Loading...
Staff Notes Packet ZBA Mtg. Wed., September 26, 2018 Wednesday, September 26, 2018 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Meefiing-. Wednesday, 5elatember 26, 2018 Time: 7:00- 1 I:0D pm Queensbury Activities Center—742 Bay Road Agenda sufoject to change and may be found at: www.queensbury.net Applicants Linda Clark Area'Variance No Z-AV-59-2018 Owners 4indaClark 5F. RA Type 11 A at s n1a Lot Size 0.28 Acres Location 3 Benmost Bur Lane Zoning WR Ward No. Ward 1 Tax Id No 289.13-1-53 Section 179-3-040; 179-13-4J 4 Cross Ref AV 61-1989 Warren County Planning September 2Q 19 Public Hearing S [ember 26,20 18 irk Aetncy I rJa Project Oeseriptian Applicant proposes construction of two porch additions,each 240 sq_ ft_on the first floor and second floor to an existing home; 1.344 sq.ft. footprint with existing floor area of 3.792 sq_ft_and pfoposed 4,032 sq. ft. Relief requested frorn rninirnurn pe rmeabil itv, floor area ratio and minimum setback requirements for the WR zmiQ district, A icon[ s Saxton Sign Corp. Sign Variance No SV-7-2018 Owns a Pius in Dz,dcmir SEQRA a Unlisted A ens Saxton Sign Corp- I.o#Size 0 50 acres ]vacation W Upper Glen Strcr-t ZOnlag Cl Ward No. Ward Tax Id No 302.7-1-32 Section Chapter 140 Cross Ref SV 28-2004.SV 58-20M RP 2006-126; Warren County Planning August 2019 RP 2006-127 lPdblie Hearing September 2k 2018 Adlreadock Park Agency nla Project Description Applicant proposes four canopy(wall signs)to be located on the fuel canopy. Panel 1 178.5 sq.t.;Panei 2: 70 sq,It.; Panel 3, 178.5 sq, il,;Panel 4: 70 sq.ft,with kuording and logo For Sunoco&NASCAR_ Also,a wall sign an building at 16 sq_ft, Parcel is an a comer lot which allows for two wall signs WW Otte freestanding sign. Fracstariding sign permit issued For chango of copy for Sunoco. Relief rcqucstod Emm number of allowable sinis and size. Appellant. Charles C.Freilwfer.III Notice of Appeal No NGA 1-2.018 Owners Dark Bay nies,LLC& Lawrence A. Davis SE RA Type II Agent(s) John W.Caffry.Esq.Caffry&Flower Lat Size _ 1.5 Acres&0.23 Acres Location 3300 Statc Route 9L Zoning IkR Ward No. Ward l for both lots Tax Id No 239A8-1-27,l &27.2 1 Section nla Crops lief SP 67-2017 Warren t~attn Plannin tiJa Public H caring Seplember 26,20 18 Adirondatk Park A enc n/a Project Description Appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's letter dated.July 26,2019 regarding issuance of a Sitc an llcwiew o, 67-2017 Gregory Teresi. Any Further business that the ChMrman determines may be properly brought before the Gating Board of Appeals_ 9.17.2018 Revised J Updated Agenda, Added AV for C. Dwyer—Tabling from 9.19.2018 mtg.date at request of S. Bitter, Esq, Page 2 ON Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda Meeting: Wednesday, Sepiember 26. 2018 Time: 7:00- 11,00 prn Queensbury Activities Center- 742 Bay Rood Agenda subject to change and may Ise found at: www.qLieensbury.net OLD HUS[NESS: A lican#(s) Christopher Dwyer Area Variance No Z-AV-42-2018 Owners Christopher Dw er S11 RA Type Il Agent(s) Stefanie DiLallo Bitter,Esq. BPSR Lot Size 1.37 acres Location 1232 Wcst Mountain Rued Zoning MDR Word No. Ward I Tax Id No 28 .-1-65 Section 179-3-040 Cross Ref Na Warren County Planning JUM2018 Pubtie Hearing June 27,2018;August 22,2019 Tabled to Ad irontlack Park Agency n/a September 19,2018, Request to be Tabled to September 26,2018 Project Description Applicant proposes to maintain two single,-family dwellings on a 1.37 acre parcel; 1,02 sq_&(footprint)and 1,140 sq_ft. (footprint). Requesting the second dwelling to be a guest onttag and not to be rented. Relief requested from minimum lot size restrictions for each dwell ing un it located in the MDR toning district;min imum requirement is 2-acres per dwell ing tin it. Also,relief requested from.restriction that allows only one dwell ing unit per lot in the MDR anne. NEW BUSINESS: Applicant(s) Barbara Reynolds Area Variance No Z-AV-56-2018 i Owners Barbara Re holds I; RAT a II Agent(s) n/a Lot Size 034 Acres Loeativa 26 Crowawood Lane Zoning MDR Ward No. Plard 3 TBx Id No 295.14-2-55 1 Section 179-3-040; 179-M24 Cross Ref AST 3?9-2018 p=bo Warren County Planning n!a Public Hearing September 26,2018 Adirondack Park Agency as Project Demriptiou Applicant proposes to maintain existing 12 ft.by 24&gazebo in its current location in the rear yard_ Exist ing home is 2,168 _ft_(footprint). Relief re nested from minimurn setback requirernmis.for the MDR wning district. A Iicant s Mary Cooper Area Variance No Z-AV-57-2018 Owners Cooper SE RA Type Il A ent s tlfu Lot Size 0,19 Acres Location 4 Greenway North Zoning MDR Ward No. Ward 2 Tax Id No 302.5-1-83 Section 179-3-040 Cross Ref AST 355-Z018 dock Warren County Planning Septenbcr2013 Public Hearing Selyternber.2k 2018 Adlrondark Park Agency n/a Project Descri ltiun Applicant proposes to construct a 418 sq, ft,deck addition with a 6 ft.by 8 ft.covered area The existing home is 1,089 s'q• ft_(foe rin# _ Rcliefrequested from minimum setback rc uiremcnts for the MDR Zw1ing district. A licaut s Flintlock Corp.d%fa Adirondack G;I R3_r e Sin Variance No Z-SV-8-2018 Owner(s) Flintlock Corp.. SFQRA Type Unlisted A en s BC StUHl f InfaIMOU5 GfaphiCS Lot Size l.33 Acres Lacatian 1540 Statc Route 9 Zoning Cl Ward No. Ward 1 Tax id No 298.8-1-14 Section Cha r 140 Cross Rtf 7ASIGN 259-2018,SIGN 260-2018 arrea County Planning September 20IS Public Hearin September 26.2018 1 Adirondack Paris Agency n/a Project Deewription Applicant proposes the installation oft wali signs on the building where only one is allowed for the business Adirondack Gun Range. Sign No, I is to be 5430 sq.ft.and Sign No,2 is to be 109.79 sq.ft. Rcl icf requested from number of allowable wal I signs and maximum sign size eta setback of too fen from the front pro2crty line. Page 1 of 2 Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals CommunIty Development Department Staff Noies Area Variance No.: 42-2018 Project Applicant. Christopher Dwyer Project Location: 1232 West Mountain Road Pared History: n!a SEAR Type: Type lI Meeting Date: September 19, 201.8 Tabled to Septem her 26,2018 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain two si ng]c-family dwellings on a 1.37 acre parcel; 1,632 sq. ft. (footprint) and 1,140 sq, ft. (footprint). Requesting the second dwelling to be a guest cottage and not to be rented_ Relief requested from minimum Iot size restrictions for each dwelling unit located in the MDR zoning district; minimum requirement is -acres per dwelling unit. Also, relief requested from restriction that allows only one duelling unit per lot in the MDR zone. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number ofdwelIing unit located on one parcel in the MDR zoning district and the lot size requirement for 2 dwelling units. Section 179-3-040 establish cnt of districts-dimensional requirements—moderate density residential zone The applicant proposes to maintain two existing dwelling units with one dwelling to be the main Dome and the other dwelling to be considered a gue-st cottage not to be rented. The MDR zone requirement is 2-acres per dweIling unit_ Also, relief requested from restriction that allows only one dwelling unit per lot in the MDR zone. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In snaking 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 impacts to the neighborhood character may be anticipated. . Whether the benefit sought by the applican( can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible altematives may be considered to convert the detached building back to a garage as was previously permitted. Also, the applicant at this time has an existing approved building permit RC-046 7-2 418 to remove all kitchen appliances, utilities for appliances, countertops and cabinets (except for small countertop associated with sink). . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code_ belief requested is 2,6 3 acres and for a tat to have two dwellings 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions iu the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain two existing dArlling units with one dwelling to be the main home and the other dwelling to be considered a guest cottage, The applicant had explained to the board previousIy that he purchased the. property not aware the two homes were not previously approved. The plans show the location of the two homes on the }parcel. The separate building was previously approved as a garage had been converted without appropriate approvals to another dwelling unit by the previous owner. Zoning Board of Appeals CDMmunlity Development Department Staff Nof s Zoning Board of Appeals — Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, ICY 12804 (518) 761-8 238 Town of ijrcaj.s?3[ir). Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Christopher Dwyer File Number- Z-AEI-42-2018 Location: 1232 West Mountain Road Tax -Map Number: 288.-1-65 ZBA Mecting Date: Wednesday, September 2 , 018 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application ftm Christopher Dwyer. Applicant proposes to maintain two single-family dwellings on a 1.37 acre parcel; 1,632 sq, ft, (footprint) and 1,140 sq. ft. (footprint). Requesting the second dwelling to be a guest cottage and not to be rented. Relief requested from minimum lot size restrictions for each dwelling unit located in the MDR zoning district; minimum requirement is 2-acres per dwelling unit. Also, rel ief requested from restriction that allows only one d eIling unit per lot in the MDR zone. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of dwelling unit located on one parcel in the MDR zoning district and the lot size requirement for 2 dwelling units. Section 179- -040 establishment of districts-d imensional requirements —moderate density residential zone The applicant proposes to maintain two existing dwelling units with one dwelling to be the train Home and the other dwelling to be considered a guest cottage not to be rented. The MDR zone requirement is 2-acres per dwelling unit. Also, relief requested from restriction that allows only cane dowelling unit per lot in the MDR zone, SEAR Type T1 —no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 2 7, 2018 and left open; Upon review of the application materials, infonnation supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-090(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 2 67 of NY S Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because . Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request OR are not passible. 1 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 In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (a roval) / 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 sander consideration is the minimum necessary; & The Board also proposes the following conditions; a) b) e) Adberence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FI DING . I MAKE A OTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA VARiAN E -AV-42-2 018 Christopher er, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 26"' day of September 2018 by the following vote: AYES: NOES- Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Arcs Varianec No.: 56- 018 Project Applicant: Barbara Reynolds Project Location: 26 Crawnwood Lane Parcel History: AST 378-2018 gazebo SEAR Type: Type II Meeting Date: September 26, 2018 Description of Proposed Pject: Applicant proposes to maintain existing 12 ft. by 24 ft. gazebo in its current location in the rear yard. Existing home is 2,168 sq. _ (footprint), Reli ef requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR Zoning district. Relief Required: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the ]YOR zoning district. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts -dimensional requirement MDR The existing gazebo is 3.5 ft from the rear property line where a 30 ft setback is required. Criteria foe considering are Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change wM 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 limited due to the lot size and location of the existing Dome. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 26-5 ft to the rear property line. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact ors 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff'comments• The applicant was notified by a building inspector the existing gazebo was in location that did not meet the rear setback from a neighbor complaint. The applicant has indicated the gazebo was installed in 201 5 and replaced an existing shed structure on the site. The applicant has included photos of the existing gazebo and the real estate listing sheet during at the time of property purchase. Zoning Board of Appeals— Record of Resolution Town ofQuecnsbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, ICY 12804 (518) 7 1-8 38 -01W Tom dQucvwburV Area Variance Resolution To: Approve / Disapprove Applicant Dame: Barbara Reynolds File Number: - V-56-201 8 Location: 26 Crownwood Lane Tax -Map Number: 295.14-2-55 EA Meeting Date: 'Wednesday, September 2. ,201 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Barbara Reynolds. Applicant proposes to maintain existing 12 ft. by 24 ft, gazebo in itscurrent location in the rear yard. Existing home is 2,168 sq. fit. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: Relief requested f orn minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. 17 -3-040 Establishment of Districts —dimensional requirement MDR The existing gazebo is 3.5 ft from the rear property line where a 30 ft setback is required, SEQR Type It—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 2 6, 2D18; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 17 -14-0 0{A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because 2. Fusible 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 / is.not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 6. The alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-created because 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant €rorn 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; . The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this iresolution. BASED O N. THE AB0VR FINDINGS, I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE / DENY AREA V ARIAN E -A -5 -2018 Bubara Reynolds, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded b Duly adopted this 26'h day of October 2018 by the following vote: AYES. NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 57-2018 Project Applicant: Mary Cooper Prot Location: 4 Greenway North Parcel History: AST 5-2018 deck E R Type: Type 11 Meeting Date. September 26,201 iy ription of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 418 sq, ft. deck addition with a 6 ft. by 8 ft. covered area. The existing home is 1,089 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements forthe MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zone-deck. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional rc uirement MDR zone 17 -4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks The applicant proposes a 418 sq ft deck addition with a 48 sq ft covered portion of the deck that is to be 8.4 ft from the side property line where it required to be 25 t. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Ifaw: 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 vazionee. Mirror 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 existing hone on the lot. . Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief is for 16.60 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 physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff coM[Rents: The applicant proposes construction of a 418 sq ft open deck area with a 48 sq ft covered area deck. The plans show the location of the deck and the existing home. The applicant has indicated the deck can not be adjusted to the other side due to the location of the septic system, 04 Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Say Road Queensbury, NY 12844 (518) 761-8238 ToLvrr of Qwvisbirry Area Valiance Resolution To: Approve/ Disapprove Applicant Dame: Mary Cooper File Number: Z,-A - 7-2018 ; Location: 4 Greenway Forth Tax Map Dumber: 342. -1-83 ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 2 6, 2018 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mary Cooper. Applicant proposes to construct a 418 sq. ft deck addition with a 6 ft. by 8 ft. covered area. The existing home is 1,089 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zone -deck, 179-3-040 Establisiuiient of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and docks The applicant proposes a 418 sq ft deck addition with a 48 sq ft cov-ered portion of the deck that is to be 8.4 ft from the side property line where it required to be 26 ft. SFQR Type II --no firther review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 26, 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 ofN S Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because 1 Feasible alternatives arc and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have. beer included to mirkimize 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's 5. 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 outweiiab approval) f 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; . The Board also proposes the Following conditions: y{a) ) 3 c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter seat with this resolution. BASER ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I FAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE/DENY AREA VARIANCE -A -57- 01 Lary cooper,Introduced by who moved i~or its adoption, seconded b Duly adopted this 260' day of September 2018 by the following votr,: AYES NOES: Town of Glueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Sign Variance No.: $-2018 Project Applicant: Flintlock Carp. dlbla Adirundnck Gun Lange Project Location: 1540 State Route 9 Parcel History: SIGN 259-2018; SIGN 260-2019 E It Type: Unlistcd Mee S e ptem ber 26, 2018 pescription ofProposeq project: Applicant proposes the installation of 2 wall signs on the building where only one is allowed for the business Adirondack Gun Range. Sign No. 1 is to be 54.30 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 109.79 sq. ft. Relief requested fronn number of allowable wall sighs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs and maxin7urn sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property Iine CT zoning district. Section 140 si na a ornrnercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes to place 2 wall signs ou an existing building Sign No. 1 is to be 54.30 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 109.79 sq. #t.. The property is only permited one wall sign at 30 sq ft up to 100 sq ft with a building setback of 100 ft or max of 200 sq ft for a sign with a building setback gTeateT than 100 ft at 10 sq ft increments, 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. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the signs are larger than allowed. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the signage and number of signs. . Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The signs exceed the number allowed and the size allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whethc-r the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff Comments; The applicant proposes two signs with Sign No. 1 to be 5430 sc1, ft. and Sign No. 2 to be 109.79 sq, ft.. Both of the signs are to have red lettering and to be internally lit. Sign No 1, is to be about 78 ft from the property Iine and Sign No. 2 is to be about 74.8 ft from the property tine. The plans shove the location of the signs to be installed. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Developrnertt Department Staff Notes Zoning Board of Appeals—Record ofResolution Town of Queensbury 742 Say Road Queensbury,NY 12304 (518) 761-8238 [ yca.�aeanr x Sign Variance Resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove 5 Applicant Name: Flintlock Corp. dfbla Adirondack Guts Range File dumber: Z-S' -8-2018 Location: 1540 State Route Tax Map Number: 288.8-1-14 BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Flintlock Corp. dlbla Adirondack Gun Range for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The 'own of Queensbury. Applicant proposes the installation of 2 wall signs on the building where only one i allowed for the business Adirondack Gun lunge. Sign No. 1 is to be 54.30 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 109.79 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line Cl zoning district. Section 140 si age—Commercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes to place 2 wall signs on an existing building Sign No. 1 is to be 54.30 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 109.79 sq. ft- The property is only permited one wall sign at 30 sq ft up to 100 sq ft with a building setback of 100 ft or max of 200 sq ft for a sign with a building setback greater than 100 ft at 10 sq ft increments. SEAR Type; Unlisted [ Resolution I Action Required for SE RI Motion regarding Sign Variance - -8-2018 Flintlock Corp., dlbfa Adirondack Gun Range and based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 26'h day of September 2018, by the following vote: AYFS: NOES: A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 26, 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 ueensbwy Town Code and Chapter 267 of N YS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as foIlows. 1. 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 requester) sign variance? INSERTRES11ONSE . Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicamt to pursue, other than an sign variance? INSERT RESPONSE 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? INSERT RESPONSE 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical olr environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? rNSERT RESPONSE 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? INSERT > FSPONSE , in addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh 1 would he outweip-hed by the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DFNY Sign Variance SV-5-2018 Flintlock Corp. d/b/a Adirondack Gun Range, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded b As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A, jnsert conditions /e m gents : B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the elate of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; C. If the property is located Aithin the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subj cot to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's reviexv is completed; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any fuirlher review by the Zoning Administrator or BuiKng& 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 cau apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department, Duly adopted this 26 b day of Sef tember 2018, by the following vote: ASSES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appear Community Development Department Staff Note Area Variance No.: 59-2018 Project Applicant: Linda Clark Project Location: 3 Benmost Bur Lane Parcel History: AV 61-1999 SEAR Type: Type 11 Meeting Date: September 26,2018 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of two porch additions, each 240 sq. ft. on the first floor and second floor to an existing home; 1,344 sq. ft. footprint with existing floor area of 3,792 sq. & and proposed 4,032 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum permeability, floor area ratio, and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum permeability, floor area ratio, and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements-dimensional requirements Waterfront Residential zone. 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks The appli nt proposes a 240 sq ft porch addition at the first floor and the second floor (note causing the first floor porch to be a covered porch, the second floor porch is open). The porch is to be 7.8 ft to the rear property line where a 20 t setback is required. The project also requires relief from permeability where 64 % is proposed a 75% is required (existing 6%), Floor area where 32..3 °r, is proposed and 2 % is the maximum allowed (existing 30.4%). Criteria for considering an Area 'Variance according to Chapter 27 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in tine character of the neighborhood or a detrim cot 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 maybe limited due to the existing house location,and the existing right-of-way on the property. . Whether the requested ama variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. belief is requested for the north property line12.2 ft, permeability is 11% and floor area is 10.3% in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or lmpaet 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. Whethcr the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff coninient : The applicant has provided plans that show the location of the new porch areas. The applicant has explained the home when under construction was to have the porch addition and due to a setback issue in 1989 the porch was not constructed. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Motes Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of)resolution off. Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761- 238 Town of(twerosbury Area Variance resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove Applicant Nance: Linda Clark f� File Number- AV-59- 018 Location: 3 Benmost Bur Lane Tax 14'9[ap Number: 289.13-1-53 ZBA Meeting Date; Wednesday, September 26,2,018 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Linda Clark. Applicant proposes construction of two porcb additions, each 240 sq. ft. on the first floor and second floor to an existing home; 1,344 sq. i1. footprint with existing floor area of 3,792 sq. ft. and proposed 4,032 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum permeability, floor area ratio, and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Req ui red: The applicant requests relief from minimum permeability, floor area ratio, and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 17 -3-040—Dimensional requirements—dimensional requirements Waterfront Residential zone. 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks The applicant proposes a 240 sq ft porch addition at the first floor and the second floor (rote causing the first floor porch to be a covered porch, the second floor porch is open). The parch is to be 7.8 ft to the rear property line where a 20 ft setback is required. The project also requires relief from permeability where 64 % is proposed a 75% is required (existing 66%), Floor area where 32.3 %is proposed and 22% is the maximum allowed (existing 30.4%). SEAR Type II —no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 26, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-0 0(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Laver and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: PER THE. DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is_1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because 2. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request OR are not possible, 3. The requested variance is / is not substantial because 4. There is l is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or diwict? . The alleged difficulty is/ is not self-created because 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweip,h (approval) I would be oumeighed 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 minimurn 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. BASER ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO A PPR QV 1 DENY AREA 'VARIANCE A -59-201.a, Linda.Clar1 , Introduced by_, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 2 6"' day ol`September, 2 019 by the following vote. AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Communily Development Department Staff Notes Sign Variance No.. 7-2018 Project Applicant; Saxton Sign Corp. Project Location: 658 Upper Glen Street Parcel History: SV 28-2004i SV 58-2002; BP 2006-126; BP 2006-127 SEAR.Type. Unlisted Meeting Date: September 26,2018 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes four canopy(wall signs) to be located on the fuel canopy. Panel 1: 178.5 sq. ft. ; Panel 2: 70 sq. ft. ; Panel 3: 178.5 sq. ft.; Panel 4: 74 sq. ft. with wording and logo for Sunoco &NASCAR. Also, a wall sign on building at 16 sq. ft. Parcel is on a corner lot which allows for two wall suns and one freestanding sign. Freestanding sign permit issued for change of copy for Sunoco. Relief requested from number of allowable signs and size. Relief legnired: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable signs and site in the CI zone. Section 140 siggaaze ornmercial Intensive zone The appli=t proposes four canopy signs to be located on the fuel canopy and one wall sign on the building. Panel I: 178.5 sq. ft. ; Panel 2: 70 sq. fit. ; Panel 3: 178.5 sq. ft., Panel 4. 70 sq. ft. and a building sign that is permited at 16 sq. ft—a total of 5 wall signs where two wall signs at 30 sq ft are allowed on a corner parcel. 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 variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the signs are larger than allowed. . Whether the benefit sought by the applicannt can he achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the signage and number of signs. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial. The relief may be considered subst,w ial relevant to the code. The signs exceed the number allowed and the size allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. IS laff COniments: The applicant proposes four canopy (wall signs) to be located on the fuel canoe and a permited building wall sign at 16 sq. ft. The plans show the canopy signage with the sunoco lettering, symbol and color scheme. The applicant has been working with Staff in regards to building wall signage and has removed an existing 32 sq ft signage (non compliant) and at this time does not propose additional building wall signs— and is aware that a permit exists to place a 16 sq ft wall sign on the building. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of{ ueensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-823 Town cdCLucrrisbErry Sign Variance Resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove Applicant Dame: Saxton Sign Corp. for Sunoco Zile dumber: -SV-7-2018 Location: 658 Upper Glen Street Tax Map Number- 302.7-1-32 BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, September 26, 2018 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbui-y has received an application from Saxton Sign Corp. for Sunoco for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes four canopy (wail signs) to be located on the fuel canopy. Panel 1: 178.5 sq. ft. ; Panel : 70 sq. ft. ; Panel 3: 178.5 sq. ft.; Panel 4. 70 sq. ft. with wording and logo for Sunoco Sc NAS CAR. Also, a wall sign on building at 16 sq. ft. Parcel is on a corner lot which allows for two wall signs and one freestanding sign. Freestanding sign permit issued for change of copy for S"oeo. Relief requested from number of allowable signs and size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of alioable signs and size in the CI zone_ Section 140 signage c mnercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes four canopy signs to be located on the fuel canopy aMd one wall sign on the building. Panel 1: 178.5 sq. it. ; Panel 2. 70 sq, fr. ; Panel 3: 178.5 sq. it.; Panel 4; 70 sq. ft. and a building sign that is permited at 16 sq. ft—a total of 5 wall signs where two wall signs at 30 sq ft are allowed on a cornet'parcel. S EQ R Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance SV-7- 018 Saxton Sign Corp. for Sunoco based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Boarrd rinds that this will not result in any significant adverse environ men(a I impact. So w a give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 26 th day of September 2018 , by the following vote; AYES: NOES: public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 26, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public bearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 17 -14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of N S Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, Svc find as follows: l. Will an undesirable change he 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? iNSEWF RESPONSE . Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance: INSERT RE, PONSE 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? INSERT RESPONSE 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditiom in the neighborhood or district? INSER1'RESPONSE. 5. is the alleged difficulty self-created? INSERT RESPONSE In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance ould outweigh 1 would be out ei shed by the resulting detriment to the health, safety and v.clfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings i make a MOTION TO APPROVE/DENY Sign Variance - -1-2018 Saxton Sign Corp. for Sunoco, Introduced by , who mov(d for its adoption, seconded by As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. <insert conditions 1 comments , B. The variance approval is valid for one (I) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review b the Adirondack Park Agency (,APA). The applicant is motioned against taking any action until the APL's review is completed; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building &. codes personnel' E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; li. 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, approval, or permit frorn the Town Punning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other Stake agency or department. Duly adopted this 261' day of September 2018, by the following vote; AYES: NOES Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff motes Appeal No.: 1 -2018 Appellant: Coffiry & Flower for Charles C. Freihofer, 111 Project Location: 3300 State Route 91. Meeting Date: September 26, 2018 Information regUestecf: Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a June 2 , 2018 form letter from the Zoning Administrator relative to the issuance of Site Plan €2eview approval 6 - 01 l; Gregory Teres1. Staff aomments: First, Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? The appeal was filed within the required timeframe. • The Notice of Appeal application was filed with the Town on July 30, 2018. • While the appellant has not offered any information regarding a direct damage or harm to them that differs from that of the general public, or an explanation of how they are aggrieved, they are an adjacent property owner. Second, Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have stand[ng: The appellant is appealing a Zoning Administrator form letter, sent to all applicants that have been issued either a Planning Board or Zoning Board of Appeals decision. The position of the appellant is that th s form letter constitutes a determination. Page 1 of Appeal No.: 1 - 018 Appellant: Caffry & Flower for Freihofer It is the Zoning Administrator position that the subject letter does not constitute an interpretation, decision or offer any positlon or explanation of any section of the Town Zoning Ordinance that the appellant has referenced. The appellant"s main argument appears to be that the property involved in the SP 67-2017 application must be merged with the adjoining lands to the west and, once joined, treated as one parcel for the purposes of applying the provisions of the Town Zoning Ordinance per 179-1 -060, D. The June 26, 2018 letter from the Zoning Administrator does not refer to this section of the code or render any determination or interpretation regarding the some. Page 2 of L:\Lcufo Moore\5toft Motes\Z13A\2018\W 26 18\Staff NptOS NOA 1-?.016 Fra hof�4 26 18-dOc Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Zoning Board of Appeals — Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay load Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 76 l-8238 Tumi of C caas�a¢in Notice of Appeal Resolution RESOLUTION TO: Approve !Disapprove Notice of Appeal No. 1-2018 Appellant Name: Charles C. Freikofer, III; Agent: John W. Caffry, Esq. Tax Map No. 239.18-1- 7.1 & 27.2 Property Location: 3300 State Route 9L RESOLUTION TO: Approve , Disapprove Appeal No. 1-2018 , Charles C. Frcihofer, 111,Agent: John W. Caffiry, Esq., regarding property owned by Dark Bay Properties, LLC & Lawrence A. Davis at 3300 State Route 9L, Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.1 & 27.2; The Zoning Board of Appeals cf the Town of Queensbury has received an Appeal application from Charles C. Frei hofer, III; Agent: John W. Caffry, Esq. The Appellant is appealing to the Zoniag Board of Appeals relative to a June 26, 2018 iFom Ietter from the Zoning Administrator relative to the issuance or Site Plan Review approval 7-2017; Gregory Teresi, SEAR Type II —no further review required; public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 2.6, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied durfng the public hearing, and upon consideration of the applicable criteria of the Q ueensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of the NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. The Appeal was tiled, was not filed within the required 60-day time frame. . The Appealing Party is, is not aggrieved and were found to have, not have standing. 3. The merits of the argument as provided by the appellant with responses from the Zoning Administrator have been considered. It is our finding that the positions offered by the appellant are, are not sufficient to warrant overturning the Zoning Administrator's decision at hand. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE /DENY Appeal No. 1-201 S, CHARLES C. FREIR FER, III; AGENT: JOIN W. CAFFRY, ESQ. OF CAI FRY & FOW R , Introduced by , wbo moved for its adoption, seconded b Duly adopted this 263° day of September 201 S, by the following vote: AYES: DOES: