Loading...
04-23-2014 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23,2014 INDEX Area Variance No. 27-2014 Peter&Nancy Kudan 1. Tax Map No. 295.19-1-29 Sign Variance No. 29-2014 Frank Collins 6. Tax Map No. 302.8-1-7 Sign Variance No. 3 0-2 014 Hacker Boat Co., Inc. 11. Tax Map No. 303.16-1-76, 77,and 78 Sign Variance No. 3 1-2 014 Lake George Northway, LLC 11. The Outlets at Lake George East Tax Map No. 288.16-1-1 Sign Variance No. 3 2-2 014 Lake George Northway 21. Tax Map No. 288.00-1-52 and 53 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 23,2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RICHARD GARRAND,ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL KYLE NOONAN MICHAEL MC CABE HARRISON FREER,ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. GARRAND-Welcome to the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you not familiar with our procedures, we should have an outline in the back there and also a copy of tonight's agenda. Is there any Old Business? MRS.MOORE-There's no Old Business. MR. GARRAND-No Old Business? Okay. I'll start the meeting then. AREA VARIANCE NO. 27-2014 SEQRA TYPE II PETER&NANCY KUDAN AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL- RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) PETER&NANCY KUDAN ZONING MDR LOCATION 10 PINEWOOD AVENUE, WESTLAND SUBD SECTION 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 374 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION. RELIEF REQUIRED FROM MINIMUM FRONT SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS OF THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. BP 95-907 ADDITION; BP 90-738 ADDITION WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.44 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 295.19-1-29 SECTION 179-3-040 COLIN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Area Variance No. 27-2014, Peter & Nancy Kudan, Meeting Date: April 23, 2014 "Project Location: 10 Pinewood Avenue; Westland Subd Section 2 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of 374 sq.ft.garage addition. Relief Required: The proposed project will require area variances as follows: 179-3-040 Establishment of districts Front setback-eastside Permeability Pinewood Ave Required 30 ft. 75 % Proposed 5 ft. 3 in 74.8% (existing 80.1% Relief 24.7 ft. 0.2% 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 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 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) considered limited as the renovations occur on a corner lot where a variance may be needed for any new construction on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be moderated relevant to the code. 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 be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, AV 18-07: 645 sq. ft. residential addition for expansion of existing 2 bay-garage to a total of 1,173 sq.ft. 3-28-07 SP 58-90: addition, 7-24-90 AV 28-90: addition, 6-20-90 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 374 sq. ft.garage addition to an existing home. The applicant has a similar approval with a different orientation of the garage. The new proposal maintains the screen porch view of the property. The information submitted shows the existing and proposed conditions. Elevation drawings of the new garage are provided and consistent with the existing home. The applicant has indicated the house was constructed prior to the zoning. Relief is requested for the front setback and site permeability. SEQR Status: Type II" MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Secretary. Is there anybody representing Peter & Nancy Kudan tonight? Please step to the table. For the purpose of the record,just please state your name. MR. FULLER-My name is Colin Fuller, and I'm with Rucinski/Hall Architecture, representing Peter Kudan. PETER KUDAN MR. KUDAN-I am Peter Kudan. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. COLIN-All right. A brief overview that was stated previously. Our project is basically moving from a two car garage to a three car garage. In the corner lot, it is a tough lot obviously since the setbacks, you know, prevent us from really stretching out too far, considering we have two front yard setbacks. Like was said before, there has been a previous project approval for this job. However, the new design that we are working with now is more aesthetically pleasing to the neighborhood. We're removing the front entry garages and putting them on a side entry. We have a nice berm of shrubbery that is going to actually prevent direct view of these garages as you come down Pinewood Avenue. One thing I'd like to point out, for the proposed garage,we are asking for a substantial amount of leniency here. However,we are 20, 30 feet six inches away from Pinewood Avenue, whereas on Sherwood Avenue we are only 20 foot 10, and those are already pre-existing conditions. The existing garage right now does sit over the 30 foot setback. So basically we're asking for forgiveness on an already protruding building. As far as the percent permeable,we have an issue with that. We are over,but we're asking for.2% relief on that situation. The main reason of that overage is the actual pavement for the garage. We are taking into effect that the new walkways are going to be permeable. They are, basically they don't come into effect there. So we're basically taking as much of the hard space out as possible. However, on the back part of the garage, in order to achieve an actual turnaround, we do need to come out and make that turn to come directly out of the garage towards Pinewood Avenue. So, for the most part, we're really trying to blend as much into the existing neighborhood and maintain as much of the aesthetic features of the addition to match the existing house, and we are asking for 16 by 24 foot space of new garage to accommodate the owner's needs, and I believe Peter and Nancy have gone ahead and 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) checked with the majority of the actual neighbors and they have, all the ones they could contact, there is no real issue with this addition, and basically the reason why we're going to for this new design is so that a screened porch is visible to the garage and they can maintain some visual of who is coming and going from their driveway. I believe that is pretty much, as much as I have right now. Do you have questions? MR. GARRAND-Board members, any questions? MR. KUHL-I guess, Colin, you said you're going to pave the driveway, the driveway will be paved, asphalt? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. KUHL-And the roof line's going to come out the way it is now? MR. FULLER-Yes,we're basically just going to extend on the pre-existing conditions,to maintain the same look,you know,that was previously there. MR. KUHL-Okay. No problem. MR. HENKEL-Yes, when I drove around the neighborhood, I didn't see anybody else that was really infringing on that 30 foot,you know,that was closer than 30 feet. So isn't that going to kind of look odd in the neighborhood? It's not really going to fit in the neighborhood then. That's pretty close, you know,you're talking about being five feet three inches. MR. FULLER-It is close, but like I said, due to site conditions being the corner lot, a lot of the times you don't have those double front yard setbacks. MR. HENKEL-Right. MR. FULLER-And on the same note, we are pretty, we are still maintaining a larger gap from Pinewood Avenue where we are making that addition, compared to the other side, where you're at Sherwood, where the house is actually protruding closer to the road. We have 20 foot 10 compared to 20, 30 foot 6. So anything we're almost evening out from each side of, you know, coming down from that corner. MR. NOONAN-I just have a real quick question. Two tenths of a percent of impermeability equates to about how much square footage? It's not much,is it? MR. FULLER-On this lot, I'd say.4, I think it's something around.45 acres. MR. NOONAN-Okay. It's not much I wouldn't think. MR. NOONAN-Yes. It's very,let's see here,maybe about 100 square feet I'd say. MR. NOONAN-Okay. So it's still good size anyway. MR. HENKEL-And how far is that hard surface driveway from the property line? MR. FULLER-I think it would be along the lines of 16 feet from that property line. MR. HENKEL-So you really don't have the dimensions as to what the driveway's going to be. That's going to be all hard surfaced. Right? MR. FULLER-Yes,it will be. MR. KUHL-Peter,what kind of hardship would it be if we didn't grant this? MR. KUDAN-We have two cars and an antique car and that's what the third bay is for. I currently house it at my father's,he's 92 years old. I really can't bank on that for much longer. MR. KUHL-Not a problem. I have one of those,too. MR. KUDAN-I hope he lives forever,but the reality is. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) MR. KUHL-But basically what you're saying is the third bay is going to be used for seasonal activity. It's not like more people are coming in the house and everyday people are going to use it. MR. KUDAN-We're empty nesters. MR. KUHL-Thank you. I hear you. Stay .that way. MR. HENKEL-And definitely with the garage doors opening on the side and the back there it gives it more curb appeal. There's no doubt. When you open up the garage doors to the road it looks better. MR. FULLER-Yes. Absolutely. MR. GARRAND-Quick question. Refresh my memory. What was the previous proposal you had here? MR. KUDAN-The previous proposal had the garage instead of coming, well, it came out, but it went all the way across to the end of the porch, and it also came out, I believe it was 10 or 11 feet. So what we did is instead of coming closer to the road, we went that way, but we had this big massive gable and three garages facing Pinewood Avenue. MR. HENKEL-So how close was that to the road? MR. KUDAN-I believe it's a little less than this. It was a lot more square footage of garage because we used up,we utilized a lot of the yard,but what it did, if you look at the back porch,there's a half wall there. So we can look out there, and if we had moved the garage all the way across,we'd have lost that,which darkened the porch and the kitchen which is right behind it. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. MR. KUDAN-You're welcome. Thank you. MR. URRICO-So in '07 you expanded what was existing at the time, or you asked for a variance at the time? MR. KUDAN-We asked for a variance and we never acted on it. MR.URRICO-And you never acted on it. MR. KUDAN-Yes,sir,it was approved. MR. URRICO-And how come you asked for 645 feet at that time, and you're asking for 374 feet this time? MR. KUDAN-I guess the answer is this time instead of drawing it ourselves,we hired an architect. MR. FULLER-The design allows it to be not as much construction,and it's more accessible coming in from the side and aesthetically pleasing for the neighborhood and it really allows for more use of the house, more use of the screen porch, more visibility for the house to actually see what's going on in front,since it is two front yards on this corner lot. MR.URRICO-Don't you think it's already big for the lot and that adding addition on to an already too big garage,and.44 acres is really stretching it? MR. KUDAN-I guess the answer is we're asking for a significant amount of relief, yes. I don't deny it,but I think it'll fit nicely. I think it matches the rest of the house and I think it will be aesthetically pleasing. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. GARRAND-Anything else, Board members? At this time I'm going to open up the public hearing. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak on this issue? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) MR. GARRAND-Hearing none,any correspondence, Mr. Secretary? MR.URRICO-There's no correspondence. MR. GARRAND-No correspondence. At this point, I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-And seek opinions from Board members. I'll start with you, Mr. Noonan. MR. NOONAN-As to what you're proposing, what you want, I don't have any trouble with this project. I'm in favor. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-I think with the odd shape of the lot and the lot the way it is, I think the change he did was good,and I think he thought it out and did it right,and I'd be in favor of it. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. Freer? MR. FREER-Yes. I was over there and didn't look carefully at the map and thought if you're going to add third cars, you're going to cause more problems, but I like this design. He's worth whatever you had to pay him, and I think it's a reasonable request,and I am favorably disposed. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. Henkel? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd also be in favor of it. I think if he was in a different position, where he was infringing close to someone else's property line, then I think it would be a problem, but I'd be willing to grant that. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. McCabe? MR. MC CABE-I'm in favor of the project. I'm impressed that the applicant took the time to talk to his neighbors and make sure that there was no problem, and he's kind of isolated his property with the arborvitae all around. So the neighbors won't really notice what's going on. MR. GARRAND-And Mr.Urrico? MR. URRICO-I guess I'm going to be the one person that comes out against it because I think it's a small lot. We're asking for expansion of what's already significant in comparison to the neighborhood number of bays that we have in the garages nearby, and where it's going to be sticking out. I think there are feasible alternatives. They may be limited but there are some alternatives. I believe the relief is moderate. I don't know if there'll be any minor, or any impact to the physical or environmental conditions, and I think the difficulty is self-created. So I'd be against it. MR. GARRAND-Okay. I was here for the previous requested relief, and I remember we did grant it, and if memory serves me correctly, I think it was a little more obtrusive than what he's asking for here. With that, I think I would also support the project. Could somebody make a motion? MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Area Variance No. 27-2014, Peter&Nancy Kudan, 10 Pinewood Avenue,Tax Map No. 295.19-1-29. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Peter and Nancy Kudan for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of 374 sq. ft. garage addition. Relief required from minimum front setback requirements. Also, relief requested from maximum permeability requirements of the MDR zoning district. SEQR Type II -no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,April 23,2014; 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting the requested Area Variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Not really because the lot is quite small. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It could be considered moderate. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Not really. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is self-created. 6. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 27-2014, Peter and Nancy Kudan, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand NOES: Mr.Urrico MR. GARRAND-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 29-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED FRANK COLLINS OWNER(S) FRANK COLLINS ZONING Cl LOCATION 313 BAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A NEW 14.5 SQ. FT. SIGN AT AN EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATION; MAINTAINING 3 TENANTS AND OVERALL SIZE OF SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF BP 2013-482 FREESTANDING SIGN FOR GIFTS & ENGRAVING OF 14.5 SQ. FT.; BP 2013-481 WALL SIGN GIFTS & ENGRAVING; SIGN VARIANCE 107-1992 FRONT SETBACK RELIEF OF 7 FT. GRANTED IN LIEU OF REQUIRED 15 FT. FOR FREESTANDING SIGN; INCLUDED ARE NUMEROUS PERMITS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 6.73 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-7 SECTION CHAPTER 140 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) FRANK COLLINS, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 29-2014, Frank Collins, Meeting Date: April 23, 2014 "Project Location: 313 Bay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a new 14.5 sq.ft. sign at an existing freestanding sign location-maintaining 3 tenants and overall size of sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Chapter 140 signs -sign less than 15 ft setback Property line setbacks Required 15 ft. Proposed 5 ft.9 in Relief 9.1 ft. Criteria for considering a Sign 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 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 applicant intending to utilize the current sign to remove one of three tenant signs and place one new tenant sign in the same location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. 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 be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 13-482: Freestanding signs for Gifts&Engraving,pending BP 13-481: Wall sign Gifts&Engraving,pending SV 107-92: Maintain 2 existing sign panels to existing double-faced freestanding sign in shopping center,ordinance permits 1 freestanding sign per shopping center, 10-28-92 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to utilize an existing sign structure to place a new tenant sign on the structure. The information submitted show the proposed tenant sign to be similar to the existing tenant signs at 14.4 sq. ft. The sign structure does not meet the 15 ft. setback and the submission included a certified letter from a survey indicating the sign is 5 ft.9 in.from the front property line. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr.Urrico. For the record,please state your name. MR. COLLINS-Frank Collins. MR. GARRAND-Thank you,and please tell us about this project. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) MR. COLLINS-Well, it's just, we have three tenants there, and one tenant is leaving and the other tenant is coming in, and he just wants to replace, the tenant that's moving with his sign, and that's basically what it is. His sign is the same shape. All it is is the lettering is different, and we have here a building permit for the sign from 1999. So as far as the setbacks and things are concerned, but basically that's all we're doing is just changing the wording on the sign. MR. GARRAND-That's it. MR. COLLINS-That's it. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Board members have any questions for the applicant? MR. FREER-So what's the new wording? Is this the new wording? MR. COLLINS-Yes. MR. FREER-The new wording is this Gifts and Engraving? MR. COLLINS-Yes,it's George. MR. FREER-Gifts and Engraving by George, Inc. MR. COLLINS-Right. MR. HENKEL-So you're saying the new sign is going to be 14.5 square feet? The whole sign together is not 14,obviously,square feet. MR. COLLINS-No,it's not. It's just the sign that we're replacing. MR. KUHL-Frank,what you're saying is it's going to be alike for like swap? Okay. MR. COLLINS-Exactly,one out,one in. MR. KUHL-One out one in. MR. KUHL-You're not changing the overall dimensions of the sign. MR. COLLINS-No. MR. KUHL-Okay,and, Laura,this sign is within this 45 feet that he's allowed? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. GARRAND-And you're not going to lower this at all? MR. COLLINS-No,it goes right in where the other one went. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Any other Board members questions? At this time I'm going to open the public hearing. Anybody from the public wish to speak on this sign request? You can come to the table. Please state your name for the purpose of the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ARTHURBRUNO MR. BRUNO-My name is Arthur Bruno. I live across the street from where I believe the sign is going. The only thing I wanted to know was exactly where the sign is going,in other words,there's a sign there, but I'm not sure where this sign is going to be. I live directly across the street. Is it going by the Mexican restaurant? MR. COLLINS-It's going right where Affordable Comfort sign was, is coming down, and it's going right up in the same place. It's not going to change the overall dimension or anything else. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) MR. BRUNO-This is the one that's up there,that's the sign that's up there. MR. COLLINS-Yes,this one is coming out,and that one's going in. MR. BRUNO-Okay. That was my only question. I wasn't sure where the sign was going. I live directly across the street from where the sign is going. I have no problem with it. I just wanted to make sure where it was going. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Bruno. MR. BRUNO-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Anybody else from the public who would like to speak on this? Seeing nobody else, I'll close the public hearing at this time. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-And seek wisdom from the rest of the Board. Mr.Urrico? MR.URRICO-I don't see any problem with the sign. MR. GARRAND-Mr. McCabe? MR. MC CABE-To me it's just the same thing that they have. So I have no problem. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Henkel? MR. HENKEL-An even exchange. Go for it. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Freer? MR. FREER-Yes, I support this request. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-I pass this sign every day. It's good, Frank. MR. GARRAND-And Mr. Noonan? MR. NOONAN-I think the project is fine. MR. GARRAND-All right. At this time, since this is an Unlisted application,we'll have to go through SEQR on this. We're going to use Part II of the Short EAR MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 29-2014, FRANK COLLINS BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this Wed..April 23,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MR. GARRAND-And now could I get a motion. RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 29-2014,Frank Collins, 313 Bay Road, Tax Map No. 302.8-1-7. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Frank Collins for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) Applicant proposes installation of a new 14.5 sq. ft. sign at an existing freestanding sign location; maintaining 3 tenants and overall size of sign. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks. SEQR Type: Unlisted; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,April 23,2014; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? An undesirable change will not be produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by the granting of this Sign Variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? There is not a feasible alternative at this time for the applicant to achieve what he's looking for. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It may be considered substantial. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? There will be no adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This may be considered self-created. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 29-2014, Frank Collins, Introduced by Kyle Noonan,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this Wed.,April 23,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr. Collins. MR. COLLINS-Thank you. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) MR. HENKEL-I think we have to table Hacker Boat. MR. GARRAND-Okay. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 30-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HACKER BOAT CO., INC. AGENT(S) JARRETT ENGINEERING, PLLC OWNER(S) COUNTY OF WARREN & WARREN COUNTY EDC ZONING CLI LOCATION LOTS 1, 2, AND 3 OF STONE QUARRY ROAD; GOLDEN ARROW INDUSTRIAL PARK APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 78 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE WALL SIGN SIZE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 26-2014; FWW 2-2014; SB 12-2003 QEDC (GOLDEN ARROW INDUSTRIAL PARK) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 2.63; 3.63; 11.81 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 303.16-1-76, 77 AND 78 SECTION CHAPTER 140-6B MR. GARRAND-Small administrative item. On the agenda tonight we have Hacker Boat Co., Inc. Sign Variance 30-2014,and prior to the meeting they requested a tabling. RESOLUTION TO: Table Sign Variance No. 30-2014, Hacker Boat Co., Inc., Tax Map No. 303.16-1-76, 77,and 78 at the request of the applicant. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Hacker Boat Co..Inc. for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a 78 sq. ft. wall sign. Relief requested from maximum allowable wall sign size requirements. SEQR Type: Unlisted; MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 30-2014 HACKER BOAT CO.. INC., Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled until a May meeting of the Zoning Board of Appeals with additional information, if required, submitted before the May meeting. Duly adopted this 23rd day of April, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 31-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED LAKE GEORGE NORTHWAY, LLC THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE EAST AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ.; S. BITTER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) LAKE GEORGE NORTHWAY, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 1424 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 44.4 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING MONUMENT SIGN WITH AN 8 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK IN LIEU OF THE REQUIRED 15 FT. SETBACK. APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN, 88 SQ. FT. FOR PLAZA IDENTIFICATION "EAST". RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NON-TENANT WALL SIGN. SP 70-2013; BP 2014-027; SV 92-1991; SV 82-1991; SV 1363 OF 1988 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 5.99 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.16-1-1 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 31-2014, Lake George Northway, LLC The Outlets at Lake George, LLC, Meeting Date: April 23, 2014 "Project Location: 1424 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 44.4 sq. ft. freestanding monument sign with an 8 ft. front yard setback in lieu of the required 15 foot setback. Also an additional wall sign, 88 sq. ft., for plaza identification"East". Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Chapter 140 Signs -additional wall sign for building identification where only one wall sign per tenant is allowed and setback for proposed monument sign 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) Non-tenant wall sign relief Monument Sign setback Required 0 wall signs are allowed for plaza 15 ft. identification Proposed 1 wall sign noting East is 8 ft. proposed Relief 1 7 ft. Criteria for considering a Sign 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 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 as the applicant desires to have patrons be able to distinguish between outlet centers with the tenant sign. The monument sign is proposed to be located in a landscaped area that will maintain the existing parking arrangement on the site, as such feasible alternatives may be limited. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 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 be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 70-13: renovations to plaza to improve aesthetics of facility-facade&elevator are included, 12- 19-13 SV 91-91: remove existing pylon sign and replace w/50'new pylon near first driveway entrance 12- 18-91 SV 81-91: add 2nd sign to building, 11-20-91 SV 1363: 2 freestanding signs to indicate L G Outlet Parking, 1 freestanding to indicate L G Outlet Center replacing existing sign, 7 existing signs on front of building to be placed on roof/canopy, 5- 18-88 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install an 88 sq. ft. wall sign to identify the outlet center as East and a 44.4 sq. ft. monument sign. Relief is requested to have a non tenant wall sign. Relief is also requested to have a monument sign that is 8 ft. from the property line where 15 ft. is required. The plans provided show the location and size of each sign. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR. LAPPER-Good evening. For the record, Jon Lapper with Corey Shanus. We have been before the Planning Board a number of times on both of these adjacent outlet projects,but we managed to have this designed without the need for any Area Variances. So this is the first time that we're before the Zoning Board, and wouldn't be except for a couple of anomalies on the signs. I know that, you know, over all the years before this Board how seriously you take sign variances and I always try to request as little relief as possible, but we think we have some good reasons for it in this case, but in order to explain why we're here and what we're asking for, I need to just start a 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) little bit with the concept architecturally and just how these projects are interconnecting to get to where we want to get to explain why they need to have identification on the building. So I sent Laura some drawings from the architect electronically so we could put them up on the screen and just go through a little bit of a concept. We're starting with, the first one on the agenda was East, I believe, which is the existing center that you all know is where the Polo outlet is, and the way this got started, Corey purchased that center at the end of 2012, and when the Montcalm became available he purchased that with the idea of building a new center and then ultimately re-doing the existing center. So in the fall of last year, 2013, after we had approvals for the new center which is now under construction, we came back in. He ultimately decided to spend more than a couple of million dollars to re-do the architecture of the existing center, which was really tired and stale and hadn't been upgraded in a long time, and he had hired architects from Baltimore who specialize just in doing outlet centers all over the country. They came up here and ultimately convinced him that the design to do something regional was they went to the Sagamore and looked at the white clapboard and the green roof to do something a little bit different to distinguish it from like the French Mountain Commons next door with the dark wood,just to make it a little more interesting, but that was their concept when they presented him some choices, the Sagamore kind of motif. So after this was under construction across the street with the new center, Corey decided to make this investment in the existing center, to have it match architecturally, so that they would look like the kind of bookends on the street as the first two outlet centers when you get off the Northway coming from the south. We'd also agreed with the Planning Board and the DOT to add a cross walk. The whole goal here, in terms of addressing the traffic issue, is to try and get people to park once and be able to walk, and on that theme, Corey has agreed, as a condition of approval,to install a stairway or a ramp to French Mountain Commons on the north side of his new project, to install this crosswalk with signage to connect his two plazas that are across the street from each other, and then more important in all that, the two million plus project on the existing center is to install a glass elevator. Right now he's got, you probably know from driving around the site, there's the underground parking in the back on the east center,the existing center,but most people,especially tourists don't, if you can get a spot in front of Polo,you don't have to look any farther. Certainly at Christmas time when it's really crowded, having the parking underneath is really nice in the winter, but people don't know about it. So the investment there was to install in the new tower that's under construction where we want to put the sign, a glass elevator so that, both as a visual thing, so people will see that they can get to the parking and be more likely to use it, glass so that it's not scary when you're coming from an underground parking area upstairs, that, just as a safety issue, that people can see what's going on in the elevator, but more than that, to encourage people to just park on that site,to use the elevator if they're parking downstairs,to use the crosswalk to go across the street and then to use the ramp to go to French Mountain Commons,just a way to interconnect all this, and there's already a sidewalk to Adirondack Factory Mall next door. So the goal with all of this, with this investment, is to have people park once and be able to conveniently walk, and just eliminate people driving from one lot to another, which is, you know, part of the access management requirement in the Queensbury Code for all commercial centers that you want to try and have them interconnect, and so those were just some of the themes, and then architecturally to tie them together and make them look similar,but also, in terms of the design,with these towers as a focal point, both over the elevator, in this case, but also on the new center as a focal point. So if we could just go through some of the pictures. That first one is the unattractive existing center. This is the rendering of what it'll look like with the new architecture. As you've seen, the vinyl awning,which was pretty unattractive to begin with,has already been removed, and that's going to be replaced with wood, Beadboard underneath and the green roof on the outside and wooden columns to support that, much more attractive than what was there with the vinyl, and you can see in the center the new tower as a focal point, and this is just a better close up adding the stone at the bottom and then the clapboard, and this is on both centers, the wood underneath and the wooden columns. A close up of what the tower will look like, which this was done before we had actually designed the sign, so it had a rendering,which isn't what we've applied for. We actually submitted to you the actual sign. That was just concept. This is the elevator looking downstairs with tile on the wall and the glass, and just different designs. I didn't mention that there was a, on the center where Nautica is, on the existing center, right now there's stairs that go downstairs, which doesn't really go to anywhere important. So that's going to be filled in as part of the site plan with the Planning Board and seven spaces will be added there, just a better use of that once the elevator is constructed. So there'll be a little bit more parking upstairs. So that's that center. This is the monument sign that is proposed for both centers. It doesn't require a variance on the new center because of course we had the room and were able to make it at least 15 feet from the property line to make it compliant, but on the existing center, that wasn't possible, and that's really one of the principle variances that we're asking for, because of the DOT takings in the past. That signed used to be 15 feet from the property line, now it's eight feet from the property line, and to push that any farther away would be to push it onto the drive aisle, and that's not possible. So that's just a practical issue because of where the property line has moved to. So that shows right there on the top piece. This is the sign on the new tower. You can go back to that one, Laura. On west, on the 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) new center, it's the same thing, as on top of the tower. There's some drawings of that center as well. That's the new center. And that's the concept of the one that's under construction with the same architectural elements of the white clapboard and the green roof. So in terms of the, I discussed the monument sign and the location, but in terms of the facade sign, on the two towers, these centers, to make them, for advertising purposes and to make it seem like one center, they're both The Outlets at Lake George, but one is East and one is West. So if you're coming to Town, if you're staying in Lake George, and you want to go to Polo,you know, we all know where to go, but now it will be,that's the Outlets at Lake George East. So the real concept is just to have the one sign so that people will be able to identify the difference between the centers, one is East and one is West, and that's really why we're asking for the variance on the tower, on the facades, and what's interesting under the Queensbury Code is that every tenant gets to have a sign, but there's no provision for the owner, the landlord if you will, or the name of the plaza, which is just kind of funny,but that's how the Code reads. So that required a variance to have the name of the plaza,but I think the way it's been designed, it's pretty attractive to have it just at the top of that tower, not too high, but just, and not too large, that we're not asking for a size variance on any of these things. The monument sign complies with the size, and these signs do as well. So just to have those two extra signs, East and West, so people can identify where they're going and that there's no other alternative for the monument sign, for where the, that's my explanation. Let me turn it over to Corey to give you a little more. COREYSHANUS MR. SHAMUS-Good evening. The identity of the center is very important, and originally we were going to call them the Outlets of Lake George, and then it dawned on us that customers would get confused. So we felt the need to call one the Outlets at Lake George East, the other the Outlets at Lake George West,and when customers come to shop,they're going to know,well, Nautica is in East and other tenants will be in the West, and be going to the right center, and this is the best way that they'll know which is East and which is West, and that's an important thing, and it creates certain safety issues, too, because if somebody goes in looking for Nautica and they go into West and they realize, oh, it's in East, and they get out, go across the street and unnecessarily do more driving and parking, and something possibly could happen. From an aesthetic perspective, we think it's very important. We're spending in excess of two million dollars in the upgrade for the existing center. The key architectural feature, as Jon mentioned, is the tower, which we borrowed from The Sagamore, and identifying the name of the center on the tower we think, aesthetically, is a very important aspect of what we're trying to do. The monument sign that we have on the street, the lettering on that is very,very small, and it's our experience that people rarely see that. As landlord we put those signs up as much because tenants demand it when they enter into a lease. It's a big thing for them. I know when I go into centers,very few people really take the time to read it. That we think the, marking the center, naming it with these, with this sign on the tower is important to the look and the identity of the center, and I think it would help tremendously how the center performs. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. At this time, I'm going to have Mr. Urrico read in the Staff Notes. Thank you, Mr.Urrico. Counselor,is there anything else? MR. LAPPER-I don't think so. MR. GARRAND-Nothing else? At this time, I'm going to open up the public hearing. If there's anybody that would like to speak on this Sign Variance application, please step up to the table. State your name for the record,please. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVID KENNY MR. KENNY-My name's David Kenny. My family owns the outlet centers to the immediate north of the location, the Adirondack Outlet Mall, the Clarion, and then the next property just south of the Log Jam Outlets that we're developing. This is the first we've seen these so I had a couple of questions, and in context with the property across the street. I know that's technically your next one,but I'm assuming the conversation's going to link a little bit. For the road sign, I mean, it looks nice. I'm a little concerned about the visibility, eight feet away from the road, especially with entering and exiting, and the traffic in that area, and I don't know exactly where it is. I can just see the sign,but I don't know how close to the entrances and exits, and the traffic,you know,the traffic backup. I mean,there's been five articles or editorials in The Post Star in the last few months about the traffic issue there, and so anything that's going to impact visibility, entering and exiting that road, everyone here knows what the traffic's like on there, especially with now the crosswalk. We 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) raised concerns about it. They largely weren't considered by the State because there was a traffic study done at that time that said there wouldn't be significant trips generated when they took the restaurant down because they looked at the restaurant at 6 p.m. on a Saturday, its busiest time, and compared it to the store's slowest time. They didn't compare Sunday at 10 or 12, when the restaurant is dead, and so anything that's going to add more traffic to that road, or anything that's going to impact visibility, I think the Board should consider in any variances, and to a certain extent what's going to happen in the future of the road. At some point, something needs to be done there. The traffic is a problem. Does that road need to be widened, you know, there's a lot of conversations about what could be happening. Is it a bypass road? But the traffic right now, it backs up two miles into Lake George and backs up two miles onto 149, and anything that impacts cars pulling in and out of there, you know, we have a concern for our customers, you know, being able to get in and out of there. I'm not sure what the visibility impact will be on traffic coming northbound towards the Adirondack Outlet Mall sign, having it that close to the road and a significantly taller sign. I think the sign right now is probably eight feet tall and now they're going to put a 16 foot tall sign. So how does that impact visibility to us, and I haven't seen that yet. On that, the identification signs, I guess there's a couple of questions. None of the other centers currently have them. I'm not sure we see the need to them,but if I guess if it's going to be allowed, there's four other centers that are probably going to be coming to ask to do the same thing, and do we want to let them all? I drove around Queensbury today. I didn't see any other centers that had this that were identifying themselves anywhere. We own two centers. Ed Moore owns two centers. So are we going to be having to put these all,you know, Ed Moore at the Log Jam doesn't have any sign identifying the Log Jam right now, right, because what the tenants really want to know is the store signs. They don't care the name of the outlets. They care where the stores are, and that's where the customers are going to look. So what the precedent is going to be, I don't know what the overall sign package for all the stores are. So it's tough for me to evaluate. The last note I have, one thing is very interesting. They note that they haven't come before you for any variances, and especially on the one across the road, it's interesting. They're talking about putting this on the tower,the tower. Well,the reason they didn't come before you for a variance is because that one's 48 feet tall and not 40, but when they went before the Planning Board, they called it a cupola. Now they're referencing it correctly as a tower, which is what it really is a tower, which is what it really is, but they didn't come to a variance because they didn't need to, because the Code allows for a cupola to be higher than 40, but now they want to put a sign on the tower, which I just find to be interesting that they'll call it one thing in one meeting and then call it something else at another. That's it. MR. GARRAND-Thank you. Mr. Lapper,could you address some of these issues? MR. LAPPER-Yes. On the location of the monument sign, if you look at the site plan that I submitted,on the existing Center East,the sign is more than 15 feet from the edge of pavement. It's just what's changed is that the property line was moved in when the State put in the extra turn lane a few years ago. So if you're sitting on the northernmost exit trying to make a left or a right, it doesn't affect your line of sight at all. The sign is all the way back where the parking spaces are. So it won't affect anybody, any turning movements or any visibility. The only reason we're putting it there is because that's where it is now, just like the last fellow. It's just the sign location that was already approved, and the property line change, but it doesn't affect visibility of drivers at all. So that's not an issue. It's a good question to ask,but when you look at the plan,that's way behind the driver's eyes for anyone looking south down Route 9, and that's clear on the plan that has the bars markings. I think this is a little bit different than the other centers, although obviously, you know, the Zoning Board, there's precedent and there's not precedent. Our argument here is that by making these things look the same architecturally, we want to distinguish them with the name, and we think it's important, but I don't see any negative impact on the neighborhood by having these two attractive signs. They're hundreds of feet back from the property line, but it's just a way of identifying East and West, which as Corey and I explained, we think it's important here, but, you know, the big picture, just in terms of the neighbors, we think that in this corridor, making a, you know, what's really a $15 million investment in these two centers is a good thing for all of the outlets, for all of the neighbors. It's just going to make this more exciting. This is the biggest sales tax generator in the County,this area, and we think this is a really good thing for the neighbors, and that ultimately they'll all be happy that this investment was made. Good for the taxpayers and good for the neighbors. So,you know,we don't see it as a competitive disadvantage. We think it's an advantage. So I don't think see that there's any line of sight issue with the monument sign and I don't see that there's any impact on having those additional wall signs. MR. SHAMUS-I'll add one thing. In our instance, they're two centers, but it's really one center, and the confusion could be generated with our two centers that would not be in existence with the other centers, are the French Mt., the Adirondack, the Log Jam, they're separate centers. We're calling our centers The Outlets at Lake George East and West, and we're going to be marketing it as 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) The Outlets at Lake George. We don't want customers to be confused going into one when they mean to go into the other. I think that issue does not present itself the same way, if somebody wants to go into say Log Jam versus French Mt. In terms of cupola versus tower, I think that's a semantic issue. I will note that our first plans for the architects,when we proposed these,when we designed these centers, we did have a higher cupola/tower, whatever you want to call it, and we lowered it to conform to the Code. We didn't ask for any variances with it. So I don't really want to get into an argument what it's called. This is our architectural feature. We think it's very innovative. It's good for the area. It's creative. It's an asset to the community,and that this sign is an integral part of the design that we want to create there. MR. GARRAND-Thank you, sir. Anybody else from the public that wanted to speak on this? Any correspondence, Mr.Urrico? MR.URRICO-I have not found any,but I do have a question. Has there been any research done as to what shoppers look for? I mean, do they look for the plaza sign? Do they look for the store sign? Have you done any research on that? MR. LAPPER-All I can say there is that the architects that designed this and the marketing people felt that it was important to put these signs up. This wasn't just Corey's idea. This came from consultants. MR.URRICO-Do they have any research to back it up,or is it just their opinion? MR. SHAMUS-I think that the marketing person we hired is nationally known for outlet marketing. He feels very,very strong about this. We're going to be marketing it as The Outlets of Lake George, and you go East to West, and you know people are going to the right center, and it creates a certain look,the outlet look. MR. URRICO-Because I'm just thinking of the majority of the guest traffic or the traffic not familiar with the area is going to be coming off the Northway or coming up Route 9. So the first thing they're going to see are those two signs,if they're not coming south from Lake George. MR. LAPPER-Right. MR.URRICO-So is that going to be enough to help them determine where they should be turning? MR. SHAMUS-It will help them. There'll be a lot of advertising that we're going to be doing. Like I say, Polo's in East. I can't say what the other tenants will be,but they're going to be in the West and we think that this identification is very important. MR. HENKEL-But once you see the monument sign that says East or West, and you're in that area, why would you need to have another sign to identify it? MR. LAPPER-The monument is small, I mean, because we're limited to the 45 square feet in Queensbury, then you've got to get all the tenants on there. So the top that says East or West is really pretty small,but the one on the facade is more prominent. MR. HENKEL-I assume there's 15 stores in that? Is that why you're asking for 15 nameplates? MR. LAPPER-There's probably going to be 12. MR. SHAMUS-Are we talking about the existing center,or the? MR. HENKEL-Well,the monument for the East,the one we're working on right now. MR. SHAMUS-Right now I believe we have 16 tenants. Coach expanded, so now it's 15, and there's a possibility that another one expands. So it might go down. It might go down to 15. MR. HENKEL-So you're asking for 15. You're not going to comeback later and ask for more? MR. LAPPER-That wouldn't change. The copy wouldn't require a different variance because that's just the location,but it may lose one sign. MR. SHAMUS-That's our problem. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) MR. FREER-So you mentioned the safety aspect of cars pulling out and going to the wrong place and the congestion that we've come to know and love on Route 9 at the holidays and in the summer,the, as you look at that,this bridge that you've apparently. MR. LAPPER-Crosswalk. MR. FREER-Crosswalk,okay. So it's not a bridge,it's just a crosswalk. MR. LAPPER-Yes,the problem with a crosswalk, if you think about The Great Escape, in order to get it to a handicap ramp grade, you'd be building a concrete structure that would basically obliterate the front of both centers. It would just be so long, even if it was a switchback, you'd be building such a big structure there. So it's a crosswalk. MR. SHAMUS-And I can announce that we are going to be not installing a staircase to connect our center with French Mt.,but in fact a ramp,which is probably at three times the cost. I mean,you're talking a lot, a lot of money,but we feel it's just the better way to do it. It will induce people to use it,and it will keep people off the roads. MR. KUHL-Could I ask you a question? You just stated that this tower/cupola is going to be 40 feet, or is it going to be 48? The way you just brought it out,you said you were going to build it within regulations. Do I understand that right? MR. SHAMUS-Yes, I mean, that's been approved. Our original, when we had these architects come in from Baltimore and they drove around, they went to The Sagamore, gee, that really looks nice. So they put something down, this is the height we wanted, and then Jon looked at it and said that's too tall. We can't do that without a variance,and we did not ask for a variance,we just lowered it. MR. LAPPER-This is the cupola that, it is the cupola sitting on top of the tower, and that doesn't count as height. MR. KUHL-All right,and that tower is where you're going to have your elevator? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thanks. I have an aside here. I don't know if this is off the record, but who cares about architects from Baltimore. What made them better than architects from Pittsburgh? All right. The other question I have, you're saying that your monument sign is going to have the amount of slots of the stores you have. So you have 15 on here, so you have 15 stores in the East, correct? MR. SHAMUS-Yes. MR. KUHL-And when, if you have vacant stores,you're just going to have vacant slots. Is that your plan? I mean, if the third guy down moves out, is everybody moving up and you're going to have empty on the bottom? First of all, I like the fact that you've come out with a sign that's going to encompass all of your properties. I like that. Okay, and I'm not trying to,you know,get crazy here, but I just want to understand, you have each one the same size, yet people rent and have more square footage. So what you're saying is this is what it is. This is all you get, but, I mean, is somebody going to pay you extra to get their name on the top? MR. SHAMUS-We don't charge for that. MR. KUHL-Yes, you're not worried about it. You're just going to stack them up, and if they leave, you're going to have blanks,is that it? MR. SHAMUS-We'll deal with that. We'll make the necessary aesthetic changes, but right now, as I recall,they're all the same size. MR. KUHL-Yes. I mean, I like the fact that you're doing the ultimate here and you're not going to be coming back every year and a half saying I'm going to add,you know,the next guy. Thank you. MR. FREER-Where are you going to put your bike racks so that people can ride their bikes and shop? MR. LAPPER-I know there's a bike rack on the new center. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) MR. FREER-All these guys in the front row should be riding their bikes, so that they can pick up their$200 Nikes and move on. MR. LAPPER-It cuts down on traffic. I know that there were bike racks on the new center. MR. FREER-That's okay. MR. KUHL-But wasn't there an article recently in the paper that said they were going to build a road behind the Outlets,from 149 to the Municipal Center to bypass,and that would relieve the traffic? MR. FREER-There's a bunch of ideas floating around. MR. KUHL-All right. MR. GARRAND-I think we'll all agree that there is definitely a congestion problem in that area, and the State should address it,sooner rather than later. MR. HENKEL-Now you said they're approved already for another crosswalk? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That's good. How many crosswalks does that make,now? MR. LAPPER-I think that's the third. MR. SHAMUS-That would be the third. MR. HENKEL-Is that it,just three,from the light? MR. LAPPER-The people are going to be crossing anyway. MR. HENKEL-There's three now you're saying. MR. SHAMUS-Our concern with this one it's so close to the intersection with that light. MR. LAPPER-The answer with the crosswalk is that people are going to be crossing anyway. It's safer to have it striped and signed. That's why the DOT approved it. Some of the proposals to put in roundabouts, I mean, it sounds like people are being imaginative and that there may be a solution, but it's also about the State spending some money. So we don't know when, but I know it's on the list to get addressed. MR. GARRAND-We need a bypass for truck traffic coming on and off the Northway and 149. MR. LAPPER-Yes, there could be an exit at 149, right at 149. There was something in the paper about that,and get rid of the shoe outlet. MR. GARRAND-All right. Nothing else from the Board members? No correspondence? MR.URRICO-No correspondence. MR. GARRAND-At this time,then, I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-And ask Board members for their feelings on this. I'll start with Mr.Urrico. MR. URRICO-Well, I'll start with whether there's an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and I think some of us that have been here a while know that the whole area needs some updating, and we've had to address each plaza, each plaza's come forward and asked for variances and most of the time has been granted variances, especially when it comes to signs. Unless this was one area under one roof, we would be able to solve the problem, but we're never going to be able to solve the problem the way it's constructed,so we have to deal with it as it comes. I think this variance has taken steps in the right direction, I believe. I believe the alternatives that they've considered work best for that particular plaza. I think the relief is substantial. I think it's a good idea to identify the plaza, where it belongs. I think it's something that I would be able to agree on, and I would be in favor of it. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. McCabe. MR. MC CABE-I see the plazas further south all have id's. Northgate, Mountain Royal, Northway, so I agree that it's important to identify the plaza. I don't think that it's practical to expect people to see the little individual tenant signs, and I don't agree with further setback. I think that takes your eyes off the road more. So I like the sign closer to the road. So that is appealing to me also. So I support this project. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. Henkel? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also support it. They've said enough. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Freer? MR. FREER-I'd like to see a tunnel instead of a crosswalk, but that's not the subject at hand. So I support it. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-Yes, if you take a look at where the sign is now and the property line, beyond the property line there's the cement walk. It's really more than eight feet from the road, but because the property line is where it is, if you do the 15 feet, it would be right in this driving path, and it would be a hazard. It's right where it is. I also like the fact that he's putting a sign up that's going to encompass everything, all of his properties, not that he'll be back and forth and looking for variances to add on. So I would be in favor of it. MR. GARRAND-Okay. Mr. Noonan? MR. NOONAN-As my fellow Board members have said, mirror a lot of their thoughts as well. I do think points were brought up on public comment as well, and I think we'll deal with those down the road,as other folks come back looking for variances. I'm also in favor. I'd be in favor of this. MR. GARRAND-All right. Thank you very much. I would just mention that I would be the odd ball on this one. I would think that the 88 square foot sign might be a little bit excessive for that area, which has already seen a lot of signs and sign variances come through here. On to SEQR. Does anybody on the Board notice anything that would present itself as an adverse environmental impact on the neighborhood? Any reason to give this a positive Dec,as far as SEQR goes? MR. KUHL-I don't see how,no. MR. GARRAND-Okay, because I'm going over the Short Environmental SEQR form, and I don't see where it would in any way trigger a positive Dec. With that said. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 31-2014 LAKE GEORGE NORTHWAY, LLC, THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE EAST BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this Wed..April 23,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MR. GARRAND-And can I get a motion from a member of the Board,please. MR. KUHL-Could I do that motion,Mr. Chairman,please. MR. GARRAND-Feel free. MR. KUHL-Thank you. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 31-2014, Lake George Northway, LLC / The Outlets at Lake George EAST, 1424 State Route 9,Tax Map No. 288.16-1-1. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lake George Northway. LLC / The Outlets at Lake George EAST for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a 44 sq. ft. Freestanding monument sign with an 8 ft. front yard setback in lieu of the required 15 ft. setback. Applicant also proposes an additional wall sign, 88 sq. ft. for plaza identification "East". Relief requested for non-tenant wall sign. SEQR Type: Unlisted; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,April 23,2014; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? Minor impacts are anticipated. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? You can say they really are limited because it's an existing sign and as I said,my belief is that it's encompassing everything for the future. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It could be considered substantial. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor to no impact is anticipated. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This is self-created. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 31-2014, Lake George Northway, LLC - The Outlets at Lake George EAST, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency(APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 23rd of April.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) NOES: Mr. Garrand MR. GARRAND-On to the next one. MR. KUHL-Do we have to hear the Mr. Lapper presentation all over again? MR. LAPPER-We can just incorporate that discussion into the record. We covered it. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 32-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE WEST AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. BPSR OWNER(S) NORTHWAY OUTLETS, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 1415 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 100 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN WITH SIGN COPY TO READ: "THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE WEST". RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NON-TENANT WALL SIGN. CROSS REF BP 2013-464 NEW BUILD-COM'L/INDUS.; BP 2013-528 DEMO OF MONTCALM REST.; BP 2013-499 DEMO GARAGE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2014 LOT SIZE 1.04 AND 5.66 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.00-1-52 AND 53 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 32-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC The Outlets at Lake George West, Meeting Date: April 23, 2014 "Project Location: 1415 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 100 sq.ft.wall sign with sign copy to read: "The Outlets at Lake George West" Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Chapter 140 Signs - additional wall sign for building identification where only one wall sign per tenant is allowed. Required Non-tenant wall sign relief Proposed 0 wall signs are allowed for plaza identification Relief 1 wall sign noting West is proposed 1 Criteria for considering a Sign 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 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 limited as the applicant desires to have patrons be able to distinguish between outlet centers with a specific sign. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 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 be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SP 35-13: 49,615 sq.ft.retail plaza, 7-23-13 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) BP 13-464: Pending Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 100 sq.ft.wall sign to identify the outlet center as West. Relief is requested to have a non-tenant wall sign. The plans provided show the location and size of the proposed sign. SEQR Status: Type Unlisted" MR. GARRAND-Thank you, Mr.Urrico. Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-I would say we would incorporate,by reference, the discussion on the last variance so we don't have to repeat that, and I'd volunteer to incorporate the public comment, but Dave might want to repeat that. MR. GARRAND-Anybody from the public wish to comment on this Sign Variance 32-2014? Certainly. You'd have to step up to the table, please. MR. HENKEL-First of all,you have to identify yourself for the record. MR. GARRAND-Yes,have a seat. MRS.MOORE-So, Mr. Garrand,you're opening the public hearing? MR. GARRAND-I'm opening the public hearing. Let him speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED GRIFFIN FIGIRA MR. FIGIRA-Okay. I'm just curious. I'm a little bit nervous, to be honest. From Mr. Terry's class. I just have one question. Why did, I didn't catch who it was who disapproved of the Outlets sign. MR. GARRAND-I was the dissenting vote on that. MR. FIGIRA-Okay. So the majority approved but there was one person who. MR. GARRAND-Well, I was the one who voted against it. MR. FIGIRA-Okay. I was just curious why you didn't like it. MR. GARRAND-I think the sign proliferation out on Route 9 there, it's just getting out of hand. If you've driven up and down through the Outlets, you'll notice that it's just kind of overwhelming with signs there. MR. FIGIRA-Yes, I like to drive by there all the time. I work at the Bistro Leroux. So, yes, it just makes me curious. MR. GARRAND-Yes, as you're driving down the road, there's literally so many signs that you can't really focus on any one of them. There's just pretty much too much input. Then there's the fact that if you're trying to look at the signs,you're also not paying attention to the traffic that's stopped in front of you. All in all, I think it might present somewhat of a hazard increasing the signs, and also if one person's asking for a plaza identifier sign, everybody else down the road is probably going to do it. So that was my justification. MR. FIGIRA-That's what I wanted to know. MR. KUHL-Does everybody have to tell you their feelings? I mean, you could be taking this man's livelihood away. You're up there at the microphone. This is an official thing going on here. MR. FIGIRA-This is all right. That was my question. I was curious. Thank you. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) MR. KUHL-By the way, Igo to Bistro Leroux. It's good. MR. HENKEL-I've just got a question. The wall sign, how come it's not the same size as the other one? The other one's supposed to be 88 feet. MR. LAPPER-I knew that was coming. Because it's the scale of the building, that this is a bigger building, and the tower structure is bigger dimension,because the other one's a narrower building. So it's just,it just fits better. MR. GARRAND-Questions from any other Board members? MR. KUHL-If we forced you to make it the same size,you could make it the same size? Right? MR. LAPPER-Eighty-eight instead of one hundred? MR. KUHL-I mean, if that was the deciding factor to getting the variance, you'd change it, but what you're saying, aesthetically it fits better at this size, is that what you're saying,because of the size of your cupola or tower? MR. LAPPER-Actually that's it right there. Right? So it's got a lot of trees. It's a little different because it's a brand new plaza. MR. HENKEL-But you're also going to have a monument sign with the West sign in front of there, too,though,right? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. SHAMUS-Yes,but, I mean, I will say that we're spending probably close to two and a half million dollars on the aesthetics, which to us is very, very important, and this is what our architects, our people have designed. MR. KUHL-The architects from Baltimore. MR. FREER-They've got some big darn outlets in Baltimore, I'll tell you that. MR. KUHL-When we're finished with this, I have a question. You could make me a hero at home. So,but anyway. MR. LAPPER-The engineer was from here, it was Tom Nace. MR. GARRAND-Any other Board members? MR. URRICO-I think I would agree with Mr. Kuhl about making them the same size. I do have a problem with this one being larger than the other one. I know, aesthetically,the architects may be saying that, but I think that I would have difficulty granting an additional 12 feet of relief for this one. MR. GARRAND-It's for an additional sign. MR.URRICO-Well,but 12 feet bigger than the other sign. MR. HENKEL-The other wall sign. MR. GARRAND-Any other Board members? MR. FREER-Yes, I think from a precedent standpoint, I might agree with Roy that,you know,there's no need to make it any bigger than it needs to be. We're going to be in the sign ward for a while, I can tell. MR. GARRAND-Okay,is that a condition, 88 square feet? MR. KUHL-What are you asking? Are you asking whether we should approve it or not? Is that what you're polling the Board now? MR. GARRAND-No, I'm going to close the public hearing first. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. GARRAND-And I'm going to poll the Board. Mr. Freer, how do you feel about that? Would that suit you as a condition? MR. FREER- Yes, I think we should consider, my view is that I have no problem with letting them have their sign, but, you know, part of our objective is to minimize the variances, right? We're giving you the one. It's zero or one. It's sort of binary, but in this case since we just handled another one that was 88 square feet, I think it makes sense, from my standpoint, in terms of minimizing variances,to not give you a variance for a sign bigger than 88 square feet. MR. GARRAND-Mr. Kuhl? MR. KUHL-If you want to make both the East and West look the same, why can't the signs be the same? MR. GARRAND-Mr. Noonan? MR. NOONAN-I guess I'd take a different approach than my Board members. Just looking at the two pictures, where the signs are, 88 square foot one is a little bit, I actually can't tell from this, but will it be higher up or will it be the same elevation? I mean, it's going to be higher on the building, it's going to look higher, but you've got the cupola on top of the West. I think aesthetically the 100 square foot fits the space it's designed for that size. So I'm okay with the proposal as it is. MR. GARRAND-And Mr.Urrico? MR.URRICO-I really want to see it scaled down. MR. GARRAND-Mr. McCabe? MR. MC CABE-I would vote for it for the sign that is proposed. If they've got to go back to their architect and get him to make a change for 12 square feet, that's going to cost them significant money for very little that I see. Once the signs are in place, I don't think you'll be able to visually tell the difference between the 88 and the 100. MR. GARRAND-All right. Mr. Henkel? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with the 88 feet. Yes,definitely, 88 feet. MR. LAPPER-Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-We're always going to go with the majority,the will of the Board,and,you know,we're always trying to compromise, so if 88 is what the majority of the Board wants, 88 it'll be, and it wasn't done to grab anything extra. It was really just because of the scale,but I think your position is reasonable. MR. GARRAND-Okay. At this time, any Board members, having read the Short EAF, do any Board members see any reason for a positive Dec on this? Because after reviewing it, I would say we could give this a Negative Dec. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 32-2014 NORTHWAY OUTLETS. LLC - THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE WEST BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 23rd day of April.2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MR. GARRAND-Now could I get a motion on Sign Variance 32-2014 with the amended sign size noted. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) RESOLUTION TO: Approve Sign Variance No. 32-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC -The Outlets at Lake George WEST, 1415 State Route 9, Tax Map No. 288.00-1-52, and 53 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Northway Outlets. LLC - The Outlets at Lake George WEST for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of an 88 sq. ft. wall sign with sign copy to read: "The Outlets at Lake George West". Relief requested for non- tenant wall sign. SEQR Type: Unlisted; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wed.,April 23,2014; 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? This is consistent with the marketing that will likely not produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood, in that this new construction has been through all the wickets and it's in keeping with the theme and especially with the Adirondack scheme of trying to bring one of the historic landmarks of Lake George into the architecture. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? I understand that with the marketing you try to provide as much information and less confusion to your customers with an East West and with the traffic on Route 9. So I think that there really isn't a feasible alternative method to do so. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It is substantial where you're asking for a non- resident sign which is not in the Code,but the rationale of trying to virtually combine this center makes sense. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? I don't believe it'll have an adverse impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood or the district. We're just talking about signs here. We're not talking about any pollution or any erosion problems. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is self-created,although you're investing a lot in terms of trying to comply with both the letter and the spirit of the land use and so it's understandable. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 32-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC - The Outlets at Lake George WEST, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1)year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/23/2014) D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this Wed.,April 23,2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE MR. GARRAND-And for the purpose of the kids here, in case you're wondering why I voted the way I voted here tonight on this Sign Variance, I'd just like to state that this is a new plaza. The existing plaza has a large number of signs on it, where they've already been granted numerous area variances. This new plaza won't be as corrupted as the east side of Route 9. If you go down the east side of Route 9,you'll see just sign after sign, for all kinds of stores, and they have been granted multiple variances for those signs. This is all new, and it won't be nearly as congested as the east side will. So that's why I'm voting yes. MR. LAPPER-Thanks. MR. KUHL-By the way, off the record, there's a Christmas Tree shop going in on the west side? I could be a hero at home if there is,you know. MR. LAPPER-Gotta go to Albany. MR. KUHL-She saw the tower,she said,oh,there's got to be a Christmas Tree Shop. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. GARRAND-Can I get a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 23,2014, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 231d day of April, 2014,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Richard Garrand,Acting Chairman 26