Loading...
Staff Notes Staff Notes ZBA Meeting June 24 , 2020 AV 8-2020 Tina Foglietta AV 9-2020 Tina Foglietta AV 12-2020 Laura McNeice AV 17-2020 Elizabeth Miller AV 18-2020 Jacob Yellen AV 19-2020 Robert Kendall, Jr. Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 8-2020 Project Applicant: Tina Foglietta Project Location: 178 Montray Road Parcel History: AV 1-2001 SEQR Type: Type II Meeting Date: June 24, 2020 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes lot line adjustment of an existing parcel of 0.69 acres reduced to 0.58 acres. Current lot has gravel surface over a portion otherwise vacant. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts. Moderate Density Residential MDR The applicant proposes to reduce a 0.69 ac parcel to 0.58 ac where a parcel is required to have 2 acres 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. At this time both properties are vacant with gravel areas for previous buildings on the site. 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 lots do not meet the required lot size currently. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is 1.42 ac. 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 a lot line adjustment to assist an adjoin parcel(296.9-1-17) for additional land and a preexisting garage on an adjoin parcel on the opposite side (296.9-1-19). The survey shows the lot line arrangement for the three lots. The parcel of 296.9-1-17 has an existing accessory structure where the door width has been reduced to less than 6ft. The intent is to remove the accessory structure at a later time. Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 Town of CZeensbury Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Tina Foglietta File Number: AV 8-2020 Location: 178 Montray Road Tax Map Number: 296.9-1-18 ZBA Meeting Date: June 24, 2020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tina Foglietta. Applicant proposes lot line adjustment of an existing parcel of 0.69 acres reduced to 0.58 acres. Current lot has gravel surface over a portion otherwise vacant. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts. Moderate Density Residential—MDR The applicant proposes to reduce a 0.69 ac parcel to 0.58 ac where a parcel is required to have 2 acres. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 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 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; 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. 8-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 24th Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals . Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 9-2020 Project Applicant: Tina Foglietta Project Location: 176 Montray Road Parcel History: n/a SEQR Type: Type II Meeting Date: June 24,2020 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of an existing parcel of 0.88 acres reduced to 0.75 acres.The existing garage will be part of the lot line adjustment to be located on an adjoining parcel (296.9-1-17). Parcel is 0.92 acres and will be increased to 1.16 acres. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts. Moderate Density Residential—MDR The applicant proposes to reduce 0.88 ac parcel to 0.75 ac where a parcel is required to have 2 acres 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. At this time both properties are vacant with gravel areas for previous buildings on the site. 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 lots do not meet the required lot size currently. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is 1.42 ac. 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 a lot line adjustment to assist an adjoin parcel (296.9-1-17) for additional land and a preexisting garage. The survey shows the lot line arrangement for the three lots. The parcel of 296.9-1-17 has an existing accessory structure where the door width has been reduced to less than 6ft. The intent is to remove the accessory structure at a later time. Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 7bwn ofCtuecnsbuII Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Tina Foglietta File Number: AV 9-2020 Location: 176 Montray Road Tax Map Number: 296.9-1-19 ZBA Meeting Date: June 24, 2020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tina Foglietta. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of an existing parcel of 0.88 acres reduced to 0.75 acres. The existing garage will be part of the lot line adjustment to be located on an adjoining parcel (296.9-1-17). Parcel is 0.92 and will be increased to 1.16 acres. Relief requested for lot size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size. Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts. Moderate Density Residential—MDR The applicant proposes to reduce 0.88 ac parcel to 0.75 ac where a parcel is required to have 2 acres. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 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. 9-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 24t'Day of June 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 SEAR Type: Type II Meeting Date: June 24,2020 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. S. 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 Inivn of 0yeenshuty 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: June 24, 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 site work 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, June 24,2020. 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(gpproval) / 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 241h Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 17-2020 Project Applicant: Elizabeth Miller Project Location: 1099 Ridge Road Parcel History: PZ-SP58-2016,SP 54-2010 SEQR Type: Type H Meeting Date: June 24,2020 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to update an existing 521 sq. ft. produce stand that includes 300 sq. ft. sales area, and 93 sq. ft. of attached covered building section. The project is to remove an existing covered porch and to construct a new 128 sq. ft. porch. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the MDR zone and travel corridor overlay Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and 179-4-080 setback for porches and 179-4-030 travel corridor The applicant proposes to remove an existing covered porch area to replace it with a 128 sq. ft. porch. The project includes an update to the roof also to allow for overhead doors to be installed. The setback is proposed to be 27.3 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. 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 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 placement of the existing building on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 47.7 ft. to the front property line. 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. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to upgrade an existing produce stand with a new roof, with new overhead doors and a new 128 sq. ft. porch. The site is an approved produce stand and has associated buildings with a garden facility. The plans show the existing conditions and an elevation plan shows the new porch area. Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 rows of O_izcc lS ly Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Elizabeth Miller File Number: AV 17-2020 Location: 1099 Ridge Road Tax Map Number: 290.5-1-48 ZBA Meeting Date: June 24, 2020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Elizabeth Miller. Applicant proposes to update an existing 521 sq. ft. produce stand that includes 300 sq. ft. sales area, and 93 sq. ft. of attached covered building section. The project is to remove an existing covered porch and to construct a new 128 sq. ft. porch. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the MDR zone and travel corridor overlay. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and 179-4-080 setback for porches and 179-4-030 travel corridor The applicant proposes to remove an existing covered porch area to replace it with a 128 sq. ft. porch. The project includes an update to the roof also to allow for overhead doors to be installed. The setback is proposed to be 27.3 ft. where a 75 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 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. 17-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 24t"Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 18-2020 Project Applicant: Jacob Yellen Project Location: 14 Blackberry Lane Parcel History: SUB 20-2003,RC-115-2017 SEQR Type: Type H Meeting Date: June 24,2020 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a pool in the back yard of the parcel that is considered to have two fronts, Black Berry Circle and Blind Rock Road. Relief requested for placement of a pool in a front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for placement of a pool in a front yard, Rural Residential 3 acres RR3A. Section 179-5-020-pools The applicant proposes installing a pool to the rear of his home but is considered a front yard. Pools are to be located in the rear yard of a parcel. The lot is considered to have two fronts—Blackberry Lane and Blind Rock Road. 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 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 location of the home on a parcel with two fronts. The subdivision does not permit access to the parcel from Blind Rock Road where the lot is accessed from Blackberry Lane and is not to change. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for a pool in a front yard where the applicant considers the use of the area to be the rear yard. 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 to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a pool in front yard of an existing lot with a single family home. The information submitted shows the lot configuration with the proposed pool. The project site is part of a subdivision Black Berry Circle Subdivision SUB20-2003. Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 Town of(_ucensbUty Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Jacob Yellen File Number: AV 18-2020 Location: 14 Blackberry Lane Tax Map Number: 289.18-1-35.2 ZBA Meeting Date: June 24, 2020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jacob Yellen. Applicant proposes placement of a pool in the back yard of the parcel that is considered to have two fronts, Black Berry Circle and Blind Rock Road. Relief requested for placement of a pool in a front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for placement of a pool in a front yard, Rural Residential 3 acres RR3A. Section 179-5-020-pools The applicant proposes installing a pool to the rear of his home but is considered a front yard. Pools are to be located in the rear yard of a parcel. The lot is considered to have two fronts Blackberry Lane and Blind Rock Road. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 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. 18-2020, Introduced by ,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 24t'Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. Community Development Department Staff Notes Area Variance No.: 19-2020 Project Applicant: Robert Kendall Project Location: 2469 Ridge Road Parcel History: Building permit 93-514,SP1-94 and SP53-93,AV93-1994 SEQR Type: Type H Meeting Date: June 24,2020 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete a 225 sq. ft. open deck addition to an existing 93 sq ft deck on the north side of the home. The existing home is 1506 sq. ft. footprint with a 500 sq. ft. covered porch in the front of home. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Land Conservation 42 acres LC42A Section 179-3-040—Dimensional requirements and Section 179-4-080- decks The applicant proposes to complete a 225 sq. ft. deck that does not meet the property setbacks. West side setback is to be 69.2 ft,north side is to be 26.5 ft„ east side is to be 44.1 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required from all property lines. 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 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 existing house location,the configuration of the lot, and the size of the lot of 0.52 acres in a 42 acre zone. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested; West side setback is to be 30.8 ft, North side is to be 73.5 ft„ east side is to be 55.9 ft. 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 has provided plans that show the location of the deck addition. The applicant has indicated the addition is to an existing deck area to allow for additional space. Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238 W- --—Town of Ctueensbuiy Area Variance Resolution To: Approve/Disapprove Applicant Name: Robert Kendall, Jr. File Number: AV 19-2020 Location: 2469 Ridge Rd. Tax Map Number: 240.6-1-5 ZBA Meeting Date: June 24, 2020 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Robert Kendall, Jr. Applicant proposes to complete a 225 sq. ft. open deck addition to an existing 93 sq. ft. deck on the north side of the home. The existing home is 1506 sq. ft. footprint with a 500 sq. ft. covered porch in the front of home. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Land Conservation 42 acres LC42A. Section 179-3-040—Dimensional requirements and Section 179-4-080- decks The applicant proposes to complete a 225 sq. ft. deck that does not meet the property setbacks. West side setback is to be 69.2 ft, north side is to be 26.5 ft, east side is to be 44.1 ft. where 100 ft. setback is required from all property lines. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 24, 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. 19-2020, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by Duly adopted this 2411 Day of June 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: