Loading...
Staff Notes Packet ZBA Wed., September 27, 2017 zffNe s ZBA Meeting Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Queensbury Zoning Board ofAppeaAgenda Meeting: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 Time: 7;00- 11 ;00 pm Queensbury Activities Center- 742 Bay Rood Agenda subject to change and may be found at: www-queensbury.net RUViNIA Aktuda: 9.212.2017 NEW BUSINESS: Ak lican# s Benjamin L.Aronson Trust by Michael Mtkller Area Variance leo ZrAV-62-2017 Owners Amnson Trost SE RA Typc II Agent(s) n/a Lot Size 10.29 acres Location 1516 Ridge Road Zoning MDR WFLrd No. Ward I Tax Id No 266.3-1-76 Sudan 179-5-020A Cross Ref Iva Warren County Planning September 2017 Public Henring I September 27,2017 J, Adirondack Part,Agency AILD Project Description Applicant proposes construction of a 3,150 sq. ft. scoond garage on a 10.29 acre parcel vvlrieh has an existing 3,330 sq,ft. single-fami ly dive]ling with attached garage. Rel iof requested for a second game on a parcel wherc only one is allowed and for size. SURVEY WA IVFR APPROVED A lican s Jennifer Handler Area Variance No 7rAV-61-2017 Owners Jennifer Handler SEQRAType II Agent(s) Curtis D.D boys RA Lot Size 0.40 acres Location 19 Trout Pavilion Road Zoning WR Ward No. Ward 1 Tax Id No 227-10-1-28 Section 179-3-040- 179-5-UG Cross Ref BOTH 398-2417 Accessory Structure(shed) Warren County Plannin September 2017 Public Hearin September 27, 2017 Adirondack Park A en ALD Project Description Applicant proposes to maintain existing 9 ft,6 in,by 7 ft. 6 in.dock storage shed w ith part of an existi ng sundeck structure under stairs- Relief rcqucsicd from shoreline setback requirements for WR xon ing district- A licca s Sean artd Jennifer Kennedy Area Variance No Z-AV-60-2017 Owners Sean and Jennifer KennBdy KennedySE RA Type E Agent(s) Joe Fuerst—All Points Land Survey,PLLC Lot Size 44.5 acres I Location 279 Chestnut Midge Road Zoning MDR Ward No. Ward 1 Tax Id No 290.-1-48 and 47 Section 179-4-050 Cross Ref Warren Counky,Planning Se tember 2017 Public Heariag September 27 2017 AdiroudackPark Agency nJa Frojeet Description Appiicani proposes a boundary lot line adjustment which will result in a lot that does not meet the minimum road Frontage roquirements for the MDR Zoning district, Lot 2{will be increased from 4.1 acres to 14.4 acres arid Lot l %will be reduced from 47-6 acres to 34-2 acres, Lot 1 {wil l have an easement allowing Lot 2 access through an existi ng drivewway to Chestnut Ridge Road. Lot l %w i I I have a shared driveway. Relief requested for road frontage(physical access). Note to Agenda Stuff, (Send Notification to Washington County Town of Kingsbury) Applicant(s) William and Franocs Hannan Arca Variance No Z-AV-502017 Owner(s) William and Franccs Hannan SE RAT c II A en#(s) Jonathan -Lapper,E -BPSR Lot Size 0.24 acres - - Location 7 Glen Hall Drive—Gen La1w Zoning WR Ward No. Ward 1 Tax Id No 289.11-1-29 Section 179-5-(�6Q Cross W nfa WnrrLn County Planning rVa Public Hearl n Sc ttmbr-r27,2017 Adirondack Park Agmi n}a Project Description Applicant proposes to maintain a 5 fit, 14 in,by 24 fL dock that is 7 ft-from tho property line where 20 ft- is required. Applicant proposes to remove a 9 ft. by 13 ft-3 in-dock extension as pert of the project. Relief requested fram minimum side setbacks requirements for the dock lucaiion. Page l of 2 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appear s Agenda Meeting: wednesdOyr Septernbef 27, 2017 Time; 7:00. 11.00 pm Queensbury Activities Center-742 Bay Road Agenda subject to change and rnoy be found at: www.queensbL)ry.net Applicant(s) Elizabeth Collins Area Variance No Z-AV-63-2017 Owners Elizabetb Collins SE RA Type II Agent(s) n/a Lot Size 034 acres Location 19 rjDffison Road Zoning MOR Ward No. Ward 2 Tax Id No 302.11-I-57 Section ]79-5-070 Cross Ref n/a Warren�Qnnty Planning, September 2017 Publie HeRfing Se tcmber 27,2017 Adirondack Park Agency nfa Project Description Applicant proposes to replaoe detericnting wood(39+1-linear ft.)paivacy fence with another 6 I1. high fence in kind. Relief requested from maximurn height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard(comer lot with North Road)and type of fence(privacy), SURVr?Y WAIVLR APPROVED Now to Agenda and Staff; Send Notification to C ity ofUlens Fails A lieant s Michael and Karen LeBlanc Aren Voriauce No 7rAV-55-2017 Owner(s) Michael and Karcn LeBlanc SEQRA Type II Agent(s) nJa Lot Sizu 2.8 acres Location 34 Warren Lane Zoning MDR with Mobile glome Ward No. Ward 4 overly Tax Id No 308.6-1-07 SerdDFL 179-3-040 Cross Ref P-SR-14-2417 Prelim.;P-SB 15-2017 Final Warren Coun Planning n1a Public Hearing Scpternber 20.2017 Tablod to September 27,2017 with Adirondack Park Agency n/a PH left open Project Desc ri ptio n Appl icant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into 2.57 acres and 0.23 acres(100 ft. by 100 ft.)- Main lot, 2,57 acres, has an existing home to remai n. New lol.0.23 acres,has ttn existing garage that wil I be removed to place a double-wide mobile hams. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the newly orcated lot in the MDR zDning district and Mobile Homo Overlay district. Planning Board. Subdivision Application for the creation of the additional lot. Any further business that die Chairman deterinines inay be properly hrouort before the%oning Board of Appeal s. Revised Version: 4.Z 1.2017 LIVI/sh LeBlanc AV application added to agenda Final Z13A Agenda Version 8.24.2017 CWL[VJsh pk4e 2 of 2 Town of Cueensbufy Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Varisknee Na-.- 62-2017 Project Applicant: Renjamin L.Aronson 'frust by Mic had !Muller Project Location: 1516 Ridge Road Parcel History: n/a SEAR Type= Type II !Meeting rate: September 27, 2017 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,150 sq. :ft. second garage on a 10.24 acre parcel %vhich has an existing 3.334 sq. ft. single-family dwelliag with attached garage. Relief requested for a second garage on a parcel where only one is allowed and for size. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief Required: The applicant request relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-020—Accessary Structures—garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached where only one is allowed. Tn addition the garage exceeds the square footage allowed. The applicant proposes a 3,330 sq int garage and 2,200 sq ft is the rnaximurn allov.,ed. Criteria for considering an Area 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 area variance. Minor too no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by source method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an arca variance. Feasible alternatives be considered to include an addition to the existing gzragc. . Whether the requested area varianee is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is to allow two garages where only one is allowed. Relief is also requested for the sire of the building 1,130 sq ft in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or hapset on the physical or environmental coaditions 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 ►vas self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. staff Comm The applicant proposes to construct a 3,330 sq ft second garage for the storage of cars. There is an existing easement area to access the garage from an adjoining parcel. The applicant leas indicated no driveway to be installed access will be from the existing lawn area. The applicant has indicated there will be electric service for the building. The applicant received a waiver for providing a survey showing the existing conditions where the home is shown on the tax map hith the proposed new detached garage location. The plans show the type of garage that is intended to be constructed. Zoning Board of Appeals amrnunity Development Department Staff Notes 1)RAZoning Board of Appeals— Record of Resolution l 7' Town of Qucensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 'rown of(Lueea4bury Area Variance resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove Applicant Name: Benjamin L. Aronson Trust by Michael Muller File Number: 2-A -62-2017 Location- 1516 Ridge Road Tax Map Number: 266.3-1-7 ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 2 7, 2017 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Benjamin L. Aronson Trust by Me-hael Muller. Applicant proposes construction of 3,150 sq. ft. second garage on a 10,29 acre parcel which has an existing 3,330 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with attached garage. Relief requested for a second garage on a parcel where only one is a]lowed and for size. SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief required: The applicant request relief for second garage on parcel where only one is allowed. Section 179-5-02.0—Accessory Structures—garage: The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached where only one is allowed. in addition the garage exceeds the square footage allowed. The applicant proposes a 3,330 sq ft garage and 2,200 sq ft is the maximum allowed. SEAR Type II —no further review required; A. public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 27, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified its 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: PER THE DRIFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neigliborhood 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 the request OR are not possible, 3. The requested variance is Iis is not substantial because 4. There i.s. 1 is not an adverse inipact on the physical or environmental conditions in the ueighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-created because 6, 1n addition the Board finds that the benef-it to the applicant from granting the requested vat-iance would, outweigh (approval) 1 would be outweighed b denial the resulting detriment to the health, saMy and welfare of the neighborhood or conununity; 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. 13A.SED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS T MADE A MOTION TO ,APPROVE J DENY AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-62-2017 Ben'amin L. Aronson Trust by Michael Muller, Introdluced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by : Duly adopted this 7"' day of September 2017 by the following vote: AYES NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance leo.. 61-2017 Praicet Applicant: Jennifer Handler Project Location: 19 Trout pavilion hood Parcel History- 130Th 395-2017 Accessory Structure (shed) SEAR Type: Type II Meeting Date: September 27,2917 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a recently reconstructed 9 ft, 6 in. by 7 ft. 6 in, dock storage shed with part of an existing sundeck structure under stairs. Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements for WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from, sboreline setback requirements for WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 —establishment of districts The applicant requests to maintain an existing dock storage shed at the shoreline where it is 4 ft frorn the shoreline where a 50 ft setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area 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 dctrimxent to nearly properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated the shed existed beneath the stairs before it was resided/improved. . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the shed beneath the deet. . Whether the requested area variance is-substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 46 1t. d. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physicaI 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 arca. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff Comm The applicant requests to maintain a shed under the deck stairs. The applicant has explained the reconstruction of the dock facility and obtaining the permit from the Lake George Park Commission. The shed was also}part of the reconstr tion and the applicant applied for the localfTown permit after the fact then was notified the shed portion would require a variance. The plans show the location of the shed and the applicant bas provided photos of the shed. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Dotes 0 c"', ow Zoning Board of Appeals —Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay load Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8239 fcnvrr GFCLee,rsa ary Area 'Variance Resolution To: Approve !Disapprove Applicant Name. Jennifer Handler File Number: -A -61-2017 Location; 19 Trout Pavilion load Tax Map Number: 227.10-1-28 BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 2.7, 2017 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jennifer Handler. Applicant proposes to maintain a recently reconstructed 9 fL 6 in. by 7 ft. 6 in. dock storage shed with part of an existing sundeck structure under stairs. Relief requested from shoreline setback requirements for WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from shoreline setback requirements for WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 --establishment of districts The applicant requests to maintain an existing dock storage shed at the shoreline where it is 4 ft from the shoreline where a 50 ft setback is required. SEAR Type II—no further review required; public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 27, 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 NYS Town Law and after 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 Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the iuest OR 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. Is the alleged difficulty is .' is not self-created because . In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outwei ha roval 1 would be outwei bed 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. IIA E A MOTION TO APPROVE I DENY AREA VARIANCE -AV- 1-2017 Jenni feir Handler, Introduced by ; who moved for its adoption, seconded b Duly adopted this 7u, day of Scpternber 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area 'Variance No.: 60-2017 Project Applicant: Sean & Jennifer Kennedy, Prnject Location; 2791 C heshut Ridge Road Parcel History: n/a SEAR Type: 'lope Yr Meeting Date: September 27,2017 lYseription of Proposed Pro*t: Applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment which will result in a lot that docs not meet the minimum road f Montage requirements for the MDR zoning district. Lot 2 will be increased from 4.1 acres to 14.4 acres and Lot 1 will be reduced from 47.6 acres to 34.2 acres. Lot 1 will have an easement alto wing Lot 2 access tluough an existing driveway to Chestnut Midge Road. Lot 1 will have a shared driveway. Relief requested for road frontage (physical access). Relief 1Requxrcd: The applicant requests relieffor road frontage (physical access). Section 179-4-050—Frontage on 1rublic or private The boundary line adjustment places lot 1 of 34.2 ac to have shared access to Chestnut Midge Road through lot as lot 1 does not have physical road frontage, Criteria for considering an Arca Varia nee according to C hapter 267 of Tov�rn I 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. '17he project may be considered to have, minor impact on the neighboring properties as Lot 1 contains an existing home and currently access Chestnut Midge Road through the existing driveway. . Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can he achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the lot configurAion and location. 1-he applicant proposes utilizing a sham driveway that would limit the number of access onto the public road. 3. Whether the requested arca variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The project utilizes existing drive for shared access where relief is for not having direct access to the Town road. 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; Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of a 47.6 ac parcel and a 4.1 acre parcel. Where the existing 47.6 ac parcel currently contains the existing home and has the driveway—this parcel is reduced to 34.2 ac and will then have no road frontage. The adjoining lot of 4.1 ac will be increased to 14.4 ae and is currently 'vacant and will be improved with a single family home and associated site work. The lot will then have physical road frontage and will develop a driveway that will merge with the existing driveway. Zoning Board of Appeals ernmunity Development Department Staff Notes Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution, Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 T wil of(Loxymbury Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/ Disapprove Applicant Name: Sean & Jennifer Kennedy File Number: -A -60-2017 Location: 279 Chestnut Ridge Road Tax Map umber: 2W-1-48 and 47 'LBA Meeting Date. Wednesday, September 27, 2417 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Sear] and Jennifer Kennedy. Applicant proposes a boundary lot line adjustment which will result in a lot that does not meet the minimum road frontage requirements for the MDR zoning district. Lot 2 will be increased from 4.1 acres to 14.4 acres and Lot 1 will be reduced from 47.6 acres to 34.2 acres. Lot 1 will have an casement allowing Lot 2 access through an existing driveway to Chestnut Ridge Road. Lot 1 MI1 have a shared driveway. Relief requested for road frontage (physical access). Relief required: The applicant requests relief for road frontage (physical access). Section 179-4-050 —Frontage on public or rivate The boundary line adjustment places lot I of 34,2 ac to knave shared access to Chestnut Ridge Road through lot 2 as lot 1 does not have physical road frontage. SF-QR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 27, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-084(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 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 miTdrnize the request DIS are not possible. 3. The requested variance is 1 is not substantial because 4. There is J is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborbood or district? 5. Is 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(approval) 1 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; $_ The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASE] ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARIANCE -AV- 0-2017 Sean & Jennifer Kennedy, Introduced by , who droved for its adoption, seconded b Duly adopted this 27`x' day of September 2017 by the fallowing vote- AYES- NOES. ote-AYES;NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Arca Variance No.: 56-2017 Project Applicant: William & Frances Hannan Project Location: 7 Glen Hall Drive Parcel History: nla ER'lpe: Type II Meeting Date: September 27,2017 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain a 5 ft. 10 in. by 24 ft. dock that is 7 fL from the property line where 20 ft. is required. Applicant proposes to remove a 9 ft. by 13 fl. 3 in, dock extension as part of the project. Relief requested firom minimum side setbacks requirements for the dock location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from, minimum setback requirements for a dock. Section 179-5-060 docks boathouses moorings— Waterfront Residential Zone WR The applicant proposes to maintain ars existing dock at 7 ft from the property line where a 20 tt setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether am undesirable change will be produced in the &9 ratter 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. The applicant is removing a portion of the dockl 17 +/- sq ft extension and leaving a 24 ft by 5 ft 10 in dock. . Whether the berke#it 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 to relocate the dock in a compliant location. The applicant has indicated relocation would cause shoreline disturbance. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantiai relevant to the code. The relief requested is 13 ft to the north side of the property where the existing setback is to rernain. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or inipact 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 tike alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff cammenta• The applicant has indicated they understand the dock and extension is nonconfonning and are requesting only the dock to remain in the existing configuration. The survey shows the location of the dock and extension. `here are no other site changes. Zoning Board ofAppeals ommunity Development Department Siatf Notes Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution I'own or ueensbury 742 Bay road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8239 FcFwri of CLuenisbtiry C7Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/ Disapprove Applicant Name: William and Frances Hannan File Number: -AY-5 -2017 Location: 7 Glen Hall Drive Tax Map Number: 289.11-1-29 Meeting plate: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application William and Frances Hannan. Applicant proposes to maintain a 5 ft. 10 in. by 24 ft. dock that is 7 ft. from the property line where 0 ft. is required. Applicant proposes to remove a 9 ft. by 13 ft. 3 in, dock extension as part of the project. Relief requested from minimum side setbacks requirements for the dock location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for a dock, Section 179-5-060 Docks boathouses mogdagaz Waterfront Residential Zone WR The applicant proposes to maintain an existing dock at 7 ft frorn the property line where a 20 ft setback is required. SEAR Type I1 ^ no further review required; public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 27, 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(4) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: PER THE DRA I' PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. Thete is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a d&- iment to nearby properties because 2.. Feasible alternatives are _ and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request OR are not possible. I The requested variance is f is not substantial because 4. There is 1 is not an adverse impact on the physical ar environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty is 1 is.not self-created because 6In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) f would be outweighed by (decrial) 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 iterns outlined in the follow-up later sent with this resolution, BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARIANCE Z-AV- 6-2017 William and Frances Harman, Introduced b . , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 27th day of September 2017 by the following vote: A'Y'ES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Deportment Staff Metes Area Variance leo.: 63-201.7 Project Applicant: ElizRheth Collins Project Location: 19 Garrison Road Parcel History: n{a SEQR Type: Type II Meeting Date: September 27,2017 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace deteriorating woad (59 +1- linear ft.) privacy fence with another 6 ft. high fence in kind. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard (corner lot with North load) and type of fence (privacy). SURV.2 Y WAIVER APPROVED Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum height restilctions for fence placement in a front yard (oorner lot with North load) and type of fence (privacy). Section 179-5-070 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 6 ft stockade and will be located on North Road, where the property is located at the corner of Garrison and North Road. Criteria for considering an Area Varianee'according to Chapter 267 of Town Lar�r: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced io 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 arca variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered for a compliant fence height. S. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 2 ft in excess of the allowed fence height and stockade. 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- . Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments- The applicant proposes to complete removal of the existing fence and to install a 6 ft i-ence l-or 58 ft +!- section that will be along North Road- The applicant has indicated the fence existing prior to their purchase of the property and is needed for privacy, and security- ly. .: Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8239 "ro�r'��taf(�rirlrslxary Area VaNan ce Resolution To: Approve /Disapprove A FT Applicant Name: Elizabeth Collins File Number- Z-AV- 3-2.017 Location; 19 Garrison Road Tax Map Number: 302.11-1-57 BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 27, 2017 The Zoning Board ofAppeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Elizabeth Collins. Applicant proposes to replace deteriorating wood 9 +J- linear ft.)privacy fence with another 6 It, high fence in kind. Relief requested from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard korner lot with North Road) and type of fence (privacy), SURVEY WAIVER APPROVED Relief equhrd: The applicant requests relief from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard korner lot with North Road) and type of fence (privacy . Section 179- -470 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 6 ft stockade and will be located on North Road, where the property is located at the conker of Garrison and North Road. SEAR Type II—no further review required; public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 2.7, 2017; Upon review of the application materials, infoiTnation supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-0 0(A) of the Qwensbury Town Code and Chapter 2.67 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as fol lows: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAF1~ 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 minimize t e request OR are not possible. 3. The requested variance is /is not substantial bcLause 4. There is 1 is nut an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is the alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-created because 6. In addition the Board feuds thRt the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (a roval 1 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; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) x c) Adherence to the items outlined in the fallow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FWDINCS, I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARIANCE 63-2017 Elizabeth Collins, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 27"' flay of September 2017 by the following.vote: AYES: NOES: Zoning Board of Appeals — Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742. Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 Town of(tuec,i.Airly Arca Variance Resolution To: Table Applicant NgFne: Michael and Daren LeBlanc File Number: Z-AV-55-2417 Location: 34 Warren Lane Tax Mop Number: 308.6-1-67 ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 20, 2017 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael and Karen LeBlanc. Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of 2.8 aoire parcel into 2.57 acres and 0.23 acres(100 ft. by 100 ft.). Main lot, 2.57 acres, has an existing home to remain. New lot, 0.23 acres, has an existing garage that wi11 be reinoved to place a double-wide mobile home. ReIiefrequested from minimum lot size requirements for the newly created iot in the MDI.coning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. Planning Board: Subdivision Application for the creation of the additional lot. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE A -55-2017 MIC AEL & KAREN LEBLANC lntroduoed by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michel le Hayward: Tabled to the September 2 7, 2017 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 20t` day of September, 2017, by the following vote: AYES- Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES. NONE ABSENT. Mr. McCabe, Mr, Kuhl Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals omrnunIty Development Department Staff Notes Arca Variance No.: 55-2017 Project Applicant: Michael & Karen 1ARIanc Project Location: 34 Warren Lane PRreel History: P-SB-14-201'7 Prelim.; P-SB 15-2017 Final EQR Type: Type I1 Meeting Date: September 20,2017 (Tabled to the eptember 27, 2017 Meeting) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into 2.57 acres and 0.23 acres (100 ft. by 100 ft.). Maim lot, 2.57 acres, has an existing home to rem,axu. New lot, 023 acres, has an existing garage that wi11 be removed to place a double-wide mobile home. belief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the newly created lot in the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. Planning Board: Subdivision Application for the creation of'the additional lot. Relief Required: 1'79-3-040 Establishment of Districts dimensional reg uirement MDR zone The applicant requests the following relief. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements to created a 0.23 acre lot in the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. The MDR zone requires 2 acres if site is not connected to sewer and water. The site only has municipal water. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: Io making2t 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 alteratives may be considered limited as the existing parcel is an odd configuration at 2.8 ac, Whether the requested stress variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 1.77 ac 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has shown a compliant septic system can be installed on the site along with the placement of a mobile home. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff Comments The applicant proposes to subdivide a 18 ac parcel into two parcels. One lot is to be 2.57 ac and to maintain an existing home and a wooded/garden area. The second lot is to be .2.3 ae and a garage }wilding is to be removed then a mobile home with a septic can be installed on the lot. The applicant has also indicated a replacement septic system can be installed on the 2.57 ac parcel through an easement. The applicant has indicated the new lot is for their daughter and the home and lot size is similar to some of the neighboring properties, _ Zoning Board of Appeals —Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (519) 761-82'08 Towri ar{ILrcapshury Area Variance Resolution To. Approve 1 Disapprove Applicant Name; Michael and Karen LeBlanc File Number: Z-A' -55-2017 Location: 34 Warren Lane ` Tax Map Number: 308.6-1-67 BA Meeting Date. Wednesday, September 27,2017 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Miehnel and Karen LeBlanc. Applicant proposes a two lot subdivision of a 2.8 acre parcel into 2..57 acres and 0.23 acres (100 ft, by 10011.). Main lot, 2.57 acres, has an existing home to remain. New lot, 0.23 acres, has an existing garage that will be removed to place a double-wide mobile home. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the newly created lot in the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay district. Planning Board: Subdivision Application for the creation of the additional lot. Relief Required: 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimension requirement MDR zone The applicant requests the following relief. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements to created a 0.2.3 acre lot in the MDR zoning district and Mobile Horne Overlay district. The MDR zone requires 2 acres if site is not connected to sewer and water. The site only has municipal water. SEAR Type 11—no further review required; public hearing was advertised and held on Wed oesday, September 20,2417; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria sped fied in Section 179-14-080(A) oftbe, Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: PFR THE DRAFT PRO IDFD BY STAFF 1. There is 1 i�_not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby propertles because 2.. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, ark reasonable and have_been included to minimize the request OR 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 environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. is the alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-c�reated because In addition the Burd finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) l 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 min imum necessary; $_ The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) , c) Adherence to#tie items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BA S ED ON THE ABOVE r•(N QrNG S. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE I DENY AREA VARIANCE O.Z-A -S5-2017, Michael &Karcri LeBlanc, Introduced by , who shoved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 27`h day of September 2017 by the following vote- AYES: NOES: