Minutes AV 26-2022 (Dempsey) 6.29.22(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022)
1
AREA VARIANCE NO. 26-2022 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 TO REMOVE THE EXISTING 419
SQ. FT. GARAGE AND 60 SQ. FT. WORKSHOP ADDITIONS TO THE EXISTING HOME DURING
THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE APPROVED ADDITIONS TO THE HOME. THE EXISTING
RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS ARE CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION AS PART OF AV 4-
2022. THE ADDITIONS INCLUDED A CONNECTION TO THE GARAGE AND IT WAS
DETERMINED THAT THE FOUNDATION WAS DETERIORATED AND IS NOT REPAIRABLE.
THE GARAGE AND WORKSHOP ARE TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN A SIMILAR FOOTPRINT.
RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 4-2022; AV 26-2021 WARREN
COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2022 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.05 ACRES
TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-49. SECTION 179-3-040, 179-5-020
TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; STEVE DEMPSEY, PRESENT
STAFF INPUT
Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2022, Steve Dempsey, Meeting Date: June 29, 2022 “Project
Location: 3239 State Route 9L Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove the
existing 419 sq. ft. garage and 60 sq. ft. workshop additions to the existing home during the construction
of the approved additions to the home. The existing residential additions are currently under construction
as part of AV 4-2022. The additions included a connection to the garage and it was determined that the
foundation was deteriorated and is not repairable. The garage and workshop are to be constructed in a
similar footprint. Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a garage/workshop removal and rebuild in the Rural
Residential zone –RR-5A. The parcel is 1.05 acres.
Section 179-3-040- dimensional
The new garage/shed addition would be 2.7 ft. from the side yard setback on the west side where a 75 ft.
setback is required. The rear yard setback proposed is 24 ft. where a 100 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 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 setback variance.
3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered
substantial where relief for the side is 72.3 ft. and relief for the rear is 76 ft. The new structure is in the
similar footprint as the old structure.
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 preexisting non-conforming parcel.
Staff comments:
The applicant had started to prepare for the additional work approved in January 2022 and learned the
garage could not be repaired with the new construction proposed. The plans show the garage location and
elevation along with the other improvements to the home. The additions will be consistent with the
existing home.”
MR. HUTCHINS-Good evening, Board. I’m Tom Hutchins, here with owner/applicant Steven Dempsey
and this is, I think, fairly straightforward. We were here back in January and again last summer. Mr.
Dempsey purchased this property. He’s doing a fine job of renovating an old house. It’s going to be a very
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022)
2
nice renovated old house. The garage, the original intent was to work with the structure that’s there and
as things have been opened up, exposed, and investigated it, it’s, we’re saying it’s beyond reasonable repair.
So what he proposes to do is re-build the garage on footprint, same area, but re-build it on a new
foundation. So with that I think we’d turn it over to the Board for questions. Steven, if there’s anything
you want to add.
MR. DEMPSEY-No, I think it’s pretty straightforward. I was hoping to say save something on this house
and save $2, but with a cracked foundation, we can’t tie the new foundation into it. That’s why we’re back
here. It’s the last thing I wanted to do is replace the garage. That’s where we’re at. Thank you.
MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant?
MR. HENKEL-I think you can trust the Bromleys. The Bromleys are doing it, aren’t they?
MR. DEMPSEY-Yes. They’re a good crew.
MR. HENKEL-Yes, they are, good guys.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. KUHL-What are you saying, Tom, you got approval for the addition and when you went in there the
garage was all? Then you’re looking for relief for the garage now because you’re going to re-do your garage.
MR. HUTCHINS-We’re looking for relief to replace the garage instead of renovate the garage.
MR. KUHL-Okay.
MR. MC CABE-Other questions?
MR. HENKEL-I guess the neighbors don’t have a problem with it?
MR. DEMPSEY-No.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time a public hearing has been advertised. So I’m going to open the
public hearing and see if there’s anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this particular
project. Do we have anything written, Roy?
PUBLIC HEARING OPENED
MR. URRICO-No.
MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I’m going to close the public hearing.
PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED
MR. MC CABE-I’m going to poll the Board, and I’m going to start with Ron
MR. KUHL-I have no issue as presented. You come into these situations trying to rehab older houses. It’s
the right thing to do, make it right.
MR. MC CABE-Roy?
MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Ron. I appreciate them coming in for the variance rather than going ahead
with the project anyway.
MR. MC CABE-Cathy?
MRS. HAMLIN-Yes.
MR. MC CABE-Jim?
MR. UNDERWOOD-We thoroughly reviewed the project previously and I think we would have approved
it had you asked for it before.
MR. MC CABE-John?
MR. HENKEL-Yes, if this was a new project we probably wouldn’t have allowed it to be built that way,
but that was there way before zoning and codes and they’re trying to fix a problem there. I think it’s a
good request. I’d be on board.
(Queensbury ZBA Meeting 06/29/2022)
3
MR. MC CABE-And so, I, too, support the project. I think we’d be negligent if we forced the construction
on a shaky foundation and so I’m in favor of the project. Given that, I’m going to ask Ron to make a motion
here.
MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve Dempsey.
Applicant proposes to remove the existing 419 sq. ft. garage and 60 sq. ft. workshop additions to the
existing home during the construction of the approved additions to the home. The existing residential
additions are currently under construction as part of AV 4-2022. The additions included a connection to
the garage and it was determined that the foundation was deteriorated and is not repairable. The garage
and workshop are to be constructed in a similar footprint. Relief is requested for setbacks.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for setbacks for a garage/workshop removal and rebuild in the Rural
Residential zone –RR-5A. The parcel is 1.05 acres.
Section 179-3-040- dimensional
The new garage/shed addition would be 2.7 ft. from the side yard setback on the west side where a 75 ft.
setback is required. The rear yard setback proposed is 24 ft. where a 100 ft. setback is required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 29, 2022.
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. This variance was previously approved in January, and this is just an addition for work
found to be negligent, if you will, under Code.
2. Feasible alternatives really are not. There are none, are reasonable and have been included to
minimize the request.
3. The requested variance really is not substantial as they are just re-building the existing structure.
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood
or district.
5. The alleged difficulty really cannot be said to be self-created. It’s just a product of the older
construction and trying to do it right the first time.
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.
26-2022 STEVE DEMPSEY, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mr.
Underwood:
Duly adopted this 29th Day of June 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt
MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. Again.
MR. DEMPSEY-Thank you.