Loading...
08-25-2021 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2021 INDEX Area Variance No. 51-2021 Valentin Krick 1. Tax Map No. 266.1-1-13 Area Variance No. 52-2021 Vincent & Annette O’Neill 4. Tax Map No. 227.18-1-16 Area Variance No. 55-2021 Keith & Sarah Barton 6. Tax Map No. 279.17-2-11 Sign Variance No. 4-2021 AJ Signs 9. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-2 Area Variance No. 61-2021 Merl Allen & Holly King 13. Tax Map No. 297.14-1-3.1 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 25, 2021 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD, SECRETARY ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL CATHERINE HAMLIN BRENT MC DEVITT LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of th Appeals, August 25, 2021. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is pretty simple. There should be a schedule on the back table. I will call each case up. We’ll read the case into the record. We’ll allow the applicant to present the case, question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, we’ll open a public hearing and take input from the public and then we’ll close the public hearing. We’ll poll the Board, see where Board members stand on the particular application, and then proceed accordingly. Our first application tonight is AV 51-2021, 1747 Ridge Road, Valentin Krick. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II VALENTIN KRICK AGENT(S) ROBERT L. FLANSBURG, P.E. OWNER(S) VALENTIN KRICK ZONING RR-3A LOCATION 1747 RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 166 SQ. FT. SINGLE STORY ADDITION (A FRONT ENTRY AND A SMALL BREAKFAST AREA) TO EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,874 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT), AND 2-STORY ON SOME SECTIONS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF RC 348-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 2.31 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 266.1-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040 VALENTIN & ANNA KRICK, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 51-2021, Valentin Krick, Meeting Date: August 25, 2021 “Project Location: 1747 Ridge Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 166 sq. ft. single story addition (a front entry and a small breakfast area) to existing home. The existing home is 1,874 sq. ft. (footprint), and 2-story on some sections. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a 166 sq. ft. single story addition for setback in the Rural Residential zone RR3A. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The proposed addition will be located 60 ft. 8 inches from the side setback where a 75 ft. setback is required. The parcel is 2.31 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 as the addition is located as infill section of the home. 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 due to the location of the existing home and the parcel size of 2.31 ac in a 3 acre zone. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief for the addition setback is 14 feet 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 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 an addition to the existing home. The project site has a previous survey with no field measurements to the existing home. A survey waiver was granted with the condition an as built survey be provided when the addition is completed. The plans were prepared by an engineer showing the location of the existing home and the location of the addition. The addition is to be a front entry and small breakfast area. The applicant has provided floor plans and elevations for the addition to the home.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record. MR. KRICK-My name is Valentin Krick. This is my wife, Anna. MR. MC CABE-So are both of you going to speak or one? I mean it’s pretty straightforward. Is there anything to add that we should know about? MRS. KRICK-No, not really. The nearest neighbor is just to the south of the building and it’s not going to be really visible to them because there’s no direct line of sight for them, and I think it’s very proportional to the size of the building, the existing building. So it’s not going to be an eyesore. That’s all. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So do we have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised and so at this particular time I’ll open the public hearing and I’ll see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to provide input on this particular project. Do we have anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-It’s minimal, and as they say, you have to look through the trees to see where the other house is located sufficiently away. It’s actually less. So I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr., Chairman. It is minimal. As Cathy indicates, I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a 2.31 acre lot in three acre zoning. So it’s minor relief. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-All those lots are quite large and it’s definitely minimal relief. They’re only looking at relief of 14 feet 4 inches and it really can’t be seen from the road. It’s very minimal. So I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with the other Board members for the lot size. You’re in a three acre zone. I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) MR. URRICO-I think it satisfies the test. I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. It’s a minimal request. So at this particular time I’m going to ask Cathy if she’d make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Valentin Krick. Applicant proposes a 166 sq. ft. single story addition (a front entry and a small breakfast area) to existing home. The existing home is 1,874 sq. ft. (footprint), and 2-story on some sections. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for a 166 sq. ft. single story addition for setback in the Rural Residential zone RR3A. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The proposed addition will be located 60 ft. 8 inches from the side setback where a 75 ft. setback is required. The parcel is 2.31 acres. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 25, 2021. 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 not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. The property is far back from the road and very buffered and therefore shouldn’t have any effect. 2. Feasible alternatives were not considered. The Board thought it was reasonable as is. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The entire setback is only about 14 feet. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty would be considered self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) 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) The as built survey that will be submitted at the completion of the project will specify 60 feet 8 inches is the side setback. 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 AREA VARIANCE NO. 51-2021 VALENTIN KRICK, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th Day of August 2021 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Prior to you calling the vote, I just want to confirm that you have the setback at 60 feet and 8 inches, and then in reference to a condition, are you going to, I would suggest maybe you condition it with the fact that the survey be completed when the addition is constructed. Does that make sense? MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. I’d like to amend my motion to add that the as built survey that will be submitted at the completion of the project will specify 60 feet 8 inches is the side setback. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin,. Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project. MRS. KRICK-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 52-2021, 91 Pilot Knob Road, Vincent & Annette O’Neil. AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II VINCENT & ANNETTE O’NEILL AGENT(S) DENNIS MAC ELROY OWNER(S) VINCENT & ANNETTE O’NEILL ZONING WR LOCATION 91 PILOT KNOB ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER. THE PARCEL IS 1.41 ACRES AND IS TO BE REDUCED BY 0.1 AC. TO BE 1.31 AC. THE PARCEL IS CURRENTLY VACANT AND HAS IMPROVEMENTS/EASEMENTS TO ACCESS PARCELS AT THE LAKE. THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO INSTALL A SEPTIC SYSTEM TO SERVICE 85 PILOT KNOB RD.; 91 PILOT KNOB RD. WILL REMAIN VACANT AT THIS TIME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR REDUCING A NON- CONFORMING PARCEL TO LESS CONFORMING WHERE 2 ACRES IS REQUIRED. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 & FORT ANN ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.65 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.18-1-6 SECTION DENNIS MAC ELROY, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; VINCE O’NEIL, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 52-2021, Vincent & Annette O’Neill, Meeting Date: August 25, 2021 “Project Location: 91 Pilot Knob Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels owned by the same owner. The parcel is 1.41 acres and is to be reduced by 0.1 ac. to be 1.31 ac. The parcel is currently vacant and has improvements/ easements to access parcels at the lake. The applicant intends to install a septic system to service 85 Pilot Knob Rd.; 91 Pilot Knob Rd. will remain vacant at this time. Relief requested for reducing a non-conforming parcel to less conforming where 2 acres is required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for reducing a non-conforming parcel to less conforming where 2 acres is required. The parcel is located in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The existing 1.41 acres is to be reduced to 0.10 ac for a 1.31 acre parcel. The parcel requires 2 ac. 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 be considered to include constructing the septic system on the adjoining parcel with no-lot line adjustment. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 0.69 acres. 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. The applicant is proposing a new septic system. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) The applicant proposes to reduce an existing vacant parcel by 0.1 ac to be added to an adjoining parcel. The vacant parcel is to remain vacant at this time – the survey shows different access to adjoining parcels. The parcel to gain 0.1 acre is installing a new septic system.” MR. MC CABE-Your name for the record, please. MR. MAC ELROY-I’m Dennis MacElroy with Environmental Design representing Annie and Vince O’Neil on this application. Vince is here with me. The O’Neils have owned the property at 85 Pilot Knob Road for seven years and that’s a waterfront property with a house. At the time of purchase they installed a holding tank system for their wastewater and subsequently they’ve been able to purchase the property, the vacant lot, the 14 acre parcel at 91 Pilot Knob Road which happens to be contiguous to 85. So by a boundary line adjustment they’ll be able to grab some of that land from 91, add it to 85 and have an area for an on-site wastewater absorption field, but it takes a 1.4 acre lot, technically pre-existing, non-conforming, and makes it a little less non-conforming. Thus the need for the variance. MR. MC CABE-So pretty straightforward. 91 was famous a while ago because we found out that the tennis courts were partly on that property. So we’ve visited this site before. So any questions of the applicant here? It seems pretty straightforward. Seeing none, is there any written communication, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. On 8/18/2021, Staff Karen Dwyre received a phone call from Brooks Teele at 10 Fishing Hole Loop , Pilot Knob Road. Mr. Teele is in full support of the project, in particular the new septic system. He has seen first-hand the work that Dennis MacElroy has done on other property on the lake and praises Dennis’ work, mentioning that that kind of work is needed on the lake. MR. MC CABE-Anything else? MR. URRICO-No. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with John. MR. HENKEL-Any time you bring septic farther away from the lake it makes total sense. So the relief of the two acre property, it totally makes sense there, granting the one tenth and adding it to the O’Neil’s property to keep the septic system away from the lake. It definitely makes sense. So it’s a good project. I’d be on board with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think it’s minimal relief and I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I’m in favor of the application as well, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I’m in favor to grant. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it’s an environmentally sound project. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. The request is minimal, and so at this particular time I’m going to seek a motion from Brent. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Vincent & Annette O’Neill. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels owned by the same owner. The parcel is 1.41 acres and is to be reduced by 0.1 ac. to be 1.31 ac. The parcel is currently vacant and has improvements/easements to access parcels at the lake. The applicant intends to install a septic system to 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) service 85 Pilot Knob Rd.; 91 Pilot Knob Rd. will remain vacant at this time. Relief requested for reducing a non-conforming parcel to less conforming where 2 acres is required. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for reducing a non-conforming parcel to less conforming where 2 acres is required. The parcel is located in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The existing 1.41 acres is to be reduced to 0.10 ac for a 1.31 acre parcel. The parcel requires 2 ac. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 25, 2021. 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 not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and this is the minimum request.. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. As indicated 0.10 acres. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. It, again, may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. The alleged difficulty, while it could be construed as self-created, as we’ve discussed, it is minimal. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) 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 AREA VARIANCE NO. 52-2021 VINCENT & ANNETTE O’NEIL, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 25th Day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. MR. MAC ELROY-Thank you very much. MR. O’NEILL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 55-2021, 120 Sunnyside North, Keith & Sarah Barton. AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KEITH & SARAH BARTON AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) KEITH & SARAH BARTON ZONING WR LOCATION 120 SUNNYSIDE NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 900 SQ. FT. CARRIAGE STYLE HOME WITH 1,800 SQ. FT. FLOOR AREA. PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR SETBACKS, HEIGHT AND FLOOR AREA (AV 43-2020). HOUSE STYLE REMAINS THE 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) SAME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 43-2020; DEMO 283-2020; RC- 279-2021; SEP 533-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 279.17-2-11 SECTION 179-3-040 TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; KEITH BARTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 55-2021, Keith & Sarah Barton, Meeting Date: August 25, 2021 “Project Location: 120 Sunnyside North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 900 sq. ft. carriage style home with 1,800 sq. ft. floor area and a 125 sq. ft. upper deck. Previously approved for setbacks, height, and floor area (AV 43-2020). House style remains the same. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a carriage home for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The carriage house is to be located 18.6 ft. from the front line where 30 ft. is required, 10.5 ft. from the north property line where 12 ft. is required, 7 ft. from the south property line 12 ft. is required. The house remains at 31 ft. with a floor area of 1,800 sq. ft. as was granted with the previous application. 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. The new home is in a similar location as the previous home but further from the road. 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 locate the building in the setbacks- although this would require additional disturbance and be closer to the lake. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief to the north is 1.5 ft. and south is 5 ft., the front setback is 11.4 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes stormwater management for the new home and a new septic system to be installed. The septic system received a Local Board of Health variance approval. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing home to construct a new home with a garage on the first floor and a two bedroom home on the second. The plans show the location of the existing and new home. The elevations are included showing the views of the new home. The project is similar to a variance in 2020 where the south property line setback was compliant – the applicant now proposed to center the home on the parcel. The plans show the floor plan and elevations.” MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. My name is Tom Hutchins with Hutchins Engineering. I’m here with owner/applicant Keith Barton and in its simplest form what we’re looking to do, let me step back a little. We were here in November with this very same property, and in its simplest form what we’re looking to do is shift the location of the proposed building five feet to the southeast and everything else remains the same. We have re-stated all the setback from the prior variance to keep the record clean, but what we’re doing is taking, literally shifting the building five feet to the southeast. The logic behind it, there’s been some misunderstanding about the actual location of this southeast property line. Historically it’s been understood that it’s started from this corner and gone back and both owners have understood it that way. In reality the line is a little further to the northwest. So in setting the side setback it made the other side a little bit cumbersome. So Keith has met with the adjoining owner and there’s a letter in the 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) record from the adjoining owner supporting what we’re doing. So that’s in summary what we have here. Anything to add? MR. BARTON-We’re just basically trying to center the building on the lot. So it’s closer to being equal on both sides. MR. MC CABE-Sure. That’s why you have surveys, too. The last person wanted to forego the survey. So we’re reluctant to do that completely because of cases like this. MR. HUTCHINS-Sure. MR. MC CABE-So it’s pretty straightforward. Do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-What about the trees, Tom? Are they all staying or going, the trees down by the lake? MR. BARTON-Staying. MR. KUHL-They’re all staying. Okay, thank you, Tom. Keith answered. That’s the only question I had. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s any comment from the public? Is there anything written, Roy? And I guess there is. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. “My name is Karen Nichols. I am the owner and resident of property located at 121 Sunnyside North, Queensbury, New York. My neighbors are Keith and Sarah Barton. It is my understanding that Keith & Sarah Barton have been approved to build a 30’ x 30' 2-car garage apartment on their property located at 120 Sunnyside North, Queensbury. It is further my understanding that the approved plans include a 12-foot set back from my adjacent residential property line. Keith and Sarah Barton have expressed a desire to move the proposed garage apartment 5-feet, which would result in a new setback of 7-feet from my adjacent property. Please be advised that I write this letter in full support of Keith and Sarah Barton’s request for a 2-car garage apartment located at 120 Sunnyside North, Queensbury, NY with a 7’ set back from my adjacent property line. Sincerely, Karen S. Nichols” MR. MC CABE-Anybody else? So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a slight modification from what we previously approved. So I’d be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I’m not even sure if I was here on this one, but I’ll be in favor MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-It’s very basic. I’m in full support of it, Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-It sounds like a good project. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-I also agree with my Board members. I’m on board. MR. MC CABE-And so to be consistent I supported the project before. So I’ll continue to support the project. So, Jim, I wonder if I could have a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Keith & Sarah Barton. Applicant proposes to construct a 900 sq. ft. carriage style home with 1,800 sq. ft. floor area and a 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) 125 sq. ft. upper deck. Previously approved for setbacks, height, and floor area (AV 43-2020). House style remains the same. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for construction of a carriage home for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone, WR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional The carriage house is to be located 18.6 ft. from the front line where 30 ft. is required, 10.5 ft. from the north property line where 12 ft. is required, 7 ft. from the south property line 12 ft. is required. The house remains at 31 ft. with a floor area of 1,800 sq. ft. as was granted with the previous application. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 25, 2021. 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 not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. We do not see any. They’re just centering the house as explained by the applicant because of the changing of the property line on the southeast side. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. This is 111 feet set back from the water which is more than is necessary. It’s a little bit close to Sunnyside Road but it will keep the septic system up there, will get it far from the water. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?. We think it will be a plus to have a new septic system constructed on site. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but only because of the configuration of the lot, the adjoining narrow lots that surround it. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) 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 AREA VARIANCE NO. 55-2021 KEITH & SARAH BARTON, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 25th Day of August 2021 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project again. So our next application is SV 4-2021, AJ Signs, 25 Triangle Park. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2021 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AJ SIGNS AGENT(S) AJ SIGNS OWNER(S) KEYLOCK PRIME STORAGE LLC ZONING CLI LOCATION 25 TRIANGLE PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL NEW PANELS OF 43.45 SQ. FT. AT A 24 FT. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) HEIGHT ON A PRE-EXISTING SIGN STRUCTURE. THE SIGN LOCATION IS TO REMAIN THE SAME. THE SIGN IS TO BE INTERNALLY LIT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT OF SIGN. CROSS REF SIGN-0214-2021; SP 68-2000 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 & GLENS FALLS LOT SIZE 5.02 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-2 SECTION 140 TOM WHEELER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 4-2021, AJ Signs, Meeting Date: August 25, 2021 “Project Location: 25 Triangle Park Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install new panels of 43.5 sq. ft. at a 24 ft. height on a pre-existing sign structure. The sign location is to remain the same. The sign is to be internally lit. Relief requested for height of sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height of sign in the Commercial Light Industrial zone, CLI. Section 140 – height The sign is utilizing an existing structure that is 24 ft. in height. The applicant intends to use the existing structure. 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. 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the existing structure height. The applicant has indicated height reduction would be difficult to complete. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 4 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a sign of 43.5 sq. ft. sign on an existing 24 ft. tall structure. The applicant has indicated reducing the existing structure would not be feasible. The photo provided shows the existing signage at 24 ft. in height where the only change is the sign color and text for a storage facility. The applicant has indicated there are no other changes.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. WHEELER-I’m Tom Wheeler with AJ Sign company. Basically what we’re looking to do is leave the sign like it is, re-face it but leave it at the height it is. The issue is the proximity to the power wires. We can’t actually get a crane on it safely. So we went back to our customer and said that we can’t do that. We’d have to go for a variance to leave the sign like it is instead of dropping it down the four feet. So it’s a safety issue. That’s why we can’t lower the sign. MR. MC CABE-It’s pretty straightforward. Do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Is it currently internally lit? MR. WHEELER-Yes, it is. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to provide information on this application? Is there anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Brent. MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m fine with it. Those power lines are really an issue. So as the applicant indicated it’s a safety issue. So I’m in support of it. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-It’s off the road, too. I don’t personally like internally lit signs, but if it’s allowed by Code, So I would vote to approve this variance request. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It’s a simple changeover that’s being requested. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it makes sense to not put something new there, steel. You might as well use what you’ve got there. So I’d be on board with this as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this. I think we’re granting minimal relief. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I agree. It’s minimal relief. I think it’s a good project. I’d be in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I’ve seen when a crane comes in contact with a power line and it’s not pretty. So I would support this project. So I’m going to, Ron, ask for a motion here. MR. HENKEL-Do you want to do SEQR? MR. MC CABE-That’s right. We’ve got to do SEQR. So we’ve got to do SEQR first. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2021. APPLICANT NAME: AJ SIGNS (FOR KEYLOCK PRIME STORAGE), BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th Day of August 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So now you can go, Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Thank you for the opportunity. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from AJ Signs (for Keylock Prime Storage). Applicant proposes to install new panels of 43.45 sq. ft. at a 24 ft. height on a pre-existing sign structure. The sign location is to remain the same. The sign is to be internally lit. Relief requested for height of sign. Relief Required: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) The applicant requests relief for height of sign in the Commercial Light Industrial zone, CLI. Section 140 – height The sign is utilizing an existing structure that is 24 ft in height. The applicant intends to use the existing structure. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[ Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 4-2021. Applicant Name: AJ Signs (for Keylock Prime Storage), based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 25th Day of August 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 25, 2021; 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? We find there’s minor addition to the area being as how they’re using the existing sign structure. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? Not really. Why go through a whole new structure when we can utilize the existing one. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I really don’t think so. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Not really. We’re just replacing the signage that’s already there. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We could say it is, but it’s really minimal. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) 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 SIGN VARIANCE SV 4- 2021, AJ SIGNS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl , who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: 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; 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) 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. th Duly adopted this 25 Day of August 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. So our next application is AV 61-2021, 505 Ridge Road, Merl Allen and Holly King. AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II MERL ALLEN & HOLLY KING OWNER(S) MERL ALLEN & HOLLY KING ZONING MDR LOCATION 505 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE CONVERTING AN EXISTING 3-UNIT HOME INTO A TWO-UNIT DUPLEX. THE PROJECT SITE IS 1.10 AC. WITH A HOME BUILT IN THE 1800’S. THE EXISTING BUILDING IS 3,556 SQ. FT. WITH AN ATTACHED GARAGE. A PORTION OF THE HOME IS 2-STORY. ALTERATIONS INCLUDE INTERIOR AND SOME DOORS/WINDOW REPLACEMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE FOR DUPLEX. CROSS REF RC 173- 2021; RC 713-2020 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2021 LOT SIZE 1.1 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.14-1-3.1 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-5-100 MERL ALLEN & HOLLY KING, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2021, Merl Allen & Holly King, Meeting Date: August 25, 2021 “Project Location: 505 Ridge Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete converting an existing 3-unit home into a two-unit duplex. The project site is 1.10 ac with a home built in the 1800’s. The existing building is 3,556 sq. ft. with an attached garage. A portion of the home is 2-story. Alterations include interior and some doors/window replacements. Relief requested for lot size for duplex. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size to maintain a duplex under construction in the Moderate Residential zone, MDR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-5-100 multi-family The applicant had started interior renovations and was issued a stop work order. The project was to convert the existing home to a duplex. There was a site visit and it was discovered 3 units in the building and the applicant proposes two units for a 1.10 ac parcel where 4 acres 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 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 building had been converted to a 3 unit building by a prior owner illegally and the applicant proposes a 2 unit building. The project is subject to variance due to lot size for a proposed duplex. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested is 2.9 acres. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) The applicant proposes to continue work on an existing home to convert from 3 units to 2 units. The applicant has shown the interior two unit proposal where some of the interior work has already been started. The plans show the location home on the existing parcel.” MR. MC CABE-State your name for the record, please. MR. ALLEN-Merl Allen. MS. KING-Holly King. MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward. Do you have anything to add? MR. ALLEN-No. We were unaware that the house was illegally a three family house. Craig Brown said apparently it’s supposed to be listed as a one family house. So we’re set to apply for a two family to get everything on the up and up. MR. MC CABE-So I wonder if that was back in the 1800’s when it was built? MR. ALLEN-Apparently. No, it couldn’t have been because there was running water upstairs. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. KUHL-I have an interesting question. I know you were going to get to that. When you were paying the taxes on this house, was it multi-family taxes? MR. ALLEN-We just bought it about a year ago and the tax bill says it’s multi-family. MR. KUHL-I mean this goes back to you pay, how many people when you buy properties to research them. MR. MC CABE-You’ve done this speech before. MR. KUHL-Yes, I’ve done this before. MR. ALLEN-I had the same questions. The tax bill lists it as multi-family. Warren County lists it as multi-family, and the Town of Queensbury says, no, that’s supposed to be single family. MR. KUHL-Is that the title company’s responsibility? No, the title company only does liens, correct? You don’t know that either. MRS. MOORE-I don’t know the answer to that. MR. HENKEL-My wife’s family bought that property to subdivide it, and they built quite a few homes behind there and a good development back in there. So I was in that house back when it was first bought in 2002. That was a three unit back then. They sold that right away. They didn’t keep it. They didn’t do anything with it. They just wanted it for the property. MR. MC CABE-So do we have other questions of the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-I guess I’d ask, not that it has anything to do with the variance, but do you plan to do other things to the exterior of the house? MR. ALLEN-Yes. We’re going to re-side the exterior. We’re going to paint the inside, flooring. We were going to put another staircase. Right now the staircase is at the west end of the house and we want to put another one at the east end of the house for upstairs, and we need a permit for that, and the permit is hinged on getting the variance. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. And so at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience with comments on this particular application. Is there anything written, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. “I am in receipt of the Hearing Notice referenced above and would like to submit my comments regarding this application. My initial concern is that in recent years, I've observed many Town of Queensbury Code infractions of which are not apparently regularly monitored by Town of Queensbury appropriate personnel. I have spoken on occasion to the individuals who did respond to my concern and did remedy the issue however, with rental properties which the owner(s) do not reside, I am 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) concerned about the criteria a Landlord may or may not adhere to or follow resulting in situations that may negatively impact the quality of the neighborhood. Secondly, I am concerned regarding property value(s) with regards to multiple 'rental' properties in the same area and how it may affect individual appraisals. It's a shame that a home built in the 1800's is not restored as a home instead of a duplex running rental property. I would have thought this would be an historical site due to its' age. I was in the house when Jan Bishop lived there and it is a wonderful piece of history that will be displaced as an original constructed home. I would like to be assured that if this is approved, the Town of Queensbury Codes that I was given in 1986 when I built my house would remain actively enforced. Of course, it'd be great if they were actively enforced in every home as well but specifically with a newer Rental property where renters don't usually have a stake or a permanency mindset when it comes to rules and regulations. If possible, I'd like to learn more about the Applicants: Merl Allen and Holly King. Are they local to the area? Is this their dedicated profession to buy and convert homes into rental properties? Do they have any references for review? I believe this all should matter when making this type decision. Can you specify any/all positives or negatives from the Town of Queensbury’s perspective regarding this application that I would not be aware of? And may I request a response to