AV 25-2022 Resolution (Gazetos) 8.24.22
Zoning Board of Appeals – Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve
Applicant Name: Morgan Gazetos
File Number: AV 25-2022
Location: 2930 State Route 9L
Tax Map Number: 239.20-1-19
ZBA Meeting Date: August 24, 2022
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Morgan Gazetos.
(Revised) Applicant requests approval for construction of deck addition not constructed as approved. In
addition, the applicant has completed additional work without approval including deck area near shoreline,
shoreline pathway decking, and a reconstructed shed/changing accessory structure near the shore. Existing
home footprint 1,306 sq. ft. remains the same. The decking area existing is 1,508 sq. ft. previously approved
1,116 sq. ft. The site work with additional wooden walkway etc. is 2,384 sq. ft.; proposed is 2,074 sq. ft.
Updated plans show overlay of existing and previously approved. Site plan review for hard surfacing. Relief
requested for setbacks of upper and lower decks, shed, and wooden walkway.
The applicant requests relief for setbacks of upper and lower decks, shed, and wooden walkway.
Section 179-3-040 dimensions, Section 179-4-080 decks
1. Upper Deck – The as-built for the upper deck addition indicates is 24 ft. from the shoreline where the 2014
approval was for 24.4 ft. from the shoreline. Relief needed 25.6 ft. for shoreline. Relief is also requir ed for
the side setback where 14.3 ft. furthest extent, is proposed and 25 ft. is required. The deck addition at the
house 11.2 ft. to the side setback where 25 ft. is required.
2. Lower Deck-The as-built survey shows the Deck addition to the house the closest point is 22 ft. where the
2014 approval was for this portion of the deck to be 22 ft. (built as approved)
3. Shoreline Deck – The as built indicates 0 ft. from the shoreline for the landing connection to the dock and 6
ft. from the shoreline dock to the shoreline. The 2014 approval was for the shoreline deck to be 12 ft. from
the shoreline. Relief needed for the landing of 50 ft. and the shoreline dock of 46 ft.
4. Shoreline Shed – As built indicates the shed of 46 sq. ft. is 2 ft. from the property line. The 2014 approval
indicates an unlabeled square near the shoreline. Relief needed for 48 ft.
5. Wooden walkway path from shoreline deck to covered boathouse; length 198 ft. and 5 ft. to the shoreline
where 50 ft. is required. Relief needed of 45 ft. Note the 2014 approval does not identify a wooden
walkway.
Not subject to variance but additional hard surfacing review under site plan – permeability is greater than 75%
even with the deck additions -
6. Upper and lower deck size 73 sq. ft. of additional decking – approved was 828 sq. ft. existing is 901 sq. ft.
7. Shoreline deck size 121 sq. ft. of additional decking- approved was 288 sq. ft. and existing is 409 sq. ft.
8. The decking is 194 sq. ft. in excess of what is approved- specific to the deck elements at the house and
shoreline.
9. Total existing for decking and includes boathouse deck areas and wooden walk existing 2,384 sq. ft. and
proposed 2074 sq. ft. The applicant has proposed to remove 310 sq. ft. of deck area; this includes 64 sq. ft.
Relief Required:
of boathouse rear deck, 48 sq. ft. of the shoreline deck at the dock, and 198 sq. ft. of the wooden path.
(noting the boathouse decking and the wooden walking path were not in the 2014 calcs)
10. The proposed 310 sq ft removal from the existing unapproved 392 sq ft leaves 82 sq ft over built
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 22, 2022 & Wednesday, August 24, 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 is removing work that should have never been done and it will make things the best they
can be under the circumstances.
2. There are many feasible alternatives. What we’re doing with this is removing as much as we can to make it
livable for the residents.
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 definitely self-created because this individual let somebody build some decking that
never should have been there without approvals.
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. 25-
2022 , Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico:
Duly adopted this 24th Day of August 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood
NOES: Mr. McCabe
ABSENT: Mr. McDevitt