Resolution 5.15.24
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: 1545 State Route 9 LLC
File Number: AV 27-2024
Location: 1545 State Route 9
Tax Map Number: 288.8-1-5.1
ZBA Meeting Date: May 15, 2024
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from 1545 State Route 9
LLC. Applicant proposes a two-lot subdivision of a 4.69 acre parcel. Lot 1 is to be 0.94 ac and has a
preexisting boat storage building of 8,020.8 sq ft footprint; Lot 2 is to be 3.75 ac and maintain the existing
motel complex multiple buildings footprint 36,605.7 sq ft. There are no changes to the existing buildings or
operations. Relief requested for lot size, setback, road frontage, and lot width.
The applicant requests relief for lot size, setback, road frontage, and lot width for a two-lot subdivision. The
project site is located on a 4.69 ac parcel in the Commercial Intensive zone.
Section 179-3-040 dimensions and Chapter 183 Subdivision
The proposed subdivision for Lot 1 is to be a lot size of 0.94 ac where 1 ac is required. The existing boat storage
of 8,020.8 sf is to be 19 ft from the side property line where 20 ft is required. Road frontage for Lot 1 is
proposed to be 29.69 ft where 50 ft is required. Lot width average is proposed to be 79.55 ft where 150 ft is
required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 15, 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
because we’re, in essence, returning these two individual lots to their prior position within the Town.
2. There are no feasible alternatives.
3. The requested variance is not substantial, again, because it is returning one property to what had been two
previous properties.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created simply because they wish to separate two tax properties.
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. 27-
2024, Introduced by Mary Palacino, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan:
Duly adopted this 15th Day of May 2024 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Palacino, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly