Town Staff Notesr
•
��j1
L" U L p
Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
August 20, 2003
Apenda Items•
(SV 68-2003) North Country Snorts Medicine, PLCC 2°d freestanding sign - 64 sf
SEQRA Type Unlisted Public Hearing left open
(AV 70-2003) Home Depot, USA Inc. 4 h wall sign - 30 sf
SEQRA Type Unlisted Public Hearing left open
(AV 72-2003) Kevin Maschewsld Single Family dwelling on lot without frontage on public highway
SEQRA Type H Public Hearing scheduled
(UV 77-1997) Paul Schuerlein Rehearing UV 77-1997 to allow additional use
SEQRA Type Unlisted Public Hearing scheduled
AV (��ae�3 y.a� usgQS
Does the benefit to the applicant outweigh the detriment to the health, safety, and welfare of the
neighborhood or community by granting the area variance? In malting the determination,
consideration should be given to:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a
detriment to nearby properties will he created.
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.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
5. Whether the difficulty is self-created.
Use Variance:
77-1997
Project Applicant:
Paul Schuerlein
Project Location:
188 Dixon Road
Meeting Date:
August 20, 2003
Description :
Applicant requests a rehearing of Use Variance 77-1997 to change the relief
granted originally, in order to provide for the use of the property by two
businesses; Schuerlein Plumbing and Heating & Kellwood Cabinetry.
Staff comments:
Procedurally, in order for the Board to revisit UV 77-1997, a motion must be
introduced to do so. Such a motion must be passed unanimously. If a rehearing
is granted, a re-examination of the required criteria would be necessary.
l . Can the applicant realize a reasonable return, provided that a lack of
return is substantial as demonstrated by competent financial information?
2. Is the alleged hardship relating to the property in question unique or does
it apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood?
3. Will the requested use variance alter the essential character of the
neighborhood?
4. Is the alleged hardship unique?
If reheard, an adjournment to allow the applicant to address these concerns
may be appropriate.