Meeting Minutes(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 72-2021 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II BRETT STREETER ZONING RR -5A
LOCATION 33 TUTHILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO COMPLETE REPLACEMENT OF A
520 SQ. FT. DECK AND TO CONSTRUCT A 104 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION. THE OPEN DECK IS
USED AS THE FRONT ENTRY AREA TO THE HOME. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE SITE
OR EXISTING HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AST 783 -2020
WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2021 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT
SIZE 5 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 307.-1-9 SECTION 179-9-040
BRETT STREETER, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 72-2021, Brett Streeter, Meeting Date: October 27, 2021 “Project
Location: 33 Tuthill Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to complete replacement
of a 520 sq. ft. deck and to construct a 104 sq. ft. deck addition. The open deck is used as the front entry
area to the home. There are no changes to the site or existing home. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for reconstruction of deck replacement needing r elief for setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The applicant has replaced an existing 520 sq. ft. deck and a 104 sq. ft. deck addition for a total deck of 624
sq. ft. The deck is to be located 67 ft. from the property line where a 75 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 may be considered to remove
the new portion of the deck. The existing home and deck was constructed in 2002 when the setbacks
for the zone were Front 50 ft. Rear and Sides 30 ft. setbacks. The setbacks for RR was changed in
2009.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested is 8 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 be considered self-created.
Staff comments:
The applicant requests to maintain a rebuilt deck of 520 sq. ft. and the deck expansion of 104 sq. ft. The
project was identified by the Building Department requiring a building permit, it was then determined the
project would require relief. The applicant wasn’t aware of the requirements when the project started.
The applicant has indicated the deck was in need of replacement.”
MR. STREETER-Hi. I’m Brett Streeter, property owner.
MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward.
MR. STREETER-The deck was deteriorated and needed to be replaced and extending out toward the front
property line, there was a question on, because the property line on the side of my house doesn’t run
perpendicular. So I had a survey done.
MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been
advertised. So at this particular time I’m going to open the public hearing. So i s there anything written,
Roy?
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
2
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No comments.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-And poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Roy.
MR. URRICO-I think this is a pretty straightforward application. I would be in favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Ron?
MR. KUHL-I’d be in favor of it. It’s straightforward. These projects like this I’d say, why does the
applicant have to go through this expense. I’m sorry, but it’s part of the process. So I’d be in favor of this.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-It’s a large piece of property. It’s five acres. Unfortunately it’s the shape of the property
that’s creating the problem. It’s very minor . So I’d be on board with this.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD- from the 8 feet of relief from the 75 foot requirement isn’t very much. So I’d be in
favor of it.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-So, yes, it’s a minimal request. It’s out of necessity. It’s almost a replacement in kind. So
I would vote in favor of the variance.
MR. MC CABE-And, Jackson?
MR. LA SARSO-Of course I’m in favor. It’s a great project. It’s unfortunate that you folks have to come
here and deal with this stuff, but it is what it is.
MR. MC CABE-And so I, too, support the project. The request is minimal. There’s not many people who
are going to observe this calculation here and so I’m going to ask Cathy for a motion here.
MRS. HAMLIN-Okay.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Brett Streeter.
Applicant proposes to complete replacement of a 520 sq. ft. deck and to construct a 104 sq. ft. deck
addition. The open deck is used as the front entry area to the home. There are no changes to the site or
existing home. Relief requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for reconstruction of deck replacement needing r elief for setbacks.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional
The applicant has replaced an existing 520 sq. ft. deck and a 104 sq. ft. deck addition for a total deck of 624
sq. ft. The deck is to be located 67 ft. from the property line where a 75 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 27, 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. It’s pretty much a replacement in kind.
2. Feasible alternatives, we did consider them, but this seems to be reasonable as is.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/27/2021)
3
3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s only, as was mentioned, eight feet out of the
seventy-five foot setback.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district. As it’s all pretty much pre-existing.
5. The alleged difficulty would still be considered self-created.
6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requ ested 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.
72-2021 BRETT STREETER, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 27th Day of October 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mr. LaSarso, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project.
MR. STREETER-Thank you.