Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Accessibility Variance Ramp topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Zoning board approves temporary variance for ADA ramp, conditions removal when no longer needed

3847835 · June 17, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board granted two area variances to allow an ADA-accessible ramp at a property represented by Robert (tax map referenced in packet), imposing a condition that the ramp be removable when it is no longer needed.

The Glens Falls City Zoning Board of Appeals on June 16 approved two area variances to allow an ADA-accessible ramp at a property represented in the meeting materials by the owner Robert (tax map in packet: 30912-7-2177). The variances covered a front-yard setback and relief from the citys maximum coverage limit.

Devin Roselle, zoning planning coordinator, said the ramp will need alterations to meet ADA standards and that the building department could specify exact construction requirements. Roselle noted the minimum turnaround landing standard: a 60-inch-by-60-inch (5-foot-by-5-foot) landing to meet ADA-compliant measurements for wheelchair and mobility-device access.

Board members discussed whether the ramp would be temporary or permanent and agreed to approve the variances with a condition that the structure be removed when it is no longer needed. One board member explicitly said the ramp addressed an accessibility need and signaled no objection to allowing a person to address access to their own home.

Neighbor testimony supported the request. Diane Wells, who identified herself as a neighbor two doors down and said she has known the applicant for 45 years, told the board, "He needs it to get in and out of his house. He needs it." Wells said she sees the ramp daily and endorsed the relief.

The packet showed the applicant proposed lot coverage substantially above the 35% local limit; staff noted the proposed coverage figure in the packet. The board discussed that because the ramp is not a permanent building the board could attach a removal condition; the board approved the variances with that condition.