Loading...
01-22-2015 L\&AeHemingway\2015 Year ZBA\ZBAJanuary 2015\ZBA Meeting Minutes Thurs January 22 2015.docx QUEENSBURYZONI NG BOARD OF APPEALS RISULAR M BEII NG Thursday, January 22 2015 INDEX ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS 1. Approval of Meeting Minutes: December 17, 2014 Page 2 NEW BUSNESS Area Variance No. 1-2015 Thomasd Kubricky Page 3 Area Variance No. 2-2015 ,bseph Gross Page 10 Sign Variance No. 4-2015 Wesley Padgett, Development Manager Page 14 RCGVentures, LLC (Texas Fad House Fbstaurant) Area Variance No. 3-2015 Karen and Michael Lefebvre Page 16 Area Variance No. 5-2015 Lake George Associates Page 18 1 Page Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Peg ularMeeting Meeting Minutes: Thursday, January 22, 2015; 7 pm Zoning Board Members Present Steven Jackoski, Chairman Richard Garrand, Vice Chairman Roy Urrico, Secretary Kyle Noonan Michael McCabe John Henkel Harrison Freer, Alternate Member Zoning Board Member(s) Absent Ronald Kuhl Department of Community Development Staff Present Laura Moore, Land Use Planner Sue Hemingway, Office Specialist-Acting Stenographer Mr. Jackoski: Welcome everyone. I'd like to begin our meeting this evening of the Zoning Board of Appeals for the Town of Queensbury. It is January 22, 2015 at 7 o'clock. Thank you to those who are in attendance. For those who haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite simple process. There are some sheetson the back table that explain the processaswell asthe agenda forthisevening. We will first do some old business then we'll do some new business. We'll call the applicants to the table here for a presentation. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll listen to the applicants, we'll poll the Board, we'll open the public comment period where there was one advertised. And we'll take action accordingly. So, fortunately for everyone this evening we only have one thing to do which isto approve the meeting minutesfor December 17, 2014. And, I want to just make sure with staff of who washere forthat meeting. Sue Hemingway: I think everybody washere. Michael McCabe: I wasnot. Mr. Jackoski: Mike wasn't. Mr. Freer: I wasn't. Mr. Jackoski: Harrison wasn't. Mr. Jackoski: Can I have a motion please to approve those minutes? Mr. Unico: So moved. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Mr. Garrand: Second. Mr. Jackoski: Thankyou Rick-call the vote please. 21 Page FES0 WTI O N APPROVE- DEC EMBER17, 2014 MINUTES MOTION 10 APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 17, 2014 by Mr. Urrico, Seconded by Mr. Garrand, Duly adopted this22nd day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Mr. Jackoski: We're going to go right new business this evening. The first item on this evening's agenda is Thomas J. Kubricky. Area Variance 01-2015. This is a Type II SEQRA. It is 53 Rockhurst Road and I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. And, if Mr. Kubricky could join us at the table. Fby Unico: The applicant ha s c o nstruc te d a 454.5 sq. ft. deck to existing 360 sq. ft. camp structure. The parcel will require area variances from Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Zoning Districts for Waterfront Residential area requirements and for the Section 179-13-010 Expansion of a non- conforming structure. The requirement for a Waterfront Residential minimum north side setback is 30 feet; what is proposed is 8.9 feet. Relief is therefore 21.1 feet. For the lot Waterfront minimum shoreline setback; the requirement is 50 feet; proposed is 23.5 feet and the relief would be 26.5 feet. The criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter267 of Town Law requires we go through 5 requirements. 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. Staff says that the proposed project may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, otherthan an area variance. Feasible alternativesmay be considered limited asany proposal fordevelopment on the site may trigger additional review. 3. Whether the requested Area Variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to 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. The variance may have minimal adverse impact on the site. The applicant has indicated there are additional plantings on the site to assist with screening and stormwater management on the site. 5. Whetherthe alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes a 454.5 sq. ft. deck addition to an existing 360 sq. ft. camp. The APA reversed the Zoning Boards decision of Kubricky variance 67-2014 Sept 2014 without prejudice for reconsideration of the application by the Zoning Board. The applicant has indicated the deck is8 inches off the ground and has no railing or steps. The applicant has explained that the deck addition to the existing camp was constructed instead of putting a sundeck on the existing boat dock. The applicant hasprovided information that additional plantingshave been installed at the 31 Page site and included the invoices. The applicant has indicated that 100 +/- plantings have been installed to create a bufferarea between the lake and the deck. Thisisa Type II SEQRA. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Welcome. If you could state your name for the record, please and if you'd like to add anything at this time to the record. Laura Cormack Tom Kubricky Mr. Jackoski: Isthere anything you'd like to add at this time? Tom Kubricky: I'm sure everybody knows what's taken place. What they did is they - I went, you know, and I filled out the deck and I asked for the deck. I went through the Lake George Park Commission. And, my neighbors didn't want it on my dock; they didn't want a deck - a sundeck on it. So, I said, if I get approved by the Town of Queensbury, I'll do away with it. So, I did away with the sundeck on my dock because the Town of Queensbury approved my deck. Then what happened is that there was some technicality where they, the APA wanted more plantings, so, I put in sixteen thousand dollars' worth of plants going around there and they wanted me to take the rail off, thisisthe Adirondack Park- take the rail off and you know, trim it out a little more. We pretty much did everything they asked. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. Board members do you have any questions of the applicant at thistime? Mr. Henkel: When you built the deck did you do anything to the soil underneath the deck or anything? Tom Kubricky: No, what I did is I, 1 got a permit and I built the deck and then 1, no I didn't do anything underneath the deck. I re-sided the camp, put a new roof on it and graded it out a little bit. They were worried, then what happened wasfirst the neighborswere complaining about the dock with the sundeck- you know, blocking their views, so we did the deck and then, you know, they were complaining about- Mr. Henkel: Whose view -you gonna - Tom Kubricky: Yeah - Mr. Henkel: You're like the last one there. Tom Kubricky: No, I hear ya' but- M r. Henkel: It's not like you're looking up lake or anything. Tom Kubricky: The people that live down or friends with somebody who worked at the Adirondack Park and that's kind of what stemmed it all. We've just been kind of just throwing gas on the fire ever since and kind of just want to settle it, you know what I mean. Mr. Freer: So is the deck, I'm sorry, we're you done John? Mr. Henkel: Go for it. 41 Page Mr. Freer: So hasthe deck been built or- 1 thought there wasa Stop Work on the deck. Tom Kubricky: There was a - what there was is- there was a - The Town of Queensbury gave me a permit and I built the deck. Then, like you know, probably, like a month after, a month after all this took place is when the Adirondack Park Agency sent a letter back saying, you know, they didn't know anything about it. The deck was never stop work order because we had the deck built, you know, it only took us a day to throw the deck up. And it was about 30 days after the deck was built that the noise started being made by the neighbors, you know, they just don't like me. You know, the deck was built prior to all this. You know, the APA just wanted to see no rail and they wanted to see, like 70 plants I had to put in for them. That's where we ended up going there. Mr. Henkel: You've probably got the smallest camp around; I mean, I don't know what the problem is. Tom Kubricky: No, believe me Mr. Henkel: You can build a farbiggercamp than that on that piece of property. Tom Kubricky: It's a double lot. That's the sad thing. Mr. Henkel: You'd think they'd be happy with just a small deck! Tom Kubricky: I told my neighbors, you know, the neighbors that were complaining on the north and south of me, I didn't, I was, I proposed a dock with a sundeck on it. And then they were crying, so I told them, I said listen, you know, let me, if I get approved with a deck I'll do away with the sundeck, so I did away with the sundeck with the Lake George Park Commission. And, I get approved forthe deck on the camp and somewhere something got lost. And, that's why I'm back here now. Mr. Freer: Yeah, I wasn't, I'm an Alternate and I wasn't on the Board when they approved it. But, our job here is to determine if the variance, and the side one I don't have any issues with. We've been pretty sancro-sank about variances that violate the lake setbacks. I would be curious if anybody has any more insights that, because we haven't voted, many of us haven't voted on any lake setback variances as a matter of sort of, you know, trying to do what - our share to protect the lake. Tom Kubricky: I want to ask for your approval Harrison because I just want to let you know that my lot is like 80 feet wide, my lot is on Sandy Bay, Rockhurst. My lot's not only a double lot, but I've got a 360 sq. ft. camp on it and it's like the smallest camp on the biggest lot. And what I want to do is, I want to keep Sandy Bay what's its known for; for day use only. I'm not looking to move up there. I don't want to put no addition on my camp. You know my neighbors on both sides of me. You know, I'm 360 sq. ft., my neighbors on both sides of me, they've built on 50 foot lots, they put 1,560 sq. ft. homes on them. I don't want that. I want to keep it for day use only; for my grand kid s, and whoever else really wants to use it. I'm not looking to, you know, that's - the sad thing is, you know, I've tried with my neighbors on both sides of me. They've got 40 foot lots, they've got U- shaped docks, they've got 1,500 sq. foot houses. And I've got a little one there and I do away with the sundeck to pacify them to make peace with them. It's kind of been doing everything - you know, I ask foryou to approve this, really. 51 Page Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions from Board members before I open the public comment period? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing and isthere any written comment? Mr. Unico: Yes, there is. There are two letters that were previously read in and the commenters would like it read in again. The first one is: I live at 55 Rockhurst Road just north of the property, whose owners are seeking a zoning code variance. And, I am writing to oppose variance 67-2014 (Mr. Unico: interjects: which this no longeris) asl believe it will have an undesirable effect on the neighborhood and the environment. Specifically, the zoning lawswere set up to protect Lake George and thiswill add stressto a fragile and already over-stressed bay in the lake. If Sandy Bay continues to decline as a desirable location, the neighborhood will sufferand thisproject isa threat to preserving and protecting Lake George. I strongly urge you to enforce the zoning laws and not grant thisvariance. I am not in favor of any variance which allows expansion of a non-conforming development within the 50 foot Lake setback. There are other alternativesto improve thisproperty which can be done within the already poor footprint without adding an additional threat to the Lake. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Jacqueline Koenig" Mr. Urrico interjects: And she's at 55 Rockhurst Road. Mr. Urrico: One more; " Since I will not — again this isfrom September, so "Since I will not be in this area on September 17th, I stopped at the office on September 12th, and talked with Craig Brown who suggested that I write my concerns addressed to both the Zoning Board and the Planning Board. I am the adjacent neighbor to the south of the property on 53 Rockhurst Road. My first question is: who owns the property on 53 Rockhurst Road? There are 3 names on the deck applicant and only 1 name on the new wharf application. It is my understanding that this application was requested before throughout the previous years and was denied because the specifications did not meet the requirements. What are the required setbacks from the water mark? What are the legal footprints beyond the existing structure of this camp for new construction? Congestion & Parking — with a coniferous hedgerow as per diagram, it shows that parking can very well be a problem NOISE POLLUTION Many camps and docks have become rental units. The close proximity of the campscreatesthisproblem in the AM & PM. SEPTIC With the increase of usage of this camp and docks will there be a potential problem of the septic system? I have enclosed several photographs of this camp located at 53 Rockhurst Road and please note I have written my concerns on the back of the photographs also. I respectfully ask that thisarea have an on-site inspection also. Sincerely, Margaret Colacino" Mr. Jackoski: Isthat all forwritten comments? Mr. Unico: That's it. Mr. Jackoski: Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public comment period open. Are there any other questions from Board members or comments from Board members? Staff, if I recall when we granted the variance the last time, one of the conditions was that if they chose to expand the house, they would have to remove the deck or they would have to come back to us anyway and go through a whole new variance application, but that the deck may end up being removed at the time. Isthat correct? Mrs. Moore: Correct. Isthat —do you want to considerthat condition again? 61 Page Mr. Jackoski: We don't know. Mrs. Moore: Okay. Tom Kubricky: Can I say- Mr. Jackoski: Sure -go ahead. Tom Kubricky: The neighbors, both the neighbors that wrote these two letters next tome, the first one that you heard was the lady that's got 40 feet of lake front and she put a 1,560 sq. ft. house up and I didn't say one complaint to her, her whole operation, I didn't complain. And the one to the left of me, rotated her camp and put a deck on her front, deck and I didn't complain about that either. And, the one to the left of me docks a boat, you know what I mean, I don't complain about none of this stuff. And I'm not, you know, the same way with my dock, I'm not gonna dock any boats there. I'm only gonna have one there, my own. You know, it's - we're definitely not - you know -we care more about Sandy Bay than they do, actually; to be honest with you. Mr. Jackoski: Before I poll the Board are there any other comments or questions? Again this evening we need to be very cautious of how we deliberate and make sure that we understand we're answering why we're answering the way we are answering on the seven questions. We need specific examples, not simply because we don't believe so. We need to give reasonswhy. So, I'm going to poll the Board this evening, if you don't mind. And, I'd like to start with Rick, just to stress him out, but I won't because he can't speak very well, so - Mr. Garrand: Thanks Mr. Chairman. I wasagainst thisvariance the first time around because it is substantial relief and the fact it might trigger other requests for decks larger than the homes themselves in this neighborhood. And also, its proximity to the lake, lakefront. I would support reducing the lakeside setback on this. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Harrison. Mr. Freer: Yeah, as I mentioned, I didn't participate in the deliberations but I am very familiar with this area and I don't believe that, I support the, how big the lakeside setback variance request is, so I think it should be smaller. Mr. Jackoski: Mike Mr. McCabe: I think we have an obligation to this applicant. We approved this in the past. And the only reason that we're back here is because the APA got technical. I think the reasons that we approved it before was the deck was kind of innocuous way to improve the way the camp Iooksand I think that it certainly did that and I would support this project and urge everybody else to consider that we've already given him the okay. And, it's going to cost him money if we deny it. And, he's got to do any additional work to this deck. Tom Kubricky: I appreciate that. Mr. Jackoski: John. Mr. Henkel: I also support Mike in this. I think that if this deck was, had a roof on it and it was shedding water towards the lake or if it was a much larger camp. I don't see there's really any problem there. I'd be definitely in support of this project. 71 Page Tom Kubricky: Thanks. Mr. Jackoski: Roy. Mr. Unico: Yeah, I'm in favorof the project. I thinkthisisnot going to be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. I think it will have minimal effect on the neighborhood. A feasible alternative may be considered but I think Mr. Kubricky has already done some things to alleviate some of the stress that it may cause. The requested variance seems substantial but again, I think in comparison to some of these properties surrounding is not as much asmuch of the requested variances as it might seem. Again, I don't think they're will be a physical or environmental adverse effect. And, I think the alleged difficulty may self-created but, to me, it does not outweigh the detriment to the property, so I think the benefitsdo outweigh it. So, I would be in favorof it. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle. Tom Kubricky: Thanks Roy. Mr. Noonan: Also, I was not present the first time around but having had the cumulative paperwork for the property and taking a look at the criteria we use, I would be in favor of this at this point and time. Again, small camp, large piece of property; 8 inches off the ground, $16,000 in plants to reclaim some of that water that would be shed towards the lake, off the deck, because there will be some. But I think, it certainly will be, some of the featuresof the plantingswill help. So, I'm in favor of this. Tom Kubricky: Thank you. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, I'm in favor of the project as well. As I look at the site and the applicant's application to us, I don't believe there is undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. In fact, the otherside of the street seemsa lot more congested toward the street. The applicant has agreed to keep the cottage at less than 400 sq. ft. as a day use facility. It's not a significant stress on the septic system. I do believe that the extension off the front was the best way to maintain the, what I'll call the side yards on the natural use as landscaped and grassed. The parking area is quite small and reduced. So I don't believe that there actually is an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. As far as feasible alternatives, the applicant could certainly build a larger home orfacility and stressthe lake and the lot even more and the neighborhood. And, he's not even offering to do that, so I think he's actually not using the property to itsfullest potential as he could be. The requested variance, in my opinion isslightly substantial being that we do work very hard to minimize the encroachment onto that 50 foot setback. But again, because of the side yard being a double lot I feel that we balance that nicely as we work through this application. The alleged difficulty probably is self-created because the applicant's looking to use his property for more than what it already is, but given that they've taken away a sundeck opportunities and other development aspects of what they could be doing with the property, I think they've found a nice mix to work on the lakeside only and try to maintain that side yard in that back area. So, I personally believe that this is an opportunity for all of usin the neighborhood to minimally develop that property, slightly more to make it more usable in todays, the way we use the lake and our property, so I'd be in favor of the variance. So, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a very careful and detailed motion, please. Tom Kubricky: Thanks. 81 Page Mr. McCabe: Do you trust me to give it a try? Mr. Jackoski: Of course. RE90 W'I O N APPROVE-AREA VARIANCE 1-20151HOMASJ. KUBRICKY Mr. McCabe: I propose then that we Approve Area Variance No. 1-2015 Thomas J. Kubricky, 53 Ro c kh u rst Road, 227.13-2-24 The Zoning Board ofAppealsofthe Town ofQueensbury hasreceived an application from Thomas J. Kubricky fora variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-13-010 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant has constructed a (30.3 ft. by 15 ft.) 454 sq. ft. deck to existing 360 sq. ft. camp structure. Relief requested from minimum side and shoreline setback requirements. Also, relief requested forexpansion of a nonconforming structure in the WRzoning district. 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? there is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties because the applicant has chosen to add an attractive deck which enhancesthe view of the property and enhancesthe characterof the property. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, otherthan an area variance? Feasible altemativesare limited because of the size of the existing structure. A larger structure certainly could be considered but this would, I think, cause more stress to the environment and the character of the lake in the this area. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The requested variance is not substantial. It's moderate and a lot of this hasto do with the size of the structure. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? there is certainly not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. In fact it's going to be improved because of the plantings associated with this project. 5. Isthe alleged difficulty self-created? the alleged difficulty isself-created in a way but doesnot cause asbig a problem aswould be expected ifthe structure were expanded. 6. 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 orcommunity; 7. As further detailed by the Chairman of the Board during the polling of the Board, comments made by the Chairman are added to the resolution: I don't believe there is an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood. In fact, the other side of the street seems a lot more congested forthe street. the applicant hasagreed to keep the cottage at lessthan 400 sq. ft. feet as a day-use facility. 'there is not a significant stress on the septic system. I do believe that the extension of the front wasthe best way to maintain the, what I will call the side yards, a natural use as landscaped and grassed. the parking area is quite small and reduced. So I don't believe that there actually is an undesirable change in the character of the 91 Page neighborhood. As far as feasible altematives, the applicant could certainly build a larger home orfacility and stress the lake and the lot even more, and the neighborhood. And, he is not even offering to do that, so I think he's actually not using the property to its fullest potential as he could be. The requested variance, in my opinion is slightly substantial being that we do work very hard to minimize the encroachment onto that 50 foot setback. But again, because of the side yard being a double lot, I feel that we balance that nicely as we work through this application. The alleged difficulty probably is self-created because the applicant's looking to use his property for more than what it already is. But given that they've taken away sundeck opportunities and other development aspects of what they could be doing with the property, I think they found a nice mix to work on the lakeside only and try to maintain that side yard in the back area. So, I personally believe that this is an opportunity for all of us in the neighborhood to minimally development that property, slightly more to make it more usable in today's -the way we use the lake and ourproperties. Based on the above findings make a MOTION 10 APPROVEAFZEA VARIANCENO. 1-2015, THOMAS J. KUBRICKY, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for itsadoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this22nd day of January 2015, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer Mr. Jackoski: The next item on this evening's agenda is Area Variance 2-2015, it's a type II SEQR, it is 339 A Big Bay road, the offices of Brookfield Power. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record, there isa public hearing scheduled thisevening. Mr. Urrico: Staff Notes-see below Applicant has constructed a shed roof (utility cover 639 sq. ft.) over an existing concrete pad which houses HVAC equipment and ductwork to protect the equipment from damage due to falling ice and snow from the office roof above. Pelief Faequired: Parcel will require area variances from Section 179-3-040 establishment of zoning districts for the Commercial Light Industrial Zone area requirements. CLI-Minimum side setback Required 30 ft. Proposed 18 ft. 9 in. Relief 11 ft. 3 in. Criteria forconsidering an Area Variance according to Chapter267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 2. 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 impactsto the neighborhood may be minimal. 101 Page 4. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicantto pursue, otherthan an area variance. Feasible alternativesmay be considered limited asthe utility equipment iscurrently in place and location isdue to the existing building internal setup. 5. Whetherthe requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. 6. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the neighborhood. 7. Whetherthe alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, BP02-908: Commercial alteration BP 00-004: Commercial alteration BP 97-545: Addition BP97-321: Commercial alteration BP96-651: Commercial alteration Staff comments: The applicant requests approval of an already constructed utility equipment roof coverthat is639 sq. ft. The applicant hasindicated the equipment wasbeing damaged from snow falling from the upper roof. The applicant would need to relocate the equipment that has been on the site prior to the current business. There was no indication snow from the second story would be able to cause damage. The applicant hasincluded the survey showing the location of the covered utility area, a site layout and elevationsof the covering. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Welcome, if you could identify yourself for the record, I suspect you're just going to look for questions from the board? Mr. Hall: Good evening my name is Ethan Hall, I'm a principal of Rucinski Hall Archtiecture; with me isthe property ownerJoe Gross. Mr. Jackoski: And you're going to want just questions, right? Simple application. Mr. Hall: Pretty much. Mr. Jackoski: Any questions from board members at this time concerning this particular application? Okay seeing and hearing none, I'll open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? Mr. Urrico: No Mr. Jackoski: is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address this board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the board. Do we want to have any discussionson this application? 111 Page Mr. Henkel: Why did you go wood instead of steel? Mr. Hall: Because Joe wasbuilding it? Mr. Gross. It wasan old ratty roof there, we tore it down . . . Mr. Henkel: It was kind of steel . . . Mr. Gross: It was steel around there, but actually it's steel metal, believe it or not it is wood underneath that. On that side of the, it's wood, it's got the metal siding. Mr. Henkel: It's nice . . Mr. Gross: And we got rid of the two trailers, there's two trailers there, if they weren't there when you went out to look cause they're gone. I talked to the tenant, let's get rid of them, they were using them for storage, not that this is going to be storage. Brookfield is my tenant, they are a good tenant, they do a lot ofjobsin the area and theyjust asked me to clean it up and help them out and I said sure. It wasexisting there and there wasa pad, I didn't have to do anything. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions? Poll the board - Rick. Mr. Garrand: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think its minimal relief they are asking for, it's not an undesirable change in the neighborhood, I don't see how other benefits can be achieved by the applicant, the utilities are on that side of the building, its not going to adversely affect anybody in the neighborhood at all whatsoever. All stormwater and snow will be kept on site. I don't believe it's self-created. Mr. Jackoski: Roy. Mr. Urrico: I agree, I think this isa good project, I would be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: John. Mr. Henkel: I don't see any negative impact to the environment or the neighborhood, it makes total sense to protect that hundredsof thousandsof dollars' worth of equipment underneath there so I'd definitely be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Harrison. Mr. Freer: What Rick said, I have no problem with it. Mr. Jackoski: But could you say it like Rick? Mike? Mr. McCabe: It seemsreasonable and I support the project. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle. Mr. Noonan: I have no problem with the project asproposed. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. 121 Page RESO WT O N AREA VARIANCE2-2015 JOSEPH GROSS The Zoning Board of Appealsof the Town of Queensbury hasreceived an application from Joseph Grossfor a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant has constructed a shed roof (utility cover 639 sq. ft.) over an existing concrete pad which houses HVAC equipment and ductwork to protect the equipment from damage due to falling ice and snow from the office roof above. Relief requested from minimum side yard setback requirementsforthe CUzoning district. SEQRType II— no further review required; A public hearing wasadvertised and held on Thursday, January 22, 2015; 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 NYSTown Law and afterdiscussion and deliberation,we find asfollows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the characterof the neighborhood orwill a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? There is not an undesirable change in the characterof the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible forthe applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? To cover the materials that are there; there are no feasible alternatives. 3. Isthe requested area variance substantial? The requested variance is not substantial. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? there is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Isthe alleged difficulty self-created? The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created. 6. 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; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION 10 APPROVEAREA VARIANCE NO. 2-2015, JOSEPH GROSS, Introduced by Kyle Noonan,who moved foritsadoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Asperthe 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) yeartime 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 & Codespersonnel; C. Subsequent issuance of furtherpermits, including building permitsare 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 fora building permit unlessthe proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission orotherState agency ordepartment. 131 Page Duly adopted this22nd day of January 2015, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Mr. Jackoski: And I hope you're didn't pay him lump sum, I hope it was by the hour. So staff the next application we're going to table, isthat correct? Mrs. Moore: You're going to, I propose that you table the next application to the 25th because, yes open yourpublic hearing. Mr. Jackoski: The next item on this evening's agenda is Sign Variance 4-2015, it's an Unlisted SEQR and there isa public hearing scheduled forthisevening. We will open that public hearing. I'll have Roy briefly read it into the record. You want me to just read the project description? Mr. Urrico: The applicant proposes the installation of a 25 sq. ft. freestanding sign along Route 9 at the entrance for a new restaurant and associated wall sign. The parcel requires a sign variance from section 140 setbacks for freestanding and sides of wall sign. The requirement is 15 feet for minimum setback freestanding, proposes 4 feet 6 inches, relief is 10 feet 6 inches. The size of the wall signs for the front on Upper Glen Street -required are 30 sq. ft., proposed 128.5 sq. ft.; relief isfor98.5 sq. ft. and that is . . . Minor impactsto the neighborhood might be anticipated. Feasible alternativesare available to reduce the sign size from 128.5 sq. ft. to a more compliant sign. The freestanding sign relocation may be considered limited due to the site constraints, parking and lot arrangement. The relief requested may be considered substantial relative to the code. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the neighborhood and the difficulty may be considered self-created. The applicant proposes a 7,319 sq. ft. restaurant with associated wall and freestanding signage. . . . freestanding sign does not meet the setback from the front property line. The proposed front wall sign on Route 9 exceedsthe 30 foot sign maximum, with 128.5 sq. ft. The applicant has indicated the signage is consistent with the signage along Route 9 and Quaker Road. The plans show the location of the signage and the color rendition of the sign on the structure. Construction of the new restaurant issubjectto site plan review and thisisa Type Unlisted SEQR. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. So I'm going to open the public hearing and we'll seek a motion to table this application at the request of the applicant to March 25, 2015. Mrs. Moore: I'll explain that the Planning Board tabled the application previous the other night because of in looking at the site internally and seeing if there issomething else they can do with the constraints inside the site and traffic flow, access on Route 9 and Quaker Road. They also expressed concern about the freestanding sign location, its size and gave some guidance to the applicant about maybe combining it with existing freestanding sign forthe plaza. Mr. Jackoski: Okaythankyou. The public hearing isopen, isthere anywritten comment? Mr. Urrico: No. Mr. Jackoski: Is there anyone here this evening who would like to address this board on this particular application? Seeing no one we'll leave the public comment period open. We'll do SEAR next time and I'll seeka motion from the board to table the application. RESO W110 N TABLE—SIGN VARIANCE4-2015 WESLEY PADGETT, RCG VENTURES RESOLUTION 10 TABLE, SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2015, WESLEY PADGER DEVELOPMENT MANAGER (TE)CAS ROAD HOUSE RESTAURANT), Tax Map No. 296.18-1-47 Introduced by Michael McCabe, Seconded by Kyle Noonan 141 Page To the March 25, 2015 Zoning Board meeting with the submission of information to be forwarded to staff by Tuesday, February 17, 2015. Duly adopted this22nd day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Mr. Jackoski: Next item on the agenda thisevening isArea Variance 3-2015, a Type II SEAR, there is a public hearing scheduled this evening, it is for 52 Cottage Hill Road. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. Mr. Urrico: See below Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 330 sq. ft. carport and construction of a new 330 sq. ft. carport in itsplace. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances for Section 179-3-040 Establishment of districts dimensional requirements. NR-Minimum property line setbacks Required 10 ft. Proposed 0.6 ft. Relief 9.4 ft. 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. The proposed project may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, otherthan an area variance. Feasible alternativesmaybe considered limited due to the size of the parcelsand the existing house and garage location. 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. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the neighborhood. 151 Page 5. Whetherthe alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, BP 14-597 BP 14-598 Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing 330 sq. ft. carport to construct a new one in the same place with the same dimensions. The applicant has indicated the existing carport is in disrepairand would be betterwith a newerone on the site. The applicant doesnot propose any otherchangesto the site. Mr. Jackoski: Welcome, if you could identify yourself forthe record. Mr. Lapper: Jon Lapper, I'm here in behalf my office manager Karen Lefebvre. This is Cottage Hill, the oldest subdivision in town, the house was built in 1950; she purchased it in 2005. Under the code pre-existing structure she would have the right to continue to maintain this, but Its in pretty dilapidated condition so rather than pulling off a board at a time and replacing it what she's proposing isto replace it in kind asthe application stated. I know that the neighbor next door is in favor of this because it will be a new structure and that's really it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. Are there any questionsat thistime from board members? Mr. Henkel: Is there anyway to move it over a little bit so it's, you're talking six inches from the line? Mr. Lapper: Just In orderto fit a carthere isreally no choiceshere. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions before I open the public comment period? We do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone in the audience here for the public hearing that would like to addressthe board? Seeing no one isthere any written comment? Mr. Urrico: Nothing? Mr. Jackoski: No written comment, I'll poll the board — Rick? Mr. Garrand: I've been through this neighborhood several times and there are several other situations like this in this area, a lot of the garages that they do have are too small for even any modern made car to get into. It's been an existing structure there forquite some time and believe it or not, this is one of the biggest lots in that entire neighborhood. As far as width goes it's not but in depth it is a considerably sized lot comparable to other lots in the neighborhood. We might deem it as substantial but relative to the rest of the neighborhood I don't think so, it's quite in characterwith the rest of neighborhood so I'd be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle. Mr. Noonan: I'd be in favor of this project, they're replacing with something more modern than current will increase the appearance of the property, I'm in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Mike. 161 Page Mr. McCabe: I believe it will enhance the neighborhood by getting rid of kind of a dilapidated carport and replacing it with a new one. It's a practical proposal and I'll support it. Mr. Jackoski: Harrison. Mr. Freer: I support this, it doesn't, it's makes sense in all of our test except for being substantial but it's very small but I don't think it's self-created so I support it. Mr. Jackoski: John. Mr. Henkel: I also agree with Rick as to the development also, there is three on that same site that have the carport in front of the garage so . . . Mr. Jackoski: Roy. Mr. Urrico: The only change will be a positive one, I'd be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, so I will close the public hearing and seek a motion. RESO W11O N APPROVE-AREA VARIANCE 3-2015 KAREN AND MICHAELLEFE13VRE The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Karen and Michael Lefebvre for a variance from Section(s): 179-13-01OF of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes demolition of an existing 330 sq. ft. carport and construction of a new 330 sq. ft. carport in itsplace. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks. The relief; the requirement is 10 ft., the proposed is0.6 ft. so the relief requested is9.4 ft. SEQRType II— no further review required; A public hearing wasadvertised and held on lhursday, January 22, 2015; 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 NYSTown Law and afterdiscussion and deliberation,we find asfollows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the characterof the neighborhood orwill 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 or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by granting the requesting area variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, otherthan an area variance? Notthatwe can see. 3. Isthe requested area variance substantial? Not when you considerthat the carport has been there for quite some time. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical orenvironmental conditionsin the neighborhood ordistrict? No,we believe itwill be an enhancement. 5. Isthe alleged difficulty self-created? Certainly it is. 6. In addition the Board findsthat the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood orcommunity; 171 Page Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 3-2015, KAREN AND MICHAEL LEFEBVVRE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Asperthe resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval isvalid forone (1) yearfrom the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) yeartime 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. -%bsequent 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 fora building permit unlessthe proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, lake George Park Commission orother:Tate agency ordepartment. Duly adopted this22nd day of January 2015, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Mr. Jackoski: Next item on the agenda is Lake George Associates Area Variance 5-2015, a Type 11 �EQR, 1498 State Route 9. I'll turn it over to Roy to read it into the public record: Mr. Urrico: See below Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to renovate the existing 14,400 sq. ft. plaza to include new architectural features along with improvements to the site's conditions. Pelief Faequired: Parcel will require area variance from Section 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts dimensional requirementsforthe Commercial Intensive zone and the Travel Corridoroverlay zone. CI-Front yard setback Required 75 ft. Proposed 67.8 ft. Relief 7.2 ft. Criteria forconsidering an Area Variance according to Chapter267 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. The 181 Page proposed project may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the character of the neighborhood and nearby properties. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicantto pursue, otherthan an area variance. Feasible alternativesmay be considered limited due the location of the existing structure and the configuration of the lot. 3. Whetherthe requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal 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. The relief requested may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whetherthe alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Istaff comments: The applicant proposes to renovate the exterior of an existing building that includes new architectural entrances. The new construction to the building does not meet the required setbacks for the front and travel corridor overlay. The applicant has indicated that new construction will allow for new facade fora dated shopping plaza. The plansshow the location of the building and entryway with the setback. Also included isa building rendition. The project isalso subject to site plan review for building renovation. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy, Welcome. Mr. Lapper: Good evening everyone. For the record again Jon Dapper, on my right is David Ray from Lake George Associates, on my left is Tom Nace, project engineer. We're very pleased to be here with this project before you. What happened with all of the changes in the corridor especially the new plaza where Montcalm is and retrofitting the what we call the Polo outlet center which Tom also worked on with me, Lake George Associates who, they are affiliated with Gordon Development who I do a lot of projectsin the capital district with called me and said that they needed to make an investment and to bring this up to speed because this is a 1980's structure that really has had very little investment. They've only owned it for a few years but it's dilapidated and really in need of an investment so I hooked them up with the same architect from Baltimore who we used for the Montcalm project and Tom to get the same team and what they are proposing isa pretty expensive upgrade with a lot of stone and completely new facade, new roof and then Tom came in to look at the site, it was exempt from stormwater because of size but nevertheless we propose permeable pavement, the back is all gravel and sand and a big mess, and it's used by all the neighbors so part of the site improvements is to put in permeable pavement to deal with improving the stormwater, upgrade the landscaping in the front, in general, really deal with the architecture and make this a much, much nicer facility. The reason for the variance is because there is subsequent to the building being constructed there's been a taking from DOTalong Route 9 and you see on the survey map that the sidewalk and the new street lights are outside of the property that used to be part of the property so the reason it doesn't meet the 75 feet which makes it not self-created hardship it's because there has been a taking by the state within that corridor so we're not proposing to go any closer to the road than where the building is now just to make it look a lot nicer and we think that's an improvement for not only the 191 Page property owner but for the neighbors as well to clean it up and that's it. Tom can answer any questions you have about the site plan, that's generally why we're here. Mr. Jackoski: Are there any questionsfrom board members? Mr. Urrico: The only question I have isfrom time to time that area in front of the building . . . is used for the sidewalk sales, they take away from the parking spaces there, it's two or three times a year they do that, how will that impact that? Mr. Lapper: The way that works, that's not the owner but the tenants can go to the town board and ask for a permit fora sidewalk sale and that happens throughout this corridor, at some of the other plazasaswell, it hasto be approved but because we're not coming any closer to the road. This is really just working with just within the footprint of a few feet, I think it'll be minimum because thisisstaying so tight to the building. The addition isreally going up to create that second story not for use but to make it visually look better so it shouldn't impact the tent sale. Mr. Nace: Actually the site work by adding the pavement in the back where there is stone and gravel now will provide some more parking, overflow parking during the periods of the sidewalk sale. Mr. Garrand: In the rendering you know steps, stairs and ramps but I've gone to that complex a lot, I don't understand how you're going to get that elevation change. Mr. Nace: There is I think there is only two steps, if I remember right. Are you taking about the front orback? Mr. Garrand: Right there. Mr. Nace: Oh, that's the architects' bailiwick. Mr. Ray: It's pretty much a straight walk in. Mr. Lapper: What he's asking about is right here where there are steps, there must be a grade change. Mr. Ray: There isa grade change from the right side to the left side. The left side ishigherthan the Mr. Garrand: It's really that much higher, 24 inches or so. Mr. Ray: Yes it is, and if you would take a look at the right side as it exists rig ht now those stairs the concrete has actually settled, that's all going to come out it's all going to be safe. Mr. Nace: The existing site plan shows that there are stairs there now, and there is a two foot grade change from the north end of the building . . . Mr. Garrand: It's amazing that it's . . . Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions from board members at this time? It's nice to see the investment into the community. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing; seeing no one in the 201 Page audience but I'll ask. Is there anyone here that would like to add ressthisboard on this application and seeing no one I'll ask for written comment? Mr. Urrico: No written comment. Mr. Jackoski: No written comment either, I'll poll the board, I'll start with Rich why not, one for one, forone forone. Mr. Garrand: Thank you, I've got to commend the applicant on the design of this. They've went from completely non-compliant in permeability to almost compliant with permeability with respect to what they've done with the permeable pavers. I think it's a greatjob forthat corridor especially considering the drainage issues they've had down there during torrential rain storms. Like the chairman said it's an improvement to the corridor and I think it will look very nice. I don't think the difficulty isself-created but the applicant stated the state did a taking when they redesigned that corridor so I'd be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle. Mr. Noonan: I don't have any problems with the project as proposed and I would certainly look forward to the improvementsto that corner. I would be in favor of this project and I've got to add If Mr. Kuhl was here he'd love to know that those are the same architect's from Baltimore but he's not, so I wanted to passthat on for now. Mr. Jackoski: Let's just hope we don't get a lot more sign applications. Roy. Mr. Urrico: Yes I think it's a good project, again it's going to be an improvement to the area and I'm definitely in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: John. Mr. Henkel: I see the impacts to the environment and the neighborhood as positive and they're only looking for a 7.2 feet of relief there so that's very minimal for the whole project. I'd be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Mike. Mr. McCabe: The relief is minimal and the improvement to the appearance at the plaza is maximum and so I'll approve the project. Mr. Jackoski: Harrison. Mr. Freer: I don't have any problem with this, it make a lot of sense. I wish there was a way we could streamline thisso that we don't have to keep listening to Mr. Lapper. Mr. Lapper: I would have nothing to do at night, no baseball. Mr. Jackoski: Having polled the board I will close the public hearing and seek a motion of approval. I guess we're not going to get one so . . . RESO W11O N APPROVE-AREA VARIANCE5-2015 LAKE GEORGEASSOCIAIES 211 Page The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lake George Associates for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to renovate the existing 14,400 sq. ft. plaza to include new architectural features along with improvements to the site's conditions. Relief requested from front yard setback requirementsand from Travel Corridor Overlay district requirements for the Cl zoning d istric t. SEQRType II - no further review required; A public hearing wasadvertised and held on Thursday, January 22, 2015; 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 Chapter267 of NYSTown Law and afterdiscussion and deliberation, we find asfollows: 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? There is no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment. Actually, it's improving because the facility will be more architecturally pleasing and an improvement overall. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Feasible alternatives are to do nothing or change it more. We are glad that you're not moving closer to the street because that continues to be a challenge. I think you've made reasonable efforts to minimize that activity. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The requested variance isn't substantial because you're just asking for 9 feet and it was already there before the State did their purchase of additional right-of-ways. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? And there won't be an adverse effect in the environmental conditions. In reference to permeable pavement, the applicant is improving the environment. 5. Isthe alleged difficulty self-created? As we've said, the alleged difficulty was not self-created because it was getting the State to have a better right-of-way and was not anything that the property ownerdid. 6. 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 orcommunity; Based on the above findings I make a MOTION 10 APPFZOVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 5-2015, LAt(E GBDRGE ASSOCIATESN Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Asperthe resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval isvalid forone (1) yearfrom the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) yeartime frame expires; 221 Page B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any furtherreview by the Zoning Administratoror Building & Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permitsare 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 orotherState agency ordepartment. Duly adopted this22nd day of January 2015, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Discussion before vote: Mrs. Moore: I would just suggest adding additional information to #4 with the physical and environmental condition in reference to the permeable pavement. The applicant's including that, he's improving the environment. Mr. Jackoski: Congratulations, good luck. Thank you for investing in Queensbury, we appreciate it. Any further business before the board? RE90 LU-n O N ADJOURN MOTION TO ADJOURN, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: AYES Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES None On a motion the meeting wasadjourned. Respectfully submitted Steven Jackoski, Chairman 231 Page