Staff Notes Staff Notes
ZBA
Wednesday,
February 19 , 2020
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board.of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Area Variance No.: 3-2020
Project Applicant: Aftab Sam Bhatti
Project Location: 547 Aviation Road
Parcel History: SP 5-2020; SP 71-2019; SP 82-2019
SEQR Type: Type II
Meeting Date: February 19,2020
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to update the existing Quality Inn motel to enclose a 288 sq. ft. sunroom off of pool area.
The project includes construction of a 240 sq. ft. covered porch addition to rear of motel. The site contains two
lodging establishments that share parking and access on Aviation Road. Relief requested for FAR and setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for FAR and setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements and Section 179-4-080 Porches, Canopies and Decks
The application proposes to enclose an existing open deck area to the side of the building for the interior pool
area. The deck area is to be 20 ft. 5 in. where a 75 ft. setback is required. Relief is also required for Floor area
where 30% is required and 43.5 % is proposed(41688) and 42.9% (41160) is existing.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination,the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the
neighborhood character may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as the
existing open deck is not compliant to the front setback. Feasible alternatives for floor area would be to
have an open porch or deck area.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to
the code. The relief requested on the front property line is 54.5 ft. and Floor area is 12.9% in access.
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 will have minimal
impact to the environmental conditions of the area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to enclose an existing 288 sq. ft. open deck for the existing indoor pool to have access to
a covered porch/sunroom. The rear porch addition of 240 sq. ft. is also for patrons to have a covered area to be
out of the bad weather. The applicant has indicated there are no other site changes for the Quality Inn.
Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Town of 0yeensbury
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove
Applicant Name: Aftab Sam Bhatti
File Number: AV 3-2020
Location: 547 Aviation Road
Tax Map Number: 302.5-1-51
ZBA Meeting Date: February 19, 2020
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Aftab Sam Bhatti.
Applicant proposes to update the existing Quality Inn motel to enclose a 288 sq. ft. sunroom off of pool area.
The project includes construction of a 240 sq. ft. covered porch addition to rear of motel. The site contains two
lodging establishments that share parking and access on Aviation Road. Relief requested for FAR and setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for FAR and setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements and Section 179-4-080 Porches, Canopies and Decks
The application proposes to enclose an existing open deck area to the side of the building for the interior pool
area. The deck area is to be 20 ft. 5 in. where a 75 ft. setback is required. Relief is also required for Floor area
where 30% is required and 43.5 % is proposed(41688) and 42.9% (41160) is existing.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,February 19, 2020.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267
of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
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 / 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
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (approval) / would be outweighed b denial the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
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 MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE / DENY AREA VARIANCE
NO. 3-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 19"Day of February 2020 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Area Variance No.: 4-2020
Project Applicant: Manfred Unkauf& Joan McGrath
Project Location: 38 Hiland Drive
Parcel History: n/a
SEQR Type: Type II
Meeting Date: February 19,2020
Description of Proposed Project.
Applicant proposes to remove an 864 sq. ft. garage to construct a 1,680 sq. ft. new garage with second story.
The proposed garage to be used for vehicle and household storage as well as workshop area. Site has an existing
attached garage to the home and a 672 sq. ft. garage/woodshed storage building. Relief requested for number of
garages.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for number of garages.
Section 179-5-020—Garages
The applicant proposes to remove an existing detached garage and construct a new garage where the applicant
has three garages already. One attached to the home, one woodshed, and a detached garage.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law.
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be
considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the parcel is 10.31 ac.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited as the
applicant would like to maintain all three garages for different uses—attached garage for vehicles,
woodshed, and detached garage. (Noting the door width is 6 ft. or greater,the buildings are then treated as
garages.)
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to
the code. Relief is requested to have three garages where only one garage is allowed.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered
to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created.
Staff comments•
The applicant requests to maintain 3 garages on an existing 10 +acre parcel. The plan shows the location of the
three garages.
Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Ibi m of C-imcnsbuly
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove
Applicant Name: Manfred Unkauf& Joan McGrath
File Number: AV 4-2020
Location: 38 Hiland Drive
Tax Map Number: 290.10-1-7
ZBA Meeting Date: February 19, 2020
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Manfred Unkauf
& Joan McGrath. Applicant proposes to remove an 864 sq. ft. garage to construct a 1,680 sq. ft. new garage
with second story. The proposed garage to be used for vehicle and household storage as well as workshop area.
Site has an existing attached garage to the home and a 672 sq. ft. garage/woodshed storage building. Relief
requested for number of garages.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for number of garages.
Section 179-5-020—Garages
The applicant proposes to remove an existing detached garage and construct a new garage where the applicant
has three garages already. One attached to the home, one woodshed, and a detached garage.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 19, 2020.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267
of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
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 / 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
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (approval) / would be outweighed b denial the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
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 MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE / DENY AREA VARIANCE
NO. 4-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 19th Day of February 2020 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Town of Queensb.ury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Area Variance No.: 5-2020
Project Applicant: Thomas Heinzelman
Project Location: 52 Reardon Road
Parcel History: SP 8-2020,AV 26-2004
SEQR Type: Type II
Meeting Date: February 19, 2020
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to demo existing home to construct a new home with 1,510 sq. ft. footprint and a 2,604 sq.
ft. floor area. Site work includes grading, stormwater, landscaping, well, and septic. Project subject to Site Plan
for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for permeability and setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for permeability and setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements.
The applicant proposes a new home where the open deck is to be located 38.3 ft. where a 50 ft. setback is
required. The permeability is proposed to be 58.6 %where 75% is required and 62.6% is existing.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. The project may be
considered to have little to no impact on the neighboring properties as the home is in a similar location.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. The feasible alternatives may be limited to location
due to the lot shape. There may be feasibility to reduce the permeability to existing conditions however,the
driveway is shared with the neighboring property.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to
the code. Relief for the deck setback is 11.7 ft. and permeability is 16.4%.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered
to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The project as proposed may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a new home on the site with associated site work. The plans show the
location of the proposed deck. The applicant previously had a variance for the existing deck to be at the
proposed setback. The plans also show the location of the shared driveway that is to remain.
Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
'Town of(tyccnsbui),
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove
Applicant Name: Thomas Heinzelman
File Number: AV 5-2020
Location: 52 Reardon Road
Tax Map Number: 289.7-1-19
ZBA Meeting Date: February 19, 2020
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Thomas
Heinzelman. Applicant proposes to demo existing home to construct a new home with 1,510 sq. ft. footprint
and a 2,604 sq. ft. floor area. Site work includes grading, stormwater, landscaping, well, and septic. Project
subject to Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for permeability and setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for permeability and setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements.
The applicant proposes a new home where the open deck is to be located 38.3 ft. where a 50 ft. setback is
required. The permeability is proposed to be 58.6 %where 75% is required and 62.6% is existing.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 19, 2020.
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267
of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
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 / 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
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (qpproval) / would be outweighed b denial the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a)
b) ,
c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE / DENY AREA VARIANCE
NO. 5-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 19th Day of February 2020 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Sign Variance No.: 3-2020
Project Applicant: 1454 State Route 9,LLC
Project Location: 1454 State Route 9
Parcel History: SP 65-2019; SP 35-2018; CC 23-2020; CC 800-2019; DEMO 793-2019
SEQR Type: Unlisted
Meeting Date: February 19,2020
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes to replace a 130 sq. ft. sign with a 59.75 sq. ft. sign. Sign to advertise tenants for new
commercial building and existing lodging. Relief requested for setback requirements for a freestanding sign.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setback requirements for a freestanding sign.
Section 140—Signs.
The applicant proposes a 59.75 sq. ft. sign at 5 ft. 9 in. setback where a 25 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 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 to no impacts to the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the design of
the existing parking lot and building to be constructed.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 19 ft. 3 in. for the previous signage location.
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 to
no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant proposes a 59.75 sq. ft. free standing sign which contains the space for multiple tenants. The
plans show the location of the sign and the sign type. The applicant has indicated the sign is an upgrade to the
existing sign on site.
Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
"!'oim of(tueensbui),
Sign Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove
Applicant Name: 1454 State Route 9, LLC
File Number: SV 3-2020
Location: 1454 State Route 9
Tax Map Number: 288.12-1-21
ZBA Meeting Date: February 19, 2020
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 1454 State
Route 9,LLC. Applicant proposes to replace a 130 sq. ft. sign with a 59.75 sq. ft. sign. Sign to advertise
tenants for new commercial building and existing lodging. Relief requested for setback requirements for
a freestanding sign.
Relief Required]-
The applicant requests relief for setback requirements for a freestanding sign.
Section 140—Signs
The applicant proposes a 59.75 sq. ft. sign at 5 ft. 9 in. setback where a 25 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution/Action Required for SEAR]
Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 3-2020. Applicant Name: 1454 State Route 9, based upon the
information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this
Board finds that this will/will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we
give it a Positive/Negative Declaration, Introduced by who moved for its
adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 19th Day of February 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,February 19, 2020;
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:
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 requested sign variance? INSERT RESPONSE
2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to
pursue, other than a 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 or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district? INSERT RESPONSE
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? INSERT RESPONSE
6. In addition,the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would outweigh(approval)/would be outweighed_ by(denial)the resulting detriment to the health,
safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE/DENY Sign Variance SV 3-2020,
1454 State Route 9,LLC, Introduced by ,who moved for its adoption, seconded by
As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following:
A. <insert conditions/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
APA'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;
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,
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 19th Day of February 2020, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: