Staff Notes Packet Wed., March 21, 2018 Wednesday, March 21 , 2018
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
Meeting: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 Time: 7:00- 11 .00 prt-t
Qmeensbury Activities C enter-742 Bay Road
Agendo subject to charige and maybe found c3f: ww .queensbwy.net
Appy '�LgLmcctin minu7es: Frhraary 2 k and February 28,2418
PUD BUSINESS:
A lican Tabmsum Sheikh 1 ASAD Pc"kvm Sign Variance No V-2-2015
Owner(s) ASAD Pel NFA Inc. SWRA TYPC Unlisted
A Na Lot Sdze 363 Ac*s)
Locofion 955 State Route 149-Ward 1 Zoning NC
Ward No.
Tax Id No 266,3-1-78 Section Cha to 140
Crass Rsf SIGN 742-2017 Freestanding Sign;[$P-PZ 3 57- Warren Cauity Planning Januar}2018
2016{aka SP 36-2015)];AV 29-2015
Public Hearing I Jamary 24,2018;March 21,2018 I AdirondAck Park I ALD
Prolerl Deserlpli a Applicant proposes to AM one tenant panel of 7.25 sq,ft.to tare perm*W$6.34 sq.fL frewuAing sign for a total of 63.59
sq.ft. Also,applic wl Tc quests relieF for already aonstuetod campy signage,2 pml4s at 342 sq.fL with Surtoao logo cohar srbmr-Rrhef
r uested f om mmirnum frees"ding sign size allowable at a?5 R."ack from[lie mad and for number Of WWI signs.
NEW BUSINESS:
A iron## Michael and Karcn LcBlRna Are*Variance No Z-AV-22-2418
Owner s) Michael and KW'Mo LeBlanc SRQIRA TyLX II
rnt s n+a Lot Size 2.5 acres
Location 34 Warrem Lane Z4uing MDR with Mobile Home OVorlary
Ward No. Ward 4
Tax Id No 3(18.6-1-67 Section 179.3040
Cross M RC 82-2018,"$5 2017;P$B-14-2017 Prelim.;P- Warren County Planning rI1u
SB 15-2017FinW
Public Hcaring I March 21,2018 1 Adirondack Park Agency n�a
Project Description Applk4m["OM to place a 27 ft_by 60 ft.domblrwido rmobilc hoaze on lot 2 of an approved subdivbion, Rclicf
rc uested from minEmum setback re uin menta far the MUR zminp,distriei and Mobile Home Overlay district.
A leant s Michael J.Bad= Area Variance No Z-AV-15-2018
Owne s M Dream LLC hiichael aadcra SE RA Type 11
Agent(s) ala Lar Size 4.45 s
[Lathan 55 Mason Road Zonlnr. WR
Ward No, Ward i
Tax Id No 726.16-1-20 Sce6on 1792.040; 179-13-010
Cre"Rtr RC 11-2018;P-5P-21-2018;P-SP-66.2017;P-SP- Warren County Planning Much 2018
50-2017;ZrAV-74-2017
Public tharing March 21,2018 Adirondack Park Agency I ALD
Pr iect Description Applicant pmpQ5m a 198 sq_if.enclosed sunroom addition on approved proposed deck area. Existing home floor arca is
6,611 Sq.ft.and will inpre=to 6,809 sq.ft. Relief rcqucatrd from rip i mum yhrneliene setback requirements and floor arca ratio mquircnwnts„
Planning Bou& Site Plan Review re uircd for cx an5iQn Of a nonboaFomliag SnVmre.
A liesn s William Miner Use Variance No Z-UV-1-2018
OW-RCO-5) CKT EnftrgTim,LLC(Starr Wxc ) SEQRA Type Unl i51od
Agez*) Will iun Minor Lot Sine 0.33 Acre(s)
Lacation 2 G3endaIe Drive Zoning Cl
Ward No. Ward 2
Tax Id No 302-7-1-24 Scc600 179-3-0440
Cro99Ref PW-20-2018 WerrenCoula 'Plxnnin March2018
Pubti-c HcarinR March 2l 2418 Adirondack Park A encu Wa
Proiom�.Dewrl pinto Applicant pwpaaca to maintain two existing apartments and aomvert a portion of The 4,398 sq_R building info four
additkmlapamcnts. R4cF uested from permitted vacs in the Ci zoning district Plannin Sacrad: Site Plan Review uircd.
Page 1 OF2
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
Meeting: Wednesdoy, March 21, 2018 Time: 7: 11.00 pm
Queensbury Activities Center- 74Bay load
Agenda subject to change and may be found at: www.queensbLrry.net
A licant{s Minhael Serini Area Ynrioisce i4e ZrAV=f 1-2418
Owne s !Michael SNrini SE RA T e I1
Agent(s) Dennis M=ElM Lot Sias 4.32 Acre(s)
1Joeati0n 2934 Statc 3Routc 9L Znning WR
Word No. Mord I
Tax Id No 239.20-1-18 1 Section 139-3040; 17M-OfW
Cross Ref P-SP-11-2di8 RC 717-2417:SEP 567-2017 Wiirren County Planning Man%2018
Public Hearin h7arch 21,201$ Adirondsek Park Agency ALE)
Proicet Desc ri tion Applicant proposes demalilion of existing Camp and construction of a 1 jQ08 sq.ft.harne at 2 A4 sq.ft.floor arca. Relief
requesLed from minimum setback rcquircments and pormosbility requirenlews. Planning Dcard- Site Pian RcviM required faroxotrumion
Within 50 ft.of 15%sfo es_
A !icon s Riehard&Sharon BOPP Area Yoriance No Z-AV-21-2418
Owne s Richard do Sharon Bapp SE RA Dpie II
Agent(s) Stephen L_Perkins,EricPh illips,Fitzgerald& Lot Size 1.37 Acre(s)
Cull LLP
Location 45 Ogden Rand Zoning MDR
Ward No. Ward 4
Tax Id No 348.19-1-29,i See#inn 179-3 ]40
Crass Ref P-SID-3-2038 Warren Cann Ylannin aro
Public HeRfing March 21,2418 Adirondnek ParkA en n/a
Project Desert otion Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acro parcel into twv lass of 0.92 acres and 0.46 acres. The existing home is to
remain on the larger parcel and the smaller pxrcal is to bD scid. RcHerequmted from density,creating two parcels icsa than 2 acres and
mInhum sciback rcquircmcras of the ox isting hgme on the lw9er puui floL I)-
Any
_Any further business that the Chairm an determines may be properly brought before the Zoning Board of Appoafs.
RcvisW Anda; 3,8-2018 Serini Ward t correction
L-LSue Hem ftwayl2GI F,Year Z13A%ZRA March 201&ZBA Agenda Wed.March 2120 19 Final.doex
Fagc 2 aft
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Sign Variance No,: 2-2018
Project Applicant: Tabassum heik,h/ASAD Petroleum
Project Location: 985 State Route 149
Parcel History: SIGN 742-2017 Freestanding Sign,PZ157-2016,SP 36-2015, P23-2001 , AV29-2015
SEQR Type: Unlisted
Meeting Date: March 21, 2018
Description of Proposed Projec#:
Applicant proposes to add one tenant panel of 7.25 sq. ft. to the permitted 5 6 34 sq. it. freestanding sign for a
total of 63.59 sq. ft. Also, applicant requests relief fbT alyeady constructed canopy signage; 2 panels at 342. sq,
ft. with Sunoco logo color scheme and for more than allowed signs. Relief Tequested from maximum
freestanding sign size allowable at a 25 ft, setback from the road and number of wal l signs.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from maximum aIIowable sign size for a freestanding sign and nLtmber of walls signs.
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are reg11red
The applicant has installed a 5 6.3 4 sq ft sign and prop sces a neva 7.25 sq 1t panel for a proposed tenant the total sgUare
footage at 53,59 sq ft exceeds the allowable 60 sq ft is the maximum free standing sign at a 25 ft setback_ ReIieFis also
requested to allow two canopy signs at 342 sq ft to remain with the Sunoco Iogo color scheme.
Criteria for considering a Sign 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 sign variance. Minimal impacts to the Neighborhood
may be anticipated.
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved bar some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than a sign variance, Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the sign to a compliant size.
. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to
the code. Relief is requested for 3.59 sq ft in excess. Relief is also requested for hvo additional walls signs for an
existing tenant. The site is allowed a wail sign for each tenant currently Four tenants (three tenants and proposing a
fourth teriant (new panel) The canopy panels would be the Queembury'iruck Stop god and 3`d wall sign_
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental
conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the
environmental conditions of the district_
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Sraff comments:
The appiicmt has a permit For the 56.34 sq ft sign and proposes a 7.25 sq ft additional panel for another tenant. The
plans show the location and design of the sign—the applicant has explained the price sign has been moved down to allow
employves to change the prices. The calculation includes the Sunoca logo where the space between the bottom of the
logo to the sign is counted as pari of the sign square footage_
Zoning Board ofApp eals—Record ofResolution
Town of Queerisbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 {513}761-8238
'fowi� +�C�cc•�rs��at�•
Sign Variance Resolution Ta: Approve/Disapprove
Applicant blame: Tabassum Sheikh /ASAD petroleum
File Number: Z-SV-2-2018
4 1
Location: 985 State route 149
Tax Map Number. 266,3-1-711
ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 2.1, 2018
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an applioation from Tabass urn
Sheikh /A AD Petroleum for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes to add one tenant panel of 7.25 sq. ft. to the permitted 5 6.3 4 sq. ft.
freestanding sign far a total of 63.54 sq. I Also, applicant requests relief for already constructed canopy
signage; 2 panels at 342 sq. ft. with Sunoco logo color scheme and for more than allowed signs. Belief
requested from maximum freestanding sign size allowable at a 25 li, setback from the road and number of
wall signs.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from maximum alio able sign size for a freestanding sign and number of walls signs.
Section 140-6 Signs for which permits aro required
The applicant has installed a 56.34 sq ft sign and propsoes a new 7.25 sq #t panel far a proposed tenant tate total
square footage at 63,59 sq ft exceeds the allowable 60 sq ft is the maxim urn free standing sign at a 25 ft setback.
Relief is also requested to allow two canopy signs at 342 sq ft to remain wfth the Sunoco logo color scheme_
SEAR Type. Unlisted I Resolution I Action Required for SEQRI
Motion regarding Sign Variance SV-2-2018 Tabassurn Sheikh /A AD Petroleum based upon the
information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this
Sward finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental knpaet. So We give it a
Negative Declaration, Introduced by who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 21" day of March 2018, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
A public hearing was advertised and field on January 24, 2018 and March 21, 2018;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 17914-084(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and
Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
], Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the
nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? INSERT RES PON S E
2.. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some rnethod, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than an sign variance? rN FRT RESPONSE
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? INSERT T l rv'SPC)iVSF.
4, Wil 1 the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physicai or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district? INSERT RESPONSE
S. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? INSERT RESPONSE
. In addition the Board finds that the beizef'it to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would out-we /would be outwei Fhb ed b the resulting detriment to the health, safety and wc1fare of
the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
Based on the above findings I rnalce a MOTION TO APPROVE/DENY Sign Variance S -2.2018
Tab assum Sheikh I A AD Petroleum Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. <insert conditiops l comments>:
B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an
extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires;
C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by
the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the
PA's review is completed;
D. Final appro-Fed plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community
Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building &codes
personnel'
E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final
plans;
F, Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development
Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review,
appi-ovat, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George
Park Commission or other State agency or department.
Duly adopted this 21" day of/March 201 S, by the following vote:
AYES:
DOES:
W y`�
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Cotes
Area VRAauee No.. 22-2018
Project Applicant: Michael &. Karen LeBlanc
Project Location: 34 Warren Lane
Parcel. History: P- B-14-2017 Prelim.; P- B 15-2017 Final, AV 55-2017
SEQR Type: Type II
Meeting Date: March 21,2,018
Description at'Praposad Pro*t:
Applicant proposes to place a 27 ft. by 60 ft, double-vdde mobile home on lot 2 of an approved subdivision.
Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district and Mobile Home Overlay
district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the MDR zone.
179-3-040 Establishment of Disticts Amensional requirement MDR zone
The applicant proposes to place a 27#t x 60 ft borne on a parcel where the side setback 20 ft and 25 ft is required
for both sides.
Criteria far ennsidering an area V2rianee according to Chapter 267 ofTown 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.
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to
the configuration of the mobile Dome. The applicant's approved subdivision plat had sho n the mobile
home location.
. Whether the requested arca variance is substantial. The request .for irelief may be considered minimal.
relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5 ft.
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 phy icaI or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has shown the location of
the home and wastewater system on the site.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff Comments;
The applicant proposes to place a 1,620 sq ft mobile home on a 0,23 ac parcel that had been previously
approved lot size AV 55-2017, The plans show the location of the home and asie Ater system.
Zoning Board of Appeals— Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Am]?rd(hwellsin,
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove
Applicant Nance: Michael and Karen LeBlanc
File Number: Z-AV-22-2418
Location: 34 Warren Lane—Ward 4
Tax Map Number: 348.6-1-67 � r
)BA Meeting bate: Wednesday, March 21, 2018
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Michael & Karen
LeBlanc. Applicant proposes to place a 27 ft. by 60 11, double-wide mobile home on lot 2 of an approved
subdivision. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district and Mobile
Dome Overlay district.
Relief Required-
The applicant requests relief from setback requirements of the MDR zone.
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement M Q R zone
The applicant proposes to place a 27ft x 60 ft home on a parcel wb ere the side setback 20 ft and 25 ft is required
for both sides.
SEAR T)-pe II —no furtber review required;
public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018;
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 DRAFTPROVIDED 13Y STAT-
1. Vere is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
2. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been
included to minimize the request DR arc not possible.,.
3. The requested variance is 1 is not subsu mtlal because
4, There is / is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district?
. The alleged difficulty is/ is not selkreated because
In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh a royal ! would be out ei ed 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 ander 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 FTN QI ,.I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DEN Y AREA VARIANCE
Z-AV-22-2018, Michael and Karen LeBlanc Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 21"day of March 2018 by the following vote:
AYES:
TES:
Town of Queensbury Toning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Dotes
Area Variance No.: 15-2018
Project Applicant: Michael J. Badera
Project Location. 55 Mason Road
Parcel History: RC 11-2018; P-SP-21-2018; P- P-66-2017; P- P-50-2017# A'V-74-2017
SEQR Type: Type II
Meeting Date: Murch 21,2018
1)escription ofProposed Project:
Applicant proposes constmction of a 4-9$ 175 sq, ft. enclosed sunroom. The existing home floor area is 6,611
sq. ft. and will increase to 6,786 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback
requirements and floor area ratio requirements.. Planning Board: Site Plan review required for expansion of a
nonconforming structure,
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback and floor area ratio requirements for the WR
zoning distda.
Section 1.79-3-040 Dimensional requirements/ 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches, canopies and decks.
The applicant proposes a 1-9$,175 sq. ft, sunroom addition on the existing deck to be 44 ft. 11.5 in from the
shoreline where a 50 ft. setback is required. The floor area of the existing home is 6,611 sq. ft. and will increase
to 64W9—sq' 6,786 sq. ft. (The applicant revised the size of the sunroorn at the planning board recommendation
meeting 3/13/18)
Criteria for considering ars Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider-
1.
onsider:1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the
neighborhood mai•be anticipated.
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location
of the existing deck in relation to the beach area on the property.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal
relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5 ft. 6 in to the shoreline setback and floor area of 2,474 sq ft.
(34% existing and 3511/4 proposed)
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have
minimal impact on the physical or the etnvironmenW conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff commen#s•
The applicant proposes to construct 175 sq. ft. enclosed sunroom.addition on the south side of the deck and
home. The plans show the location of the sunroom and the supports needed for the addition,
"4�mma�nt�y 1) c1� 1��ti��tl 01,11ce
742 13ZIV R0,1 d, QUOL!IN1)L1i' NY 12$ 1-1
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
RESOLUTION -Planning Board Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Area Variance 15-2.018 MICHAEL I-IAEL J. BADE RA
Tax, Map ID: 226.16-1-20 / Property Address, 55 Mason Road)"'Zoning: WR
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes a 198 sq. ft, enclosed sunroom
addition on southwest side of the new proposed deck area. Existing home floor area is 6,611 sq. ft. and will
increase to 6,809 sq. ft. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179-13-010 of the Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a
non-conforming structure shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval, Variance. Relief is sought
for expansion of non-conforming structure, shoreline setbacks and floor area. Planning Board shall provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Tovm of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b, requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board
of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,
and found that:
MOTION TOy}MAKE
� A i}yy OMME T�D�}AT#I SIN OWN#BEHALF O��F-�THE
.yPLANNING BOARD TyO-�y-THE
ZO I rk* BlJ? RD OF A PFALS FIJI AREA VARIANCE E O. 15-2018 MICHAEL L J. BADERA.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowen. ]laxly adapted this 13t" day of March, 2018 by the following vote:
ES: Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Deeb, Ids. White, Mr. Shaffer,Mr. Traver
NOES. NONE
Him)kc_- �;18-761.8220 1 fax; 513,745LA4 3 7 1 742 Cia}' J�k);Kl. QJLQC11I-Axir}', NY 12,04 1 www,qu4 LeziAnuvy-iieI
4W Zoning Board of Appeals —record of Resoluden
To",n of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,IVY 12804 ( 18) 761-8238
J-011% of(LLK-a.mly
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve-1 Disapprove
Applicant Name: Michael J. Badera tiv
File Number: -A -15-2018 ;f ,: .
Location.: 55 Mason Road `
Tax Map dumber: 226.16-1-20 `` {4
ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 i
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from M ichael J. Bad era.
AppIicant proposes construction of a 449 175 sq. ft. enclosed sunroom. The existing home floor area is 6,611
sq, ft. and will increase to 09 sq 6,7 86 sq. ft_ Rel ief reque sted from minimum shoreline setback
requirements and floor area ratio requirernents.. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for expansion of a
nonconforming structure.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum shoreline setback and floor area ratio requirements for the W R
zoning district.
Section. 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements/ 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches, canopies and decks,
The applicant proposes a 19-8--175 sq. ft. sunroom addition on the existing deck to be 44 ft. 11.5 in from the
shoreline where a 50 ft, setback is required. The floor area of the existing home is 6,611 sq. ft. and will increase
to 6y&D9-,qA 6,786 sq. ft. (The applicant revised the size of the sunroam at the planning board rfcoramendation
meeting 3/13!18)
SEQR Type 11 —no fiu-ther review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed., March 21,2018;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section, 179-14-08Q(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267
of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
l'la;R THE L7RAF-l' PROVIDED R STAFF-'
1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detTiment to nearby
properties because
. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable..and have been
ineludcd to minjm]ze the request OR are not possible, --
, The requested variance is f is not substantial because
4. There is I is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district?
5_ is the alleged difficulty is/is riot self-created because
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh(approva[I 1 would be outwcighcd 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;
The Board also proposes the following conditions:
ya) —
�^) i
c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASEL ON TIFF ABOVE FIND IN . I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE/ DENY AREA VARIANCE
-A -15-201 S. Michael J. Badera, Introduced b , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adapted this 1"day of March 2018 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
ommunIty Development Department Staff Notes
Use Variance No.: 1-2018
Project Applicant: William !Miner
Project Ucatioa: 2 Glendale Drive
Parcel History: P-SP-20-2018
E RType; Unlisted
Meeting Date: March 22,2017
Description of Proposed Projec#:
Applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and convert a portion of the 4,398 sq. ft. building into
four additional apartments. Relief requested from permitted uses in the C1 zoning district. Planning Board:
Site Plan Review required.
Relief RequirLd:
The applicant requests relief from the Commercial Intensive ( €) allowable uses
1793-040 Establishment of Districts I zone
The applicant proposes to maintain mo existing apartments and to renovate the remaining building to include 4
additional apartments for a total of 6 units. The site use of residential is not a listed use in the Ci zone.
Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town LIaw:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether the app lieu 0 cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that return is substantial as
demonstrated by competent financial evidence. The applicant has indicated the current rental income is
1,900 per month for the two rental apartments and the applicant pay's fees for the current mortgage of
$2,975 per month, inst,rance per year of 52,100, gas and electric of$400 per month, water and sever per
quarter at$550. and $4,000 schoal and land tax per year—estimated at $4,000 per month.. The applicant
has detailed some of the sues that are allowed in the zone such as an automotive service center noting road
frontage, signage and cost of building upgrade for lifts would exceed $100,000; amusement center noting
equipment and renovations to exceed $100,000
(The applicant has not explained the, reasonable financial return for allowed uses in the zone i.e. if the existing
building was removed and a new building with an al lowed.commercial use. The parcel information on the
property indicates there is a 5 year mortgage for$160,000+1- that includes two properties where the rental
information detailed is only for the 2 apartments and does not include the rental cost for the adjoining property.
The boa€d may consider requesting addi l rr nal informarion on thefinancial return on commercial rises allowed
in the zone, refinancing and to include the rental amoune far roials based on Me enfire mortgage. )
. Whether the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not apply to a
substantial portion of the district or neighborhood. The applicant has explained the current building
location, is on a dead end street that includes three other residential use -3 single family homes. The
applicant has indicated the site with no road frontage and no signage on Route 9 does not support
commercial use. The applicant has included a letter from Real Estate Broker indicating the building as is
would not generate interest as commercial use because it does not have frontage on Route 9.
(The app]icant has not included the marketing of the property for commercial use. The board may request
additional docu enialion on the marketing of the property- isfings.)
. Whether the proposed variance will alter the essential character of the neighborhood. The applicant
has indicated the area contains three other residential use-all single family dwellings. The applicant has
indicated three of the four residential use properties are owned by the applicant
(The applicant does not detail the project area uses where the area does contain existing comnmrcial uses
including a fiu=al home, bare, financial office, a proposed new auto store, grocery, vehicle rental, Queensbury
Central Fire Co, other personal service and eating establishmerrts. The board should consider review of the
Commercial InIensive zoning purpose .-- Commercial lntenstvo ( l). The Ci Districts comprise that area of
Queensbury that already has iatease commercial deuok pment. The purpose of this district is to provide for continuing infdl
devekpment of Phis ty , while encouraging the overall improvement and appearance of these areas.)
4. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The applicant has indicated the zoning has created the
hardship.
(The difficulty may be considered self-created as the applicant purchased the property in the Commercial
Intensive Zone and would have been provided with information explaining any addition residential use would
require a use variance.)
Staff commen#a:
The applicant proposes to maintain 2 existing apartments and acid 4 more apartments. The plans show the
building arrangement on the lot:and proposed parking. The site currently has a 4,398 sq. ft. building that
contains 2 apartments. The door area of the building is 8,796 sq. ft. The zoning is Commercial Intensive where
30% of the site or a maximum building allowed on the site would be 4,312 sq. ft. floor area- The plot plan
dimensions for the site and building are estimates by the applicant as a survey of the site was not part of the
application.
(The Planning Board noted additional site plan information may be necessary for the project)
Zoning Surd of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff dotes
I't1k�15 L)fQuk:L:lINbUF\
('0111L)rLutitV DeVC101)[ltctit 01'11t:L
74-1 HELV 161:0. OLIMISIIILL-�- NY 12904
Town of Queensbury Planning Board
RESOLUTION -Planning Board Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Use Variance 1-2.0118 WILLIAM MINER
Tax Map ID: 302.7-1-241 Property Address: 2. Glendale Drive 1 Zoning: C1
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to maintain two existing
apariznents and create two new apartments on the first floor and two neve apartments on the second floor.
Project located in Commercial Intensive zone does not allow apartments. Applicant is applying for a use
variance - project,,�,ill be subject to site plan iCtise variance is granted. Pursuant to Chapter 179-13-010 of the
Zoning Ordinance, expansion of a non-conforming use or structure shall he subject to Planning Board review
and approval. Variance: belief is requested for apartments in a C 1 Pone, Planning Board shall provide a
recommendation to the Zoning Board ofppeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board
of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,
and found that:
MOTION TO MADE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO T1-1E
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR USE VARIANCE NO. 1-2018 WILLIAM MUER. Introduced by
David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
b) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has identified the following areas of concern:
1) Additional details including sealed drawings to support parking.
A detailed Site Plan to be completed.
Motion seconded by Brad Magowan. Duly adopted this 13U' day of March, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES; Mr, Hunsinger, Mr. Magowan, Mr. Dceb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
Phone; ;I#,76 622{1 1 1'as;
Zoning Board of Appeals-- Reoorct of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road QuucnSbUry,NY 12804 ( 1$) 761-82.38
rown orf{ rxca�sbrir�
Use Variance Resolution To.- Approve l Disapprove
Applicant Naive: William Miner =}
Rile Number. Z-USI-1-2018
Location: 2 Glendale Drive
Tax Map Number: 302.7-1-24
BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 21, 201
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William
Miner for Starr Mowery for a variance of S ection(s) 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of
Queensbury. Applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and convert a portion of the 4,398
sq. ft. building into four additional apartments. Relief requested from permitted uses in the C1 zoning
district. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required.
Relief RNuired-
The applicant requests relief from the Commercial Intensive (0) allowable uses
179- -040 Establishment of Districts l zone
The applicant proposes to maintain two existing apartments and to renovate the remaining building to
include 4 additional apartments for a total of 6 units. The site use of resi dentiai is not a listed use in the CI
zone.
The roar (4) criteria usually associated with a Use Variance are:
1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and
adequate service. It is our finding that:
2.) That thea are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. It is our
finding khat:
3.) Wliere the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility
should be correspondingly reduced. It is our finding that:
Based upon our findings above, we hereby determine that the applicant [ HAS I [ HAS NOT
demonstrated that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship
[ (Note: use rhe following only when approving a use variance.) The Board finds that the variance under
consideration is tete minimum necessary and adequate to address the unnecessary hardship proven by the
applicant and at the same time preserve and protect the character of the neighborhood and the health,
safety and welfare of the oorntnunity. I
Based upon all of the above, I move that this Board [ Approve ] [ Deny ] Use Variance -LF -1-2018,
illiam Miner for Starr Mowery with the following conditions:
Duly adopted this 2 1 day of March 2018 by the following Grote:
AYES:
NOES:
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Deportment 5taff Dotes
Arca Variance No.: 112018
Project Applicant: Michael Serini
Project Location: 2934 State Route 9L
Parcel History: P-SP-1 1-2018; RC 717-2017; SEP 567-2017
SEAR Type: Type 11
Meeting hate: March 21,2018
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes dernolitiori of existing carnp and construction of a 1,008 sq, ft. home at 2,284 sq_ t1. floor area_ Re]ief requested
from minimum setback requirements and permeability requirements_ Planning Board= Site Plan Roview required for constructicm
within 50 fl. of 15%slopes.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requimments,permeability requirements.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional reguimments—wat. r-d yt residential
The applicant proposes a new home that is to be Iocated 17.7 ft.from the North property line and 17 ft. from the South property line
when a 20 ft_setback is required. Relief is also requested for permeability where 75OA is required and 72.2%is proposed.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance aeco rding to Chapter 267 of Torun Law:
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 cul this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood character may be anticipated.
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to purrime,other
than an arca variance. ]'easiblc alternatives may be considered limited as the house width is proposed to be 27 ft-
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code_
Relief is requested for side setbacks of 2.3 ft.on the north side and 3 it.an the south side,and permeability ofI8°fo,
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 maybe
anticipated. The project includes stormwater management for the site and it new waste water system.
5. Whether the alleged difl"ieulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered self-created.
Staff comraer�ts:
The applicant proposes to construct a new home and associated site work. The applicant had submitted information on the conditions
of the existing home that is to be removed indicating it would be difficult to repair.The plans show the grading, stortnwater
management and a new septic system.
QL1'o %11 id,( ukx'11"bur}
'742 Bay Road- QL1CkL1Q)LH'-N IN Y 12904
Col Ike 10piI}c111 r
'own of Queensbury Planning Board
RESOLUTION -Planning Board Recommendation to Zaning Board of Appeals
Area Variance 11-2018 MICHAEL SERIN I
Tax Map ID: 239.20-1-18 /Property Address: 2934 State Route 9L/Zoning: VAR
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes removal of existing camp to
construct 1,008 sq. ft. home at 2,284 sq. ft. floor area. project includes new septic, site work for house and
driveway. Pursuant to Chapter 179-3-040 & 179- -060 of the Zoning Ordinance, construction within 50 ft. of
15% slopes shall be subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: belief is sought for setback &
permeability. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board
of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
The Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this projeot on the neighborhood and surrounding community,
and found that:
MOTION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO TIME
ONINO BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE 'NO. 11-2018 MICHAEL SEI NI. Introduced
by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Motion seconded by Michael Valentine. Duly adopted this 13`E' day of March, 20 18 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Mago an, Mr. Valentine, Ms. White, Mr. Deeb, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
P11onc= 518.76 1,82201 Fax; 51}i_745.44371742 13kLY lzoad, Qur�!nsbuiy, NY 12804 1 wxvkv.gwciisbury.iiu
4W Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12.804 (518) 761-8238
7owjj o(Clucejusbury
Arca Variance Resolution To; Approve 1 Disapprove
Applicant Name: Michael Serini
File Number: Z-ASI-11-2018 V;?4,
Location: 2934 State Route 9L
Tax Map Number. 239.20-1-18
ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 2.1, 2018
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Michael Serini.
Applicant proposes demolition of existing camp and construction of a 1,008 sq. ft. home at 2,284 sq. ft. floor
area. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and permeability requirements. Planning Board:
Site Plan Review required for construction within 54 it. of 15% slopes.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements, permeability requirements.
Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential
The applicant proposes a new home that is to be located 17.7 ft, from the Forth property line and 17 fL from the
South property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Relief is also requested for perroeabi lity where 75% is
required and 72..2%is proposed.
SEAR Type I1—no further review required;
public bearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public bearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267
of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
PER THE DRAFTPROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties beeanse
. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been
included to minimize the requeC OR are not possible.
. The requested variance is 1 is not substantial because
4. There is_I is not an adverse impact an the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district?
5. The alleged difficulty is I is not self-created because
. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (appicyal) / would be outweighed by fdenial) 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)
e) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-tip letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARIANCE
-AV-11-2.018 Michael Serini, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded b
Duly adapted this 21" day of March 2018 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Town of Ou e e ns b u ry Zoning Board of Appeals
ornmuniiy Development Department Staff Notes
Area Variance Na.: 1-2.018
Project Applicant: Richard & Sharon Rapp
Project Location: 45 Ogden Road
Parcel History: P-SR-3-2018
SEQR Type; Type R
Meeting hate: Mareb 21,2018
Description of Proposed >?roject:
Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acre parcel into two lots of 0.92 acres and 0.46 acres. The existing home
is to remain on the larger parcel and the smaller parcel is to be sold. Relief requested from density, creating two
parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the existing horne on the larger parcel (lot 1).
Relief Required:
The applicant requests the following relief, Reliefrequested from density,creating two parcels less than 2 acres and
minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel(lot 1).
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dim n i nal requirement MDR zone
The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements to create two lots of
0.92 ac (existing house to remain)and 0.46 ac(lot to be sold) in the MDR zoning district. The MDR zone requires 2
acres if site is not connected to sewer and water. The site only has municipal water. Relief is also requested for side
setbacks for the existing home that is 1$.5 ft setback on the south property line and a 2 5 ft setback is required then front
setback where the home is 29 ft setback and 30 ft is required.
Criteria for considering am Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider-
1.
onsider:1. Whether an uades�irable 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 alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the
location of the existing home.
$. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered substantial relevant
to the code. The relief requested is 1.05 ac for Lot 1 4.92 ac and is 1.54 ac for Lot 2 0.46 ac. Relief is also requested
for the south side of the home of 6.5 ft.
A. 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. Ibe, applicant has shown a compliant septic system can be installed on the site
along with the placement of the home.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-c�reated.
Staff comntettts:
The applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 ac parcel into two parcels. One lot is to be 0.42 ac and to maintain an existing
home. The second lot is to be 0.46 ac and is to be marketed for sale for a single family home.
o%vil of 0y
114134lfy
Conmaillit 1)�n:dq)117ri,1011ict
742 Ila! - ROULI Kiccir-,l}k1ry, NY I .'.
Town of Queensbury Plarming Board
RESOLUTION -Planning Board Recommendation to Zoning Board of Appeals
Area Variance 1-2018 RICHARD & SHARON BA.PP
Tax Map ID: 309.19-1-29.1 / Property Address: 45 Ogden Road/ Zoning: MDR
The applicant has submitted an application for the following: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acre lot
into two lots of.92 acre and .46 acre. The existing home is to remain on larger lot (Lot 1) and smaller lot(Lot
2) to be sold with future buyer to complete construction details for house size, location of driveway, clearing,
grading and erosion control. Pursuant to Chapter 183 of the Zoning Ordinance, subdivision of land shall be
subject to Planning Board review and approval. Variance: Relief is sought for creation of two lots less than
acres and setbacks on lot 1 existing home. Planning Board shall provide a recommendation to the Zoning
Board of Appeals.
The Town of Queensbury Zoning Ordinance, per Section 179-9-070 J 2 b. requires the Planning Board to
provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both Zoning Board
of Appeals & Planning Board approval;
Th,e Planning Board has briefly reviewed and discussed this application, the relief request in the variance
application as well as the potential impacts of this project on the neighborhood and surrounding community,
and found that:
MOTION TO INTAKE A, RECOMMENDATION ON BEHALF OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE
ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2018 RICHARD & SHARON BAPP.
Introduced by David Deeb who moved its adoption, and
a) The Planning Board, based on a limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that
cannot be mitigated with current project proposal.
Lotion seconded by Brad Mago an. Duly adopted this 13t`day of March, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Deneb, Ms. White, Mr. Shafer, Mr. Hunsinger, Mr. Mago an, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Traver
NOES: NONE
I'llonc: Ifi,}{al.ti {1 I l .i _ '; 19.7 .1A-1,7
Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Say Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
-rplrrr of Q�k_' h1AWVY
Arca Variance resolution To: Approve f Disapprove
Applicant Name- Richard & Sharon Kapp
File plumber: -A - 1-2018
Location: 4 5 Ogden Road
Tax Map Number: 308,19-1-29.1
BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, March 21, 2018
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard & Sharon
Kapp. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 1.37 acre parcel into two lots of 0.92 acres and 0.46 acres. The
existing home is to remain on the larger parcel and the smaller parcel is to be sold. Relief from
density, creating two parcels less than 2 acres and minimum setback requirements of the exisdng home on the
larger parcel (lot 1).
Relief Required-
The applicant requests the following relief; Relief requested from density, creating two parcels less than 2. acres and
minimum setback requirements of the existing home on the larger parcel (lot l).
179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requiremunt MDR zone
The applicant requests the following relief,. Relief requested from ininitnum lot size requiremeMtts to create two lots of
0.92 ac (existing house to remain)and 0.46 ac(lot to bu sold) in the MDR zoning district. The MDR zone requires 2 acres
if site is not connected to sewer and water. The site only has municipal water. Relief is also requested for side setbacks
for the existing home that is 18.5 ft setback on the south property line and a 25 ft setback is required then front setback
where the horny is 2.9 ft setback and 30 ft is required.
SEAR Type II - no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 21, 2018:
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 17914-OSO(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267
ofNYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
PER THE DRAFTPROVIDED BY STAFF
1. Where is / is not an undesirable change in these character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
2, Feasible altmatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been
included to minimize the rgquest OR are not passible.
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. The alleged difficulty is /is not self-created because
G. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh 1 agomval) 1 would be outweighed b denial the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood of community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a)
b) ,
c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I INTAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE l DENY AREA VARIANCE
-AV-21-2018, Richard_& Sharon Bavv, Introduced by _, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 21 t day of March 20 18 by the folIo ing vote:
AYES:
NOES:
V
. t