Applicationa
--File Number ----
-7 :1— Ic337
Date Rec'd/Fee Pd
Town of Queensbury * 742 Bay Rd. * Queensbury, NY 12804
Department of Community Development, Tel. (518)761-8238 FAX 745-4437
VARIANCE APPLICATION
-- General Information
Applicant: Paul G. Schuerlein
Tel. No. 761 -0830
13 Heinrich Circle
Queensbury, NY 12804
FAX
Applicant's
Agent R. Mark Levack
Tel. No. 793-7600
Levack Real Estate, Inc.
1313 Northway Plaza
FAX 793-7869
Queensbury, NY 12804
Property 188 Dixon Road'
Tel. No. 1-802-446-21 76
Owner Linda Paquin
Box 158 Haver Hill Road
FAX Same
wallinford VT 05773
Tax Map No. 92 - 2 - 7 Zone Classification: oR 10
Project Description:
Paul G. Schuerlein is a self employed
plumber,
His trade activities consist of
inside orag f materials
•
and one van
Project Address 188 Dixon Road, Queensbury, NY 12804
Directions and Map must be provided in the space below in order to be considered
a complete application for the Board to review.
Directions: Location Map:
Aviation Road to John Burke Drive to Dixon Road
Page 1
USE VZ'AA-1ANCE
:Applicant: Paul G. Schuerlein
Present Use of Property: Vacant - Was a carpet and furniture
cleaning service
Proposed Use of Property: Plumbing business - inside storage
The following questions are based on Section 267-b of the Town Law (1993), which
requires a showing by the applicant that:
(b)... "applicable zoning regulations and restrictions have caused unnecessary hardship.
In order to prove such unnecessary hardship the applicant shall demonstrate... that
for each and every permitted use under the zoning regulations for the particular district...
(1) the applicant cannot realize a reasonable return, provided that lack of return is
substantial as demonstrated by competent financial evidence;
• (2) the alleged hardship relating to the property in question is unique, and does not
apply to a substantial portion of the district or neighborhood.;
(3) that the requested use variance, if granted, will not alter the essential character of
the neighborhood; and
(4) that the alleged hardship has not been self-created.
(c) the board of appeals, in the granting of use variances, shall grant the minimum
variance that it shall deem necessary and adequate to address the unnecessary
hardship proven by the applicant, and at the same time preserve and protect the
character of the neighborhood and the health, safety and welfare of the community."
1. Is a reasonable return possible if the land is used as zoned? yes ✓ no
If the answer is no, please provide financial evidence supporting this claim.
UR 10 Zoning
See explanation, Pg. 1 of 4
• 2. Is the alleged hardship relating to this property unique? yes no
or does the same situation apply to the rest of the district or neighborhood?
Explain: See explanation Pg. 2 of 4
3. Will the requested use variance alter the essential character of the neighborhood?
yes x no. Explain See explanation Pg_ 3 of 4
4. Is the alleged hardship self-created? yes no Ex
plain:
See explanation Pg.-4 of 4
Other Comments:
Page 2
1.) Reasonable Return:
UR 10 Zoning would allow one (1) dwelling unit for every 10,000
square feet of land area.
Lot Size - .44 A x 43,560 sq. ft.=19,166 sq. ft.
19,160 sq. ft. div. by 10,000 sq. ft. per unit = 1.916
20,000 sq. ft needed for 2 units
• Zoned for one unit
.44 acre lot value = 10,000 to 12,500
see comparable sales data
see competing lots data
cost to demolish and remove structure $10,000
see Kruger Concrete estimate
Taxes Paid =
$2,034
Legal Paid =
$500
Insurance Paid =
$750
Utilities =
$1,800
Real Estate Commission $1.000
Total Expenses
= $6,084
• $6,804 + $10,000 = $16,084 Total Expense to sell building as a lot
There would be no return to demolish these buildings and sell this
site as a residential building lot.
It is not feasible to remodel this structure to create a residential
home.
With the abundance of homes on the market it is reasonable to expect
that this remodeled shop would not sell as a residential house.
Therefore it has no value as a remodeled house.
Pg.1 of 4
2.) Unigue Hardship:
This hardship is unique to this building at this location. This
building was built in 1950 as a commercial carpet cleaning
business. The area has since developed as a predominantly
single family and multi -family residential area rendering this
building unique.
Additionally, this building possess unique characteristics such as a
very high back bay used to dry carpets. This fact would further
render this building inadequate for residential purposes.
It is also unique in the fact that this buildings owner/buyer has
applied for a use variance to use this property for an almost identical
proposed use as the past use.
Pg. 2 of 4
ORMORTMMOTIMIT, "I.
The requested variance would not alter the character of this
neighborhood. The applicant is not proposing to alter the size or
make-up of the two structures. Additionally, there are no plans to
increase the size of the parking area.
This building pre dates the majority of houses in the area. The
business operations proposed for this facility will be less intrusive
on the neighborhood. Mr. Warren Clark owned and used two vans
in his business of cleaning carpets. The applicant dose not propose to
exceed that level.
Adirondack Home Services also had their customers picking up and
dropping off rugs for cleaning. This practice would be avoided due to
the nature of Mr. Schuerleins business. His work is done off site.
Granting this variance will have a positive impact on the
neighborhood. Presently the building is showing a signs of neglect as
paint is pealing as well as shrubbery and lawn is becoming
overgrown. Paul is a neighborhood resident who plans to repair the
facility and manage it's upkeep, therefore improving the character of
the neighborhood.
Pg. 3 of 4
0
4.) Hardship:
This hardship is not self created. These buildings along with the use
they have been put to, pre date the vast majority of residential
structures in and around this site.
The area has developed and evolved as a predominantly residential
area necessitating a change in zoning. That progress has created
the hardship for this property.
Pg. 4 of 4
Applicant V17.
PLOT PLAN ELEMENTS
A Plot Plan, drawn to scale, is required as part of your application. It should include
the following:
a. Lot dimensions, based on a survey map, if possible, or Tax Map information
b. North arrow and scale, preferably 1" = 40' or less
c. Location and dimensions of existing and proposed buildings, showing
setback distances and uses
d. Parking layout, to scale. Standard space is 9' x 20'. Handicapped ,
space is 8' x 20' plus 8' access aisle (2 spaces can share aisle)
e. Physical features, such as streets, steep slopes, lakes, wetlands, etc.
• f. Water and sewer system for this parcel and adjoining properties, if applicable.
g. Easements and public roads
h. All paved, gravelled, or other impermeable surfaces, with square footage
noted
i. All permeable, green areas, with square footage noted.
j. Adjacent owners' names
k. Building elevations may be helpful in demonstrating your plans to the Board,
and may be required in some cases, depending on site characteristics
I. Name of project applicant.
A COMPLETE APPLICATION CONSISTS OF THE FOLLOWING:
• - The original application forms with all necessary signatures,
plus 9 copies.
- An acceptable plot plan plus 9 copies. Please fold maps to at least an
8.5" x 14" (or smaller) format.
- State Environmental Quality Review Short Environmental
Assessment Form -- Staff may determine that a Long Form is
required.
- Agent designation form filled out and signed if you are having someone
else represent you at the meeting
- $50 fee per variance application.
I have read and completed all applicable portions of this variance application. To
the best of my knowledge all information provided is true and accurate.
Applicant: Date: l o` Z o- g 7
'..-A--rrhn.1r 1:30nn F'caj'lit T.aa gffjcioj RQQQpV, of Meeting Statement
:3 '-1,�.%La to 11r nr1 ILA Eti"Olfz� la i•,.pr MN.,A 6,r arividlVC
e ;S rel ded in tie autl:orzaron Porn ' o:ow, : esipttating an agent.
Y.._.C._ ddsS —Tiate �. 1'.v` ::, i. Ld—fy V-.it•fi% as my a t`.nt
r�
ff
C.ilf:l
P.(?;J! ica't? C:,^, for :ax map Nuinbel: C�3': !.tl)i? QZ•t 3tOClti ?,_, Lot -T
144
:r 1 e LIVV FIF o r
t1+' ',it)�,ct; , 15 not die Sail? as di:? 3j;}-iica it, ;1--- o"vner'S Slgnaiul-e 1S
•
11''�(;l - r�.'. iia' 'n ttlL'rtZdtlptl t'alai +C'�01V, desigrat n-
Li�r:t'Fi.> .ktJ� 11°1 �l�t%j'vf
? ri,t.,_,
;,p ,L_� ="
ott;;�E: at pr•mise� 11.V.awd at Ta"c dap Nurn�:r:/
B!cY:k Lot
n� `�t+�• oes:�ra.e
cz.\. s-as my
_.. _
'
fora �'1 a:.ce,
J ::te Flan, ; - i Suh�iviSon
aC Li:� cbCvY, t7rcl1:i515.
�,,; •ner's $�� naG:fe �, � ^�>.%%j, T � Date: 21
�C2l: .`.C'�Ci" i.C'.'•: Crt:}; L b l 4— Page
OFFtC:F.L RECORD OF STAT4:vtcNT
'Y:r' f� t a. J S 69t) (�'" f1 1`t Lu'Y :Pn, f)G� E:u ih -. tat? 5 v ., 5 it Ik t!1 oi"..iCi CSOr] 01 d{{ aro.ati.Pg. {
t' J _...:14 ht!:.: TdN .% Ssl.:t ry .. A.\I', ..� d'.tl+lXN:;i,mt �s ikpbv
1 i ;44Y11 ........ 'Y'
t '4 I
2$r,o `.0 Cu tthiv6
s;r", .:.t?: A'_.: •.t _5 :I•dt+';ty� r'ista. ....��.._�._ 7—'—.---
1�
i P�,IA }117A
1a•te-� (9/95)—Text 12
PgOJECT LD. NUMBER
617.20
Appendix C
State Environmental Quality Review
SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM
For UNLISTED ACTIONS Only
PART I —PROJECT INFORMATION (To be completed by Applicant or Project sponsor) . •
1. APPLICANT /SPON Oq
vm �. Pn.. Sr'fili. w O. 2 TICJECTNAME
`- O.
a. PRECISE LOCATION (Street address and road Int rsetltions, prominent landmarks, .1' ., or provltle mw ap —
I - WX-,4 iZv_
-i, IS PROPOSED ACTION:
❑ New ❑ Expansion MM
11_ DESCRIBE PROJECT SRIEFv-
SEQ
7. AMOUNT OF LAND AFF CTEp
Initially I E aorea Ultimately
8 WILL PROPOSED ACTION COMPLY WITH EXISTING 20acre
NING OR OTHER EXISTING LAND USE RESTRICnONS7
❑ Yes2
JINo It No. describe
/briefly
9. W�3H-3AT/1RESENT LAND USE IN VICINITY OF PROJECT?
LlHsaidentlal ❑indusulU u?Comrnerelal
Describac �` ,1 ❑Agrleullura '�''7�j�(]ParWFdrasUOpan space ❑OIRer
,�'I'O��"1"•i••`.y Cis �?�/`!^� L✓KN/ni
10. DOES ACTION INVOLVE A PERMIT APPROVAL„ OR FUNOINC, NOW OR ULTIMATELY FROM ANY ER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY (FEDERAL,
STATE Og,LOCAy7 OTH
ON* If
Yea 1 - yea, Ilst apeney(s) and approrala erm1U P
11. DOES ANY ASPE F THE ACTIONHAVEA CURB EHTLY VALID PERMIT OR APPROVAL?
❑ Yes It yea, Ilse agenry name and permltrapprolral -�
:.' .A 1 Y
1z AS A.RE,SULT OF PROPOSED ACTION WILL EXISTING PERMIT/AppROVAL REQUIRE MODIFICATION?
,
Yas ._ 'ONo' ..... ._ _ .... .. _. ____........—....__.—.
I CERTIFY THAT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE
Appllcant/sponwr name.
Date: ...'t/'�'6
Signature.
If the action is In the Coastal Ar. E ea, and you are a state agency, complete the
Coastal Assessment Form before proceeding with this assessment .
OVER
1
PART II —ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (To be completed by Agency)
A. DOES ACTION EXCEED ANY TYPE I THRESHOLD IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.<? II yes, coordinate the review process and use the FULL EAF.
❑Yes 9No
—11 ...,,,. - r.c,.clve a UWMUINAI cu REVIEvv AS PROVIDED FOR UNLISTED ACTIONS IN 6 NYCRR, PART 617.6? If No, a negative declaration
may be supersededI by another involved agency.
❑ Yes :1 No
I+. UUULU AG ION RESULT IN ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE FOLLOWING: (Ar<wers may be handwritten. If legible)
Cl. Existing air quality, surface or groundwater quality or quantity, noise levels, existing traffic patterns, solid waste production or disposal.
Potential for erosion, drainage or flooding problems? Explain briefly:
C2. Aesthetic, agricultural, archaeological, historic, or other natural or cultural resources; or community or neighborhood character? Explain briefly:
C3. Vegetation at fauna, fish, shellfish or wildlife species, significant habitats, or threatened or endangered Species? Explain briefly:
C4. A community's existing plans pr goals as officially adopted, or a change in use or Intensity of use of land or other natural resources? Explain:'— III
CS. Growth, subsequent development, or related activities likely to be induced by the proposed action? Explain briefly.
C6. Long term, short term, cumulative, or other effects not identified In Cl•C57 Explain briefly. _
C7. Other Impacts (including changes In use of either quantity or type of energy)? Explain briefly.
D. WILL THI
❑ Yes
E. IS THERE
❑ Yes
PROJECT HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE
❑ No
n IS I HERE LIKELY TO BE, CONTROVERSY RELATED TO
.*ONO if Yes, explain briefly
THAT CAUSED THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A CEA?
PART 111—DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE (To be completed by Agency)
� f INSTRUCTIONS: For each adverse effect identified above, determine whether It Is substantial, large, Important or otherwise significant.
Each effect should be assessed in connection with Its (a) setting (I.e. urban or rural); (b) probability of occurring; (c) duration; (d)
Irreversibility; (a) geographic scope;.and (1) magnitude. It necessary, add attachments or reference supporting materials. Ensure that
explanations contain sufficient detail to show that all relevant adverse Impacts have been identified and adequately addressed. If
question D of Part II was checked yes, the determination and significance must evaluate the potential Impact of the proposed action
an the environmental characteristics of the CEA.
❑ Check this box If you have identified one or more potentially large or significant adverse impacts which MAY
occur. Then proceed directly to the FULL EAF and/or prepare a positive declaration.
❑ Check this box If you have -determined, based on the Information and analysis above and any supporting
documentation, that the proposed action WILL NOT result In any significant adverse environmental Impacts
AND provide on attachments as necessary, the reasons supporting this determination:
-- - Name of Lead Agency
Print or Type Name at Responsible Office, in Lta Asency True ad Responsible Officer .
Signature of Respomto a Officer m lea Agency gnalure c Pmpm (if different from rasponst e o ittr)
i
KRQGR;j OCNIC149TE. INC,
HARR's AW:
_'V-EllZJAY Ny :'094.1244
FN. 515-793-F701
L 1 65 1 1 D f
J.';. LN F t j .ice
s
RF; -3 1 Nio S L
7 j. NI 1.7 5'-(a "', "; lC S �'_'
L I 'S N J
:.o:. 'Oljfj' 7 'IX fta
A'Jt.lc'.,j
IS'W-
3m
, A
itj,ct,r
vi
a
OCAL
Tr; T A!_ D.':
2
T 7
;.*'."�. r
aa;
i D
p PARADISE
LAKE .
OI , o
` PARADISE BEACH
ONDj
x � �P PDUND
3
TWIOWO�
c i 4
">�,�.�" ..der "* :fs-•'. _. +t,
N100ENr1TYW FPt CVOEOJ
YOP Or
BT
• \,/Of 90T
A
bY/
OPY
C
Z
J \ o•D!
\\
DR
O P
f
y �
p
O
BPYBRIDOL DI
DP
Ebt
P
NFL M J
Q H
I•
OUPION
ff
DPLM.RO
A
$
II
o
T
0
t%
!ET
O
LDI
!
—•
DO C
Off' i
<f e
PD
34
!N
LIR
PINl VIIW
O
'•1.91°"";
HUBBIES
D
..«! Bu �PD
1 PD
AN
RES�cb
P
Y
G I s a
5 B
a
�aa Y
h �
.D
rOa !r
jO� Oa
BPO
Oi ~
PO �. a OVDPN OOpO �!6
1
WC( 1N
T^
r�
Town of Queensbury
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Use Variance No.: 77-1997
Project Applicant: Paul Schuerlein
Project Location: 188 Dixon Road
Meeting Date: November 19, 1997
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes operating a plumbing business in an existing structure
located in the UR-10 zone.
Relief Required:
• The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of § 179-17: UR-
20. Commercial activities are not allowed in the UR-10 zone.
The applicant for a use variance must satisfy ail four 14 lof the following
criteria for the granting an use variance:
1. Can a reasonable return be realized as the property is currently
zoned?
The structure on the property was built for commercial purposes. The
applicant has presented financial evidence regarding the return that
may be realized if used as zoned.
0 2. is the alleged hardship unique to the property?
The hardship demonstrated by the applicant may be interpreted as
unique on the basis of the previous use of the existing structure.
3. Will the requested variance alter the essential character of the
neighborhood?:
The area is residential in character. The subject property has historically
been utilized in a commercial manner. The continuance of a commercial
enterprise at the site is not anticipated to alter the essential character of
the neighborhood.
Paul Schuelein UV77-7997
November 19, 1997
Page -2-
4. Is the alleged hardship self-created?:
No. The hardship is a attributed to the zoning ordinance not allowing the
use for which the original structure was constructed.
Staff comments:'
As indicated above the applicant must satisfy all of the criteria established
for the granting of an use variance. Additionally the board should
consider the impact of the proposed variance on the zoning regulations
. themselves.
SEAR Status:
•
Unlisted (Review of the short EAF required)
F:\USERS\COMMON\WORDDATA\19NovZBA\Schuerlein.doc
Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUB:
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY p -7
742 Bay Road, Queensbury, NY 12804-5902 518-7 1 VARIANCE NO._'
SIGN
Town Zoning Board
C. A. Grant, Fire Marshal
November 18, 1997
188 Dixon Road, use variance 77-1997
Regarding the proposal for use of 188 Dixon Road, I feel the board should at
least be aware of a code violation existing at the above location, and some
• background. Perhaps with the cooperation of the involved parties, the issue can be
satisfactorily resolved without turning to other means.
At issue is a portable above -ground gasoline tank from which Mr. Clark filled
his carpet cleaning vehicle. During my most recent fire inspection, I advised Mr.
Clark of the requirement for a fire suppression system. He assured me the business
would be closing in the near future and at such time the tank would be removed.
Since seeing the site on your November 19 agenda, I have unsuccessfully
attempted to find someone at the address and phone messages left on the carpet
cleaning business' answering machine have not been returned.
The most simple means of compliance would be to remove the tank from the
property.
C. A. Grant
Fire Marshal
SMOKE DETECTORS AND F/RE EXTINGUISHERS MAKE GREAT G/PTS!
"HOME OF NATURAL BEAUTY ... A GOOD PLACE TO LIVE"
SETTLED 1763
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
742 BAY ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12804
Christian G. Thomas, Chairman Bonnie M. Lapham, Acting Secretary
21 Pinewood Hollow Road -- 409 Ridge Road
Queensbury, New York 12804 Queensbury, New York 12804
Paul G. Schuerlein
TO: PROJECT FOR:
13 Heinrick Circle
Paul G. Schuerlein
Queensbury, New York 12804
THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING
• REQUEST AT THE BELOW STATED MEETING AND HAS RESOLVED THE
FOLLOWING:
Meeting Date: November 19, 1997
Variance File Number: 77-1997 USE _ AREA x SIGN
Other:
❑APPROVED ❑DENIED ®TABLED ❑WITHDRAWN ❑SEQRAREVIEW
CI WITH CONDITIONS
MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO 77-1997 PA 7T G. SCHUMIN,
Introduced by Chris Thomas who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Brian Custer:
Tabled until Monday, November 24th, until the public has had a
. chance to be notified. Also at that time, the Short SEQRA form
will also be addressed.
Duly adopted this 19th day of
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally,
Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Thomas
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. Stone
November, 1997, by the following
Mr. Custer, Mr. Hayes,
Sincerely,
oonne M. Lapham, Secretary
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
BML/sed
CC: R. Mark Levack, Levack Real Estate, Inc.
PLEASE READ THE BACK OF -THIS FORM - ThenkYou
IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING TABLING PROCEDURE
RESOLUTION
At the February 17, 1993 the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals made a
MOTION THAT WHEN THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TABLES AN
APPLICATION, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SIXTY (60) DAYS TO COME BACK
WITH THE APPLICATION. IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT COME BACK WITH
THE APPLICATION WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS, THEY HAVE TO READVERTISE,
Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred
Carvin:
Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carples, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston
§ 179-91 ZONING § 179-92
§ 179-91. Zoning Board of Appeals hearing; decision; APA
review. [Amended 11-23-1992 by L.L. No. 11-1992]
A. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall give such notice of
hearings, hold hearings, and decide applications presented to
it, as may be required or allowed by Town Law §§ 267-a and
267-b.
B. Appeals from a Zoning Board of Appeals decision may be
taken as allowed by Town Law § 267-c.
C. The Adirondack Park shall be considered a party to variance
applications in the Adirondack Park and shall receive such
notice and have such rights of review as are provided in the
Executive Law of the State of New York and the applicable
APA rules and regulations.
D. For decisions involving lands within the Adirondack Park, the •
Board shall notify the Adirondack Park Agency, by certified
mail, of such decision. Any variance granted or granted with
conditions shall not be effective until thirty (30) days after
such notice to the Agency. If, within such thirty -day period,
the Agency determines that such variance involves the
provisions of the Land Use and Development Plan as approved
in the local land use program, including any shoreline
restriction, and was not based upon the appropriate statutory
basis of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, the
Agency may reverse the local determination to grant the
variance.
§ 179-92. Expiration of variance.
Unless otherwise specified or extended by the Zoning Board of
Appeals, decision on any request for a variance shall expire if the
applicant fails to undertake the proposed action or project. to obtain
any necessary building permit to construct any proposed new
building(s) or change any existing building(s) or to comply with the
conditions of said authorization within one (1) year from the filing date
of such decision thereof.
TOWN OF QUEENSBURY
742 BAY ROAD
QUEENSBURY, NEW YORK 12804
Christian G. Thomas, Chairman Bonnie M. Lapham, Acting Secretary
21 Pinewood Hollow Road —_ 409 Ridge Road
Queensbury, New York 12804 Queensbury, New York 12804
Paul G. Schuerlein
TO: PROJECT FOR:
13 Heinrick Circle
Paul G. Schuerlein
Queensbury, New York 12804
THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS REVIEWED THE FOLLOWING
c
REQUEST AT THE BELOW STATED MEETING AND HAS RESOLVED THE
D
FOLLOWING:
Z
0
o
Meeting Date: November 24, 1997
Z
M
Z
Variance File Number: 77-1997 USE x AREA SIGN
S7
M
O
Other:
M
t'
>
m
9
® APPROVED ❑DENIED ❑TABLED WITHDRAWN ❑SEQRAREVIEW
p
v
O
D
-
C
WITH CONDITIONS
N
D
M
m
U)
MOTION TO APPROVE USE VARIANCE NO 77-1997 PAUL G SCHUERLEIN,
Z
y
<
Introduced by Robert McNally who moved for its adoption, seconded
m
C
by Bonnie Lapham:
m
M
N
r
188 Dixon Road. The applicant proposes operating a plumbing and
in located in UR-10
>
o
e
heating business an existing structure a zone.
<
m
The proposed project requires relief from the requirements of
m
D
Section 179-17, UR-20. Commercial activities are not allowed in a
C
M
UR-10 zone. I move that we approve the application to the extent
n
=
71
it requests and will allow Mr. Schuerlien to operate a plumbing and
D
0
heating business in the existing structure. The structure was
(n
M
built for commercial purposes. It was always used for commercial
m
z
purposes, and it is my opinion that no reasonable return can be
<
O
realized on the property as it is currently zoned. The applicant
x
has shown financial evidence regarding the return on the property,
and I believe he's demonstrated that there can't be a reasonable
COD
return. The alleged hardship is unique to the property, in that it
i
X
is due to the previous use of the existing structure as a carpet
m
c-
cleaning business, pre -dating the existing zoning code. The
p
C
c
m
m
N
Z
�
n
�
1
page 1 of 2
Z
Z
�
D
r
PLEASE READ THE BACK OF THIS FORM - Thank You
IMPORTANT INFORMATION REGARDING TABLING PROCEDURE
RESOLUTION
At the February 17, 1993 the Oueensbury Zoning Board of Appeals made a
MOTION THAT WHEN THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TABLES AN
APPLICATION, THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SIXTY (60) DAYS TO COME BACK
WITH THE APPLICATION. IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT COME BACK WITH
THE APPLICATION WITHIN SIXTY (60) DAYS, THEY HAVE TO READVERTISE,
Introduced by Theodore Turner who moved for its adoption, seconded by Fred
Carvin:
Duly adopted this 17th day of February, 1993, by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Carvin, Mr. Carples, Mrs. Paling, Mr. Thomas, Mr. Turner
NOES: None
ABSENT: Mr. Philo, Mrs. Eggleston
§ 179-91 ZONING § 179-92
§ 179.91. Zoning Board of Appeals hearing; decision; APA 40
review. [Amended 11-23-1992 by L.L. No. 11-1992]
A. The Zoning Board of Appeals shall give such notice of
hearings, hold hearings, and decide applications presented to
it, as may be required or allowed by Town Law §§ 267-a and
267-b.
B. Appeals from a Zoning Board of Appeals decision may be
taken as allowed by Town Law § 267-c.
C. The Adirondack Park shall be considered a party to variance
applications in the Adirondack Park and shall receive such
notice and have such rights of review as are provided in the
Executive Law of the State of New York and the applicable
APA rules and regulations.
D. For decisions involving lands within the Adirondack Park, the •
Board shall notify the Adirondack Park Agency, by certified
mail, of such decision. Any variance granted or granted with
conditions shall not be effective until thirty (30) days after
such notice to the Agency. If, within such thirty -day period,
the Agency determines that such variance involves the
provisions of the Land Use and Development Plan as approved
in the local land use program, including any shoreline
restriction, and was not based upon the appropriate statutory
basis of practical difficulties or unnecessary hardships, the
Agency may reverse the local determination to grant the
variance.
§ 179-92. Expiration of variance.
Unless otherwise specified or extended by the Zoning Board of
Appeals, decision on any request for a variance shall expire if the
applicant fails to undertake the proposed action or project. to obtain
any necessary building permit to construct any proposed new
building(s) or change any existing building(s) or to comply with the
conditions of said authorization within one (1) year from the filing date
of such decision thereof.
•
Use Variance No. 77-1997
Paul G. Schuerlein
requested variance will not alter the essential character of the
neighborhood. While the area is residential in character, the
subject property has historically been used in a commercial manner.
Moreover, the property has been empty for some time and the
applicant proposes improving the property and beginning to use the
property in a manner in accordance with most commercial concerns,
such that the continuous and commercial enterprise will not be
anticipated to essentially alter the character of the neighborhood.
The alleged hardship is not self created in that it's attributed to
the Zoning Ordinance and the fact this property was built before
the date of the existing Ordinance. It's my proposal, however,
that if we approve this Use Variance, that it would include an
express condition that there by no retail sales or retail use of
the property, and that there be no outside storage of plumbing
supplies or materials on the property.
Duly adopted this 24th day of November, 1997, by the following
vote:
AYES: Mrs. Lapham, Mr. McNally, Mr. Karpeles, Mr. Hayes
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr
Sincerely,
Custer, Mr. Stone, Mr. Thomas
Bonnie M. Lapham, Secretary
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
BML/sed
CC: R. Mark Levack
page 2 of 2
LJ