AV 3-2022 Resolution (Connors) 1.26.22
Zoning Board of Appeals – Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve
Applicant Name: Patrick M. Connors
File Number: AV 3-2022
Location: 95 Rockhurst Road
Tax Map Number: 227.9-1-1
ZBA Meeting Date: January 26, 2022
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Patrick M.
Connors. Applicant proposes to remove an existing deck of 644 sq. ft. to construct a 644 sq. ft. deck in the
same location. The deck is attached to the existing house and has a patio area underneath. The steps from the
deck to the lower patio area are to be in the same place. The existing home is 1,890 sq. ft. footprint minus the
deck. There is additional work on the boat house structure. Relief is requested for setbacks.
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a deck addition. The parcel is located in the Waterfront
Residential zone on a 0.25 ac parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional, Section 179-4-080 decks
The deck is to be 40.94 ft. from the shoreline and 8.39 ft. from the side property line. The shoreline setback
requirement is 50 ft. and the side setback requirement is 20 ft.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 19, 2022 & Wednesday, January 26, 2022.
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. As discussed we’re talking about some handrails and some piers.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are limited due to existing house location and the previous
deck.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. If anything it’s minimal to moderate.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
It, again, will have a minimal impact at best. It appears to be an improvement with the railings and the
piers and bringing a property back that just needs a little bit of work to it.
5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created.
Relief Required:
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. 3-
2022, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood:
Duly adopted this 26th Day of January 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl