Loading...
08-19-2015 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 19, 2015 INDEX Area Variance No. 11-2015 Maurice Combs 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No. 308.18-1-1 Area Variance No. 30-2015 Mark Ryan 2. Tax Map No. 227.13-2-58 Area Variance No. 88-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 5. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 &49 Sign Variance No. 87-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC 13. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-48 &49 Area Variance No. 42-2015 Kenneth Walker 14. Tax Map No. 308.7-1-20 Sign Variance No. 46-2015 David Kenny for L.L. Bean Outlet 17. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-22, 23 Area Variance No. 48-2015 Ryan Wild 20. Tax Map No. 308.10-1-65 Area Variance No. 47-2015 Scott & Margaret Rishel 28. Tax Map No. 301.8-2-92 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. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) AUGUST 19, 2015 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT RONALD KUHL, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL KYLE NOONAN ANDREW ALLISON, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT STEVEN JACKOSKI LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. KUHL-My name is Ron Kuhl. I'm not Steve Jackoski. I'll try to do what I can. I'll open the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for August 19th. Prior to setting this meeting in motion, I'd like to acquaint you with the information that will familiarize you with the responsibilities of the Board and the mandated legal requirements we are guided by and the procedures for a hearing before the Board. The function of the Zoning Board of Appeals can grant or deny two types of relief, interpretive or variance. In either case, this Board will affirm, reverse or modify the enforcement officer's decision. In doing so, this Board will either permit or deny the requested relief. On the back table there are documents that you can read, and will tell you what we're going over today. That's all I'm going to talk about. Roy, would you introduce the first. MR. URRICO-We have to approve the minutes. MR. KUHL-You want to do the minutes? Okay. We have some work to do before we get started with the meeting. We want to approve the resolution for the Zoning Board meeting minutes held on July 22nd. Can I have a motion? APPROVAL OF MINUTES July 22, 2015 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JULY 22, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison MR. KUHL-Okay. The first item of business today is Mark Ryan. It's Area Variance No. 30- 2015. MR. MC CABE-We have to table 636 Corinth Road, Maurice Combs. MRS. MOORE-So there's an application that needs to be tabled for Maurice Combs. It's Area Variance 11-2015. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015 MAURICE H. COMBS 636 CORINTH ROAD (FURTHER TABLING AS NO NEW INFORMATION SUBMITTED) MRS. MOORE-The applicant is now working with the Town Board to extend the water district, and so I would suggest you table it to your first meeting in October. 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. KUHL-We're going to table that to the first meeting in October. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Maurice H. Combs. Applicant proposes removal of existing single-family dwelling and development of a 7-lot residential subdivision with lot sizes ranging from 1.01 acres to 1.45 acres. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the MDR district. SEQR Type I; Planning Board has done SEQR A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 22, 2015 and left open; 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: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 11-2015, at the request of the applicant Maurice H. Combs, and agent Thomas Hutchins, P.E. Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan. To the first meeting in October with paperwork to be submitted by the date in September. Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl NOES: NONE MR. KUHL-Thank you. The first order of business is Area Variance No. 30-2015, Mark Ryan. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2015 SEQRA TYPE II MARK RYAN OWNER(S) MARK RYAN ZONING WR LOCATION 28 ROCKHURST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN ALREADY EXISTING STORAGE UNIT; 90 SQ. FT. SHED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SHORELINE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. PROJECT SUBJECT TO SITE PLAN REVIEW AND FRESHWATER WETLANDS PERMIT. CROSS REF SP 35-2015; FWW 2-2015; BP 2000-078 SFD; BP 2000-077 DEMO OF SFD; BP 99-539 BOATHOUSE; BP 89-467 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2015 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 227.13-2-58 SECTION 179-3-040 MARK RYAN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2015, Mark Ryan, Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 "Project Location: 28 Rockhurst Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed storage unit: 90 sq. ft. shed. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Section 179-5-020 accessory structures, 179-3- 040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements. Shoreline setback Required 75 ft. Proposed 0 ft. Relief 75 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) 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 a variance may be needed for any proposed development on the property. 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 project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The applicant has indicated the shed is to be relocated to the edge of the wetland. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant is requesting to maintain an existing 90 sq. ft. shed and to relocate it to edge of the wetland and at a 20 ft. setback from the side. The applicant had received a notice of violation in July of 2014 for the two units on the site. The units do not meet the required setbacks in the WR zone. The applicant's property is split by Rockhurst Road where 13,952 sq. ft. is located on the west side and 7,714 sq. ft. is located on the east side. The larger piece contains the 90 sq. ft. shed and a portion of the property is an APA wetland area. The survey provides information to the location of the shed and trash unit. The applicant proposes to keep the shed as is for storage use of items that cannot be kept in the home —tractor, outdoor furniture." MR. URRICO-I don't know if this was read in before, but I'll read it in again, just that the motion, the Queensbury Planning Board made a motion to recommend, Recommendation on Behalf of the Planning Board to the Zoning Board of Appeals for this Area Variance, and based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. This was adopted on June 16, 2015 by a unanimous vote. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Good evening. Would you state your name for the record, please? MR. RYAN-Yes. My name is Mark Ryan. I'm the owner of 28 Rockhurst Road. MR. KUHL-Did you want to state what you're doing. MR. RYAN-When the house was built we also put in a new shed on the west lot and would like to keep that sq. ft. shed. When we first did the proposal, we were too close to the side setback. So we're asking to move it so we don't have to ask for a side setback, and there was a line on the drawing that marked a wetland. We propose to move it away from that line. MR. KUHL-So you're going to move it two feet. That seems fair. MR. RYAN-I can move it more. MR. KUHL-Well, no, you're going to move it two feet? MR. RYAN-Yes. MR. KUHL-Let's open up the public hearing. At the public hearing the public will be allowed five minutes to comment on the specific appeal. The purpose of this time limitation is to provide each member of the public an opportunity to be heard. Is there anybody from the public that wants to comment? Please come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. We commented on this when it was in front of the Board a couple of months ago. We realize it is a small 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) structure, but we do not support the shoreline variance, especially one down to zero. We feel that the ability to move it, they're showing the ability to move it. Therefore they can move that and provide a more compliant setback or larger setback. It appears they may not have a compliant setback on that side of the road, but they could definitely increase that from being right on the wetlands boundary. So we do feel that there are alternatives that could increase that setback to make it more beneficial. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Anyone else? Mark, if you want to come back up, please. Okay. Board members, Roy, I'll start with you. MR. URRICO-You said you would be willing to move it back further? MR. RYAN-Yes, of course. MR. URRICO-Would you be willing to move it back to where you don't need a variance? MRS. MOORE-That's not possible. MR. URRICO-Okay. How much further can you move it back? MR. RYAN-I can move it up to the road, but. MRS. MOORE-The applicant would be receiving some sort of variance from the wetland at any point in time, wherever you move it. Right now I would have to do a scale, but it couldn't be any closer to the roadside by 30 feet. MR. URRICO-So how much leeway does that give us? MR. HENKEL-Not much. MRS. MOORE-Not much. MR. HENKEL-I mean the only way he could increase that is if he brings it closer to the rail, towards DeMarco's property. That wouldn't bring it any farther from his property, but that could bring it, that would, you know, then you could get maybe probably 25 feet from the wetlands, and that would give him the setback, too, from the road of 30 feet. MR. RYAN-That's fine with me. MR. HENKEL-That would make everybody happy. MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with it. No matter where he puts it it's not going to be compliant. So it seems like he's moved it around to meet the Planning Board's questions, and so I'll go along with where it's sitting right now. MR. KUHL-What about Andrew? MR. ALLISON-1 think what he wants to do is fine. MR. KUHL-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'm the same way. There's no power to it. There's no water, no septic. I mean, as long as he's off the line, I have no problem with it. MR. KUHL-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Yes, I had a chance to visit the site as well, and no matter where he moves it, he's still going to need a variance. Just take it a little farther off your proposed spot. As you have it proposed, I think I'd be fine with that as well. MR. KUHL-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-And seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mark Ryan. Applicant proposes to maintain already constructed storage units; 90 sq. ft. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) shed. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Project subject to Site Plan Review and Freshwater Wetlands Permit. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, June 17, 2015 and again on August 19, 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 NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because no matter where it's put, it's going to be noncompliant. It seems to be in a kind of benign spot right now. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited because of the nature of the property. 3. The requested variance is substantial but given the fact that no matter where it is, it's going to be substantial. We don't think that it's a detriment. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created, of course. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) any resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2015, Mark Ryan, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan NOES: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. RYAN-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 SEQRA TYPE II MCDONALD'S USA, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING, LLC OWNER(S) MCDONALD'S USA, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9, WARD 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING 4,800 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT AS WELL AS DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING 411 SQ. FT. DETACHED SHED/GARAGE. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 4,365 SQ. FT. RESTAURANT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS FROM MAXIMUM PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS IN THE Cl ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP 75-14, SV 87-14 (NEW SIGNAGE), SP 16-93, BP 00-3463 ADD-ON OF 24 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING FS SIGN. BP 1101, BP 1535 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 0.30 AND 0.71 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-48 &49 SECTION 179-3-040 CHRIS BOYEA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT' STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 88-2014, McDonald's USA, LLC, Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 "Project Location: 819 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing 4,800 sq. ft. restaurant as well as demolition of the existing 411 sq. ft. detached shed/garage. Applicant proposes construction of a new 4,365 sq. ft. restaurant. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances from Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements of the Cl zone: Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements as well as from maximum permeability requirements in the Cl zoning district. Front-Route 9 Front- Old Permeability Aviation Required 75 ft. 75 ft. 30% Proposed 57.3 ft. 28 ft. Lot 1 27.5 %*, Lot 2 14% Relief 17.7 ft. 47 ft. Lot 1 2.5 %*, Lot 2 16% *per revisions provided in March of 2015 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 available to have a more compliant building with reorientation and size. Permeability may also be improved on the site with reduction of parking spaces to green space and consideration to permeable pavement. 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 project may be considered to have limited impact on the environment of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, etc.): SP 75-14: Pending BP 00-3463: 24 sq. ft. add-on to existing sign SV 87-14: new signage Staff comments: The applicant has completed a variance and site plan application for demolition and construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant on Route 9. A sign variance application has also been prepared. The new McDonald's building and site improvements requires relief from front setbacks on both roads Route 9 and Old Aviation Rd; relief is also for permeability for both lots as site improvements include reconfiguration of the parking areas. The applicant's plans have been forwarded to the Town Engineer for review and comment. The plans show the location of the new building and site improvements. The site plan shows there is to be 66 seats and only 29 spaces are required where 34 are proposed. The site permeability could be improved with both additional greenspace by removing parking spaces and to include permeable pavement. Improving the permeability will also assist with snow storage location where currently the applicant removes snow from site and has limited area for storage. The zoning board had requested additional information at the March 2015 meeting in regards to the lease agreement. The applicant has provided the lease agreement where the current lease will be up for renewal August 26, 2029. SEAR Status: Type II" 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. KUHL-Could you introduce yourself? MR. BOYEA-Yes, good evening. For the record, my name's Chris Boyea from Bohler Engineering, and I'm the same person that was here in front of this Board back in December of last year, and we've got wireless microphones, which is new, which is good. I'm all the way over here now. We're going to have a great project, reinvestment here, very similar to projects that the Town of Queensbury has seen in the past with McDonald's, where they make a fairly large investment, take down the existing facility, just as at Exit 18, and build an ADA compliant, modern world class facility here that has Wi-Fi and a coffee bar and everything else that McDonald's offers. We have been in front of the Planning Board, but not since December of last year. We in front of the Planning Board. They were excited about the project, and they support the project. We do need two variances, and that's what sent us here in December. This project is different than the other McDonald's we've approved here in that we're not making it bigger. We're actually making the McDonald's smaller out there today. Its 4800 sq. ft. plus a 411 sq. ft. out building shed, which is a total of 5,211 square feet that are out there today, plus a full basement in that facility that we use for storage. So we're pushing 6,000 sq. ft. This proposal is to build one 4,364 sq. ft. building. So it's quite a bit smaller. A lot of existing non- conforming variances that are out there today. It's just an older facility, and now with us re- building it we need to try to come as close to the Code as possible. When we reviewed this proposal with this Board last year, it basically came down to two items, and if I were able to agree to those two items, we could have gotten approval at that meeting. Those two items the Board wanted for us to consider closing the rear access to Old Aviation drive. We had a neighbor who was here and they may be here again tonight, I'm not sure, but there was a concern with traffic out the rear, and then consider using pervious pavement. So if I could have agreed to those two items back in December, we would probably have a McDonald's in the ground at this point, but I just couldn't. I still really can't. We've been encouraged to come back to this Board and not just abandon this project by the Town, and so we're here tonight to review how we can mitigate those items and how we can help the situation out. So after the last meeting, I did have a good long conversation, probably a good 10, 15 minutes in the parking lot with our neighbor who had some traffic concerns, and it was determined that if we could just keep it the way it is today, which is a one way in to the site from the Old Aviation, that that would probably be acceptable. That was then, I'm not sure, but they'll find out tonight whether it is or it isn't, but what we've proposed on the revised plan is to keep that access the same as it is today, which is a one way in only. So there would not be, there'd be signage, just as there is today, do not enter, where the customers would not exit out onto Old Aviation. So that's one change that we've been able to bring in to consideration for tonight. Second item is, if you look up on the screen, you'll see a dark cloud off to the left. What we've done to increase permeability is we've added all green space, connect our cloud. That was a concrete patio with, like a brick patio paver with tables and what not. McDonald's understands that even though we are increasing, and this is, we're making a smaller building. We can't live less parking. We can't live with, you know, any smaller of a building. We've increased the green space on this site by 1,200 square feet. That's a very large ranch home. I mean, we've done the best we can, and so we cannot go to the pervious pavement. We cannot go to the, remove the drive around lane out front to create more green space, but what we can do, or what we propose, is to remove the patio area and make that green, and so it's a substantial increase in green space. So we've been able to address those two concerns with access in the rear and increase green space, and with that, those are the two comments that we had at the last meeting, and I'm here to answer any other questions, comments and concerns, in hopes that we can obtain the variance that's required here. If we're lucky enough to get an approval for these variances, we would still need to go back to the Planning Board to finish site plan review with them as well. So with that I'll turn it back over to the Board. MR. KUHL-Does anybody have any questions? MR. NOONAN-So in our Staff comments they mention that you only require 29 parking spaces, but you propose 34. There are not five spots on here that you could take out, put in more green space and avoid that permeability issue? MR. BOYEA-That's correct. There are not five spaces that we can take out. We went through this in quite some detail. I think the Board was comfortable with it back in December that we are losing parking spaces as it is for this facility because the parking spaces are now Code compliant, versus some of the ones that are striped over the years. So that loss of parking is already being experienced. The other item that needs to be considered is parking demand that's here. I don't know how many people are McDonald's lovers, but they've closed a location that just opened up here in Wal-Mart. That's no longer in operation as of a few months ago. So that is not a situation where McDonald's can lose any parking spaces and we have well over a million and a half, two million dollar investment. 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. NOONAN-Can I follow up with, why can you not find five spots that, where the Town, and I feel like the Town is not going to give up anything and say you only need five spots, you know, is there something corporate here that's coming into play that won't allow for it? MR. BOYEA-No, it's just that we can't operate, well, McDonald's knows what they need to operate a successful business, that's for sure, but most importantly we've already lost the business up at Wal-Mart. So that's what I'm saying, we've closed the location that was there. So we hope to recoup that business here. So there would be a need for more spaces. When you think about having a brand new McDonald's with only 30 some parking spaces, that's pretty shy. I mean, when you look at other McDonald's that are in the area, they all have in excess of parking that this location does not have. MR. NOONAN-1 guess I'm looking at it from the standpoint that if you have to ask for less, in the case of the easement here, I understand that. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Anybody else? MR. HENKEL-Why can't you use the permeable pavers? MR. BOYEA-One, the soil conditions here are not really great for it, and then, two, the maintenance of it, with McDonald's sealcoating program poses a problem, but what they have done is that the additional green space to offset it is far more green space than permeable pavement would have provided. MR. KUHL-Is it my understanding that, it was my understanding that you had taken away the area in the back where you have your containers, your enclosure. MR. BOYEA-Correct. MR. KUHL-Now this says proposed trash enclosure. MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. KUHL-It's back? MR. BOYEA-Well, no, there's a trash enclosure. It was always part of the proposal, but what we have here is a garage. So that is going away. There's an actual roof up over here, and then a trash. So we're taking that away. We're consolidating those out buildings and making that a clean facility. MR. KUHL-And you're stating to this Board that you wouldn't give up five parking spaces, is that right? MR. BOYEA-Yes, that's correct. MR. KUHL-Yes or no is fine. Does anybody else have any questions? MR. URRICO-Just that I want to make sure we understand. The rear entrance, we're not closing that, but it's only going to be an ingress or an egress? MR. BOYEA-It would be an ingress only, same as it is today. MR. HENKEL-That's the way it's been for quite a while, right? MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. HENKEL-Well, every once in a while you find somebody zipping through there, but that's not McDonald's problem. MR. ALLISON-Why keep that at 28 feet if you're going to shrink it down? MR. BOYEA-We have a truck that comes around here, and so it's needed for truck maneuvering. MR. KUHL-Anybody else? MR. ALLISON-As for that back entrance, does the thought of putting a voice activated gate? 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. BOYEA-1 mean, I go by it every day. There's always a few cars that for whatever reason they see the light red on the corner, they go down the parking lot, they go up the hill and they pop out across from Friendly's and I guess they, to the line at the other end, and I can only imagine. So that was talked about a lot. I'm not sure whether, Richard Spoerl was the gentleman that was here last time. I'm not sure whether he's here, but if we get the comments I believe. That's what we've been able to come back and try to revive the project with. MR. HENKEL-What's the main reason to have that entrance there? MR. BOYEA-It's definitely redundancy. Again, it's kind of like the drive around the front. When we get, again, McDonald's has got a lot of restaurants. So they learn every time that's out there. So if you have basically this entrance here is our main entrance. If there's ever a problem anywhere for some reason, a traffic light, an accident or something like that, they always want to add at least a redundant way to get something in to the restaurant. So it's not a very popular exit or entrance. I mean, I don't think it drives a huge demand, but having that redundancy, when you want to sign on the line for, you know, a 1.8 million renovation, it would be tough to lose too much that's out there. MR. HENKEL-But you already have the curb cuts. That means you have four curb cuts. MR. BOYEA-That's correct. So the traffic flow stays the same. MR. KUHL-Okay, at this time I'd like to open up the public hearing. Anybody from the public want to speak? Please come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD SPOERL MR. SPOERL-I'm a neighbor. My name's Richard Spoerl. I live at 21 Old Aviation Road. First off I want to support this project, just for bringing in growth, improvement. The technology of McDonald's is great. They get rid of all on site storage of old oils and things like that. They do transfers and stuff like that. So it's a good project. There's just a couple of things that I'd like to see and a couple of concerns that I had. In their zoning request, the setbacks, that has to work pretty much, has to be approved. On the permeability, I don't really see a change on the notice I got for percentages between Lot One and Lot Two. They did put in the green space and remove the patio or picnic area or whatnot, but that still leaves Lot One requiring a 16% variance, which is over half of what is required for that lot. MR. HENKEL-Lot Two. MR. SPOERL-I'm sorry, Lot Two, which I guess going out of context here, that's one of the concerns is that is a split lot. There is a lease, only through 2029. What happens after that if they sell it? Where's permeability for the project come together? Where did the parking go? We have people parking on that back road now, employees and things like that are parking there to leave spaces open. I guess on the permeability, Chris is right. The blacktop is not an option there. You do have, beyond the soil and stuff, just the maintenance and the use, if you go out to the Hudson Headwaters on Corinth Road and look at their parking lot that has permeable, you don't want to be walking through there in the wintertime with high heels on, not that I do, but with high heels on because it does fall apart. It does have big ruts in it, and it is, it's breaking up already and that building's only, what, two years old. So that's really not an option. As far as the parking, I think they could lose the spots that are required to make permeability more conducive to the Code. If you look at Lake George, I think they have two or three parking spots. They're pretty much a drive through only. On the entrance, that I think is more for the Planning Board, but some thoughts on that, since it came up, was the restrictions on that now, and I want to say that's 22 feet wide, all the way through there. The restriction on there is the curbing, and it definitely, you can only come in one way and you have to go around the building. With an open curb like this, it's easier to get out onto Aviation Road without that restrictive throat, if you'll call it that. The width is going to be wider. Since Kentucky Fried Chicken's been finished, the traffic up that road's increased. You can go there, and they did extend their curb cut out towards the restaurant more. There's just more black rubber marks on the curb, that's all. They come up over that. They still come through there. Since Kentucky Fried Chicken's opened, we've also noticed more traffic coming up there, which also leaves more Kentucky Fried Chicken garbage on the road. I think with more traffic having the potential to come out of McDonald's, you have more traffic up there, and you do have the speeding through there. They do come up there quite fast, and what you find is people that do that are the ones that then run the stop light at the top of the road, and also push the red light coming up 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) over the hill from the Mall, which is actually a blind entrance, if you look at it. The opening in the back is, I believe is required for their business. There is a lot of people at this point that go in there and make the turn to be able to get to the drive thru to get the coffee in the morning, to get lunch. If there's traffic, they have to go out onto Route 9 and come back in, if they don't want to walk in. So having that entrance is a good thing. However the location where it is now on the print does not make it conducive to coming off Old Aviation Road and getting directly in to the drive thru. You still have to go through around the front of the building to get in to the drive thru. So that curb cut could be moved and relocated into a couple of lots onto the first, onto the parking spaces in the first lot. The other item, like I said before, is the split lot. What's the risk of having that person sell that lot in 14 years? Fourteen years goes by pretty quick. So if we do that, I think on this, if I looked at it right, there's only six parking spots, and at least one or two of those is going to be handicap. So if that lot were sold, you would have absolutely no parking on this per se. As far as the solution to the permeability, if there were more green space on Lot Two, by closing that back entrance and moving it down to Lot One, and also on the right hand side of the drive thru lanes, if that was turned into green space, restricting traffic through there, because I believe the garbage pickup up in that area is around 4:30, 5:00 o'clock, if I hear it right, and moving that drive lane from the right on the boundary to Ace and making that completely green space would do two things. It would give them the permeability on Lot Two, plus it would reduce cut through traffic through that way, because you would have to come through the other way to get up to that opening if it was left. If it was moved down you could still put a throat in two or three spots to restrict the access to the back roads, but yet still keep your permeability. So moving that entrance, closing that off to green space along the Ace boundary, would increase the permeability on Lot Two, and be a possible solution to the traffic. Because there's plenty of permeability on Lot One at this point. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Is there anyone else that would like to speak to this matter? Would you like to come back and answer any questions? MR. BOYEA-A lot of what was just talked about are site plan issues. We're aware of those, and we need to go through Site Plan Review. From a variance standpoint, we've certainly looked at this very hard over the last six months, plus two months last year. So eight months of solid effort has gone into this by many people at McDonald's, the local franchisee, the owner/operator, and what we have here is another great project, a re-investment from an existing facility. What we've done here is we've made the building substantially smaller than it is today. We've reduced parking spaces from what it is today. We've increased green space from what it is today. We've made the whole project better from a variance standpoint and situation. We've cut to the bone. We've done as much as we possibly can. We've come back with solutions to the two items that were provided. We're very proud of this. We're very proud of the other McDonald's that were done. The signage, the same package. So that's up at the next application, but we talked a bit about that, too. So we've be happy to answer any other questions or comments. MR. NOONAN-1 think Mr. Spoerl did bring up something that our Chairman brought up tonight and he was adamant about, was the lease issue, what would happen if that lot was to sell. I think his thought was, why couldn't we combine the lots, you know, it would be terrible to let this go through and then have that one lot be sold. MR. BOYEA-So the two lots are tied together with a long term lease, and they're under different ownership. They can't combine them. One's owned by McDonald's Corporation. The other one's owned by the trust that's out there, that's got a lot of family members on it. MR. KUHL-I've got to interrupt. I don't think that's something that we should bring to this table. That whole lease thing is something that they have to concern themselves with. I mean, if we, as Board members, if they have 14 years, 14 years and four months, how should it affect the request for the variance? I mean, but now you answered it and was it extended? Was the lease extended? MR. BOYEA-That's correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. It was extended from what, four years to? MR. BOYEA-1 believe 14. 1 don't have that exact number, but it was extended. MR. KUHL-Yes. But anyway, I'd just like to leave that. I mean, the Chairman had the issue. At the time he brought it up, I didn't think it was part of this Board's responsibility. So, I mean, I'm quite sure that McDonald's Corporation is going to be there in 40 years, but that's my guess, too, but anyway, I kind of like the suggestion about green space alongside Ace. Why couldn't that happen on Lot Two? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. BOYEA-Here? MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. BOYEA-Well, we have a large delivery truck that currently parks out there. The green space is not there today. There's a wall that's right there. It comes down to steps there. That's where our truck parks for delivery. So a tractor trailer comes in and parks here, and then delivers, and that still allows just enough room for the drive thru and cars to still function while that truck is sitting there. So it's very similar to what's happening today. It's a very, it's a tight lot. There's no doubt about it. The decision to re-invest or to, you know, just paint and spruce up, it's definitely a decision. MR. KUHL-Mr. Spoerl, I appreciate your comment about moving that entrance down further. Would you address that, Mr. Boyea? MR. BOYEA-It may be possible. We can look at that further. I know it's here for the truck that comes around here, so when that delivery truck leaves here, he comes out and around these canopies that are over the menu boards here. Again, there's a lot of benefits, site plan items that happen with this. So he'll come up, and I believe the nose of the truck does utilize that space, and then comes back down. We can look at that. Maybe we can shorten this. Maybe we could remove the canopies here, and then maybe move that down further. That's certainly a potential of the commitment that we could definitely make today is that it would be a one way in only. MR. KUHL-Does anybody have any other questions? MR. NOONAN-I have one. It's an issue that I brought up before, and I see this in all the McDonald's, they've created like another roadway inside their parking lot. The existing there's a hard scape there that you just left that, if you just let that parking go the way it is, you would still have the same number of spaces, if you turn that hard scape to green space. I watch it over at Exit 18, I really don't understand why that cross over is required, without creating a parallel road on Route 9 in your parking lot to cross over the front of the building. At some point their standards have to give. Their on a site that's super restrictive. They basically came back with the same plan. That, to me, is where there's 2500 square feet of space there. MR. BOYEA-Okay. So definitely didn't come back with the same plan. We've added a lot of green space and we've restricted the back entrance. So, I mean, those are two, it might be minor, but they definitely address the items. Without this lane here, we might as well stay with what we have. That's basically what we're saying, because part of what we're doing here is reacting to the business of the client that's out here. We're getting a little bit of site plan issues, but I'd be glad to do this because I think it's important. The business has changed since this one was here. This is an older McDonald's. It's been here for a very long time. It has an old store number. In fact, it has a basement. There's a lot of additions and things that happened on it. So it used to be that 80% of the business was dine in, and now it's going to drive thru. So if we don't react to the drive thru, we'll be out of business very soon. So the reason that this large investment makes sense is because we're going to be able to bring in that double order menu point, which is going to move this queue along in a very expeditious way. It provides a lot of efficiencies in here. So when we get to this point, if there is a person that has a larger car that may need to be able pull off, right now we've only got one space. If we turned a space here, they'd be backing out into the drive thru lane that's coming in, because we now know that this is over 60% of the business is coming through here. We need to keep this vital organ moving. By coming through here we've provided more hold space options. By coming through here, we provide somebody to come in, use the facilities, as necessary. If this is jammed up here, with somebody waiting to take a right or a left out, because there's traffic here, we've provided redundancy, a relief, to keep this moving. If this does not move, we might as well stay with what we have today. So there's a lot of reasons why this is required for this size and investment to make sure that we can keep that very important item, which is that drive thru, moving there. Any kind of a jam here, without having that redundancy for, you know, I'll just come around here and out here, is very important, and I hope that answers it. MR. KUHL-What are you going to do with your drive thru traffic that comes in from Old Aviation? No matter where that cut through is, if the cut through is on Lot One, you can't send them out back onto Route 9 and then back in the entrance, right? Once they're on the property, you want to move them through. MR. NOONAN-You can't come in from Old Aviation, which in my opinion is an improvement, because that's not. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. KUHL-But you're letting, that's a one way in, correct? MR. BOYEA-That's correct. So you would be able to come in from Aviation, like you can today, circle around the building and get in the drive. MR. NOONAN-1 would not encourage that. So I wouldn't say that having that crossover in the front would allow that. From the planning perspective, we're trying to protect the people in the neighborhood. MR. BOYEA-So again, we may be able to move this down, that's a potential. That's a possibility. Green space, really, there's no impact on moving this one way or another, I mean, it's not substantial in any way. The substantial benefit is the new facility, ADA, less parking, more green space. So those are the benefits that we can provide to the community. It's above and beyond what's there today. The drive thru location doesn't change. It's still the same. MR. NOONAN-Correct. It's double loaded. We would certainly be more inclined, if you're coming down Aviation Road now, and you're going to go to McDonald's, you're going to be more inclined to pull in Old Aviation Road because you know you can drive around the front, as opposed to dealing with the turn in, the traffic on Route 9. So that's where you'll increase that traffic, because if you know the area, you know that's going to be a lot easier to get around than it is to have to go up Route 9 and take a left by McDonald's, when you know you can get in the back a lot easier. MR. KUHL-Anybody else? Okay. Given that, I think I'd like to poll the Board. Kyle, would you start, please? MR. NOONAN-Sure. Ultimately at this point I'm still not in favor of the project. I'd like to see more green space there on Lot Two and I don't feel like the back entrance was dealt with well enough to protect the neighborhood. So at this point I would not be in favor of it. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, the only thing we have on our plate really that we have control over is the density of the project and I don't feel like we've done a lot since we met in March to remedy that. So I'm going to still be in the same position I was then, is against the project right now until we can figure out a better way of increasing the permeability on the site. MR. KUHL-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also feel the same way. I think there's some things that need to be addressed maybe even by site plan first before we address the variances. So I'd be against it as is. MR. KUHL-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 think that whole area has been hard scaped for a long time. Trying to make changes in permeability could do more harm than good. The water flows, if you would, that area's on a pretty good gradient there. If you do something to change those water flows, it could be a disaster. For instance, permeable pavers could lead to sinkholes, because if you put permeable pavers in there, with no place for that water to go, it's going to channel and all of a sudden there's going to be a big hole in Route 9, and that's not going to be very desirable. I would be reluctant to make many changes to that hardscape, that landscape at all, just because of the amount of time that it's been like that. That back entrance was the way you came in because there was no Aviation Road back when this McDonald's was built. That's the way everybody got into the McDonald's. There was probably more traffic that way than with Route 9. So that, what you have there is leftover from when that McDonald's was originally built. MR. URRICO-When it was originally built that was a road. MR. MC CABE-Right, that's how you came down there. There was no. MR. URRICO-And people were allowed to cut through the lot. That was part of the agreement. Is there any possibility of cutting the spaces by two, instead of four? I mean, go from five over to three over? MR. MC CABE-But anyway, just let me finish. I think I've got the floor, right? 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. KUHL-Yes, you do. MR. MC CABE-All right. So to make a long story short, I will support the project. I think McDonald's has done a great job. That particular McDonald's has paid a lot of money in sales tax to Warren County and so I'll support this project. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mike. Andrew? MR. ALLISON-I'm still against it, mainly because if they could find a way to shrink that back entrance or I think not only relocating it but making it smaller is a key thing, so that it's not. I think they want to do that in a way to try to discourage traffic on Old Aviation Road. MR. KUHL-I heard your reasons for the back. I'm against the project. I heard your reasons for that back cut off Aviation Road and your trailer truck, and for your delivery truck to swing around and go out. I believe that that big truck can come in off of Route 9 and go in there, swing around and come out. I don't think, so I'm against it for that reason. You have one four it and five against. What would you like me to do? Do you want me to vote, or do you want to table it? MR. BOYEA-1 suppose we'll table it, but, you know, I'm a little confused in the fact that we were encouraged to come back, and I just don't know where that came from, but we'll table it for now. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Can I have a motion? When would you like to table it to? MR. BOYEA-1 don't want to have to keep extending it on your agenda. That has happened before, six months. If we can do it sooner. MRS. MOORE-To a November agenda. I mean, that would be three months. MR. BOYEA-Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from McDonald's USA, LLC. The applicant proposes demolition of existing 4,800 sq. ft. restaurant as well as demolition of the existing 411 sq. ft. detached shed/garage. Applicant proposes construction of a new 4,365 sq. ft. restaurant. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirements as well as from maximum permeability requirements in the Cl zoning district. As required by General Municipal Law Section 239-m the variance application was referred to the Warren County Planning Department for its review; in December 2014 there was a recommendation of No County Impact; SEQR Type 11 -no further review required; The ZBA conducted a public hearing on Wednesday, August 19, 2015 and was left open; MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 88-2014 MCDONALD'S LLC, at the request of the applicant, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: The application is Tabled to the first meeting in November, 2015 with an October submittal date. Duly adopted this 19th day of August 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Allison, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. BOYEA-Okay. Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED MCDONALD'S USA, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING, LLC OWNER(S) MCDONALD'S USA, LLC & FREEBERN ZONING Cl LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 6 NEW SIGNS. THREE WALL SIGNS PROPOSED TO READ AS A SINGLE LETTER "M" AND TWO WALL SIGNS TO READ "MCDONALD'S" WHERE WALL 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) SIGNS TOTAL 108 SQ. FT. IN LIEU OF THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE TWO WALL SIGNS TO TOTAL 30 SQ. FT. EACH. ALSO, ONE COMPLIANT 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN WILL BE INSTALLED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS FOR A BUSINESS AND MAXIMUM SIZE. CROSS REF SP 74-14; BP 00-3463 ADD- ON OF 24 SQ. FT. TO EXISTING FS SIGN, AV 88-14 (NEW CONSTRUCTION), SP 16-93, BP 1101, BP 1535 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING DECEMBER 2014 LOT SIZE 9.41 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-48 &49 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MR. KUHL-Do you want to proceed with the Sign Variance, or do you want to back that up until you come back? MR. BOYEA-1 think it's the same as last time where the Board felt fine with the rest of it. It was these two issues. The signage is less than it is. There's no need. Without that there's no project. MR. KUHL-Okay. So we'll table 87, can I have a motion to table 87-2014. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from McDonald's USA, LLC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of 6 new signs. Three wall signs proposed to read as a single letter " M" and two wall signs to read "McDonalds" where wall signs total 108 sq. ft. in lieu of the maximum allowable two wall signs to total 30 sq. ft. each. Also, one compliant 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign will be installed. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs for a business and maximum size. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 87-2014 MCDONALD'S USA, LLC, at the request of the applicant, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: The application is Tabled to the first meeting in November, 2015 with an October submittal date. Duly adopted this 19th day of August 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Allison, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. KUHL-Okay. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2015 SEQRA TYPE II KENNETH WALKER OWNER(S) KENNETH WALKER ZONING MDR LOCATION 34 WESTBERRY WAY PINE RIDGE ESTATES APPLICANT PROPOSES A 900 SQ. FT. SECOND GARAGE AND 613 SQ. FT. OF ADDITIONAL PAVEMENT. GARAGE TO BE LOCAT4ED NEAR EXISTING DRIVEWAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED. CROSS REF BP 06-346, 07-082 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.84 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-20 SECTION 179-5-020 KENNETH WALKER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2015, Kenneth Walker, Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 "Project Location: 34 Westberry Way Description of Proposed Project: Construction of a 900 sq. ft. second garage and 613 sq. ft. of additional pavement. Garage to be located near existing driveway. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variance as follows: second garage. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures—garage. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) 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 to expand the existing attached garage. 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 project will have minimal to no effects or impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a second garage on the site for storage of classic cars. The applicant has located the garage on the west side of the property where the homes existing driveway and attached garage are situated. The applicant's driveway will be expanded enough to access the bays of the proposed garage. The applicant has also submitted a list of neighbors that approve of the second garage and the location. The applicant has provided plans showing the location of the new garage and a sketch of the elevation. " MR. KUHL-Would you like to introduce yourself? MR. WALKER-Ken Walker from 34 Westberry Way. I'm proposing a second garage, 900 sq. ft. additional. MR. KUHL-Is there anything you want to say? MR. WALKER-Just basically from the last meeting that I've taken all your recommendations and things into consideration and made all the appropriate changes that you've asked for, and just re-submitting. MR. KUHL-Let me open the public hearing. Is there anybody from the public that wishes to speak on this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. KUHL-Seeing none, any Board members have any questions? Then let's poll the Board and see what everybody says about it. Roy, I'll start with you. MR. URRICO-I'm still against the project. It's a second garage on the property. MR. KUHL-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Before I voiced that I supported this project. I think it's better than having temporary structures to store equipment. I think the applicant, although he had a little rocky meeting the last time, he's done things much better this time. He's gotten signed affidavits from his neighbors that they'll go along with it and he's moved the garage so it's closer to the house so that it gives the appearance maybe of being part of the main structure. MR. KUHL-So you'd be in favor? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-I like what he's done putting it closer to the house, but I'm still not in support of a second garage on that size of a piece of property on less than an acre. So I'd be against it as is. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. KUHL-Andrew? MR. ALLISON-I'd actually be for it. I think it's well designed, and the fact that he's reached out to his neighbors to try to reach an agreement. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 also am for this project. One of the things I noticed, as I looked around the neighborhood, is that this proposed garage will look more in line with the other garages in the neighborhood. His current garage does not face the road. If you look at all the neighbors, their garages face the road. This new garage, the door opening would face the road. The homes are all quite large, so it wouldn't, even in my estimate, seem out of place. As it is now, it looks closer to the main structure than the other one was. So I certainly would be in favor of this project as proposed currently. MR. KUHL-Thank you. I'm also in favor. I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion please. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kenneth Walker. Applicant proposes a 900 sq. ft. second garage and 613 sq. ft. of additional pavement. Garage to be located near existing driveway. Relief requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 19, 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 NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the structure will be made to fit with the property and basically look like the rest of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but, financially are not reasonable. 3. The requested variance is substantial because a second garage on a property of less than an acre is unusual. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, certainly self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 42-2015, KENNETH WALKER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. KUHL-You're all set. Thank you. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. WALKER-Thank you for your time. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 46-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED DAVID KENNY FOR L.L. BEAN OUTLET AGENT(S) BARTLETT PONTIFF STEWART & RHODES OWNER(S) ADIRONDACK OUTLET MALL ZONING Cl LOCATION 1444 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 47.25 SQ. FT. SECOND WALL SIGN TO BE LOCATED ON FRONT OF THE ADIRONDACK OUTLET MALL. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND WALL SIGN WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED IN A BUSINESS COMPLEX. CROSS REF BP 2015-289 COWL ALT LL BEAN; SP 37-2015; MULTIPLE LISTINGS WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2015 LOT SIZE 4.64 ACRES; 2.29 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-22, 23 SECTION CHAPTER 140-6 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; DAVE KENNY, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 46-2015, David Kenney for L.L. Bean Outlet, Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 "Project Location: 1444 State Route 9, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 47.25 sq. ft. second wall sign to be located on front of the Adirondack Outlet Mall. Relief required Parcel will require a sign variance as follows: # of wall signs Required 1 Proposed 2 Relief 1 Criteria for considering a SIGN variance pursuant 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 maybe 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 possible to limit the sign to the main building front entryway. 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 project will have minimal effects to no impacts on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff Comments The applicant proposes a second wall sign at 47.25 sq. ft. to be placed on the front of the main entrance. The applicant is also proposing a permitted sign for the Northside of the outlet buildings for the client to greater than 50 sq. ft. and to be consistent with the south side signage areas. The north side of the building was recently approved by the Planning Board for a facade alteration to match the south side. The applicant has indicated the sign will not be internally lit. The information submitted shows the location and dimensions of the proposed sign." MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Dave Kenny. I just have a few brief but important comments. First of all, this was a real coup to negotiate this to get the LL Bean lease and to the Plaza. Essentially fully leases the Plaza. LL Bean, of course, is a regionally very popular high quality tenant. They're taking slightly under 14,000 sq. ft. So this is basically three storefronts in the Plaza. They're also taking the least desirable space, all the way in the back of the Plaza, which is part of the reason it's important for them to get this extra sign, but most importantly this is a photo, just today, of the side improvements right at the corner. This is where the LL Bean space is on the north side in the back, and this is 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) where their facade sign will be right over their store, and all of these improvements are what LL Bean required in the lease, to have substantially more green space, improved facade, but under the Sign Code, Laura had mentioned that they're over 50 sq. ft. In a business complex, because that sign is 200 feet back from the road, more than 200 feet back, 500 feet back, they could have up to a 200 sq. ft. sign. So that sign in the back, to make up for the distance in the back, could be 200 sq. ft. What they propose is 80 sq. ft. to match the other signs in the Plaza on the facades, and so if you take the 80 sq. ft. plus the 47 sq. ft. that they're proposing is way less, 127 square feet is way less than the 200 sq. ft. that they could have as one sign in the back. in addition to that, they could have, if they had three tenants they could have three signs, and the location where they propose this is right in front of the center, which is important because it's such an important tenant, because it's so far in the back, but that was also the location of a former tenant sign which had been there for years, Vanity Fair, which just came down when they left. So all that I think justifies that this isn't just a case of somebody asking for excess relief. It's three storefronts. It's a total of wayless than what you could have in total. It's an important tenant to have in this center and also in the Town, and just important for them to have something in the front so people know that they're. I also have a photo that just shows, looking from, not even from the front of the center but just inside the mall, just how far back it is to get to their, because they're all the way in the back. So let me pass this around so you can take a look, just to show how far back it is. MR. KUHL-So are you submitting the photos to confuse us, Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Yes, I am. MR. KUHL-Did I hear you say that LL Bean's sign is replacing what was there? MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KUHL-That was on those windows? MR. LAPPER-It was on the front, we were asking for a variance. MR. KUHL-It's not like they're going to close up the windows. The tower that you have is going to stay the same, right? DAVE KENNY MR. KENNY-Right. It's below the windows. MR. KUHL-Well, the sign's going to be on the windows, right? MR. KENNY-No, below the windows. The windows are above it. MR. KUHL-This picture, it appears to me that it's being mounted right on the windows. MR. KENNY-These aren't windows. The windows are up higher. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-And that sign is the same size as the other two? It looks bigger in the picture than the other two. MR. LAPPER-It does look a little bigger, but they're the same. MR. HENKEL-I think you definitely need some signage for that LL Bean. MR. KUHL-I think the next thing is to open up the public hearing. Is there anybody here wishing to speak on this project? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. KUHL-Seeing no one, any Board members have questions? I'd like to understand this picture you gave me, Mr. Lapper. Is that the store all the way down at the end? MR. LAPPER-Yes, it is. MR. KUHL-Okay. I've got it now. Yes, I understand, and the new LL Bean sign is going to go on this up here? 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. LAPPER-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. Below that on the horizontal. Okay. MR. KENNY-It will match the signs on the other side, the same size. It will be below the top part, the same elevation as the facade going all the way around. MR. KUHL-No questions from Board members? Okay. Well, seeing no questions, let me poll the Board and see what they think about this. Mike, would you start? MR. MC CABE-I think that the business deserves to have signs to promote the business. Therefore I'll support this project. MR. KUHL-How about, you, Andrew? MR. ALLISON-I'll support it with the stipulation that that sign is indeed placed within that lower band, that green space. MR. KUHL-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I think we've already gone through this process with other stores up in the Outlets there, and I think we probably need a different sign code for those Outlets because we don't have any rules anymore when it comes to those, and at least ones that we've been following lately. So I'd be in favor of it, but with the understanding that we need to really look at the sign codes out there. MR. KUHL-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think it's a very small request, especially with the situation that the store is way in the back. I'd be in favor of it. MR. KUHL-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor of it. MR. KUHL-May I have a motion, please. MR. LAPPER-It's Unlisted so this does require SEQR. MR. MC CABE-SEQR's Unlisted, so if you want. MR. KUHL-Would you do that, Mike? Thank you. Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 46-2015 David Kenny for L.L. Bean Outlet 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 Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Allison, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. KUHL-Okay. Can I have a recommendation for the Sign Variance? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from David Kenny for L.L. Bean Outlet at Adirondack Outlet Mall for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes a 47.25 sq. ft. second wall sign to be located on front of the Adirondack Outlet Mall. Relief requested for a second wall sign where only one is allowed in a business plaza. SEQR Type: Unlisted; 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 46-2015 David Kenny for L.L. Bean Outlet 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 Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Allison, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: None A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 19, 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 NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: There will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. There is no other feasible method for the applicant to pursue other than a Sign Variance. This may be considered substantial relative to our Code but it's necessary for the location. The proposed sign will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. And, I would say the difficulty is not self- created. I recommend, MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 46-2015, David Kenny for L.L. Bean Outlet, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Allison, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. MR. KENNY-Thank you. MR. KUHL-I was surprised they didn't move across the street to the new. Thank you. MR. KENNY-They couldn't afford to go across the street, I don't think. AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2015 SEQRA TYPE II RYAN WILD AGENT(S) MICHAEL J. O'CONNOR, ESQ. OWNER(S) COUNTY OF WARREN ZONING MDR LOCATION OFF HERALD DRIVE HERALD SQUARE, PHASE 2 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,800 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF VACANT LAND IN HERALD SQUARE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A APA, CEA, OTHER DEC & NWI WETLANDS LOT SIZE 22.88 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.10-1-65 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-4-050 MICHAEL O'CONNOR, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 48-2015, Ryan Wild, Meeting Date: August 19, 2015 "Project Location: off Herald Drive Herald Square, Phase 2, Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,800 sq. ft. single family home. Relief required Relief requested from the following section of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-4-050 Frontage on public streets. Parcel will require area variances as follows: 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) Road Frontage Required 50 ft. Proposed 25.60 ft. Relief 24.40 ft. Criteria for considering an area variance pursuant 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 maybe 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 parcel configuration currently exists with 25.60 ft. of road frontage where the applicant is proposing a 12 ft. wide driveway for the proposed home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief 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. The request to have less road frontage may have minimal impact on the neighborhood. The Applicant is requesting a subdivision modification to allow the lot to be a building lot. The original subdivision did not identify this parcel as a building lot and no plans were identified for it. The Town Board was offered the land during the subdivision process and the parcel was not accepted. The property is tax sale property where the applicant has an agreement with the County to pursue the planning and zoning process to develop the lot for a single family home. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff Comments The applicant proposes to maintain an existing 25.60 ft. of road frontage for a 12 foot driveway to access a proposed home where 50 ft. road of frontage is required. The applicant proposes a subdivision modification to allow for a single family to be constructed on the lot where and not infringe on the wetlands. The applicant has indicated that there are some encroachments onto the property by neighboring properties. The parcel history indicates the parcel in 1996 was offered to the Town for land dedication in lieu of rec fees and the Town Board did not accept the land due to topography, wetlands, and the brook. The deed as viewed on the County's website does not indicate any restrictions. The plans show the location of a proposed home, driveway, and a septic system. The plans also show the location of the wetland buffer and the steep slopes within the area. The proposed home is located away from the wetland buffer and steep slopes area." MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury Planning Board met and based on its limited review they did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and it was adopted August 18, 2015 by a unanimous vote. MR. KUHL-Anything else, Roy? MR. URRICO-No, not yet. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Would you introduce yourself? MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. I'm Mike O'Connor. I'm here representing the applicant, Ryan Wild, who is with me here at the table. This is basically an application for an Area Variance for road frontage. We will have to go to the Planning Board for a modification of the subdivision map following hopefully our successful presentation to you tonight. This is for a single family home. The lot in question is 22.8 acres. The area that the house will be located on is approximately one and a quarter to one and a half acres. The lot does have some topographical features and some wetlands. I think when we were before you before, or before the Planning Board, there was a question of location of the wetland, and if you have the map 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) before you that was last updated July 24th. The wetland was located by DEC and it's shown on the far left hand corner of the map. To the right of that is shown the 100 foot setback from the wetlands, and behind that is the steep slope that some people spoke of. The distance from the wetlands is probably 200 feet. If you take a look at the setback from the wetland, that line going toward the nearest point of the house, it's 50 feet from the top of the slope, there's another 29 feet, and then there's a little distance on the other side to the bottom of the slope. So the house itself is probably 200 feet from the wetlands. It's 79 feet from the top of the slope. We're not asking for any variances for setbacks for the house or for the septic. The only variance that we're asking for is for the road frontage and the road frontage will serve one house. We're willing to stipulate that there will be no further development on the property. There really are no alternatives. This is a piece of property that the County has been trying to sell, I think for three tax sales. We have a contract with them that would return the property to the tax roll, which would be a benefit to the community, and there is not another access that is usable. There is another access to this 22 acre parcel that's further to the south of it, but still within the subdivision, but that would lead us into the wetland area, so it would not be usable for the residents. We don't think that we're going to have an impact environmentally or detrimentally. We understand that people don't like change, but this is a good piece of property that can support a house, that's going to be twice as large as most of the lots that it adjoins. I think the lots vary in size from .56 acres to .67, and two of them are .56 and one is .61 and one is .63 and one is .67 acres, and that's basically it. We'd be glad to answer any questions that you have. I think we agree with Staff comments that there's going to be minor impacts to the neighborhood, and that there are no feasible alternatives. The relief is considered moderate relative to the Code, and the request to have less frontage will have minimal impact on the neighborhood. I think the big problem is people don't want change, and if you go through the site plan, or the modification to the subdivision there may be some other conditions that are considered by the Planning Board necessary, but as of now, that's our presentation. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. Board members have any questions? MR. NOONAN-1 have just one. How far away is the edge of the new driveway away from the neighbor's driveway? It looks like it's about less than 15 feet or 12 feet or so. MR. O'CONNOR-It is very close. On this map it's shown the edge of the blacktop driveway. MR. NOONAN-Yes, and then the attendant driveway going in will be 12 foot wide? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. MR. NOONAN-So just be more sensitive to that. That little space in between, just be careful of how you landscape that. MR. O'CONNOR-We can push that tight to the north boundary, but we have to be aware of the fact of the underground electric there, and get it as tight to that as we can. We can have some low landscaping, shrubbery. MR. KUHL-Any other Board member questions? Does anybody from the public wish to be heard? Seeing none. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Yes. Sorry. MR. KUHL-That's okay. Please come up. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED PATRICK MANNIX MR. MANNIX-Good evening. My name is Patrick Mannix, 34 Herald Drive. I'm the immediate adjacent driveway that you're discussing. There's several reason why this property has not and should never be given a variance, and hasn't for the last 25 years. Our property zoning laws in the Town of Queensbury for a very good reason. There is, I don't know where the 25 feet came from. We measured between the two electrical boxes that are there. There's only 20 feet exactly between the two. One of those electrical boxes is adjacent to my driveway. So I'm not sure where the compromise for the line is going to be. I have seen one pin that indicates a survey, I believe, that was conducted there, next to one of the electrical boxes. From that to my driveway is 21 feet, to the corner of my driveway. So either my driveway needs to be removed partially to accommodate these 25 feet or the measurements are inaccurate. There would be a severe detriment to the surrounding properties, major impact to my property. We just bought our property a year and a half ago under the understanding that the property adjacent to us was 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) not a forever wild but was not zoned feasible for building due to the, several reasons: wetlands, the frontage, so on and so forth. We paid inflated value for our property under that understanding. We were paying a higher tax for that at this time which we've accepted that. So there would be quite a detriment to the value of our property. There's a density issue. The proposed home would be a giant fish bowl, basically, located in the middle of seven surrounding homes. It would be uncharacteristic of anyplace else in the Town of Queensbury for this development. Construction, and most importantly emergency equipment, would be unable to access this proposed home due to the very narrow turn into the approximate 175 foot long driveway, and I would like to go on the record that if a variance were to be approved, the property would not only jeopardize the safety and welfare of the occupants, snow removal would be virtually impossible. There's fences put up on both sides. There is an existing fence. There's obviously going to be another one for privacy that would have to be erected for an 18 foot wide strip down through, and a 12 foot driveway. There'll be three feet on either side with our snow, there'd be no way to push that snow in or out. They would need loaders with dump trucks to move the snow. In the front especially, I know where the snow piles up against my neighbor's fence, I can't even blow the snow in that direction. I have to blow the snow, I don't have that extra space there the other direction because of the high banks. So there'd be no remove to move that. There would be a severe impact to the wildlife. Every day in the backyard the neighbors all see deer, turkey, song birds, hummingbirds, hawks, rabbits, you name it, squirrels, on a daily basis out there. The wildlife would be severely disturbed. The property is 90% wetlands, the 22 acres. Removal of the surrounding trees to cut the lot out, even though they're not against the hill, if you will, according to the plans, would still severely impact the runoff and silt into Clendon Brook. Actually there's no hardship involved to create this variance. The only purpose of this home is for profit and not as a primary residence. With all the negative impact that would occur, I can't fathom why for any reason, this variance would possibly make sense or benefit the area as well as the wetlands and wildlife. Going forward, I know it's been an issue with the tax sale. We, as the neighbors, have discussed, let's put this to rest if we can. The landowners are interested, in the future tax sale, of purchasing this property and reassigning it to a nature preservation or wetland organization, so it would be taken care of as it should be. It's just not suitable for a home right there. If you can visualize it, you can see what we're talking about. It just doesn't make sense. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. MANNIX-Thank you. MR. KUHL-Is there anyone else that wishes to speak? ANDREA SIMMONS MS. SIMMONS-Good evening. My name is Andrea Simmons and I'm a resident at 11 Mabel Terrace. My backyard would be their front yard of the proposed development. I've come to the table with four primary points. Starting with the fact that there's, it is my understanding that a variance needs to be based upon need, and there is no hardship to the principal owner that they had demonstrated as a basis of the variance. Ryan Wild does not own the property at this time. He is not the owner. There is no hardship, therefore. That was Point One. Point Two, we're looking to preserve the character of the neighborhood. Patrick mentioned the fact that it's a fish bowl, that there's seven different properties that butt this property. We're looking to preserve the character of the neighbor per the terms of the original subdivision. I think it should also be pointed out that the average houses in this area are more along the lines of 1600 square feet. What they're proposing is putting 2800 square feet. So significantly larger, and again out of character with the neighborhood. This afternoon I took a look at the Town of Queensbury zoning regulations applying to the 50 foot requirement, and I do see where there is a requirement for 50 feet both for physical access to the lot to be built upon and for the purposes of ingress and egress to the lot for emergency vehicles such as fire trucks and for ambulances. This is a significant issue that will absolutely have to be addressed. Reading further down on the zoning regulations I found 179-4-010, Residential Design Requirements for Moderate Density Residential Design. This was new to me, and I'm not a lawyer. So, but it reads very straightforwardly, moderate density residential design, new residential construction and/or development in the Moderate-Density Residential Zoning Districts shall comply with the following design requirements: Subdivisions. Flag lots are not allowed. That is what this is. This is a flag lot. MR. KUHL-By your definition. Do you have anything else? MS. SIMMONS-1 can give you a legal definition of what a flag lot is. MR. KUHL-It's your time to speak, your five minutes. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MS. SIMMONS-The last thing is a question, and forgive me again. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not very familiar with the legal process. The lawyer referenced 1.2 acres of 22 acres to be developed. What's going to happen to the balance? I don't know. It's just something that concerns me. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Thank you. RISE DEUSO MRS. DEUSO-Hello. My name is Rise Deuso. I own the property at 3 Wayne Court. According to the proposed plans, this house is in my backyard. So every morning when I get up and shower, my windows are open, I'll be saying good morning to my neighbors. I guess what I can say best without taking up too much time is I agree with everything that Pat has said, and everything that Andrea has said. It's going to be a house, literally placed, plopped right in the middle of all of our homes, and one of the things that drew my husband and I to this area, and specifically our lot, was under the assumption, according to the rules that are written currently, that there was not ever going to be a dwelling put back there. That's why we chose this area, that area and that neighborhood, is so that we could have the privacy, we could have the woods, we could have the animals, the wetlands, everything that we all enjoy, and Mr. O'Connor had made a statement about people not liking change, and I don't agree with that. I don't have a problem with change. The changes are pretty significant. A driveway literally adjacent to Pat's; a house right out my back door. I mean, all of us are going to be very impacted by this. It's not a choice of not liking a change. It's just this change isn't appropriate, and, you know, I have all the same concerns that everybody else does. Where to put the snow and what about, you know, right now it's just a house. What if they need a shed? What if they need this? I'm going to have absolutely no privacy. Am I going to get a, you know, do I have to now apply for a high fence variance so that I have my privacy back? I mean, I don't have a problem with change, just appropriate change. So that's why I moved here. That's why I picked this house. It's written in rules that were made 25, 30 years ago, which hasn't been changed up `tit now, but there's not supposed to be a house there, and it just doesn't, it's not fitting for the neighborhood or any of the neighbors, and that's all I have to say. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Anybody else? JEFF ZIEGLER MR. ZIEGLER-Thank you. My name is Jeff Ziegler and I live at 5 Wayne Court, and 1, like everybody else, am just kind of very concerned with, first of all, the road frontage. Presently, if you've seen it the variance of the 50 feet, I can see why you would need 50 feet to turn into this driveway, but the idea of being able to navigate in off of Herald Drive into a 12 foot driveway, into that little space, there is a huge truck line, and a stockade fence along that, well, which would be the right side as you're looking at that map that's there. That doesn't leave a whole lot of swing space to get in there, and I think the 50 feet variance, or the 50 feet is the rule. I mean, that's where we're at. To create this, it's half the distance, even at best. Pat and I have measured it. I don't know where 25 feet comes from either. We've seen the pin, we've measured it over. I just can't understand how that driveway can go in there, with all of the necessary that you would have to have for snow removal. I don't understand. It's a long driveway. Where do you put that amount of snow, in 180 foot driveway, of which 100 and, I don't know, 70 some odd feet of it potentially could have a fence on both sides. I just find that to be kind of unreasonable. I think that variance, you know, I mean, I have problems with the site plan. I'm less impacted than others, but the idea of having the house back there, I know that's not what this hearing is about. This is about the road frontage. So I'm going to kind of stay to that, and I think that's where I'm at with it. I think if you've seen it, you've been there, maybe you should look at it, you'd be able to see what that turn would be like, how cars, how trucks. I don't know about emergency vehicles. I can't imagine you could get an emergency vehicle in there without doing a three point turn and use Herald Drive to get down the driveway. The potential of two fences on two sides of that. Stan's fence, which is the first house there, is right tight to that property line. It appears that that driveway is going to be pushed over towards Stan's fence. If Pat puts a fence up, you're talking about no place to put anything. You're talking about a blind driveway, limited access, limited being able to pull out. I think 50 feet is, you've got a 50 foot rule for a reason, when it comes to driveways, and I think that there may be exceptions to that, but I don't think this is one of them. Thank you. MR. KUHL-Thank you. Anybody else in the audience? Roy, is there any written communications? MR. URRICO-No. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. KUHL-No written communications. MIKE WILD MR. WILD-I'd like to say something, if you don't mind. Gentlemen, my name is Mike Wild. Yes, I am, the applicant is my son. I've come up here for a couple of reasons. One, some of you may know that I was on a committee for the Town called the PORC Committee, a number of years back, which related the Master Plan for the Town of Queensbury, helped define the zoning regulations that you guys deal with every day, and one of the things that I wanted to kind of convey is that we struggled a lot in our meetings, in this very room, for many hours, over many weeks, to try to come up with rules that were fair, fair to property owners, existing property owners, landowners, neighbors. It's a difficult process. I just wanted to kind of share that with you, but I think the key point that I'd like to make today is that I'm a taxpayer in Warren County, as many of us are, maybe all of us are, and there's many others also, and one of the things that you may not recognize, even though Mr. O'Connor did mention it earlier, is this property has been up for tax sale on multiple occasions, three times. There have been people that have tried to buy this property, that have been dissuaded from buying this property because of the regulations, and I think it's important to understand that the neighbors also had the chance to take advantage of that, to purchase this property under the tax sale. So I guess I ask if you deny this, what happens to the property. Because all of us have to continue to pay taxes on this property, because that's basically what happens. So, you know, I do have a vested interest to try to see that the Board approves this. I'm going to let Mr. O'Connor go through all of the other arguments, but I didn't know if he was going to mention that, but I think it's something to consider as far as trying to do the right thing, trying to make a variance. There is an opportunity to put a house on there. I've seen it. I think a lot of these things can be satisfied. So I'll just leave it at that. Thank you for your time. MR. HENKEL-I had a question. This is your property. So this must be your camper and your shed on this property? MR. WILD-No, no, no. The applicant is my son. MR. HENKEL-This camper and shed is on your property? MR. WILD-1 can't answer to that. I would guess it's one of the neighbors. MR. KUHL-It's not his. It's not his. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. WILD-Thank you. MR. O'CONNOR-A picture is better than 1,000 words. This is a picture that was taken very recently, okay. This is aerial photos of the property which has been cleared, all along the back line, and even in here to some degree, although you don't see it in that photo, since we've started this application process. It was not cleared by the County. It was not cleared by the applicant. It was cleared by the neighbors who now are complaining, perhaps, about visibility or potential visibility of this house. If this had not been cleared, and you can see it very clearly, there would have been a natural barrier, and I'm not saying when we get to the Planning Board the Planning Board may ask us to do some plantings. I would suspect that they will, but this is self-created impact by the people that are complaining about the impact, and I'd ask you to pass those down the line. Just visually take a look at that, and this is even a larger topo, if you want to take a look at the aerial photo. This was 2013. 1 think one speaker made a statement that I will agree with. This is about having a 25 foot frontage, 25.6 foot frontage as opposed to 50 foot frontage. It really shouldn't be about the house. That's going to be decided, I believe, when we get to the Planning Board. I don't know the detriment to their property by having a 12 foot driveway. The 12 foot driveway will have the necessary aprons at the road to accommodate a reasonable turn. The driveway will be 12 feet as it goes back into the property. So it'll have six and a half feet or seven feet on each side for snow canopy, which is typical, typically enough. I mean, you talk about 50 feet frontage for a lot, but most driveways, any place you look at, are 10 feet, maybe 12 feet. If you go up and down Country Club Road, which is a heavily traveled road, and you just, as an example, take a look at those driveways. Those people are coming out of those driveways on a 10 foot apron or 10 foot driveway. This is not going to be a safety hazard. It's not going to be a health hazard. It's not going to have any impact. The complaint here isn't truthfully about the driveway, it's about the fact that a house is going to be built behind it. I know that we submit original and 14 copies of everything that we submit to you, one of which goes to the Fire Marshal, and I asked earlier tonight whether, and 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) they usually weigh in, but we've heard nothing from them, no objection to the proposed driveway from a safety point of view. I've said to Ryan, when we get to the Planning Board, if that is an issue, we can do a turn out, have a couple of areas where it's a little wider than 12 feet, so you could have vehicles pass if they needed to pass each other. We did that on the lots that we created on the private driveway up behind the Country Club. There are three lots in there, and that's a private driveway. In fact, that one is in excess of 1,000 sq. ft. and I think that one is maybe 1200 lineal feet. So we can accommodate whatever requests are made along that line. I heard comment from Mr. Mannix, and Mr. Mannix who bought his property within the last year, I believe is the one who has built the shed on this property, if you look at that map, and I believe is the one who stores a camper on this property. This will be detrimental to him. We will ask him to move his personal property off of the driveway. I heard that he said that the group would like to get together and possibly purchase the property at a future tax sale, if that's what happens, if this does not go through. Our contract with the County is subject to us getting approval to build a house. If we don't get the approval, we are not obligated to go ahead with the purchase. We, after the last meeting, offered Mr. Mannix the opportunity to organize his neighbors to purchase the lot from us, and were rejected. So I'm not sure where they're going or what they're doing. You have somebody that is willing to return this property to the tax rolls right now. If you look at what we're asking for, instead of having 50 feet frontage, we're going to have 25 feet frontage. Twenty-five feet can accommodate a single family house driveway. That's what we're asking about. Wildlife, I don't know how we effect wildlife by having a narrower frontage than what we have. If we built a house, maybe we'd have some effect, but the driveway that's before you, the issue that's before you, has no effect on that. As far as removing trees and silting the wetlands or the brook, I made the point before I think clear enough. We are probably, you've got a 100 foot setback from the wetland, plus we've got another seven, nine feet, probably if I cut to the trees, and we're not going to clear those trees that are shown on the survey, we're probably 125 from anything that would be impacted in the rear of this property. The discussions about hardship, that's the old rules for variances. Variances now under Town law are based upon what Mr. Urrico has written or read off, the four elements, the same thing that you look at for every variance. Will it have an impact on the neighborhood, will it be an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood, and character of this neighborhood is residential. We're proposing to use the property as a single family residential. It doesn't, a residential neighborhood is not based upon density. So we have no impact on character of the neighborhood by building another residence in a residential neighborhood, and I think that's pretty well proven in case law. Can we achieve the benefit by some other method? We can't. This is the only reasonable access to that property. Is it substantial? Staff has said that it may be considered, it's moderate, but it's not substantial, and I think again, and I've argued this many times. It's not a statistical, it's not a mathematical judgment that you're asked to make when you're considering whether something is substantial or not substantial. You're asked to say, is it totally out of character with the neighborhood, is it totally not in keeping with the neighborhood, and if it is, regardless of what the mathematical equation is, then it's substantial. If it's not, it's not substantial. Will it have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood? It won't. I mean, I haven't heard anybody say that. So I'm not sure where we go with it. I don't, some of the other comments I think were personal comments. I'll defer. I'll answer one. They're complaining, there was a complaint that this was a 2800 sq. ft. house as opposed to the average size is 1600. I'm not sure if it's that large, but that figure includes the two car garage as well as what is going to be lived in. I've never heard complaints of somebody that the house was being built was too large for the neighborhood. It's usually people try to build a 900 sq. ft. house in a neighborhood that has large houses, then you get a complaint. I've never heard somebody having the complaint of stepping up, if you will, the value of the neighborhood. I think that's it. If you have questions that I haven't answered or raised that I should answer, I'll be glad to try and answer them. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. O'Connor, and, Roy, you say you have no written comments? MR. URRICO-There are no comments, but I do have a question. Okay. According to Staff Notes, the original subdivision did not identify this parcel as a building lot and no plans were identified for it. So during this, I'm just curious. I don't know the answer to this, but during this tax sale, when it takes place, at what point does it become a building lot? MR. O'CONNOR-It doesn't become a building lot until we get approval from the Planning Board for a modification of that subdivision. It's on the subdivision map. It's not shown as a numbered lot. It's not as a park land. It's not shown as a recreation area, but it's part of that subdivision map, and Craig Brown has issued an opinion that we need to modify it, because it's not shown as a building lot we need to get the modification from the Planning Board to use it as a building lot. MR. URRICO-So don't they need to get that modification first before they get the variance? 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-1 don't believe so. The way that he has set it up, no. MR. URRICO-We're providing a variance on something that may not be approved yet. MR. HENKEL-We had another one just like that not too long ago. MR. URRICO-I'm saying it doesn't sound right. MR. O'CONNOR-1 think the answer is you can't go to the Planning Board if you need a variance, on this subject or some other, because the Planning Board doesn't have the jurisdiction to approve something that is not in compliance with the Ordinance. When you grant a variance, that makes that issue a compliant issue. So we need to get the variance first before we go to the Planning Board. MR. HENKEL-We had that issue with the Tails Wag Inn. MR. KUHL-I don't know law, Laura, but that's, I mean, it's like, you know, you get a ticket. Once you pay it, it goes away. So once they get the approval here, and if they're trying to buy it subject to approvals, this is the process. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. Does that kind of answer your question, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. It doesn't mean I agree with it. MR. KUHL-Okay. Okay. Well, if no members have any other questions, let me poll the Board and how about I start with you, John. MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'd say definitely I'd be for the project, as long as they're going to keep it as a single family dwelling and it's not going to need any other variances, I think with the little bit they're asking for for the frontage there, I'd be in favor. MR. KUHL-I just want to ask one question. I did hear you stipulate that only one house would be on this 22 acres. Is that right, Mr. O'Connor? MR. O'CONNOR-Yes. We're willing to accept that as a condition. MR. KUHL-Okay. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-1 would actually say I'm not in favor of this project. I think the relief being requested for up to 50% is more than minimal. Number One, this lot does not fit the original plan of the original subdivision. Criteria Number Four, I know subdivisions have lengthy review and in order to have the subdivision have the lots laid out the way they were, there was a significant amount of review that had to be done. I am not comfortable making a modification to a, allowing for a modification to a subdivision, again, based on the proposed requested relief. So I would not be in favor of this project at this time. MR. KUHL-Roy? MR. URRICO-In the interest of full disclosure, I'd like to mention that I was also one of the original members of the PORC Committee that was mentioned earlier tonight. I was part of that plan, and I've been a member of this Board since 2000. 1 think we have to focus on what the variance is for. The variance is for just road frontage. That's all we are tasked with tonight. What is required is 50 feet. What is proposed is 25.6 feet. So the relief is for 24.4 feet. We're not talking about a subdivision. We're not talking about anything else other than road frontage. That being said, I think I'm looking at what I'm seeing here, and based on Staff Notes, that they're saying the request to have less road frontage may have minimal impact on the neighborhood. I'm looking at myself, and I agree with them. So I would be in favor of the project at this time. MR. KUHL-Okay. Andrew? MR. ALLISON-I'd actually have to disagree with the proposal. I think it's just, it's unfortunate, but I think it's just too close on the other driveways on that road. I'd be against it. MR. KUHL-Mike? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. MC CABE-1 agree with Roy's analysis. All the other issues here are side issues, and really are the business of the Planning Board. Our issue is the road frontage, and certainly we've given a lot more relief than 50% road frontage in other projects, and so therefore I would support this project based on this relief. MR. KUHL-Thank you. I'm also in favor of this project, with the stipulation that there's only one house on the 20 plus acres. I think it's a good utilization of property that's had opportunity for it to be purchased and nobody stepped forward to do it. It's unfortunate that people tend to cut down all the buffers at the end of their property, and I understand privacy, and I'm not going to get into that issue, but when all is said and done, I would be in favor of this project. I think it's a good utilization of the property, and 24.4 feet of relief is moderate at best. Anyway, that's it. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-And seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ryan Wild. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,800 sq. ft. single-family home. Relief requested from road frontage requirements in the MDR zoning district. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 19, 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 NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because basically we are approving a residence in a residential area. 2. Feasible alternatives are not feasible because there is only one good entrance to this property. 3. The requested variance is not substantial; it's moderate based on the relief for road frontage. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That this be the only residence erected on this property. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 48-2015 RYAN WILD, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Allison ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. O'CONNOR-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2015 SEQRA TYPE II SCOTT & MARGARET RISHEL AGENT(S) HERB LEWIS OWNER(S) RISHEL FAMILY IRREVOC. TRUST; JOHN E. O'BRYAN, TRUSTEE ZONING MDR/R-3 LOCATION 49 HEINRICK CIRCLE EVERGREEN, SECTION 3 APPLICANT PROPOSES A 1,092 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 336 SQ. FT. GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR A GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 99-290 SEPT. ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.52 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.8- 2-92 SECTION 179-5-020 HERB LEWIS, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; SCOTT & MARGARET RISHEL, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 47-2015, Scott & Margaret Rishel, Meeting Date: August 26, 2015 "Project Location: 49 Heinrick Circle Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 1,092 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing 336 sq. ft. garage. The garage is a second garage as there is a separation wall between the proposed and the existing. Relief required Relief requested from the following sections of the Zoning Ordinance. 179-5-020 Accessory structures—Garages. Parcel will require a variance as follows: Garage# Required Max allowed is 1 Proposed 2 Relief 1 Criteria for considering an area variance pursuant 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 maybe 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 to remove the wall between the two garages. 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 project will have minimal to no adverse effects or impact on the physical or the environment conditions of the area. The applicant has indicated the garage addition will be consistent with the existing home and the outside storage areas to be remove. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Staff Comments The applicant proposes to construct a 1,092 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing 336 sq. ft. attached garage. Where only one garage is permitted and the applicant proposes two to maintain the wall between the two. The applicant has indicated that the existing storage for boats and other items will be removed as the new garage will be used for storage of those items. The information submitted shows the location of the garage addition, photos of the existing conditions of outdoor storage and a floor plan of the garage area." MR. RISHEL-Good evening. I'm Scott Rishel. MRS. RISHEL-I'm Margaret Rishel. We are the owners. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. LEWIS-My name is Herb Lewis, and I'm their proposed contractor. MR. KUHL-Is there anything you'd like to add? MRS. RISHEL-Well, I submitted pictures of what there is, pictures of what we hope to take away. Temporary storage is going to be removed, and the permanent garden shed that's in the front. It'll put the boat, the trailer, the ATV and its trailer and my husband's truck all under cover. The garage that we have now is for my cars. I also want to add some new landscaping to the front where the old shed, permanent garden shed is being removed, and I just think the neighborhood will look much better. My husband will be happy that his toys are under cover now that he's retired, and I will be happy because the whole property looks neater. Herb can answer any specifics you might have. MR. LEWIS-Well, I'll just mention a couple of things. The part of the relief they're asking for is to build 1412 square feet versus 1100 square feet structure. So that's part of it, to get the relief on 312 square feet, but the other part is that they would like to treat this as a second garage in the sense that it's still going to be attached to the building. The only difference, it would look exactly the same as if they were putting an addition to their garage. Everything would be exactly the same except if we put an addition to the existing garage we'd have to open up the wall between the new garage and the previous garage, and what that would do is it would cause a difference in the way that we would have to do the fire protection between the two buildings. We could do much more effective fire protection if we built it as a second garage and we would fire protect the whole house and garage, and there'd be a fire door connecting the old garage with the new garage, but if it were an addition or if it were a second car garage, it would look exactly the same from the road. The only difference would be when you walked in the garage, you'd' have to go through a door rather than go through an opening. So the relief is for the 312 sq. ft., and then the second garage part is just because we want to separate the two garages. MRS. RISHEL-And there's going to be a new deck on the back. There is not a problem with anyone. MR. LEWIS-Not part of the variance. MRS. RISHEL-Right. MR. NOONAN-Can I ask you a question? The roofline, it's going to be different? There's going to be an additional roofline? MRS. RISHEL-Well, it's going to mimic what's already there in the back. MR. LEWIS-The roofline, their roofline, actually. MR. NOONAN-It looks like it's not to scale. Okay, it's one quarter inch to a foot, but it looks kind of like you've got a two foot difference. MR. LEWIS-Well, in reality. MR. NOONAN-1 mean, you're not here for that. I understand, but. MR. LEWIS-No, I'm just saying it's actually inaccurate, in the sense that if you look at the single door, it appears as though that garage, the new garage, steps forward. In reality it's the opposite. The new garage steps back, and I can actually. MR. KUHL-Well, I think the question goes to, is the roofline going to be continuous all the way out or is there going to be a different roofline? The roofline is what he's talking about. MR. LEWIS-Okay. So the answer is, yes, that the rooflines are going to be parallel to each other, but the new garage would be taller than the old garage. So that's the answer to that question. MRS. RISHEL-Which actually, if you were in the back of my house, my family room, the family room is about that much taller than the rest of the main body of the house, the family room behind the existing garage now. There's a different roofline. MR. KUHL-Any other questions? MR. URRICO-1 do have one. How much of the wall would you have to remove to have it considered as one garage? Is there a footage that we could arrive at? 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MRS. MOORE-It has to be removed, basically. MR. URRICO-The whole wall? MRS. MOORE-Yes, I mean, it has to be, it can't be a separate fire wall. It has to be part of the garage. MR. URRICO-Because it changes, you know, the technicality is that we're now granting a second garage as opposed to getting one garage. It's also three doors, and it's, the property is only .5 acres, .52 acres. So it changes how we look at the garage. MR. LEWIS-Now the setbacks are substantial, as far as. MR. HENKEL-I'm not worried about that. No. MR. KUHL-Are you going to be widening the driveway at all? MRS. RISHEL-Not out towards the road. MR. RISHEL-No, it's the same entrance, and just now, I try to back the boat across the lawn and get it in one of those shelter lodging temporary things. That's going to go way, and there's going to be a roof there, but it will be the same, at the road nothing's going to change. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. LEWIS-At the road it would be the same, but then it's going to get, it's going to encapsulate that new garage. It's going to have an angled concrete going over to it. MR. KUHL-Any other questions? I'm going to open the public hearing. Seeing no one. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. KUHL-I'll poll the Board. Roy, do you want to start? MR. URRICO-No. MR. KUHL-Okay. Andrew, do you want to start? MR. ALLISON-No. I'm actually in favor of the project as proposed. The setbacks are pretty good there. I'd just be real sensitive to the design of that to make sure. MR. KUHL-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Yes, I'd also be okay with it. The roofline being two feet high makes it look a little bit different than the other houses, but you're 336 feet, and I'm okay with it. MR. KUHL-John? MR. HENKEL-I've got to stay consistent. I'm not really for a second garage. If that would be all one garage, I'd be more acceptable, but on a half-acre lot, I can't accept a garage that size. MR. KUHL-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm torn here because it's pretty small lots, but I'm real happy to see the temporary structures disappear, and the fact that the north side of that lot has quite a bit of foliage, I think it's going to block the view. So although I kind of feel like John, it's an awful small lot for a second garage, on the other hand I think that it'll improve the neighborhood by getting rid of the temporary structures which I'm a big advocate for. So I'll support the project. MR. KUHL-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm going to have to come down against the project. I'm going to stay consistent. I think we're charged with providing minimal relief in all cases, or in as many cases as we can, and I think there is room here for feasible alternatives, and so I'll have to be against the project. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. KUHL-Okay. I, too, like the fact they're taking down temporary structures and adding uniformity to a project. For that I'd be in favor of it. So can I have a motion, please? PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Scott and Margaret Rishel. Applicant proposes a 1,092 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing 336 sq. ft. garage. Relief requested for a second garage where only one is allowed. (The garage is considered a second garage as there is a separation wall between the proposed and the existing.) SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, August 19, 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 NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because we're going to consolidate a series of temporary structures and turn them into a permanent structure. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but not really practical because of the amount of storage required here. 3. The requested variance is not substantial but it's moderate to substantial; it's a little less than substantial. 4. We don't believe that there's going to be an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2015 SCOTT & MARGARET RISHEL, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Andrew Allison: ALSO, AMEND THE TOP OF THE RESOLUTION WHICH IS FOR A SECOND GARAGE AND NOT FOR THE EXPANSION OF AN OVERSIZED GARAGE. A second amendment, the condition that no additional, or no temporary structures be added to this property. Duly adopted this 18th day of August, 2015 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Before you call your vote, you need to amend the top of the resolution that says for a second garage, not for the expansion of the oversized garage. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. ALLISON-Can I ask for one more amendment, too, if it's okay with the Board, that the applicant has agreed to remove the temporary structures and that no new temporary structures would pop up? MRS. RISHEL-Absolutely not. That will not happen. MR. MC CABE-Do we need a condition for that, because that's part of the notes? MR. ALLISON-1 don't know if that can be added. MR. MC CABE-Sure, I can amend this resolution. You guys haven't voted for it yet so I can amend this resolution. MRS. MOORE-Okay. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 08/19/2015) MR. MC CABE-So I'll add a second amendment here that the Board proposes the condition that no additional, or no temporary structures be added to this property. MRS. MOORE-I'm just going to make a comment on that. It's the potential that if the applicant ever chooses to place one of those structures, that the applicant would need to come back before this Board to have that changed. It's possible. It's something that we would have to discuss with the Zoning Administrator. So just so you, the applicant's aware of it. The Board is aware of it. That it's possible that they would have to come back. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. Okay. We have an amendment. Can I have a second? MR. ALLISON-I'll second it. MR. KUHL-Thank you. AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Allison, Mr. Kuhl NOES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski MR. KUHL-You're all set. Thank you. MR. RISHEL-Thank you. MR. KUHL-I don't think we have anything else. MRS. MOORE-No, we do not. You need a motion for adjournment. MR. KUHL-Excuse me. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF AUGUST 19, 2015, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19th day of August, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Allison, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Jackoski On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, RONALD KUHL, ACTING CHAIRMAN 34