Resolution 4.24.24
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: Furniture House North LLC
File Number: AV 25-2024
Location: 1066 State Route 9
Tax Map Number: 296.9-1-10.12
ZBA Meeting Date: April 24, 2024
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Furniture House
North LLC. Applicant has completed façade work including painting, window location, auto part art fixtures,
and updated lighting fixtures. The outdoor patio area roofline has been extended and the patio area has been
updated with concrete. Planters and seasonal seating are to be added to the outdoor patio area noting one tree
has been removed closest to the store entry. The building will remain as a restaurant and store. There are no
changes in the number of seating for the restaurant. Site plan for addition to covered patio area and updated
façade. Relief requested for setback of roof over patio.
The applicant requests relief for setback of roof over patio. The project site is located on a 2.76 ac parcel within
the Commercial Moderate zone.
Section 179-3-040
The roofline upgrade with new roof area is to be 45.5 ft from the front of the building and 62 ft to the patio roof
where a 75 ft setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 24, 2024.
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 these were additions that were needed as they were re-modeling.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize
the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s due to the 75 foot offset off the main road.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
Relief Required:
5. The alleged difficulty you could say is really not self-created. There was a need as they did the
construction.
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. 25-
2024, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 24th Day of April 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Palacino, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Keenan, Mr. McCabe