AV 26-2021 Dempsey Minutes(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021)
1
NEW BUSINESS:
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEVE DEMPSEY AGENT(S)
HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) STEVE DEMPSEY ZONING RR-5A
LOCATION 3239 STATE ROUTE 9L APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN
EXISTING HOME OF 1,905 +/- SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT TO INCLUDE 111 SQ. FT. ADDITION ON THE
MAIN FLOOR OF THE HOME, A 327 SQ. FT. SECOND FLOOR ADDITION, 407 SQ. FT. NEW
DECK, AND TO REPLACE A 125 SQ. FT. SCREEN PORCH WITH A BATHROOM ADDITION.
RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING
MAY 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-
1-49 SECTION 179-3-040
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2021, Steve Dempsey, Meeting Date: May 19, 2021 “Project
Location: 3239 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations to an
existing home of 1,905 +/- sq. ft. footprint to include 111 sq. ft. addition on the main floor of the home, a 327
sq. ft. second floor addition, 407 sq. ft. new deck, and to replace a 125 sq. ft. screen porch with a bathroom
addition. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural Residential zone –RR-5A
Section 179-3-040- dimensional
The additions to the existing home where the new addition is to be 34 ft. to the west property line where
a 75 ft. setback is required and is to be 32 ft. to the rear setback where 100 ft. is required. The deck is to be
34 ft. to the west property line where 75 ft. is required and 26 ft. to the rear property line where 100 ft. 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 may be considered limited
due to the location of the house on a 1.05 ac parcel. The parcel is located in the Rural Residential 5 ac
zone, where almost any work on the home would require a variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the west setback for both the deck and the
addition is 41 ft. The rear setback relief for the addition is 68 ft. and the deck is 74 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 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 not be considered self-created
as the lot is a pre-existing non-conforming parcel.
Staff comments:
The applicants propose to improve an existing home with a second story addition, alterations to the main
floor and a new deck. The plans show the interior renovation floor plan and the location of the additions
and deck to the existing home.”
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins. I’m here with owner and applicant Steve
Dempsey and the Staff Notes described it well. 3239 Route 9L. It’s an older residence. It needs a fair
amount of work. It is actually in the RR-5A zone and it’s a one acre parcel. So it has 100 foot front setback
and a 100 foot rear setback and the lot’s 180 feet deep. So there’s no compliant building area. What Steve’s
proposing I think makes a lot of sense and it’s relatively modest. He’s got a small addition off the rear of
the parcel, a new deck across the rear of the parcel, a re-built porch/entry room that’s going to become an
additional bathroom and one section of the roof to the rear of the parcel is coming up to get a second floor
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021)
2
addition. He’s not compliant with the rear setback. Although I would note the setbacks for the additions
are greater than the existing setback of another portion of the house, in both cases, side setback and rear
setback. So with that I guess we’d turn it over for any questions from the Board.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? It’s pretty straightforward I think. No questions?
So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing
and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this project, and invite anybody on
the outside who’s watching to give us a call at 518-761-8225, and give us your input, and, Roy, is there any
written?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-Thankfully not.
MR. MC CABE-So we just have to wait two minutes to allow people to call in from the outside.
MR. HENKEL-Obviously in 1915 when that house was built, was that part of any of those other properties
like owned by Courtney or anything like that? Does that go back that far?
STEVE DEMPSEY
MR. DEMPSEY-They were all tied together back in the day.
MR. HENKEL-Obviously there was no zoning then. So when they built that house there they didn’t know
there would be the setbacks that there are today.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Brent.
MR. MC DEVITT-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this is pretty straightforward. Noting that the house
is on a 1.05 acre parcel and located in the Rural Residential Five Acre zone. Most any work on the home
would require a variance. So I have no problems with this.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-Yes. I think that it’s a minimal request and I’d be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with my Board members. At this point there’s no doubt it’s very minimal
I mean it’s a large request, but minimal in my book. So I’d agree with the project.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-I agree with everybody else. I’m in favor.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-I agree with everybody else. It’s based upon the Rural Residential Five Acre zoning.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. I mean it’ s substantial on its face, but it’s minimal compared to what already existing
and it’s pre-existing, non-conforming. So I’m in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE-So it’s an improvement to the property. So it’s going to enhance the neighborhood as it
is, although it’s not really a large neighborhood on that side, and it’s actually minimal when you really look
at what’s going on. So I’m in favor of the project also. So I’m going to ask Ron to ma ke a motion for us
here.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve Dempsey.
Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home of 1,905 +/- sq. ft. footprint to include 111 sq. ft. addition
on the main floor of the home, a 327 sq. ft. second floor addition, 407 sq. ft. new deck, and to replace a 125
sq. ft. screen porch with a bathroom addition. Relief requested for setbacks.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/26/2021)
3
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Rural Residential zone –RR-5A
Section 179-3-040- dimensional
The additions to the existing home where the new addition is to be 34 ft. to the west property line where
a 75 ft. setback is required and is to be 32 ft. to the rear setback where 100 ft. is required. The deck is to be
34 ft. to the west property line where 75 ft. is required and 26 ft. to the rear property line where 100 ft. is
required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 26, 2021.
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 this is a pre-existing, non-conforming structure and we’re just doing minimum adds.
2. Feasible alternatives are limited due to the size of the property which is 1.05 acres and have been
considered by the Board, and have been included to minimize the request.
3. The requested variance is not substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is really not self-created as the home is pre-existing, non-conforming.
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.
26-2021 STEVE DEMPSEY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brent
McDevitt:
Duly adopted this 26th Day of May 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you, Board.
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. You have a project.
MR. DEMPSEY-Thank you very much.