Staff Notes May 18 2011 AV 24-11_NSB_Rodeway
Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Area Variance No.: 24-2011
Project Applicant: NSB Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Rodeway Inn
Project Location: 1449 State Route 9
Meeting Date: May 18, 2011
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes a 942 sq. ft. expansion to existing office/lobby to include a 164 sq. ft. handicap ramp
and 80 sq. ft. canopy. Further, applicant proposes 2,062 sq. ft. of decks and landings to existing motel.
Relief Required:
Relief requested from the front and side yard setback requirements as well as for the expansion of a
nonconforming structure. Additionally, applicant requests relief from Floor Area Ratio and Permeability
requirements for the CI zone.
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
1.Front Setback – Request for 54.4 feet of front setback relief from the 75 foot requirement for the
proposed handicap ramp.
2.Front Setback – Request for 24.4 feet of front setback relief from the 75 foot requirement for the
proposed office addition.
3.Travel Corridor – Request for both the quantified and qualified expansions listed above from the 75
foot Travel Corridor setback requirement for the upper Route 9 Travel Corridor Overlay District.
4.Side Setback – Request for 7.1 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement for the
proposed northern deck expansion to the motel.
5.FAR – Request for 3,076 sq. ft. or 7.0% increase from the 30% requirement for all proposed
expansions qualifying as floor area ratio.
6.Permeability – Request for an additional 1,196 sq. ft. of impermeability or a total of 77.4 %
Note: The amount of permeability relief
impermeable from the 70% allowable for the CI zone.
is based on the greatest amount of relief requested, in this case 1,196 additional square feet.
7.Expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of this board.
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 would include expansion in
compliant locations to avoid some of the variances requested. However, with the overbuilt nature of
the site relative to the code, feasible alternatives may be limited.
3.
Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
The totality of requests may be considered
severe relative to the ordinance. Please see relief required above for quantifications.
4.
Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
With the parcel’s impermeable nature
as well as topography, any additional impervious surface may have an adverse affect concerning
stormwater. However, the deck portion of the expansion has stormwater controls proposed.
5.
Whether the alleged difficulty was self created
. The difficulty may be considered self created.
Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.):
SP 33-2011 Motel expansion Pending
SP 19-09 Motel expansion Approved 5/28/09
AV 14-09 Setback, permeablilty relief/Exp of N/C structure Approved 3/25/09
SP 19-05 190 Sq. ft. deck expansion Approved 4/26/05
AV 22-05 Expansion of N/C structure Approved 3/23/05
Staff comments:
1.Lawn appears to be offered in place of existing macadam north and east of freestanding sign. This
would affect permeability calculations, please quantify change to permeability and adjust calculation
prior to ZBA meeting.
2.Permeability denoted on page 1 does not correspond to permeability denoted under Site
Development Data, page 3 of application. Please correct.
3.This basic application was approved on March 25, 2009 with the subsequent site plan application
approved on May 28, 2009. The applicant did not submit for a building permit within the one year
time frame from the original approval dates nor did the applicant request an extension for the area
variance and site plan approvals for this project resulting in the lapse of approvals.
4.Please not that the zoning requirements have changed since the initial approval, specifically front
setback requirements went from 50 feet to 75 feet.
SEQR Status:
Type II - no further action required
L:\Keith Oborne\2011 Staff Notes\Zoning\May 18\AV_NSB_Rodeway.doc
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes