Loading...
Staff Notes 3_18_2020 Meeting Staff Notes ZBA Meeting Wednesday March 18, 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: March 18, 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—Commericial Intensive Zone-CI 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 Queensbury 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: March 18, 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— Commercial Intensive Zone- CI 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, March 18, 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 1811 Day of March 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: March 18, 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—Rural Residential 3 acres—RR3A 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 F Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 Town of Queensbuty 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: March 18, 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, March 18, 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 18"Day of March 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury 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 SEQR Type: Type II Meeting Date: March 18, 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.-Waterfront Residential Zone- WR 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 4--m lown of Queensbury 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: March 18, 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- Waterfront Residential Zone—WR 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, March 18, 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. 5-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 18"Day of March 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 35-20.18; CC 23-2020; CC 800-2019;DEMO 793-2019 SEQR Type: Unlisted Meeting Date: March 18,2020 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. —Commercial Intensive Zone -CI 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 r Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518)761-8238 lb n of Qyceai Iny 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: March 18, 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 SEQR] 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 18th Day of March 2020, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 18, 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 18th Day of March 2020, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 61-2019 Project Applicant: Don Bernard Project Location: 20 Brayton Road Parcel History: SP 79-2019; FWW 8-2019 SEQR Type: Type II Meeting Date: March 18, 2020 Description of Proposed Project]- Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,048 sq. ft. home (footprint) to construct a new home of(revised) 730 sq. ft. with a floor area of 2,643 sq. ft. Project includes site work for landscaping and stormwater. Site Plan and Freshwater wetland—new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for new floor area, setback and height in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements—Waterfront Residential Zone-WR The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from the north side where a 9 ft. setback is proposed a 12 ft. setback is required. (The relief for the previous setback,floor area and height are no longer being requested as the plans have been revised.) 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 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 limited due to the configuration of the lot and proposed location of the new home. 4. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code for setbacks. The side setback relief is 3 ft. 5. 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 neighborhood. 6. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to demolish an existing home and to upgrade the site of 0.28 acre odd shaped parcel. The applicant has revised plans for request for setbacks—no relief requested for floor area or height.The applicant has indicated the new home is to be in a similar location as the home to be demolished. The plans show new areas of low native plantings, a rain garden area, lawn area and areas of vegetation to remain. The existing garage is to remain along with the shoreline deck area,four sheds to be removed and one shed to remain. Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 "I'nitin of Queensbury Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Don Bernard File Number: AV 61-2019 Location: 20 Brayton Road Tax Map Number: 239.8-1-15 ZBA Meeting Date: March 18, 2020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Don Bernard. Applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,048 sq. ft. home (footprint)to construct a new home of(revised) 730 sq. ft. with a floor area of 2,643 sq. ft. Project includes site work for landscaping and stormwater. Site Plan and Freshwater wetland—new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for new floor area, setback and height in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements—Waterfiont Residential Zone -WR The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from the north side where a 9 ft. setback is proposed a 12 ft. setback is required. (The relief for the previous setback,floor area and height are no longer being requested as the plans have been revised.) SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,March 18, 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. 61-2019, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 18th Day of March 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 6-2020 Project Applicant: Kathy Sanders Project Location: 119 Birdsall Road/Waterfront Residential Zone-WR Parcel History: SP 9-2020; AV 26-2019; AST 458-2019; SEP 9-2020 SEQR Type: Type II Meeting Date: March 18, 2020 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 1,245 sq. ft. (footprint)home with a second story and an open deck addition to an existing deck. The home has an existing floor area of 3,971 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,856 sq. ft. Project includes site work for retaining walls on land,repairs of shoreline retaining wall, landscaping, stormwater management, and a new septic system. Relief is sought for FAR, height, setback, and permeability. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for FAR, height, setback, and permeability. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements of the Waterfront Residential Zone—WR The additions to the home require setback relief from both sides: proposed is 10.8 ft. on the left side facing the shoreline and 6 ft. from the steps; and 9.5 ft. from the addition on the right side where a 15 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback proposed is 47 ft. where a 50 ft. setback is required. The height request is for 31ft. 4 in. where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed. The floor area is proposed to be 5,856 sq. ft. (30%)where 4,312 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed. 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 proposed project may be considered to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties. 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 to reduce the relief requested. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for floor area is 8 % in excess. The height relief is 3 ft. 4 inches. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal environmental or physical impact on the neighborhood. A new septic system was approved by local board of health in January 2020. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project includes constructing a second story addition of 912 sq. ft. over existing living space,with a portion over the existing porch 72 sq. ft., a balcony area of 144 sq. ft. and 300 sq. ft. of new living space over an existing enclosed porch/sunroom. The existing main floor has modifications to the layout and encloses the porch facing the lake 216 sq. ft., the open deck is enlarged to 432+/- sq. ft. from 300+/- sq. ft., and a new front entry covered porch 144 sq. ft. is proposed. The plans show views of each addition and the site. Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 'Ibim of Qucenshury Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Kathy Sanders File Number: AV 6-2020 Location: 119 Birdsall Road Tax Map Number: 289.17-1-42 ZBA Meeting Date: March 18, 2020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kathy Sanders. Applicant proposes to renovate an existing 1,245 sq. ft. (footprint) home with a second story and an open deck addition to an existing deck. The home has an existing floor area of 3,971 sq. ft. and proposed is 5,856 sq. ft. Project includes site work for retaining walls on land, repairs of shoreline retaining wall, landscaping, stormwater management, and a new septic system. Relief is sought for FAR, height, setback, and permeability. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for FAR, height, setback, and permeability. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements of the Waterfront Residential Zone—WR The additions to the home require setback relief from both sides: proposed is 10.8 ft. on the left side facing the shoreline and 6 ft. from the steps; and 9.5 ft. from the addition on the right side where a 15 ft. setback is required. The shoreline setback proposed is 47 ft where a 50 ft. setback is required. The height request is for 31ft. 4 in. where 28 ft. is the maximum allowed. The floor area is proposed to be 5,856 sq. ft. (30%)where 4,312 sq. ft. (22%) is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, March 18, 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. 6-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 18"Day of March 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 12-2020 Project Applicant: Laura McNeice Project Location: 8 Chestnut Lane Parcel History: RC 548-2018 SEQR Type: Type II Meeting Date: March 18, 2020 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a new single-family home currently under construction(initial site work has started). New home to be 1,650 sq. ft. floor area and 1,156 sq. ft. footprint. Project includes sitework including grading. Relief requested for height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements—Waterfront residential zone WR The project is to construct a new home at 31.125 where a 28 ft height is the maximum allowed. 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 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 due to the grading necessary on the site to install a gravity underdrain beneath the basement. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief is for 3 ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant is in the process of preparing a parcel for the construction of a single-family home on a 0.17 acre parcel. The applicant has indicated the property is lower than the road elevation. The plans show the elevation and height of the new home. Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 Tabun of Queensbury, Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Laura McNeice File Number: AV 12-2020 Location: 8 Chestnut Lane Tax Map Number: 226.19-1-22 ZBA Meeting Date: March 18, 2020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Laura McNeice. Applicant proposes a new single-family home currently under construction (initial site work has started). New home to be 1,650 sq. ft. floor area and 1,156 sq. ft. footprint. Project includes sitework including grading. Relief requested for height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements—Waterfront residential zone WR The project is to construct a new home at 31.125 where a 28 ft height is the maximum allowed. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,March 18, 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. 12-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 18th Day of March 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Use Variance Cell No.: 1-2019 Project Applicant: Tillman Infrastructure Project Location: 55 State Route 149 Parcel History: SP 78-2019 SEQR Type: Unlisted Meeting Date: March 18,2020 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install 199 ft. (revised from 260)tower for up to three tenants (195 ft. tower, 4 ft. lightning rod). Project includes site work for a 360 ft. road with lease area of 100 ft. x 100 ft. The plans show location of pads for tenants. Relief requested for new cell tower located on a parcel with no existing tower and not in a zone allowing cell towers. Site Plan for new cell tower. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a new cell tower. Section 179-5-130 Telecommunications Towers and Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes a new telecommunications tower to be located on a parcel in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone where cell towers are not a listed use. Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: The four (4) criteria usually associated with a use variance are different in this case. Verizon Wireless is considered a public utility under New York decisional law(Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82N.Y.2d 364(1993) and a provider of"personal wireless services"under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As a result of these decisions, the following are to be shown by the public utility in order to gain a use variance: 1. That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service. The applicant has provided revised information about the gap in service of this area. The gap covers some additional area of the outlet area and Route 9—with AT&T tenant. The applicant has indicated the service would include 5g and other next generation technology. Also,the applicant has indicated the project includes access for assistance for E911. 2. That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise,for permitting the variance. The applicant has provided information that indicates the current structure the applicant is using has limited movement amongst the carriers and economically challenging. The applicant has provided additional information requesting construction of a new tower to allow tenants to relocate. 3. Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal, the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. The applicant has provided site evaluation materials as outlined in the code. The information indicated the project site is unmanned and will have an access drive and one parking space. The site will be visited typically once a month for equipment maintenance by the carriers. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to utilize a 10,000 sq. ft. area to install a 199 ft. lattice cellular tower and associated equipment. The revised plans indicate there is up to three tenants proposed—previous noted as 4 tenants. The applicant has indicated that the area will be fenced in with a 75 x 75 ft. area and to include equipment cabinets and a generator. The applicant has provided additional information including a NEPA report that included a phase I cultural resource survey and other environmental review documents (note the document is on the Town of Queensbury's laserfiche). A portion of the parcel 20,000 sq. ft would be the project site for new cell tower and is subject to a use variance for utility usage. The application provides details of reviewing sites that have an existing tower for shared use and locating in areas that allow new towers where neither met the needs of placement of a new tower. The applicant has provided updated site information. Form previous staff notes..... there are two previous cell towers approved on Route 149. 1) UV 30-2000 and SP 58-2000 SBA @ 61 State Route 149 for 195 ft tall tower. Rural Residential 3 Acre Zone. (Planning Board meeting 911912000 and Zoning Board meeting of 511712000, 611512000) 2) Use Variance 45-2015 Site Plan PZ38-2015 Cellco Partnership @ 373 State Route 149 for 195 ft tall tower and the site contains an existing 297 ft tall radio tower. Rural Residential 3 Acre Zone (Planning Board meetings of 1/19/2016& 112612016 and Zoning Board meeting of 112012016) Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518)761-8238 1 ToI+71 of Queenshuly Use Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Tillman Infrastructure File Number: UV 1-2019 Location: 55 State Route 149 Tax Map Number: 288.8-1-21 ZBA Meeting Date: March 18, 2020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tillman Infrastructure for a variance from Section 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to install 199 ft. (revised from 260)tower for up to three tenants (195 ft. tower, 4 ft. lightning rod). Project includes site work for a 360 ft. road with lease area of 100 ft. x 100 ft. The plans show location of pads for tenants. Relief requested for new cell tower located on a parcel with no existing tower and not in a zone allowing cell towers. Site Plan for new cell tower. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a new cell tower. Section 179-5-130 Telecommunications Towers and Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts The applicant proposes a new telecommunications tower to be located on a parcel in the Rural Residential 5 acre zone where cell towers are not a listed use. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,March 18, 2020; SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Use Variance No. 1-2019. Applicant Name: Tillman Infrastructure, 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 18th Day of March 2020,by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Criteria for considering a Use Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: The four(4) criteria usually associated with a use variance are different in this case. Tillman Infrastructure is considered a public utility under New York decisional law(Cellular Telephone Company v. Rosenberg, 82N.Y.2d 364(1993) and a provider of"personal wireless services"under the Telecommunications Act of 1996. As a result of these decisions, the following are to be shown by the public utility in order to gain a use variance: 1.) That the proposed improvement is a public necessity in that it is required to render safe and adequate service. It is our finding that: 2.) That there are compelling reasons, economic and otherwise, for permitting the variance. It is our finding that: 3.) Where the intrusion or burden on the community is minimal,the showing required by the utility should be correspondingly reduced. It is our finding that: Therefore based upon our findings above, we hereby determine that the applicant [HAS/HAS NOT] demonstrated that the applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship. Based upon all of the above,I make a MOTION TO APPROVE/DENY Use Variance 1-2019 Tillman Infrastructure; Introduced by ,who move for its adoption,seconded by Duly adopted this 18"Day of March 2020, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: