Staff Notes - Town of Queensbury Town of Queensbury FILE COPY
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Area Variance No.: 76-2002
Project Applicant: James Grande
Project Location: 3222 State Route 91.
Meeting Date: September 25, 2002
Description of Proposed Project
Applicant proposes construction of an 892 sq.ft. 3-car garage with an attached
382 sq.ff. dwelling, which will replace an existing 400 sq.ft. pre-existing
nonconforming cottage (to be removed upon approval of this application).
Relief Required:
Applicant requests relief from the requirement allowing one single-family
dwelling per lot in areas zoned for single-family dwellings, §179-4-010 (C6), and
418 sq.ft. of relief from the 800 sq.ft. minimum floor area requirement for a single-
family dwelling, §179-5-090.
Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
1. Benefit to the applicant:
Applicant would be permitted to construct the desired structure in the preferred
location.
2. Feasible alternatives:
Feasible alternatives include constructing a garage within the allowable 900
sq.ft. and 16-foot maximum height requirement, and through repairs, bring the
existing cabin up-to-date.
3. Is this relief substantial relative to the ordinance?:
An additional single-family dwelling could be considered substantial relative to
the ordinance (100%). 418 sq.ft. of relief from the 800 sq.ft. minimum
requirement could be considered moderate relative to the ordinance (52.2%).
4. Effects on the neighborhood or community:
Minimal to moderate effects may be anticipated as a result of this action.
Applicant Grande
Date September 25, 2002
Page-2-
5. Is this difficulty self-created?
The difficulty may be interpreted as self created, as there are other feasible
alternatives.
Parcel History(construction/site pion/vadance, etc.):
AV 27-02: tabled 04/17/02, relief from the size and height requirements for an
unattached garage.
AV 43-02: withdrawn 06/13/02, relief for a second dwelling unit and from the
minimum floor area requirements for the proposed dwelling.
Staff comments
Minimal to moderate impacts may be anticipated as a result of this action. The
applicant could construct a compliant garage and through repairs, bring the
existing cabin up-to-date. However, the applicant proposes to remove the
existing cabin, which does not meet the current side setback requirements, and
construct the garage/dwelling in a compliant location. Even though it is the
policy of the Zoning Department to attempt to bring nonconforming conditions
into conformity with the current Zoning Ordinance whenever possible,
consideration might be given to the following: if the application is denied, the
applicant still plans on building a large detached garage, resulting in a third
building on the property and potentially can recondition the nonconforming
cabin. If the application is approved, the applicant will demolish the
nonconforming cabin and build the desired garage/dwelling in a compliant
location, resulting in one less building on the property. Should the application
be approved,consideration might be given to a condition the applicant install
sufficient landscaping to screen the new building from the neighboring parcel.
SEAR Status:
Type It
MOTION FOR AGAINST TABLE BY SECOND
VOTE:
STONE HIMES UNDERWOOD
HAYES ABBATE URRICO
MCNULTY BRYANT HUNT
L:\Bruce Frank\2002 ZBA Notes\Sep 25\Grande 25sep02.doc
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes