10-28-2020
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 2020
INDEX
Area Variance No. 32-2020 David & Pamela Way 1.
Tax Map No. 289.17-1-23
Area Variance No. 36-2020 Timothy Stark 2.
296.14-1-13
Area Variance No. 33-2020 Jeff & Kirstie Baertschi 2.
Tax Map No. 239.12-2-43
Area Variance No. 35-2020 John Cordiale & Nancy McKinley Cordiale 5.
Tax Map No. 308.12-2-72
THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF
REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND
WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES.
1
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS
SECOND REGULAR MEETING
OCTOBER 28, 2020
7:00 P.M.
MEMBERS PRESENT
MICHAEL MC CABE, CHAIRMAN
JAMES UNDERWOOD, VICE CHAIRMAN
ROY URRICO, SECRETARY
MICHELLE HAYWARD
JOHN HENKEL
RONALD KUHL
CATHERINE HAMLIN
LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE
STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE
MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I’d like to open tonight’s meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of
th
Appeals, October 28. If you haven’t been here before, our procedure is fairly simple. We’ll call each
applicant to the podium. We’ll read the application into the record. We’ll allow the applicant to present
the application. We’ll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised then we’ll open the
public hearing and take input from the outside including callers. They can call in at 518-761-8225 to
express their opinion on each individual case. After the public hearing, we’ll close that and we’ll poll the
Board and see how the Board’s leaning and then we’ll proceed as necessary. We’ve got a couple, or two
applications that won’t be heard tonight. The first application, AV 32-2020, a public hearing has been
advertised.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DAVID & PAMELA WAY OWNER(S)
DAVID & PAMELA WAY ZONING WR LOCATION 33 CANTERBURY DR. APPLICANT
PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 288 SQ. FT. DOCK (8’ X 36’). THE DOCK IS TO BE LOCATED 16.5
FT. FROM THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE AND 15.9 FT. FROM SOUTHERN PROPERTY
LINE WHERE A 20 FT. SETBACK IS REQUIRED. THE EXISTING HOME IS 448 SQ. FT. RELIEF
REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 351-2020; P20140481; P20150186 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2020 LOT SIZE 0.2 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.17-1-23
SECTION 179-5-060
MR. MC CABE-And at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing and see if anybody’s here
for David and Pamela Way, 33 Canterbury Drive.
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MRS. MOORE-I’m going to interrupt you. Because the applications may change, you can leave the public
hearing open and not take public comment at this time because that way people will be commenting on
the new information provided.
MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I’m going to open the public hearing for that application and leave it open until
such time as that application becomes more complete. Right now I’m going to look for a motion to table
that application until a December meeting.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David &
Pamela Way. Applicants propose to install a 288 sq. ft. dock (8’x 36’). The dock is to be located 16.5 ft.
from the northern property line and 15.9 ft. from southern property line where a 20 ft. setback is required.
The existing home is 448 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks.
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 32-2020 DAVID & PAMELA WAY, Introduced by
John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ron Kuhl:
Tabled to the meeting on December 16th with new information to be submitted to the Town by the
November deadline date.
Duly adopted this 28th day of October 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
2
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
MR. MC CABE-Now application AV 36-2020, Timothy Stark, 33 Sweet Road, this applicant has
withdrawn his application.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 36-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II TIMOTHY STARK AGENT(S) VAN
DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) TIMOTHY STARK ZONING MDR LOCATION 33 SWEET
RD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A NEW 2,100 SQ. FT. HOME AND MAINTAIN
AN EXISTING HOME OF 498 SQ. FT. THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THE 498 SQ.
FT. HOME IS TO BE REMOVED AT A LATER DATE. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REMOVAL OF
TWO EXISTING TRAILERS AND SHEDS. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR 2 HOMES ON ONE
PARCEL AND LOT SIZE. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE
0.46 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.14-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040
MR. MC CABE-So there will be no public hearing for that particular application. So we’ll start with AV
33-2020 Jeff and Kirstie Baertschi.
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 33-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JEFF & KIRSTIE BAERTSCHI
OWNER(S) JEFF & KIRSTIE BAERTSCHI ZONING WR LOCATION 82 ASSEMBLY POINT
RD. APPLICANT RECEIVED AN AREA VARIANCE IN 2016 FOR A NEW HOME WITH A 220
SQ. FT. DECK. WHEN THE AS-BUILT SURVEY WAS COMPLETED, THE DECK WAS 272 SQ.
FT. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,367 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF
AST 166-2020; AST 177-2020; PZ 173-2016; RC 515-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
OCTOBER 2020 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.6 ACRES TAX MAP NO.
239.12-2-43 SECTION 179-3-040
JEFF BAERTSCHI, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 33-2020, Jeff & Kirstie Baertschi, Meeting Date: October 28, 2020
“Project Location: 82 Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicants received an area
variance in 2016 for a new home with a 220 sq. ft. deck. When the as-built survey was completed, the deck
was 272 sq. ft. The existing home is 2,367 sq. ft. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicants request relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone – WR
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and 179-4-080 decks
The existing deck is 20.8 ft. to the south property line where a 25 ft. setback is required and is 20.1 ft. to
east property line where a 30 ft. setback is required.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according 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 to no
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 limited as the deck
has already been constructed. The applicants have indicated the deck being slightly larger allows for
furniture and people to maneuver safely.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered
minimal relevant to the code. Relief on the south property line is 4.2 ft. and the east property line is
9.9 ft.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
3
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
Staff comments:
The applicants propose to maintain a 272 sq. ft. deck that had been constructed when the house was built.
The plans show the location of the deck on the home and the applicant provide photos with furniture on
it.”
MR. MC CABE-So let me ask Staff. This was picked up on the as builts. Now we didn’t always do this.
Right?
MRS. MOORE-We’ve been doing as builts probably for the last eight years since I’ve been back, maybe a
little bit longer, but correct. When I was here in 1996 and through there we did not do as builts that I can
remember.
MR. MC CABE-But this is the first case that I remember that we’ve picked up a change on the as builts.
Is that true?
MRS. MOORE-It’s possible.
MR. MC CABE-So you’re Mr. Baertschi?
MR. BAERTSCHI-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-So would you like to add anything to the request or talk to us at all? I’m going to ask you,
when you’re done, there should be some wipes there. So just wipe down the podium and the microphone.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Sure. Basically what happened was I didn’t build the deck when I built the house.
Basically when we finished the house we were out of budget and so we put the ledger board on. We
planned on doing the deck a few years down the road, whatever. When COVID hit and we were all taxed
with probably having to stay home possibly I said now’s a good time to, I have the material here so if I have
time I’ll build the deck. So we did that, not realizing, first of all, I didn’t realize that I needed a building
permit because I thought it was covered under the house building permit because it was on the plan. Dave
Hatin came by and informed me that, you know, he asked me are you building a deck., I said, yes, definitely.
He said well you’ve got to have a building permit. I said okay, no problem. When I started, and the deck
at that point was already all framed up and half decked, and when I originally started building it, or built
it at 10 feet or started laying it out at 10 feet, I realized there’s no way with a table on this thing that this is
even wide enough. You can’t, you’d be sliding right off the edge of the deck. So I said well I’ll just make
it two feet bigger, not thinking it was any big deal. My mother, the setback is against her right of way, not
a buildable lot, and my mother owns that right of way which is actually going to be conveying it to me
shortly, but not thinking it was any big deal because 10 feet just didn’t cut the mustard on that. So I built
it two feet deeper and then Craig Brown asked me what size it was. So I told him. He came up and said I
want to come out and measure it anyway. So he did and he said well we think you’re over but you’ll have
to get a survey done. So I had to get a survey done and sure enough it doesn’t meet the setback that we
had originally. So he said well you’ve got to get a variance. So that’s where I am today, asking for a
variance. As far as I’m concerned and none of my neighbors are concerned about it. It doesn’t impact
anybody to the back that it faces. There’s only a garage on that other lot an it’s up close to Holly Lane
anyway. So it doesn’t impact anybody down back there. There’s actually, before that property line as you
can see on the survey it’s a 30 foot right of way that you can’t build anything on anyway. So as far as I was
concerned it’s not that big a deal.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. KUHL-Would you tell me what the original approved deck dimensions were?
MR. BAERTSCHI-It was, I can’t remember what the, whatever the 23 feet is, you know, width wise, but
it was 10 feet off the house.
MR. KUHL-10 by something and you built it 12 by something?
MR. BAERTSCHI-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Put out your hand you’re going to get smacked, but that’s the difference, the 10 to the 12?
MR. BAERTSCHI-Yes.
MR. KUHL-But the lateral dimension is the same?
MR. BAERTSCHI-Correct.
MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you.
4
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
MR. HENKEL-Now, Laura, if he owns that, that right of way becomes his then would that cause a problem
still?
MRS. MOORE-No.
MR. HENKEL-Because if he owned the right of way.
MRS. MOORE-It would eliminate it.
MR. HENKEL-It would eliminate it. Because it’s going to happen in the future you said.
Mr. BAERTSCHI-I’m actually one of the owners of it because it was put in all of our kids’ names.
MR. HENKEL-Well, if that’s the case you wouldn’t think it would be a problem now then.
MR. BAERTSCHI-That’s why I didn’t think it was an issue.
MRS. MOORE-So what happened with the property line is once that right of way is potentially owned by
you, then right now it’s a separate lot. So it needs to be merged Then it would not be considered an issue.
If you keep it as two separate lots, then the issue still remains. So hence the variance is still needed.
MR. HENKEL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised. So a this particular time I’m
going to open the public hearing. I’m going to invite anybody on the outside who would like to comment
on this to give us a call at 518-761-8225, and, Roy, do we have any written comment on this particular
project?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There’s one. “We have received a public hearing notice for the above referenced request.
From what we can see this, is a 2 foot encroachment on an unused right of way. We have no objections
whatsoever to this variance. Furthermore, when all the COVID nonsense is done, we are looking forward
to extra space the deck will allow for cocktail parties. Brian and Meredith Hogan” I believe that’s Holly
Lane.
MR. MC CABE-So we just have to wait for a couple of more minutes for anybody on the outside to have a
chance to call in. So at this particular time, I’m going to close the public hearing, and I’m going to poll the
Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Michelle.
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor of your project. Of course we don’t look favorably when projects come to
us like this, but under the circumstances and your explanation, I’m in full support.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-It’s just one of those things when you get previous approvals and you look at it and you start
to build it and you think that, you know, you didn’t ask for enough. I don’t think it infringes on anybody
and it’s a minimal request. I’d be in favor.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-I also agree it’s very minimal and it doesn’t hurt the neighborhood. It doesn’t hurt the
environment. It’s a good project. I’d be for it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy>
MR. URRICO-I think if we were approving this project for the first time we would probably give it a yes.
So I’ll say I’m going to approve it for the second time.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think if you were coming before us and asking for this for the first time I would
have given you up to 14 feet. The pictures a self-explanatory. It’s pretty minimal. So I’d be in favor of it.
5
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I would also vote to grant the request.
MR. MC CABE-And I, too, feel that this request is reasonable and minimum and so I’ll support it also, and
I’m going to ask Michelle to make a motion.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeff & Kirstie
Baertschi. Applicants received an area variance in 2016 for a new home with a 220 sq. ft. deck. When the
as-built survey was completed, the deck was 272 sq. ft. The existing home is 2,367 sq. ft. Relief requested
for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicants request relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential zone – WR
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements and 179-4-080 decks
The existing deck is 20.8 ft. to the south property line where a 25 ft. setback is required and is 20.1 ft. to
east property line where a 30 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 28, 2020.
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; this is a minimal request and will fit in with the character of the neighborhood.
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; the minimal request as stated previously because of this
small request for the setbacks.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created but it doesn’t have any bearing on tonight’s ruling.
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.
33-2020 JEFF & KIRSTIE BAERTSCHI, Introduced by Michelle Hayward, who moved for its adoption,
seconded by John Henkel:
th
Duly adopted this 28 Day of October 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. BAERTSCHI-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. I appreciate it.
MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 35-2020 John Cordiale & Nancy Mc<Kinley-Cordiale, 35
Stephanie Lane.
AREA VARIANCE NO. 35-2020 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOHN CORDIALE & NANCY MC
KINLEY CORDIALE OWNER(S): JOHN CORDIALE & NANCY MC KINLEY-CORDIALE
6
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
ZONING MDR LOCATION 35 STEPHANIE LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A
192 SQ. FT. GAZEBO. THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS 2 EXISTING 96 SQ. FT. SHEDS ON THE
PROPERTY. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,477 SQ. FT. AND NO OTHER SITE WORK IS
PROPOSED. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF SHEDS. CROSS REF AST 450-2020;
P20020999; P20060399 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRES TAX
MAP NO. 308.12-2-72 SECTION 179-5-020
JOHN CORDIALE, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 35-2020, John Cordiale & Nancy McKinley Cordiale, Meeting Date:
October 28, 2020 “Project Location: 35 Stephanie Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicants
propose to install a 192 sq. ft. gazebo. The site currently has 2 existing 96 sq. ft. sheds on the property. The
existing home is 1,477 sq. ft. and no other site work is proposed. Relief requested for number of sheds.
Relief Required:
The applicants request relief for number of sheds in the Moderate Density zone –MDR.
Section 179-5-020 –sheds
The applicants propose to maintain two existing sheds and to install a gazebo. Relief is requested to have
more than 2 accessory structures on the property. The code allows for two accessory structures totaling
no more than 500 sq. ft. The total square footage proposed for all three would be 384 sq. ft.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according 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 to no
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 may be considered limited as
the two existing sheds on the property are used for the property maintenance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is for a third accessory structure.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicants propose to place a 192 sq. ft. gazebo in the yard of the home where two existing sheds have
been placed, each being 96 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the sheds and the placement of the gazebo.
The applicants have also provided an image of the gazebo.”
MR. MC CABE-Are you the applicant?
MR. CORDIALE-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Would you like to come to the podium? Only one of you can come, and when you’re done
just wipe down the podium and the microphone.
MR. CORDIALE-My name is John Cordiale. I live at 35 Stephanie Lane, Queensbury. Thank you for
hearing my case, my variance application. I just want to say Laura Moore really helped me get through the
application process. It was pretty detailed but she guided me through. That’s why I’m here now. We’re
requesting a variance for the gazebo because we actually wanted to add a structure to our property that
would enhance our life basically. We both work at Glens Falls Hospital. We both work through the
furlough. So we wanted to have a place in our backyard that we could kind of relax, just hang out. We
do have a few other sheds on our property. One we use for our snow blower, all the lawn equipment,
things like that, and actually I have an observatory in my backyard. There’s a telescope in there. So I’ve
had that for a long, long time. Astronomy is a hobby so that’s part of what I like to do to relax also. So we
7
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
actually went, we were first looking at building a deck, but we were looking at a Trex deck and things like
that, but by the time we got down with it and everything it was prohibitively expensive right now because
actually all that stuff has gone way up in price. Then we looked at possibly like doing a screened in porch
on the back of the house because we had added an addition to our house previously. We were going to
maybe attach it to that, but we decided against that. So we actually went to Garden Time and we saw a
nice gazebo, and I have a picture of it that I gave you guys. It actually kind of matches our home because
we live in a log home. So we thought it was a really good find for us, and then when we bought it at Garden
Time they told us we had to go through the approval process and things like that, you know, get the permit.
So that’s why I came here to go through the whole process and get approval for it. I didn’t realize that
having the other two sheds would impact it, but the way our house is situated we’ve never put a garage on
our property because we only have I think 26 feet on one side and 21 on the other side. So that’s why we
have the sheds in our backyard for all the maintenance equipment.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? It’s pretty straightforward what you want to
do here. So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public
hearing and invite anybody on the outside who’d like to call us on his matter to call us at 518=761-8225.
And I’m going to ask Roy, is there any written correspondence on this particular application?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-There’s no written correspondence.
MR. MC CABE-So I’m going to ask if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this
application? So we just have to wait two more for the public to call in. So at this particular time I’m going
to close the public hearing, and I’m going to poll the Board.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to start with Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-I kind of had a little issue with this when it first came in, because this isn’t a big lot, and
the backyard isn’t very big, but considering that they don’t have a garage, and I understand the cost and
we are supposed to try to help applicants to avoid high cost of utilizing the property. So I guess they
swayed me to it, but maybe I would hope that in the future, if you found a way, because you’re still under
the 500 feet, that if you get rid of one of the sheds, maybe you’d find a way to just get one larger one. It’s
going to be a lot in your yard, in that backyard, but I see the necessity. So I guess I would vote in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I think we have to be careful on these smaller lots, sometimes two smaller sheds look
better to me than one giant shed which takes up the whole backyard, and I think what you’re trying to
achieve here is a worthwhile cause for you and your peace of mind at the end of the day after working hard.
So I’d be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I think this is a lot better than even two sheds at 250 each. So we still have 116 feet to
spare. I would be in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I definitely agree. Definitely the lot is small, but there’s no garage. They definitely
need space to put their lawn care and definitely they deserve to have a place to kind of sit and enjoy the
outdoors. So I’d be in favor of the gazebo as is.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Interesting. If this were attached to the house they wouldn’t be here. So I agree with my
other Board members. I’d be in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE-Michelle?
MRS. HAYWARD-I’m also in favor. Although it appears to be a large request, because they don’t have a
garage to me it’s a minimal request. It fits in with the character of the neighborhood. So I guess I’m in
favor.
MR. MC CABE-I, too, am in favor of the project. I think the applicant’s done a very nice job with the
property and I think the gazebo will enhance the property and so I would be in favor of it. So at this
particular time I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here.
8
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John Cordiale
& Nancy McKinley Cordiale. Applicants propose to install a 192 sq. ft. gazebo. The site currently has 2
existing 96 sq. ft. sheds on the property. The existing home is 1,477 sq. ft. and no other site work is
proposed. Relief requested for number of sheds.
Relief Required:
The applicants request relief for number of sheds in the Moderate Density zone –MDR.
Section 179-5-020 –sheds
The applicants propose to maintain two existing sheds and to install a gazebo. Relief is requested to have
more than 2 accessory structures on the property. The code allows for two accessory structures totaling
no more than 500 sq. ft. The total square footage proposed for all three would be 384 sq. ft.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 28, 2020.
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.
2. Feasible alternatives are limited and have been considered by the Board, they don’t have a garage
or any space to build one; any alternatives really aren’t feasible.
3. The requested variance is not substantial, again because they don’t have a garage; were this
attached to the house, it wouldn’t even be necessary to seek a variance.
4. There is no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district; it does seem to go along with other properties there.
5. The alleged difficulty is a self-created hardship but that is just one problem to satisfy.
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.
35-2020 JOHN CORDIALE & NANCY MC KINLEY CORDIALE, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin,
who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward:
th
Duly adopted this 28 Day of October 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.
MR. CORDIALE-Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I make a motion that we close tonight’s meeting.
MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF
OCTOBER 28, 2020, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by James
Underwood:
th
Duly adopted this 28 day of October, 2020, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
9
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/28/2020)
NOES: NONE
On motion meeting was adjourned.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED,
Michael McCabe
10