Staff Notes Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
July 22,2015
Area Variance 40-2015 Elizabeth Little Hogan, Trustee
Location/Zone 11 Pioneer Point/WR zone
SEQR Type II
Material Review: Application, survey, elevation
Parcel History: BP Boathouse 2015, BP Garage 2001, BP Deck 2001, AV 70-2001 garage,
SP 39-2001 garage,
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Applicant proposes construction 470 sq. ft. open sided boat house with sundeck.
RELIEF REQUIRED
Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-5-060 Docks, Boathouse, moorings
Parcel will require area variances as follows:
Side yard setback
Required 20 ft.
Proposed 9.7 ft.
Relief 10.3 ft.
CRITERIA FOR CONSIDERING AN AREA VARIANCE PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 267 OF TOWN LAW
In making a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
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. Feasible alternatives appear to be limited due the
configuration of the existing dock area where the boathouse is to be constructed.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate
relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project will have minimal to no adverse
effects or impact on the physical or the environment conditions of the area. The applicant has indicated the
existing boathouse and sundeck was in disrepair and was demolished.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
PAGE 1 OF 2
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
July 22,2015
Area Variance 40-2015 Elizabeth Little Hogan, Trustee
STAFF COMMENTS
The applicant proposes to construct a 420 sq. ft. open sided boathouse with a sundeck. A portion of the existing
boathouse has been removed. The new structure does not meet the setbacks for the north side of the property.
The information submitted shows the existing and proposed details of the project.
PAGE 2 OF 2
1
ftZoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518)761-8238
Town of Queensbury
RESOLUTION TO: Approve/Disapprove Area Variance No. 40-2015
Elizabeth Little Hogan
Tax Map No.ID 289.14-1-14 /Property Location: 11 Pioneer Point
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Elizabeth Little Hogan.
Applicant proposes rebuilding an existing 420 sq. ft. +/- covered boathouse with a sundeck. The new boathouse
with a sundeck will be open sided and to be located in the same position and height as the previous one. A portion
of the boathouse will be a rear 48 sq. ft. storage closet. The existing concrete dock is to remain as currently
located. Relief requested from minimum setbacks for new construction in the Waterfront Residential zone.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 22, 2015;
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:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
1. There is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties
because
2. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the board, are reasonable and have been included
to minimize the request OR are not possible.
3. The requested variance is/is not substantial because
4. There is/is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district?
5. Is the alleged difficulty is/is not self-created because
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh
(approval) / would be outweighed by (denial) 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: I
a)
b) ,
c) 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/DENY AREA VARIANCE NO. 40-2015,
Elizabeth Little Hogan, Introduced by ,who moved for its adoption, seconded by .
Duly adopted this 22nd day of July, 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES: