Staff Notes Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
July 22,2015
Area Variance 36-2015 Michael Hutsenpiller, Jr.
Location/Zone 185 Sunnyside East/MDR zone
SEQR Type II
Material Review: Application, elevations, survey
Parcel History: BP 10-374—residential alteration
BP 10-358—septic alteration
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Applicant proposes construction of a 570 sq. ft. shed.
RELIEF REQUIRED
Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-3-040 Establishment of districts —
dimensional requirements and 179-5-020 Accessory structures—yard requirements.
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Sq. ft. shed limit<3 acres Minimum property line setbacks
Required 500 sq. ft. 25 ft.
Proposed 570 sq. ft. 8 ft.
Relief 70 sq. ft. 17 ft.
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE PURSUANT 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 available to reduce the
size or alter the location to be more compliant.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to
the code.
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 little to no
impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
PAGE 1 OF 2
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
July 22, 2015
Area Variance 36-2015 Michael Hutsenpiller, Jr.
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant proposes to construction a 570 sq. ft. storage shed that does not meet the required setbacks of the
zone and exceeds the size of accessory structure. The applicant has indicated that the location was to allow for
visibility of the backyard area. The applicant has also discussed with the adjoining neighbor and has indicated
the agreed with the 8ft setback. The information submitted shows the location of the shed and elevation
PAGE 2 OF 2
Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Town of Queensbury
RESOLUTION TO: Approve/Disapprove Area Variance No.36-2015
Michael Hutsenpiller,Jr.
Tax Map No.ID 279.19-1-25 /Property Location: 185 Sunnyside East
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael HutsenpiHer, Jr.
Applicant proposes construction of a 570 sq. ft. shed. Relief requested from minimum property line setback
requirements.Relief requested from minimum allowable 500 sq.ft. limit for sheds on parcels less than 3-acres.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 22, 2015;
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. Is 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. 36-2015,
MICHAEL HUTSENPILLER,JR., Introduced by ,who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: