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: