Loading...
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: