Staff Notes Packet ZBA Mtg Wed. October 18, 2017 St,%ff Notes
ZBA Meeting
Wednesday, October 18 , 201 7
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
Meeting: Wednesday, October 18, 2017 Time, 7_00- 11.,00 pm
Queensbury Activities Center-742 Bay Roar!
Agenda subject to change and may be found at. www.queensbury,net
Annruval ofineetirae nkjTiw.cu; Scptembcr20 and 27,2417
OLD BUSINESS;
Applicant(s) James 1Be Harr Pars,lnc_ Arca Varianrtz N L-AV-35-2017
owners Hars Pars Inc. SE RA Type
A nt s n1a Lot Size 10.69 Acre(s)
Location 169 Sunnysi&Road Zoning MUM
Ward Na. I Ward I
Tax Id No I I Section 179-3-040
Crass Ref I SB 7-2017 Prolirn&S13 8-2017 Final Warren County Manning Ma 2017
Public Wearing 17 2017 Tablcd to October 18,2017 Adirondack Park Apn5Z rda
Project DeKdution Applicant proposes subdivision of]and where existing golf course bad aurid 4-unit apartment complex are located into two
parols. The apau'lment complex,Lot 1 1,WI be 0.30 acres and the go]f wursa,Lot 2 will be 10.56 acres.Relief requested from minimum lot size 1
density,building set3iacks,and permeability fequiroments of tho MDR zoning district. Revised to show a replwxmont septic for lot I on lot 2 by
cawment. Planning Board; Subdivision review is re uircd for the creation of die new lots,
Applicant(s) Wahart Real Estate Business Trust Sign Variance No Z-SV4-2017
()'Amer(s) Waalmart Deal Estate Busine Unlisted
A nt(s b2 Architecture and Eng] Apprlesllon withdrywn 17-74 acres
Location 891 State Route 9 on Orlubu 11,2017 Cl
Ward No. Ward Z
Tax Id No 296.17-1-36 Section Chapter 140
Cross Ref P-SP-60-2417-,SV 71-2003 Warren County Plaming September 2017
Public Hewing I Sepftmber 2.0,2017 Tabled to October 18 2417 Adimridark Park Agency n1a
Proiect Description Applicant proposes installation of an intdCraally lit 55.76 sq,ft.wall sign For"Pick Up"and to iroclude tike Wal smart Spark_
Relief req uested for signage in excess of the aallowuble limit for wed l signs.
NEW BUSINESS:
A licwit s Ste hen H_and Deborah A. Richards Area Variance No Z-AV-43-2017
Ows Sitehen H.and Deborah A.Richard SE RA Type II
t s n!a Lot Size 1.26 Acte(s)
Location 65 Hicks Road Zoning MDR
Ward No. Ward I
Tax Id No 297.7-1-26 Section 179-5-020
Cross Ref AST-247-2017 shad;AV 14-2012 second garage; Warren County Planning October 2017
SUB 5-1944 Administrative for McGuire
Public HeEjE& October 18,2017 Adirondack Park Agency nla
Proica tion Applicant proposes construction of a 400 sq. It shed next to an existing 400 sq.ft.shed. The pa=l also has an existiog 2.337
sq. ft.home,768 sq_tL detached garage and a 144 sq. ft.shod, Reliefrequested from maximum allowable size,number ofallowable accessory
slrucWre and setbacks for such Stnroture in the MDR zoning district.
A li s Stc ham and Dt borah Richards Area Varianao No Z-AV-67-2017
Owner(&) Stephen and Deborah Richards SL RAT a Il
A s nfa Lot Sias 1.26 Ac s
Location 65 Hicks Road Zoning MDR
Ward No. Ward l
Tax Id No 297.7-1-26 Section 179-5-UO
Cans Ref Z-AV-43-2017;AST-247-2417 shed Warren County PlAnr;ing October 2017
Fablic,HeurinS j QGtober 18 2017 Adirondack Park Ageny nfa
Pre[eot Deserimi-Qu Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 1 installed Fence lbv"in the front yard. Rel ief requested For placement
and hci ht as the fence exceeds the inax imum allowab le height of 4 feet For fences in front yards.
Page 1 of 2
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
Meeting. Wedne5d❑y, October 18, 2017 Time: 7;00 - 11:00 PM
Queensbury ACiM fies Center-742 Bay Road
Agenda subject to change and rt}ay be found at: www.queensbury.net
A licant s Katharine Seo1 a Area Variance No 7-AV-7t}-2017
Owner(s) Katharine Seel a SE RA Type ]l
Agent(s) Dennis MacElroy,PE Environmental Design Lot Size 0-62 Acre(s)
PKWMhi
Location 14 Crooked Tree Drive Zoning WR
Ward No- Ward l
Tax Id No 239.15-1-10 Section 179- -M
Cross Ref P-SP-55-2017;Z-AV-53-2017 Warren Coun -Plann ink October 2017
Public Tiearin.A October 1 S 2017 Adirondack Park Agency ALD
Proieet.Doy it tion Revised Area Variance for eanstuatlon ora 16 R.by 16 ft.(256 sq. R.)residenlial addition instead of the previoulsy approved
14.5 ft.by 16 n,(225 sq-ft-)residential addition by iho ZBA on August 23,2011 Rel Wf regmRted from m inimum shorollne and setback
uiroment5 ror the WR zoning district. Planning Eoard_ Site Plan Review roquircd for expansion of a nonconforming structure,,%66in a CEA.
A li s M lou and Robert Dunton Area Variance No 71-AV-69-2017
t?wn a Marylouand Robert Durston &E RA Type It
Ages) Dennis MacEiroy,PE Environmental Design Lot Size 1,29 Acre(s)
Partnership
Location 18 Tall T'unbws Road Zoning WR
Ward No- Ward 1
Tax Id No 239.16-1-25 Section 179-4-010; 179-5-020
Cross Ref Pte!?-652017 Warren COU!!ty P lannIng Ouober 2017
Publio Hearing October 18 2017 Adirondack Park Agency ALD
Project Descriutistu Applicant proposes construction of a 2,255 sq.ft.residential addition to existing 786 aq,it home which will include a second
gmp;original floor arca 3.323 sq-ft_and proposed is 7,377 sq, ft. Project includes construction of an additional covered walkway area to Iho
existing garage;and a 90 s+ft.upstairs deck area. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements,shoreline setbacks,expansion or a
nonconforming structure and for a second where only one is allowabic on the cel- Planning Board: Silo P]aE+Review reg uimd.
Applicant(s) Larry Clete Area Varian= No Z-AY-66-2017
Owner(s) Laftyclute SE RAT 4 !!
A t s nfa Lot Size 4.14 Ac*s)
Location comer of Ohio&Central Avenues Zoning NR
Kurd No. Ward 4
Tax]d No 309-9-1-87 Section 179-3-040
Cross Ref AV 24-2010' BOH Res- 12-2010 Warren Cou Planning Wa
Public HEaring I October l$ 2017 Adirondack Park A c n1a
Project description Applicant proposes plac=ant of a 1,650 sq.fl.manufhck=d home on the parcel, Rc]{ef requested from minimum setback
requirements.
Any furthe r bus incss that the Chairman determines may be properly bro ught berate the Zon Lng Board of Appeals-
Revised Version; Thurs, 10-12-2017 sh Wahnart withdrawn
Revised Version; Tues, 10,3.2017 sh Richards WCTY PL shed
Floral Version: Friday 9.29.2017 CBlLMlsh
Page 2 of 2
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Areuar um� a No.: 35-2017
Project Applicant: James Beaty (liars Pars, Inc.)
Project Location: 168 Sunnyside Road
Marcel History: SB 7-2017 Prelim & SIS -2017 Final
BR Type: Type II
!Meeting Date: October 18,2017
Description of Proposed i'roject:
Applicant proposes subdivision of land where existing golf course bar/ and 4-unit apartment complex are
located into mro parcels, The apartment ,complex, Lot 1 will be 0.30 acres and the golf course, Lot 2 wi11 be
10.56 acres, Relief requested from minimum lot size I density, building setbacks, and permeability requirements
of the MDR zoning district. Devised to show a replacement septic for lot 1 on lot 2 by easement. Planuing
Board: Subdivision review is required for the creation of the new lots.
Relief Repaired:
The applicant requests relief for ? lot subdivision to reduce one parcel less than the allowed lot size, density,
building setbacks and pezmeability requirements of the MDR zoning district,
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts-dimensional Mquirement MDR zone
The project proposes to create a non-conforming parcel of 0.30 ac where 2 ac is required on lot 1. Density
requires S ac for a 4 unit complex on lot 1-
Setbacks for lot 1 –4 rrit Building east side 17.4 ft. where 2.5 1t, is required, 4Unit Building south. side 13.5 ft,
where 30 ft, is required for the rear setback. Ganige is 11.3 ft. west side where 25 1 setback is required; Garage
is 17.9 ft. from the south property line where 30 ft. is required for the rear setback. Lot 1 permeability is 26 %
where 50% is required.
Setbacks for Lot 2 side setback for the deck attached to the 2story garage is to be at 5 ft. where a 25 ft, setback is
required.
Criterin for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Lfaw:
In malting 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 to Co impacts to the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant tan be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to location of
the existing buildings on the parcel and the intent to separate the apartment building from the golf course.
. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief my be considered subst€ntial relevant to
the code, The relief for lot one includes 1.7 ac for lot size, 7.7 ac for lot density, Setback 4unit side setback
east 7_6 ft. and rear setback south 16.5 ft. : Garage side setback west 13.7 ft. and rear setback south 12,1 ft,
Lot one penneability relief is 24 /a. Relief for Lot 2 setback side 20 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impaet on the physical or
environmental conditions iia the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighboTbood Ynay be anticipated.
$, Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-crated.
Staff comrnettts:
The Applicant has revised plants and proposes subdivision of a 10.56 acre parcel into two lots—one 0.30 acre
and one 1056 acres. The apartment building %gill be on the 0.30 acre parcel and the golf course and associated
buildings to be on the 10.56 acre parcel. The applicant has updated the plants to reflect the location of a
replacement septic system for lot 1 buildings. There are no changes to the site or buildings on either proposed
parcel,
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff dotes
ow Zoning Flnard of Appeals- Record of Resolution
Town of Qucensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
7{1wJ] d(LUCCII.Ybury
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve / Disapprove
Applicant Name: James Beaty
File dumber: -A -35-2017 7
Loeation: 168 Sunnyside Road
Tax Map dumber: 290.5-1-50
BA Meeting Bate: Wednesday, October 18, 2017
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James Beaty.
Applicant proposes subdivision of land where existing golf course bar/ and 4-unit apartment complex are
located into two parcels. The apartment complex, Lot 1 will be 0.30 acres and the golf course, Lot 2 will be
10.56 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size/density, building setbacks, and permeability requirements
of the MDR zoning district. Revised to show a replacement septic for lot 1 on lot 2. by easement. Planning
Board: Subdivision review is required for the creation of the new lots.
Rofipf Re uirM.-
The applicant requests relief for 2 lot subdivision to reduce one parcel less than the allowed lot sire. density,
building setbacks and permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts-dimensional M uirement MDR zone
The project proposes to create a non-conforming parcel of 0.30 ac where 2 ac is required on lot 1. Density
requires 9 ac for a 4 unit complex on lot 1.
Setbacks for lot 1 -4Unit Building east side 17.4 ft. where 25 ft. is required, 4Unit Building south side 13.5 ft.
where 30 f#. is required for the rear setback. Garage is 11.3 ft. west side where 25 ft. setback is required;
Garage is 17.9 ft. from the south property Sine where 30 ft. is required for the rear setback. Lot 1 permeability is
2 % where 50% is required.
Setbacks for Lot 2 side setback for the deck attached to the 2-story garage is to be at 5 ft, where a 25 ft. setback
is required.
SEAR Type I1-no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, Wy 17, 2017 and Wednesday, October 18, 2017
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, anal upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-0$0(A) of the ueensbury'Town Code and Chapter 267
of N YS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
f'V,R TH1: DRA1:1' 1110 V Ir)ED BY STA F1`
1. There is .1 is not an undesirable change in the character of tete neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
. Feasible alternatives are acid have been considered by the Board, arc reasonable and have been
included to minimize the request OR are not possible.
3, The requested variance is lis 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 difficult} is 1 is not self-created because _
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh a royal ] 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 FMINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DEITY AREA VARIANCE
NO. -AV-35-201.7 James Bei, Introduced by _._, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 18th day of October 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Sign Variance -SV- -2017
Walmart — 891 State Route
Application Withdrawn
Sue Hemingway
From: Laura Lewallen <Iaura.lewallen@pb2ae.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2017 3:43 PM
To: Craig Brown
Cc: Sunny Sweet, Sue Hemingway; Laura Moore; Amy Miles;Arn Gallagher
Subject: RE: SP60-2017, Z-SV-8-2017 and Z-S -9-2017 application withdrawal
Good afternoon Craig,
Please consider this email a formal W11hdra al of the cpplicotic ns listed above for paint and signage for the
Walmart store on Route 9 and signage at the store on Quaker Ridge. If any further information is needed to
complete this please do not hesitate to let me know_
Thank you!
lcwra lewallen I permit coordinator
pb2 orchitecture*enginee-ong
2809 ajax avenue suite 100 1 rogers orkansos 72758
d' 479.633.8951 !o: 479.636.3545 1 f: 479.636.1209
loura.le o11ee,+ b?d cern
please consider the ernvfronment befam p fnling ilhls em6l
fhi5 imp'Iimluoing gny aIlpchrngn151 i5 ppvergd by Ilse Eleclro-lic Commun-cririons Privacy A'v
18 L1.5.C.251 X2521,It is ronfxiem tipl and may k)e leggy?.y;arivilegod-If you are not Ike ir,lended
recipient,you are flereoy ria iii iaCd In jI oo/relanlion.dissen^inalion.�iStRwflon cv copying p'Ihl�
communitptlon is iIacily rrolilbIied.PIGQ&i�neoy to the sslrcier i>,oi you hove received Iris
rn(amage in error,Grid Man dole Ie.t.
1
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Arca Variance No.: 43-2017
Prat Applicant: Stephen H. & Deborah A.Riehards
Project Location: 65 Hicks Road
Parcel Ifistory: AST-247-2017 shed; AV 14-2012 second garage; SUB S-1994 Administrative for McGuire
EQR'Ipe: Type II
Meeting Date: October 18,2017
Description of Proposed Prosect:
Applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed 400 sq. ft. shed next to an existing 400 sq. ft, shed. The
parcel also has an existing 2,332 sq. ft. home, 78 sq. ft. detached garage and a 100 sq. it. shed. Relief
requested from maximum allowable size, number of allowable accessory structures, and setbacks for such
structure in the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant request relief for placement of an additional stied—for maximum allowable size, number of
allowable accessory struchares, and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—shed:
The applicant proposes a fourth accessory structure on a lot less that 3 ac and it is to be located 6 ft from the
property line where a 25 ft setback is required. belief is also requested for the allowable size where 1,668 sq ft
is existing including the 400 sq ft shed to be maintained.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of f'ov►n Law:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
. 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 may be considered
to relocate the shed to a compliant location.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantin]. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to
the code. The relief requested is for a fourth accessory structure where only two are allowed. Also requested
is setback relief of 19 ft. The allowable maximum size is 500 sq ft and total on site for 4 buildings is 1,668
sq ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact o the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal
impact to the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty vas self created. The difficulty may be considered self created.
Staff comntcalts:
The, applicant has installed a 400 sq it shed adjacent to an existing 400 sq ft shed. The applicant has indicated
the sheds have separate access doors and will have matching siding. The photo show the existing arrangement
and the use of the building is for storage.
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Dotes
Zoning Board of Appeals— Record of 1 esolu(ion
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, N Y 12804 (518) 761-823 8
'Rail] of Q!Llunsbray
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove {SHED)
ApVlicant Mame: Stephen. H. &. Deborah A. Richards
File Number: -AV-43-2017
Location: 65 Hicks Road
Tax Map Number: 297.7-1-26
BA. fleeting Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2417
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen H. &.
Deborah A. Richards. Applicant proposes to maintain an already constructed 400 sq. ft. shed next to an
existing 440 sq. ft. shed, The parcel also has an existing 2,332 sq. ft. home, 768 sq. ft, detached garage and a
100 sq. ft. shed. belief requested from maximum allowable size, number of allowable accessory structures, and
setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district.
Relief Regtaired:
The applicant request relief for placement of an additional shed—far maximum, allowable size, number of
allowable accessory structures, and setbacks for such structure in the MDR zoning district.
Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—shed:
The applicant proposes a fourth accessory structure on a lot less than 3 ac and it is to be located 6 ft ftom the
property line where a 25 ft setback is required. Relief is also requested for the allowable size where 1,668 sq ft
is existing including the 404 sq ft shed to be maintained.
SEQR Type Il—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 18, 2417;
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 fund 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 minimize the request OR are not possible.
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?
5. Is the alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-created because
b. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (approval) 1 would be outweigheck 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 DISI THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A, MOTION TO APPROVE l DEIN Y AREA VARIANCE
Z-AV-43-2017 Stephen H. & Deborah A. Richards, Introduced by who moved for its adoption,
seconded by
Duly adopted this 18`h day of October 2017 by the following vote:
AYES.
NOES:
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeal
Community Development Department Staff Motes
Area Variance No.: 6?-2017
Project Applicant: Stephen & Deborah Richards
Project Location: 65 lficks Road
Parcel History: Z-AV-43-1017; AST-247.2017 shed
SEQR Type: Type 1I
Meeting Date: October 18, 2017
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 1 installed fence located in the front yard. Relief requested
for placement and height as the fence exceeds the maximum allowable height of 4 feet for fences in front yards.
Stirvey waiver request granted.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from maximum beight restrictions for fence placement in a front yard fence
exceeds the maximum allowable height of 4 feet for fences in front yards.
Section 179-5-070 Fences
The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 4.5 ft tall and
encloses the front of the property on Hicks 1d.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance nccnrding 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 to no impacts to the
neighborhood may be anticipated. The fence placement is noncompliant with an existing Water Department
right-of-way requirement
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance, Feasible alternatives may be considered for a
compliant fence height.
. Whether the requested arca variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal
relevant to the code. The relief requested is .5 ft in excess of the allowed fence height.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The p7toject 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.
teff Comntenta;
The applicant proposes to maintain an installed 4.5 ft tall fence. The applicant has indicated the fence is needed
to keep the dog in the yard. The applicant has been notified and has met with the Town staff in regards to the
fence being installed in the Water Department right-of-way. The board may consider placing a condition on the
project that fence placement will need to be accepted by the Nater Department, Water Department ]otter
attached.
Zoning Boakrd of Appeals— )E ecord of Resolution
Tours of Queensbury 742 Bay Fuad Quecnsbury, RAY 12$04 (518) 761-8238
Tanv„ uFCctnrFra,r)
Area Variance Resolution. To: Approve 1 Disapprove
Applicant Name- Stephen 14. & Deborah A. Richards (FENCE)
File Number: -AV-67-2017
Location: 65 Hicks load
Tax Map Number: 297.7-1-2
13A Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Stephen R. &
Deborah A.Richards. Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed 1 installed fence located in the front
yar& ReliefnNuested for placement and height as the fence exceeds the maximum allowable height of 4 feet
for fences in front yards. Survey waiver request granted.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from maximum height restrictions for fence placement in a front yard fence
exceeds the ma imurn allowable height of 4 feet for fences in front yards.
Section 179-5-070 Fences
The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard nor stockade. The proposed fence is to be 4.5 ft tall and
encloses the front of the property on Hicks id.
EQR Type 11 —no further review required;
public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 18, 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 NY S Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
PLR TI IE DRAFT PROVIDED D B STAFF
1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
. Feasible alternatives are and leave been considered by the Board, are Tea onable and have been
included to minimize the request OR are not possible..
3. The requested variance is l is not substantial because
4. There is J 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-created because
, In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the appikant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (approval) / 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 il.ems outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ,ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE f DENY AREA VARIANCE
Z-67-2017 Stephen H. & Deborah A. Richards, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 18'h day of October 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Arca Variance No,: 70-2017
Project Applicant: Katharine Seelye
Project Location: 14 Crooked Tree Drive
Parcel History: P-SP-55-2017; Z-A -53-2017
S E R Type: Type H
Meeting Date: October 18, 2017
Description of Proposed Project:
Revised Area Variance for construction of a 16 ft. by 16 ft. (256 sq. fL) residential addition instead of the,
previously approved 14,5 ft, by 16 ft.(225 sq, ft.) residential addition by the ZBA on August 23, 2017. Relief
requested from minimum shoreline and setback requirements for the WR zoning district. planning Board: Site
Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure within aCF-A.
-Relies'Required:
The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements for the SJR zoning district,
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements 'SVR zone
The applicant proposes 256 sq ft residential addition that is to be 50 ft from the shoreline where a 75 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 detriment
to nearby properties will be crcated 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 metbod, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an arca variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited to add
a first story bedroom an the home due to the configuration of the structure on the parcel.
. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal
relevant to the code. Relief requested is 25 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Mirror to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may b�e anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff commcnts
The applicant proposes a 256 sq ft addition to au existing home for a first floor bedroom. The project includes
alterations to the first floor and minor to the second floor. The plans show the existing and proposed floor plan
and a rendition of the new addition.
04W Zoning Board of Appeals— record of Resolution
Toom of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Quecrisbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Town of Cjceusbury
Arca Variance Resolution To: Approve f disapprove
Applicant Dame: Katharine Seelye
File Number. Z-AV-70-2017 �"+#
Location: 14 Crooked Tree Drive
Tax Map Number. 239.15-1-10
ZBA, Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application for Katharine Seelye.
Applicant has submitted a Revised Area Variance for construction of a 16 ft. by 16 ft. (256 sq. ft.) residential
addition instead of the previously approved 14.5 ft. by 16 fl. (225 sq. ft.) residential addition by the ZBA on
August 23, 2017. Relief requested from minimum shoreline and setback requirements for the VIR zoning
district. Manning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a nonconforming structure within a CEA.
Relief Requimd:
The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district.
ection 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements WR zone
The applicant proposes 256 sq ft residential addition that is to be 50 ft from the shoreline 'where a 75 setback is
required.
SEAR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 18, 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 ar)d Chapter 267
of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
PFR THF D AF"I' PROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearly
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 vaziance is 1 is not substantial becawn
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 I is clot self-created because
In addition the Board fiends that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh {approval) } 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;
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.
BASED GTS THE ABOVE FINDINGI MAKE A MOTI ON TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARIAN E
-A -70-2017 Katharine rine eelye, Introduced b , whe moved for its adoption, seconded b
Duly adopted this 1 Sa` day of October 2017 by the following vote.
AYES:
NOES.
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Area Variance No.: 69-2017
Project AVplieant: Mary Lou & Robert Dunton
Project Location: 18 Tall Timbers Road
Parcel History: P- P-65-2017
SEAR Type: - Type II
Meeting Datc: October 18,2017
Description ofProposed Pxo'eet:
Applicant proposes construction of a 2,255 sq. ft. residential addition to existing 786 sq. ft. home which will
include a second garage; original floor area 3,323 sq. ft. and proposed is 7,377 sq. ft. Project includes
construction of an additional covered walkway area to the existing garage; and a 30 sq. ft. upstairs deck area.
Relief requested from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, expansion of a noncan forming
structure, and for a second garage where only one is allowable on the parcel. Planning Board: Site Plan Review
required.
Relief Req
The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, expansion of a
nonconforming structure, and for a second garage where only one is allowable on the parcel.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements- WR zone
The applicant proposes a 2,555 sq ft residential addition with an attached garage. The addition is to be 46.5 ft
from the shoreline where a 54.2 ft setback is required due to the setbacks of the two adjoining homes.
Section 179-13-010 continuation
Relief is requested for expansion of a non, conforming home.
Section 179-5-020 accessary structure-garage
Relief is requested for a second garage where only one is allowed.
Section 147-11 stormater device
Relief requested for stop-nater device less than 100 ft from the shoreline 45 ft is proposed,
ritenza for,considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town haw:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable ebange 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 aebieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the
two adjoining homes are setback further than the applicant's home. The site also has an existing garage tbal
is to remain.
3. Whether the requested arca variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate
relevant to the code. The relief requested is 7.7 ft for shoreline setback. Relief for proposing two garages
where one is existing and the second is to be an attached garage built with the addition. Stormwater device is
located less than 100 ft from the shoreline 55 ft relief requested.
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 considest�d self-created.
Staff Comments:
The applicant proposes a 2,555 sq ft residential addition with an attached garage. The appliomt has explained
the existing garage is to be used for Dousing and the kitchen and plumbing features to be removed when the
addition is completed. The plans show the location of the addition, the work to be completed on the existing
garage and elevations of both.
Zoning Board of Appeals
ommunity Development Department Staff dotes
Zoning Board of Appeals— Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay road Queemsbury, NY 12804 (518} 761-5238
Town crf CcxrrsXraary
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/ Disapprove
M1ti
Applicant Dame: Marylou and Robert Dunton
File plumber: -A -6 -2017
Location: 18 Tall Timbers Road
Tax Map Number: 2.39.16-1-25
BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 18, 2017
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury bas received an application from Marylou and
Robert Dunton. Applicant proposes construction of a 2.,255 sq, ft. residential addition to existing 786 sq. ft.
borne which will include a second garage; original floor area 3,323 sq. ft. and proposed is 7,377 sq. ft. Project
includes construction of an additional wveared walkway area to the existing garage; and a 90 sq. ft. upstairs deck
area. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, expansion of a nonconforming
structure, and for a second garage where only one is allowable on the parcel. Planning Board: Site Plan
Review required.
Relief Required:
The applicant request relief from minimum setback requirements, shoreline setbacks, expansion of a
nonconforming structure, and for a second garage where only one is allowable on the parcel.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional uirements- WR zone
The applicant proposes a 2,555 sq ft residential addition with an attached garage. The addition is to be 46.5 #1
from the shoreline where a 54.2 ft setback is required due to the setbacks of the two adjoining homes.
Section, 179-13-010 continuation
Relief is requested for expansion of a non cmforming horne.
Section 179-5-020 accessory structure -garage
Relief is requested for a second garage where only one is allowed.
Section 147-11 stormater device
Relief requested for stormater device less than 100 ft from the shoreline 45 f1 is proposed.
SEAR Type 11—no farther review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 18, 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 ISYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
VEIL THE DRAFT PRO V11)LU BSC STAFF
1. There is lis not. an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood noir a detriment to nearby
properties because
2.. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been
included to mi-nimize the request OIL are riot possible.
3. The requested variance is 1 is not substantial because
4. There is / is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
distirie
5. Is the aileged difficulty is I is not self-created because
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would_
outweigh (approval) 1 would be outby {denial) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance inquest 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.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE / DENY AREA.VARIANCE
Z- V- 9-2017 Marylgi. and Robert Dunton, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 181h day of October 2017 by the following vote-
AYES-
NOES,
ote:AYES; _
Town of Queensbury Zoning Burd of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Area Variance No.: 66-2017
Project Applicant: Larry Clute
Project Location: Corner of Ohio & Central Avenucs
Parcel History: AV 24-201(1; BOH fees. 12-2010
SEQR Type: 'I 11
Meedug Date: October 18,2017
Description of Proposed P�rojeet:
Applicant proposes placement of a 1,650 sq. ft. manufactured home on the parcel. Relief requested front
minimum setback requirements,
Relief RNuired:
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from setback requirements Cor the IVR zoning
district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements
The proposed home is to be located 14 -ft from Central Ave and 15 ft from Ohio Ave where a 20 ft setback is required for
the front setback—project is located on a corner parcel having two Fronts.
Criteria four considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Fowa Law:
In makiug 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 crested by the granting of this area variance. The project may be
considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties.
. Whether the benefit sought by the supplicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited due to the size
of the parcel and location of septic system. The site has a previous septic variance BOIL 12-2010,
3. Whether the roquet'ed area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to
the code. Relief is requested 6ft froin Central Ave and 5 ft from Ohio Ave.
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 be considered
to have miniml to no impact on the envitenmeutal conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self created.
Staff cowrrwents:
The applicant proposes 1,650 sq, ft with a diriveway a front entrywz . The previous area variance had since
expired and the applicant has indicated the same project is to be completed.
Q I
Zoning Board of Appeals —Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 X518) 761-9238
rrstwrr d(tyerIA)tIry
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/ Disapprove
Applicant Name. Larry Clute
File Number: Z- Y- 6-2017
Location: Corner of Ohio & Central Avenues
Tax Map Number: 309.9-1-87
BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 18, -17
The Zoning Board of appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Larry Clute.
Applicant proposes placement of 1,650 sq. :ft. manufactured home on the parcel. Relief requested frorn
minimum setback requirements.
Re I ief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief. Relief requested from setback requirements for the ISR zoning
district.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements
The proposed home is to be locatodd 14 ft from Central Ave and 15 ft from Ohio Ave where a 20 ft setback is required for
the front setback—project is located on a corner parcel having two fronts.
SEAR Type U —no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on. Wednesday. October 18, 2017;
Upon review of the application mEacrials, 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 Lav 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
1 Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been
inQluded 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 to the neighborhood 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 (qpproval).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;
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.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARIANCE
-A - 6-2017 Larry Clule, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 1 8th day of October 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
DOES:
}
r