Resolution Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury,NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
7imsr11 of(LieenshUIT
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve
Applicant Name: William Mason
File Number: AV 75-2021
Location: 15 Tuscarora Drive
Tax Map Number: 239.8-1-44
ZBA Meeting Date: November 17, 2021
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from William Mason.
Applicant proposes a 768 sq. ft. second story addition to an existing 768 sq. ft. home. The project includes a 16
sq. ft. new porch landing entry and a smaller access landing to the existing porch. The home has an existing one
bedroom and the second floor will add 3 more bedrooms. The project includes connection to the Takundewide
community septic and water supply from the lake. Site plan for expansion of non-conforming in a CEA and new
floor area in a CEA.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks,permeability, floor area, and expansion of a nonconforming structure
for constructing a second floor. The site is located in the Waterfront Residential zone on a 2,288 sq. ft. parcel.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirement
The addition is to be 10 ft. from the proeprty line where a 15 ft. setback is required. The entry deck is to be 6 ft.
from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. In addition, relief is requested for permeability where
66 % is proposed and 75% is required. Floor area is proposed to be 67%based on the lot size where 22% is the
maximum allowed.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,November 17, 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.
2. Feasible alternatives were not really considered by the Board as this is considered to be reasonable.
3. The requested variance is somewhat substantial, but given certain conditions of the MOU I guess we are
factoring in other things that make it less substantial.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty is self-created.
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. 75-
2021, Introduced by Catherine Hamlin, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe:
Duly adopted this 17th Day of November 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mr. LaSarso, Mrs. Hamlin,Mr. Urrico, Mr. Stark,Mr. McCabe
NOES: Mr. Henkel
ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McDevitt