AV 47-2022 Resolution 10.19.22
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: Don Bernard
File Number: AV 47-2022
Location: 20 Brayton Road
Tax Map Number: 239.8-1-15
ZBA Meeting Date: October 19, 2022
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Don Bernard.
Applicant proposes to construct a new single-family home of 730 sq. ft. footprint and 885 sq. ft. deck/porch
area. The new floor area is 2,643 sq. ft. The applicant’s previous home has been demolished as part of the
original approval which has since expired in June of 2022. The applicant proposes the same project with a
construction of a new home and maintaining existing out buildings. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA, hard
surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and Freshwater Wetlands permit for work within 100 ft. Relief is requested
for setbacks.
The applicant requests relief for setbacks in the Waterfront Residential Zone and CEA. The relief for the
setbacks of north side and east side.
Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements – Waterfront Residential Zone -WR
The parcel is an odd shaped lot as relief is requested from the north side where a 9 ft. setback is proposed where
a 12 ft. setback is required. Then on the east side is proposed setback of 22 ft. as a front setback where 30 ft is
required. Permeability was 60% and proposed is 71% as an increase in permeability relief is not required.
SEQR Type II – no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 19, 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
as this was previously approved. Nothing has really changed. It’s just that they missed their window of
opportunity.
2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been included to minimize
the request.
3. The requested variance is really not that substantial as it fits. It’s an odd shaped piece of property and the
dwelling fits in nicely.
Relief Required:
4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district.
5. The alleged difficulty we could suggest is self-created but it’s only due to the fact that it’s a .28 acre lot and
it’s an odd shaped piece of property.
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. 47-
2022, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel:
Duly adopted this 19th Day of October 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe
NOES: NONE