ft of deck space. Addition of a gabled entry over existing cvncrmie ramp!approx, 8x9 deck is used for seating, Site Location: 537 Avielion Rd 'tax Map Number(s): 302-5-1-50 Staff Notes: The issues here appeerto be of a local nature involving local issues without any significant impactson County properties or resources. Staff recommends no courdy impact based anthe information submitted according to the suggested review criteria of NYS Gen eral Municipal Law Section 239 applied to the proposed project. Local actions to date (if any): ouMy Planuing Department; NCI Local Aetion:{rhial Disposition: 7111 f2p17 Warren County Planning Department Date Signed Local Official Date Signed PLEASE RETURN TRIS G[]RM TO TIER WARREN COUNTY PLANNI\G DEPAWIMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF FINAL ACTION 04-W- Zoning Board of Appeals -Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay load Queensbury, NY 12804 (51$) 761-8239 'Fpwn of{ueermhury Area Variance resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove Applicant Name: Garden World Assoc., LLC (The Silo Restaurant) File umber- -Alf-44-2017 - .•, Location: 537 Aviation road Tax Map Number: 302.5-1-50 ZRA Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Garden World Assoc., LLC (The Silo Restaurant). Applicant propose to remove existing 270 sq. ft. deck and construct a new 400 sq. ft. deck for restaurant's outdoor seating. Project includes construction of 64 sq. ft. entryway over existing concrete ramp. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback and Travel Corridor Overlay Zone setbacks. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of outdoor deck for seating and addition of covered entry. The applicant requests relief from setbacks in the CI zone (Commercial Intensive). Section 1,79-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements C I zone Section 179-4-030 travel corridor overlay-Aviation d The applicmt proposes a 400 sq ft new outdoor eating area deck and an entryway roof 64 sq ft over a concreate rump. The deck is to be located 46.5 ft from the front property line where a 75 ft setback is required. public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 19, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public bearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080( ) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: I'FR 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 2. Feasible altematives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the reques5 OR are not passible. 1 The requested variance is 1 is not substantial because 4. There is / is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmenW conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty i / is not self-created because Pagel of 2 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh {approval} / would be outweigbed 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 condltioiRs: a) b) c) dhl-a-ence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-44-2017. Garden World Assoc.. LLC (The Silo Restaurant), Introduced by �, who moved for its adaption, seconded b Duly adopted this 19`x' day off'July 2417 by the following vote: AYES- NOES: YES:NOES: z� Page 2 of 2 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Develoiameni Department Staff Dotes Area Variance No.: 45-2017 Project Applicant: David & Morgan Stanhape Project Location: Corner of Sweet Rd. & Gauntry Club Rd. Parcel History: P-SP-52-2017; P-FWW-4-2017 SEQR Type: Type II Meeting Date: July 19, 2017 Dmtiption of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,604 sq, ft. single-farnily dv welling. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements. Planning Board. Site Plan Review and Fresh Water Wetlands application review required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements in relation to the wetland located on the property. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone The home is to be located 53 ft from the shoreline where a 75 ft setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Tow 1Lsw: In malring a determination, the board shall consider- 1. onsider: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 areae variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. . Whother the benefit sought by the applicant can he achieved by some method, feasible for the kip VIicant to pursue, other than an arca variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the walands and the location of the proposed home. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 22 ft. The information submitted indicates 507 sq ft of the home would be in the wetland. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditioits in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether•the alleged difficulty was self-created. The diiTiculty may be considered self-created Staff cow nicin ts: The applicant proposes a 2,339 (footprint)sq 1-1 with a floor arca of 3,604 sq ft on un existing 4.43 ac vacant parcel. The applicant has indicated there is a 35 ft buffer area between the site disturbance and the wetland boundary. The applicant has explained there have been two wetland delineations and the Donate to be orientated to be compliant as possible and feasible For access. The platys show the location of the home in relation to the wetland buffer and boundary. JtiII 7-14 Warren County Planning Department Project review and Referral Form Reviewed by Department on July 7, 2017 Project Name: Stanhope, David & Morgan Owner: Stanhope, David & Morgan JD Nt]mher: QBY-17-AV-45 County Pn)jeet#I: Ju117-14 Current Zoning: MDR ommu]tity: Queensbury Project Description: Applicant proposes to improve vacant lot with construction of single family home. Site Location: Corner of Sweet Rd& Country Club Rd Tac Map Number(s): 295.15-1-1 Staff Notes: The issues here eppearto be of a local nature involving local issues without any significant impactson County properties or resources, Staff recommends no county impact based onthe infounation submitted according to the suggested review criteria of N YS General Municipal Law Section 239 applied to the proposed project_ Local actions to date (if any): County Planning Department: NCI Local Action:lFins] Disposition: 711112017 Warren County Planning Department Date Signed Local Official Date Signed PLEASE RETURN IHrS FORM TO THE WARREN COUNTY PLANNrNG DEPARTME's'r WITHIN]U DAYS OF FINAL AC TION Zoning Board of Appeals —Record of Resolution r Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-9238 Town d(Lueeris jin, Area Variance Resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprovc- Applicant Name: David and Morgan Stanhope File Number- -A -45-2017: )Location: corner of Sweet load & Country Club Road Tape Map Number: 296.15-1-1 Z13A Meeting Date: Wednesday, July 19, 2017 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town o f Queensbury teas mceived an application from David and Morgan Stan hop e. Applicant proposes construction of 3,604 sq, ft. single-family dwelling. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review and Fresh Water Wetlands application review required. The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback requirements in relation to the %yetland located on the property. Section 179-3-040 establishment.of districts-dimensional requirements MDR zone The home is to be located 53 ft from the shoreline where a 75 ft setback is required. SEQR Type II —no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 19, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-O80(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: I'F"R 'l HE, DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is 1 is not an undesirable changc in the character of the neighborkood Dior a detriment to nearby properties because 2. Feasible attematives are and live been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the reguest O are not possible. 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 J is not self-created because Page I of 2 . In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (Wroval) 1 would be outweighed b denial the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neigliborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum neecssary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions. a) b) 9 c) Adhereme to the items outlined in the fallow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FI DrNG . I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DEFY AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-45-2017, David and Morgan Stanhope, Introduced b , who moved fox its adoption, seconded b Duly adopted this 19`x' da} of July 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Page 2 of 2 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Appeal No.: -2017 Appellant: Frank & Isobel runoff Project Location: Halliday - BP AST 148-2017 Meeting Date: May 17, 2017 Information requested: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to the issucince of o [wilding permit for the above referenced matter. staff comments: First, Standing.- Was tanding:Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day fiime frame and is the appealing part► aggrieved Building Permit AST 148-2017 was approved by the Zoning Administrator on April 13, 2017. The Notice of Appeal application/letter was originally filed with the Town on June 6, 2017 and supplemented on lune 16, 2017. • The appellant has not offered any informatian regarding a direct damage or harm to them that differs from that of the general public, or an explanation of how they are aggrieved. They are a nearby property owner. Second, Merits of the argument it the appellant is found to have standing: The appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals regarding the issuance of Building Permit AST 148-2017. The appellant asserts that the wilding permit should not have been issued because: Should be an Accessory Structure and require an Area variance • Neighbors were not notified Lake George Pork Commission denied the project • Building does not meet ony Town Codes Density requirements not met Wetlands Setbacks and Stormwater runoff concerns The Variance, density and setback issues are not ripe for an Appeal to this Board. The allotted timeframe to challenge these items has expired and these items, along with others were discussed during a previous Munoff Appeal (NOA 1 .2017) which was decided in favor of the Zoning Administrator. With regard to the other items asserted as merits of the appellants' arguments-. The Lake George Park Commission has issued a Notice of Intent to Deny. This affords the applicant and opportunity to appeal. Halliday has filed such an appeal. The LGPC has not denied the application as of this writing. Neighbor notification is not required for a buildlng permit. The project was reviewed and approved by the Planning Board. The Zoning Administrator reviewed the Building Permif plans for compliance with the Planning Board approval and, having found the plans in compliance, issued a zoning approval for the building permit. Page 2 of L\Laura Moore\5t❑fP MoteAZBA\2017\D7 19 21017\Staff noses NOA 2-2D17 Munolf_doc Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Slaff Motes Zoning Board of Appeals—Rccard of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 Tcnvn of CLucensbUry Notice of Appeml Resolution RESOLUTION TO: Approve I Disapprove �`I Notice of Appeal: -NOA- -2017 Appellant Name: Frank and Isobeliunoff Tax Map No. 240.,5-1-3 Property Location: 2599 State Route 9L, Property Owner: Harold & Lyn Halliday RESOLUTION TO: Approve , Disapprove Appeal Z-NOA-2-2017, Frank and Isobel Munoff regarding property owned by Harold and Lyn Halliday at 2599 State Route 9L, Tax Map No. 240.5-1-32; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank and Isobel Munoff. Appellant is appealing to the Zoning board of Appeals relative to the issuance of a building permit for the above referenced matter. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday. July 19. 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the opplicable criteria of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of the NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. The Appeal was filed, was not filed wiihin the required 60-day timeframe. , The Appealing Party is, is riot aggrieved and were found to have, not have standing- The merits of the argument as provided by the appellant with responses from the Zoning Administrator have been considered. It is our finding thct the positions offered by the appellant are, are not sufficient to warrant overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision at hand. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY Appeal Z-NOA- -2017, FRANK & ISOBEL MUROFF, Introduced b , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 19th day of July, 2017 , by the following vote: AYES- NOES, YES-OE :