Approval resolution1 0 •
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
742 BAY ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12804
Christian G. Thomas, Chairman Bonnie M. Lapham, Acting Secretary
21 Pinewood Hollow Road _-_ 409 Ridge Road
Queensbury, New York 12804 Queensbury, New York 12804
TO: Paul G. Schuerlein
13 Heinrick Circle
Queensbury, New York 12804
PROJECT FOR:
Paul G. Schuerlein
THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING
REQUEST AT THE BELOW STATED MEETING AND HAS RESOLVED THE
FOLLOWING:
Meeting Date: November 24, 1997
Variance File Number: 77-1997 USE x AREA _ SIGN
Other:
® APPROVED ❑ DENIED ❑ TABLED ❑ WITHDRAWN ❑SEQRA REVIEW
❑ WITH CONDITIONS
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO 77-1997 PAUL G SCHUERLEIN,
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded
by Bonnie Lapham:
188 Dixon Road. The applicant proposes operating a plumbing and
_. heating business in an existing structure located in a UR-10 zone.
The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of
Section 179-17, UR-20. Commercial activities are not allowed in a
UR-10 zone. I move that we approve the application to the extent
it requests and will allow Mr. Schuerlien to operate a plumbing and
heating business in the existing structure. The structure was
built for commercial purposes. It was always used for commercial
purposes, and it is my opinion that no reasonable return can be
realized on the property as it is currently zoned. The applicant
has shown financial evidence regarding the return on the property,
and I believe he's demonstrated that there can't be a reasonable
ret�{�l1rn. The alleged hardship is unique to the property, in that it
is gue to the previous use of the existing structure as a carpet
cleaning business, pre -dating the existing zoning code. The
page 1 of 2
PLEASE READ THE BACK OF THI S FORM - Thank You
IMPO*NT INFORMATION REGARDING TWING PROCEDURE
RESOLUTION
At the February 17, 1993 the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals made a
MOTION THAT WHEN THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TABLES AN
APPLICATION, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SIXTY (60) DAYS TO COME BACK
WITH THE APPLICATION. IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT COMEBACK WITH
THE APPLICATION WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS, THEY HAVE TO READVERTISE,
Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred
Garvin:
Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Garvin, Mr. Carples, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston
§ 179-91 ZONING § 179-92
§ 179-91. Zoning Board of Appeals hearing; decision; APA
review. [Amended 11-23-1992 by LL No. 11-19921
A. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall give such notice of
hearings, hold hearings, and decide applications presented to
it, as may be required or allowed by Town Law §§ 267-a and
267-b.
B. Appeals from a Zoning Board of Appeals decision may be
taken as allowed by Town Law § 267c.
C. The Adirondack Park shall be considered a party to variance
applications in the Adirondack Park and shall receive such
notice and have such rights of review as are provided in the
Executive Law of the State of New York and the applicable
APA rules and regulations.
D. For decisions involving lands within the Adirondack Park, the
Board shall notify the Adirondack Park Agency, by certified
mail, of such decision. Any variance granted or granted with
conditions shall not be effective until thirty (30) days after
such notice to the Agency. If, within such thirty -day period,
the Agency determines that such variance involves the
provisions of the Land Use and Development Plan as approved
in the local land use program, including any shoreline
restriction, and was not based upon the appropriate statutory
basis of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, the
Agency may reverse the local determination to grant the
variance.
§ 179-92. Expiration of variance.
Unless otherwise specified or extended by the Zoning Board of
Appeals, decision on any request for a variance shall expire if the
applicant fails to undertake the proposed action or project. to obtain
any necessary building permit to construct any proposed new
building(s) or change any existing building(s) or to comply with the
conditions of said authorization within one (1) year from the filing date
of such decision thereof.
0
Use Variance No. 77-1997
Paul G. Schuerlein
requested variance will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. While the area is residential in character, the
subject property has historically been used in a commercial manner.
Moreover, the property has been empty for some time and the
applicant proposes improving the property and beginning to use the
property in a manner in accordance with most commercial concerns,
such that the continuous and commercial enterprise will not be
anticipated to essentially alter the character of the neighborhood.
The alleged hardship is not self created in that it's attributed to
the Zoning Ordinance and the fact this property was built before
the date of the existing Ordinance. It's my proposal, however,
that if we approve this Use Variance, that it would include an
express condition that there by no retail sales or retail use of
the property, and that there be no outside storage of plumbing
supplies or materials on the property.
Duly adopted this 24th day of November, 1997, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
Sincerely,
Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
BML/sed
CC: R. Mark Levack
page 2 of 2