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: