Loading...
01-27-2016 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 2016 INDEX Sign Variance No. PZ-0042-2015 Kassis Superior Signs 1. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-6 Area Variance No. PZ-0043-2015 Lawrence & Lois Stone 7. Tax Map No. 227.10-1-22; 227.10-1-21 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 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) SECOND REGULAR MEETING JANUARY 27, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE KYLE NOONAN HARRISON FREER JOHN HENKEL MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to call to order our meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's a very simple process. There are some agendas on the back table and some procedure documents. We'll call each application up to the table here. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll ask the applicants to add anything they'd like to the record. The Board members will ask questions. We'll open up a public hearing when a public hearing has been advertised. We'll poll the Board, have some more discussion about the project, and then seek resolutions accordingly. This evening I don't believe we have any housekeeping so we can go right into New Business on both applications. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0042-2015 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED KASSIS SUPERIOR SIGNS AGENT(S) CHRISTINA CACERES (KASSIS SIGNS) OWNER(S) 258 NORTH FOURTH ST, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 295 DIX AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL ONE SET OF 40' HIGH AND 30' WIDE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED CHANNEL LETTERS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING FOR BUSINESS IDENTIFICATION. PROPOSED SIGN SQUARE FOOTAGE IS 100 SQ. FT. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SIGN PROPOSED LARGER THAN 30 SQ. FT. CROSS REF SP 32-98 & MOD.; 2000 ADDITION; 2014 C/O FOR AUTO SUPPLY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.01 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-6 SECTION 140 CHRISTINA CACERES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. PZ-0042-2015, Kassis Superior Signs, Meeting Date: January 27, 2016 "Project Location: 295 Dix Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install one set of 40" high and 30' wide internally illuminated channel letters on the front of the building for business identification. Proposed sign square footage is 100 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief is requested for sign proposed larger than 30 sq. ft. Parcel will require sign variance from Chapter 140, Section 140-5 General Standards, Relief requested from sign setback in the Cl zone. Wall sign size Allowed 30 sq. ft. Proposed 100 sq. ft. Relief In excess of 70 sq. ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) 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 reduce the sign to a compliant size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief 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 as proposed may have minimal impact on the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a 100 sq. ft. sign to an existing building. The applicant has indicated the sign is for building identification. There are no changes to the site proposed and no free standing sign at this time. The information submitted shows the location of the sign, type and color." MR. JACKOSKI-If the applicant could join us at the table, please. Welcome. It's a very straightforward application. You probably just want to have questions from the Board members, but it's up to you. MS. CACERES-My name's Christina Caceres and I'm from Kassis Superior Signs. CHRIS BURDICK MR. BURDICK-I'm Chris Burdick. I'm also from Kassis Superior Signs. MS. CACERES-So we are applying for a variance for the set of ten letters reading United Auto Supply, and we understand that it is seeing the 30 square feet, the customer wants to make it known that the building used to be two tenant spaces and when they bought it they made it just one for them. Hence the reason why they wanted to try to have a bigger sign. Their normal sign usually says, it has a lot of verbiage. It says United Auto Supply, and underneath it says Foreign and Domestic, Heavy Duty Auto Parts Specialists, and they removed the bottom tag line that reads that. So that maybe you can accommodate just to say United Auto Supply. They also will not be having a freestanding sign up at all. So if you guys can keep that in mind in your decision making. They will not be asking for extra square footage. So if you could think of that square footage for, to add it for that size of the 100 square feet sign, then, you know, that's what they would like. That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any Board member questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-The only problem the company's not really using down lighting. That's what we're using mostly in the Town now is down lighting. MS. CACERES-The channel letters are all red. They're not white. So it's not going to be too bright, but, yes, red is more of a pop out color than what their normal. MR. JACKOSKI-I've seen some pretty bright red LED lighting. You're saying that it's going to be less intense than normal? MR. BURDICK-The channel letters themselves are kind of deep. They're really, it won't be as bright as if it were two or three inches deep. They're larger letters. It's more of a glow than a. MS. CACERES-Smack in your face. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) MR. BURDICK-Yes. They're about five inches deep, and if you guys were to request them to be a little bit deeper, so that way it won't be too in your face. MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, clarify. The Town Code for lighting is down cast lighting only, no back lit lighting, correct? MR. HENKEL-I thought that's what we were trying to go towards more. MRS. MOORE-That's definitely Main Street. MR. JACKOSKI-I believe that's also in the sign code for my property on Route 9, and that's not Main Street. MRS. MOORE-That's for internally lit signs? MR. JACKOSKI-Internally lit. I mean, I'd like you to confirm for us. So, at this point, are there any other Board members who have questions before I open the public hearing? I'm going to have Laura confirm about the lighting requirements. MR. URRICO-So the sign's going to run the entire width of that side of the building? MR. BURDICK-Not quite. MS. CACERES-No. The sign should be centered within the building. MR. URRICO-What's that behind it? Is that being measured? MS. CACERES-Are you talking about the black that's up here? MR. URRICO-Yes. MS. CACERES-No. That's just to show the height of this, because the photo's on an angle. You can't really tell what the height of this grade is. The height is 72 inches. So we centered the letters within that. This is not, we are not making this. We are only making the set of channel letters. MR. NOONAN-So that's a 72 inch, that panel right there is 72 inches from top to bottom? MS. CACERES-Yes. MR. NOONAN-Thank you for answering that. What's the maximum size that a freestanding sign could be? Forty-five? A freestanding sign could be how big in square footage? MRS. MOORE-Forty-five. MR. NOONAN-Forty-five. Okay. MR. URRICO-Do you know if there are plans to put up a freestanding sign? MS. CACERES-No, there are not. None of the United Auto Supplies do any freestanding signs. MR. JACKOSKI-Could I bring your attention to Paragraph 140-513, center of that paragraph says all exterior sign lighting shall be downcast with cut off fixtures. MRS. MOORE-Where did you see this? MR. JACKOSKI-Center of the paragraph, all exterior sign lighting shall be downcast with cut off fixtures. MRS. MOORE-Exterior sign lighting, so goosenecks. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Goosenecks need to be cutoff and down lit, but that first paragraph says, or the first sentence says all illuminated signs shall emit a constant light. You can't have a flashing bulb. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) MRS. MOORE-So they're proposing an internally lit sign. That, to me, is an allowed sign. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So I misunderstood. MRS. MOORE-At Dollar General it's a gooseneck, and that specifically, if go down further down in Main Street, it says you cannot have an illuminated sign. You have to have exteriorly lit signs. That does not apply in all zones. MR. JACKOSKI-Are we all good with the lighting? MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? There's a public hearing scheduled here this evening. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-This is an Unlisted SEQR. I'd like to poll the Board. Would anybody like to volunteer? MR. NOONAN-I'll volunteer. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MR. NOONAN-That is quite a large sign to ask for. Relief in excess of 70 square feet, based on the 30 square foot allowed wall sign size. The comment about no freestanding sign, I heard it. If there was a way to get your sign to be the 30 square feet, plus the 45 of the freestanding sign, to get it to 75 square foot, I would be more in favor of something along the lines of that. That way you're combining, again, it's my interpretation I guess you'd say, and I like the idea that there's going to be no freestanding sign, and I understand that's a good spot to put a nice sign there, but 100 square foot sign is quite large. I mean, 40 inches that's just 8 inches shy of four feet, and I get that, this sign is not going to be so far off the road that we don't know what is there. You'll be able to, and I think I'm being generous, maybe compared to some of my other Board members by saying I think I'd be okay with a 75 square foot sign. So if you could figure out a way to make it 75 square feet, I would be in favor of that, but as proposed I am not in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-You're saying 75 square feet with the condition that there never be a freestanding sign on the property? MR. NOONAN-Correct, with the condition that there never be a freestanding sign. MR. JACKOSKI-And are you saying that that's a condition if they subdivide the building back into two, does that sign have to get brought down in size at that point? MR. NOONAN-1 didn't think about that, but I don't know. I'd like to hear some of my other Board members. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Would anybody else like to volunteer? MR. MC CABE-Sure. Yes, I'm usually pretty lenient with signs, but this even exceeds my standards, and I agree with Kyle. A good way to go would be, I'd be okay with 75 with the condition that there be no freestanding sign, and I'm not worried about them subdividing the building because then they're going to need a new sign anyway. MR. HENKEL-And then they'd have to come to us for another variance, right, or no? MR. JACKOSKI-You can't force them to take the old one down. MR. MC CABE-No, but then what would be the purpose of splitting the building? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison, do you want to go next? MR. FREER-No, I'd like to listen to. MR. HENKEL-I agree with Mike and Kyle. I would be all right with this if they reduced the size of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, another way to say it is that I'm not in favor of it at the current size. I think you'd have to do a better job of trying to reduce it. Seventy feet, as far as relief, is way too much. I would not consider that. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-So I wouldn't consider relief of 70 feet either, unless we constrained or conditioned the fact that there would be no freestanding sign which would get you up to a 75 foot sign, which is what these guys are talking about, but with the constraint of no freestanding sign, I would support this as presented. I'd be curious to know, also, why 100 feet? You know, is there some company standard that drove you to that? MR. JACKOSKI-So I'll go next. I'm not in favor of the application as written. So you have a lot of Board members here this evening suggesting to you that the application is not acceptable in its current form. Generally when we have something like this, and I'd note that the public hearing is still open, the applicant has the opportunity to ask for the final vote, make it official, or ask for a tabling of the application, go back and think about it, or we're certainly open to listening to any other options or suggestions you might have. We can't tell you what to do, but we can certainly listen to what you might like to do. MS. CACERES-Yes, this is kind of a corporate kind of thing that they like to do. They've done it, this is actually a smaller sign. They've gone with 48 inches. So this is way smaller than they normally do, but they, I think they would be open to, if you guys want to have no freestanding sign. I mean, none of the stores have freestanding signs anyway. That's why they do bigger signs. If we were to bring the size of the letters down, we would bring them down to 30 inches, which is 40 to 30, and then if you do the math, it comes out to 75 square feet. MR. JACKOSKI-So from what I heard from the polling of the Board, the polling of the Board was willing to allow the 75 square feet of signage on this building, and because the applicant has requested a modification, is requesting less relief than originally anticipated, we could move forward with that. Knowing that the Board has polled and felt comfortable with that, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And note that the applicant has asked for only 75 total square feet of signage to be granted, and we do need to do SEQR. So, Mike, could you take care of SEQR for us. Motion regarding Sign Variance PZ-0042-2015, Kassis Superior Signs for United Auto Supply; 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 Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted 27th day of January 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Next I need a motion for approval of the amended application. MR. NOONAN-And the condition we would be putting in is no freestanding sign on the property now or in the future. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. NOONAN-Is that the only? Okay. I'll make the motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kassis Superior Signs for United Auto Supply for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to install one set of 40" high and 30' wide internally illuminated channel letters on the front of the building for business identification Proposed sign square footage is 75 sq. ft. Variance: Relief is requested for sign proposed larger than 30 sq. ft. SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance PZ-0042-2015, Kassis Superior Signs for United Auto Supply; 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 Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted 27th day of January 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 27, 2016; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? There will be no undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? After discussion, the applicant achieved their goals by another method, and listening to this Board decided to make the size of their sign smaller. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? This requested Sign Variance may be considered substantial. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? The proposed Sign Variance will not have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This difficulty may be considered self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That there will be no freestanding sign on this property now or in the future. b) Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance PZ-0042-2015 Kassis Superior Signs for United Auto Supply, Introduced by Kyle Noonan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) A. <insert conditions/ comments>: B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; C. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; D. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' E. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; F. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 27th day January 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, you're all set. Good luck. MR. BURDICK-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0043-2015 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II LAWRENCE & LOIS STONE AGENT(S) BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES PC OWNER(S) LAWRENCE & LOIS STONE; ROBERT WHITEMAN ZONING WR LOCATION 32 BEAN ROAD; 36 BEAN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT FOR STONE PROPERTY TO CONVEY TO WHITEMAN. 1.27 ACRES OF STONE (227.10-1-22) REDUCED TO 1.20 ACRES. WHITEMAN (227.10-1-21) 0.43 ACRES WILL BE INCREASED TO 0.60 ACRES. VARIANCE: RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR FURTHER REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE FOR WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL ZONE. CROSS REF 1996 DOCK; 2005 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JANUARY 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY AT LATER DATE LOT SIZE 1.27 ACRES; 0.43 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.10-1-22; 227.10-1-21 SECTION 179-3-040 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. PZ-0043-2015, Lawrence & Lois Stone, Meeting Date: January 27, 2016 "Project Location: 32 Bean Road; 36 Bean Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for Stone property to convey to Whiteman. 1.27 acres of Stone (227.10-1-22) reduced to 1.20 acres. Whiteman (227.10-1-21) 0.43 acre will be increased to 0.60 acre. Neither parcel is compliant with 2 acre zoning of WR zone. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief is requested for further reduction in lot size for waterfront residential zone. Lot size Required 2 ac Proposed 1.20 ac (reduced from 1.27 ac) Relief 0.80 ac 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the configuration of the lots and existing size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered minimal relevant to the code for setbacks. 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 as proposed will have minimal impact to the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to convey 0.07 ac to a neighboring property this is a reduction in the parcel that is currently under the two acre requirement. The applicant has indicated the additional acreage to the neighbor would allow for increase setbacks for existing structures. There are no other changes proposed for the site." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Mr. Lapper, welcome. A very straightforward application this evening. MR. LAPPER-Yes, they should all be this simple. Good evening, everyone. The Stones have lived here for a while. They're in their 70's and they're getting ready to sell their lake property. They live in Tennessee in the winter and they've always told their neighbors that when it came time to sell that they would give them a sliver so that their dock would not be nonconforming. So that's what this is about. Twenty feet at the lake makes the dock conforming and of course a lot of parcels aren't two acres in the Waterfront Residential two acre zone because that came about after most of these were subdivided, but the Stone lot is very big and will still be pretty big for the neighborhood, and the Whiteman piece will be a little bit bigger. So I don't see any impact on the neighborhood. MR. JACKOSKI-Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. NOONAN-I have a question. If one lot's losing .07 of an acre, and the other one's gaining. MR. LAPPER-It's .6, .06. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. NOONAN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-So any other questions from Board members? Very straightforward. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is none. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll leave this public comment period open. I'll poll the Board very quickly. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Well, I'm fine with it. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can live with this. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I'm all good with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm a yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing. Could I seek a motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lawrence & Lois Stone. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment for Stone property to convey to Whiteman. 1.20 acres of Stone (227.10-1-22) reduced to 1.14 acres. Whiteman (227.10-1-21) 0.43 acre will be increased to 0.49 acre. Variance: Relief is requested for further reduction in lot size for waterfront residential zone. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, January 27, 2016; 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the change is so small. 2. Feasible alternatives are again, not reasonable. 3. The requested variance is certainly not substantial because it's a very small portion of land. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Is 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; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0043-2015, LAWRENCE & LOIS STONE, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this 27TH day of January 2016 by the following vote: MR. NOONAN-Did you read in those measurements wrong? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, so, Staff, it's going to be a .5 acre parcel at this time? Or is a .6 acre parcel? MR. LAPPER-It's .06. MR. JACKOSKI-No, the total end. We're struggling here, Jonathan, because the map shows it's a 1.2 and it's going to go down to 1.14, but the resolution says it's a 1.27 going down to a 1.20. MR. FREER-And the addition of .07 to .43 should give .5, not .6. MR. HENKEL-.06 is what we're working with, it's supposed to be, .06. MR. LAPPER-I'd go with the certified survey. 1.2 to 1.14. MR. MC CABE-All right, what's the certified survey say, 1.2? MRS. MOORE-1.20 is the existing area. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'm going to amend my motion to say 1.2 acres existing to 1.14, and the .43, is that correct? MRS. MOORE-.06 acres is being added to the lands of Whiteman. MR. MC CABE-So is Whiteman existing .43? MR. FREER-Yes, so it'll be .49. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff understands the correction is necessary. We've identified it on the record, and Mike, we apologize for having those in front of you. We have a motion to move those .06 acres to Whiteman from Stone. Staff will clarify it in the resolutions for us. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any other business in front of the Board this evening? Can I have a motion to adjourn? MRS. MOORE-We have a request for waivers, but we can talk about that. MR. JACKOSKI-I can talk about, yes, that's fine. MR. FREER-I make a motion we adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JANUARY 27, 2016, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 27th day of January, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, everyone. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Stephen Jackoski, Chairman 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 01/27/2016) 12