my concerns and results from this hearing please ....I'd appreciate knowing the outcome. Thank you for your consideration.” Christine Spina 524 Ridge Road. Can you send her a recent copy of the Code? MRS. MOORE-I can give her a link. MR. MC CABE-The Zoning Board really doesn’t care what your motives are. MR. ALLEN-This is my daughter. She intends to live there. Originally we wanted it. She was trying to get a mortgage, and she couldn’t get a mortgage for a multi-family house. So we were trying to get it changed over to single family. That’s when this whole fiasco started rolling. Craig Brown told me because it had two kitchens in it it could not be a single family house. Well I argued that point but I got nowhere. Hasidic Jews have two kitchens in their houses. At any rate. MR. MC CABE-And so that is the criteria for a multi-family. MR. ALLEN-I will make it a point to get in touch with this woman and let her know what we’re doing and how we intend to do it, just to ease her mind. MR. MC CABE-And that’s up to you, but that has no bearing on our decision. MR. KUHL-So are you stating that you’re not going to rent out the second unit? MR. ALLEN-Not at this point in time. No. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-When I’m looking at the criteria I see a satisfactory outcome to this project, and it’s already been used as a three family home when it shouldn’t have been, or a three unit home when it shouldn’t have been, but I think we’re gaining on this right now, what’s there and what’s going to be there. So I’d be in favor of the project. I think it’s an improvement. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I agree with Roy. The net of this is a gain. So I’m in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. I just want to make one comment. I hope that in your renovations of the exterior that you’ll take some consideration with the historic nature. MS. KING-We’re keeping everything we can that is there and is salvageable. MRS. HAMLIN-As far as the variance, I’m in favor of the variance and again it’s improving the situation. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we’re going from a three unit to a two unit and as explained by the applicant their family is the one that’s going to use it. I’m in favor. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) MR. MC CABE-And, Ron? MR. KUHL-I’m in favor of this, and again I still want it in the record of applicants coming here in situations like this that somebody’s not doing their job. It’s a darn shame. MR. MC CABE-John? MR. HENKEL-The Code requires four acres for a duplex, but there’s other duplexes across the street in the same area. So I’m on board. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, support the project. I feel that there’s a gain to be made here. We’re reducing density. We’re going from a three unit to a two unit and improving a property. So I would support the project. So with that in mind, I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Merl Allen & Holly King. Applicant proposes to complete converting an existing 3-unit home into a two-unit duplex. The project site is 1.10 ac with a home built in the 1800’s. The existing building is 3,556 sq. ft. with an attached garage. A portion of the home is 2-story. Alterations include interior and some doors/window replacements. Relief requested for lot size for duplex. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size to maintain a duplex under construction in the Moderate Residential zone, MDR. Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-5-100 multi-family The applicant had started interior renovations and was issued a stop work order. The project was to convert the existing home to a duplex. There was a site visit and it was discovered 3 units in the building and the applicant proposes two units for a 1.10 ac parcel where 4 acres is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 25, 2021. 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. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. Because we’re reducing it from a multi-family to a two family which helps decrease the density in the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have not been considered because this request is reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. We’re actually kind of going in the opposite direction from what exists. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty can be considered self-created. Of course the applicants weren’t aware that the situation wasn’t legal in the first place, but nonetheless it would be on them to discover that. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) 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) 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 AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2021 MERL ALLEN & HOLLY KING, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 25th Day of August 2021 by the following vote: 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/25/2021) AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. So we did a pretty good job tonight. Five cases in under an hour. So I feel good about leaving you guys for a month. So we’ll use one, then the other, or. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So we’re going to need subs for the next two meetings. MRS. MOORE-So in September, whoever is going to be Acting Chair, and it’s between the three of you. MR. MC CABE-Jim. MRS. MOORE-So, Jim is to determine whether you want to do both meetings or if you just want to alternate, and it is really up to you. MR. UNDERWOOD-You may as well alternate because that way you get experience. MR. MC CABE-And then the other thing I wanted to point out is we were unanimous tonight. That’s the first time we’ve done that in a while. So I feel pretty good leaving everybody. So I’m going to make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF TH AUGUST 25, 2021, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent McDevitt: th Duly adopted this 25 day of August, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McDevitt, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Chairman 18