Loading...
07-20-2016 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 20, 2016 INDEX Sign Variance No. 37-2015 Church of the King, Inc. 1. REQUEST TO EXTEND APPROVAL Tax Map No. 289.19-1-16 Sign Variance No. 38-2015 Cedars, I LP 1. REQUEST TO EXTEND APPROVAL Tax Map No. 289.19-1-15 Sign Variance PZ-0134-2016 Lake George Assoc. DXL Mens Apparel 2. Tax Map No. 288.12-1-15 Area Variance PZ-0184-2016 Ross Dubarry, Airport Manager, Warren County 6. Tax Map No. 297.16-1-1.1 and 297.20-1-2 Area Variance PZ-0175-2016 Omall Family Limited Partnership 9. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-13 Sign Variance PZ-0177-2016 Omall Family Limited Partnership 12. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-13 Area Variance PZ-0178-2016 Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless 16. Tax Map No. 302.9-1-43 Area Variance PZ-0187-2016 Tim Barber & Carrie Inglee 20. Tax Map No. 300.00-1-40.2; 300.00-1-40.3 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 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) JULY 20, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE, ACTING CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY HARRISON FREER JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT STEVEN JACKOSKI JOHN HENKEL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. MC CABE-I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, July 20th. For those of you that have not been here, the process is simple. There's an agenda on the back table. We'll call each application up to the table in front. We'll read the application into the record. We'll allow the applicant to make comment. We'll question the applicant. If a public meeting is advertised then we'll open a public meeting. We'll take an informal poll of the Board so you can see how you stand and if appropriate we'll take a vote. As you can see tonight we're a little short. So to get approval it has to be unanimous. You do have the option of waiting for a full Board if you so desire. The first thing I'd like to do is take care of a couple of Administrative Items. We've had a request for an extension of the approval of Sign Variance 37-2015, the Church of the King, Inc. Harrison, would you make a motion? ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 37-2015 CHURCH OF THE KING, INC. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a request for an extension of approval from Church of the King, Inc. The applicant received approval on July 22, 2015 for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury for construction of a new retaining wall between Evergreen Lane and Church of the King for installation of 12 sq. ft. sign on the wall for the Cedars Senior Living Community. Relief was granted from the minimum front and side yard setback requirements for signs. In addition, relief was granted from the maximum number of allowable signs on the property. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 37-2015, CHURCH OF THE KING, INC. Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Until July 2017. Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MR. MC CABE-I have a request for extension of approval for Sign Variance 38-2015 Cedars I, LP SIGN VARIANCE NO. 38-2015 CEDARS I, LP REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received a request for an extension of approval from Cedars I, L.P. The applicant received approval on July 22, 2015 for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury for construction of a 12 sq. ft. freestanding sign to be placed on the northerly entrance drive; Cedars �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) Senior Living Community. Relief was granted from the minimum front and side yard setback requirements for signs. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION OF APPROVAL REQUEST FOR SIGN VARIANCE NO. 38-2015, CEDARS I, L.P. Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Until July 2017. Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MRS. MOORE-And just for clarification, that will be the first meeting in July of 2017. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. FREER-Do we need to make a specific time in July? Do you want July 31St, 2017. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can just say first meeting. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-That'll work. MRS. MOORE-My point is if they come back again. MR. UNDERWOOD-For another extension. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So our first applicant tonight is Lake George Associates. OLD BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0134-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED LAKE GEORGE ASSOC. DXL MEN'S APPAREL AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ BPSR OWNER(S) LAKE GEORGE ASSOCIATES ZONING Cl LOCATION 1498 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE BOTH SIGN PANELS FOR DXL MEN'S APPAREL STORE ON THE FREESTANDING SIGN LOCATED ON ROUTE 149 AND ON ROUTE 9. THE PROPOSED PANEL SIGN ON ROUTE 149 IS TO BE 24.15 SQ. FT. AND THE PANEL SIGN ON ROUTE 9 IS TO BE 24.67 FT. THE FREESTANDING SIGN ON ROUTE 149 IS 51.33 SQ. FT. AND ON ROUTE 9 IS 54.93 SQ. FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SIZE AND LOCATION OF FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF BP 2015-418 DXL COWL ALT.; SP 9-2015; AV 5-2015; SV 90-1996; SV 23-1993, SV 1395 YR. 1988; SV 1571 YR. 1988 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.61 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.12-1-15 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. URRICO-First I'm going to read the note sent to Laura. It's signage information, Craig Brown, Zoning Administrator, and Bruce Frank, Code Compliance Officer, on June 9, 2016 completed a site visit to 1498 State Route 9. The following signage measurements were taken in the field of signage on New York State Route 149 and New York State Route 9. 1. The sign on Route 149 measured all signage (3 tenants) between the posts at 51.33 sq. ft. 2. The sign on Route 9 measured at 30.26 sq. ft. between the posts for the current signage in place (2 tenants). 3. The information that was included in the May 2016 submission indicates the Route 9 tenant signage is proposed to be 4 ft. by 6 ft. 2 in. or 24.67. 4. The total sq. ft. would be 54.93 sq. ft. for the Route 9 signage." STAFFINPUT ��Y �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy "IB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0134-2016, Lake George Assoc. DXL Men's Apparel, Meeting Date: July 20, 2016 "Project Location: 1498 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace both sign panels for DXL Mens Apparel store on the freestanding sign located on Route 149 and on Route 9. The proposed panel sign on Route 149 is to be 24.15 sq. ft. and the panel sign on Route 9 is to be 24.67 sq. ft. The freestanding sign on Route 149 is 51.33 sq. ft. and on Route 9 is 54.93 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief is requested for size and location of freestanding signs in the Commercial Intensive zone–Cl. Section 140 Signs for which permits are required—location of signs and size of signs The applicant proposes a free standing sign on Route 149 maintaining the setback at 10 ft. 7 in and proposing an overall sign of 51.33 sq. ft. and then a free standing sign on Route 9 maintaining the setback of O ft. and overall sign of 54.93 sq. ft. sign where a 15 ft. setback is required and a 45 sq. ft. maximum sign is allowed. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to be limited for setbacks due to the lot configuration, the current parking area, and existing building location. The size of the sign may be reduced as a feasible alternative to be compliant with the code. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The Route 9 sign relief is proposed 6.33 sq. ft. in excess for size and 10.42 ft. for setback. The Route 149 sign relief proposed is 9.93 sq. ft. in excess for size and 15 ft. for setback. 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 a minimal impact within the district. The applicant proposes to maintain the existing free standing signs in their current locations. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain a free standing sign on Route 149 and Route 9 maintaining the setback and size. The plans show the signage panels to be installed and the entire sign with all tenants. The signage on 149 has been installed without approvals." MR. MC CABE-So we've been through this before. We just weren't quite sure of the details before. Now we have the details, pretty straightforward. Simply put, the signs were existing and you're adding a panel to it. Anything else? MR. LAPPER-Right. Just quickly, I think the discrepancy in how I had the sign company measure and how Craig measured is that the drawing that I have, I think it measures the sign panels and not the frame in between, and there's a frame on the top and the bottom and the sides of the sign, so that the sign panels really are, one's less than 45 feet, square feet, and one's 45 and change. So what you see is really compliant. All this is about, of course, is that the State did the taking and the signs never moved, the property line moved, and of course this is just part of, you know, an expensive program to re-do the architecture and the site plan and clean up those sites and the only reason, if Casual Male had kept their sign it would have been the same, but because they changed their company name, then they have to apply for the variance to change the panel. So I think that correctly characterizes it. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions? 4 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. FREER-Yes. So I guess the last line in the Staff comments, can you comment on that, Jon? It says the signage on 149 has been installed without approvals. MR. LAPPER-And I had talked to Craig before this went up because the way I had done the calculation for the one in the back that, you know, without measuring the frame of the sign, I told Craig before we put it up that, you know, that one's compliant for size. If it had to change, it would change, but they just needed to have an identity, and we discussed it before they put it up at their risk. So it wasn't, I mean he's being correct that it doesn't, it didn't come to him, but I discussed it with him on the phone, you know, in April when we were making this submission. So it wasn't anything that happened without talking to him. MR. MC CABE-Let's see. There is a public meeting still open on this. So I'm going to ask is there anybody in the audience who would like to comment on this application? Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. MR. MC CABE-I'm going to close the public meeting, and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Harrison, do you have any feelings on this project? MR. FREER-I can support this project, realize that it takes everyone. So I'm not sure what the other folks, but given what they're trying to do, and I don't think they're being unreasonable, and again, part of this setback thing, on Route 9 especially, was changing it from a common use or whatever. So I would support this. MR. MC CABE-Jim MR. UNDERWOOD-1 have no problems supporting this. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-1 considered the merchant to the east argued that the sign on 149 blocks him out, but I drove around the corner, and the way my eye processed the two signs were, the first sign top to bottom and then the next sign was right there. So from my standpoint, it didn't really interfere. So I support this project also. So I'm going to close the public meeting and I'm going to first do SEAR, because the SEQR here is Unlisted. Harrison, will you help us out there, or Jim? MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0134-2016 LAKE GEORGE ASSOC. DXL MENS APPAREL 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 James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MR. MC CABE-So now can I have a resolution on Sign Variance PZ? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lake George Assoc. DXL Mens Apparel for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to replace both sign panels for DXL Mens Apparel store on the freestanding sign located on Route 149 and on Route 9. The proposed panel sign on Route 149 is to be 24.15 sq. ft. and the panel sign on Route 9 is I:~ �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.air/ "IB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) to be 24.67 sq. ft. The freestanding sign on Route 149 is 51.33 sq. ft. and on Route 9 is 54.93 sq. ft. Relief is requested for size and location of freestanding signs. Having considered this at a couple of different meetings that we were asking for clarification as to the exact size of the freestanding signs located on 149 and Rt. 9. The relief requested is for the size and the location of the freestanding signs SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. PZ-0134-2016 Lake George Assoc. DXL Mens Apparel 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 James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, May 25, 2016 and Wednesday, July 20, 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? None. We did hear a response from a nearby neighbor that his signs were somehow affected but the Board does not, at this point, feel that there's any negative due to the fact that these signs have been there for many years. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? The benefit could be achieved by moving them to a more feasible location but that doesn't seem practical given the fact that the parking lots are created and they would be impeding progress for cars in and out of those parking lots. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Even though the relief is considered substantial, the Board feels that it's a minimal impact because those signs have been there for many years and they're in locations that do not impede traffic flow or block the view of traffic on that busy corner. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Because the signs are in the exact same place where they've always been we do not anticipate any adverse environmental impacts. 5. Is the alleged difficulty 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; We've basically concluded that the signs are going to be in the same place as they've always been. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. PZ-0134-2016 LAKE GEORGE ASSOC. DXL MENS APPAREL, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. <insert conditions/ comments>: 6 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) 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 20th day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MR. LAPPER-Thanks, everybody. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE PZ-0184-2016 SEQRA TYPE II ROSS DUBARRY, AIRPORT MANAGER, WARREN COUNTY AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN & STEVES OWNER(S) GEORGE SICARD & CHARON TRUST ZONING CLI LOCATION 443 QUEENSBURY AVENUE FLOYD BENNETT MEMORIAL AIRPORT APPLICANT PROPOSES TO SUBDIVIDE A 25.45 ACRE PARCEL INTO 2 LOTS; 25.36 ACRES AND 0.09 ACRES. PROJECT IS PART OF WARREN COUNTY AIRPORT RUNWAY PROJECT ACTIVITIES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE CLI ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SB PRELIM PZ-185-2016; SB FINAL PZ-186-2016; SP 56-90, SP 52-02 9,600 SQ. FT. SELF-STORAGE, SP 2-10 1,500 SQ. FT. OFFICE & 10,000 SQ. FT. REPOSSESSION STORAGE, SP 55-14 LAND CLEARING FOR MARKETING WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL JULY 2016 LOT SIZE 25.45 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.16-1-1.1 AND 297.20-1-2 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT STEVES, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0184-2016, Ross Dubarry, Airport Manager, Warren County, Meeting Date: July 20, 2016 "Project Location: 443 Queensbury Avenue Floyd Bennett Memorial Airport Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to subdivide a 25.45 acre parcel into 2 lots; 25.36 acres and 0.09 acres. Project is part of Warren County Airport runway project activities. Subdivision —Planning Board review for a two lot subdivision. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the Commercial Light Industrial zoning district -CLI. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The CLI zone requires a minimum of one acre per lot. The proposed subdivision creates a lot at 0.09 ac. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 7 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy "IB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the existing parcel configuration and the requirements for the airport clear zone. The parcel is part of land in Kingsbury under the same owner and is not proposed for any development at this time. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 0.91 ac. 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 minimal 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 subdivision plan shows the land between Queensbury and Kingsbury that is involved with the Airport Clearance zone activities. The applicant has indicated some of the lots are to be retained by owners or conveyed to the County." MR. STEVES-Good evening. Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves. MR. MC CABE-Matt, because we're short, you know, you can bail if you want to. MR. STEVES-No problem. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Again, Matt Steves with Van Dusen and Steves representing the County on this application. We attended the Planning Board last night and I believe you have that letter that they sent over as far as their recommendation to this Board for this purpose. If you've reviewed the maps or if you look at the one on the board up on the big screen, the area we're talking about is that northwesterly cross hatched area that's owned by Chartrand. If everybody knows this area, an I'm sure you all do quite well, Queensbury Ave. used to be called County Line Road because the County Line, as you can see it comes in and then comes right down the middle of County Line Road, about halfway down the Chartrand property of what is being retained. The total area of the Chartrand parcel is 67 acres, comprising both Queensbury and Kingsbury, and the amount being retained is 2.9 acres, and what happens is is where that County line is, it doesn't affect the parcel, though, but because of the fact it's in two different municipalities, it currently has this little sliver in the front that doesn't comply, but now we're breaking off a larger piece to sell to the County. So therefore now a variance is needed for the subdivision. That little triangular piece we're talking about on the southwesterly corner of the Charon Trust parcel is 40 feet on the southerly side, comes to a point on the north that is 207 feet along the road. We have a total of about 4,000 square feet. Hence the .09 acres. Again, that lot, by its own configuration in Queensbury, even as it exists is non-buildable because of the required front and rear setbacks. So it's just a, in our opinion it's kind of a formality because of the fact that it's in two different municipalities. It is always going to be merged with the larger 2.9 acre piece. It's just like if you run along Western Avenue in Glens Falls. When you get to the northern end up near Bedford Close, or Broadacres, about four and a half to five feet of the front of those people's property on the west side is in Glens Falls and the rest is in Queensbury. The person here will get two tax bills, but realistically that one lot in Queensbury, even though it's going to be taxed as a separate lot because it's in a different County, is not a developable lot, and the deed will encompass the entire property and would be filed with both municipalities. MR. MC CABE-Just let me get this. Do we have to inform Washington County of what we're doing here? MRS. MOORE-It's already done. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 8 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. STEVES-1 was just going to state that. Washington County's been informed and they said that they have no issue with this and they wrote a letter stating that it doesn't need any approval from their boards, and the Planning Board, again, last night had no problem with the subdivision, and I don't think they passed on any concerns to this Board. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions? So I guess the only problem I have is that the .09 acres is pretty small. If something happened, you know, we're creating kind of a really weird entity here. MR. STEVES-Well, it's going to be permanently attached to the parcel in Kingsbury. MR. FREER-With a driveway so he can get to his property. MR. MC CABE-1 see. MR. STEVES-Let me just show you real quick up here. What we're talking about is this small triangle right here. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. STEVES-And by the deed conveyance it's going to be permanently attached to this lot and will not be a developable parcel. So even though it's taxed in a different County. MR. MC CABE-So it's not really its own entity. MR. STEVES-Right, and it already is taxed in a different County. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So there is a public meeting advertised here. So I'll open the public meeting. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this matter? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written correspondence. So with that information, I'll close the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll poll the Board. Roy, how do you feel? MR. URRICO-1 think it looks like paperwork to me. I think this is simple. I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I'm in favor of it. It's just part of the continuing development of the airport right of ways and stuff. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. It's a small situation. I don't think it's anything that triggers anything in my mind of significance. MR. MC CABE-And so I'll support it also. So can I have a motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ross Dubarry, Airport Manager Warren County. Applicant proposes to subdivide a 25.45 acre parcel into 2 lots; 25.36 acres and 0.09 acres. Project is part of Warren County Airport runway project activities. Relief requested from minimum lot size requirements for the CLI zoning district. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 20, 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: 9 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) 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 lot is not developable and it's attached to a piece of property in another County. 2. Feasible alternatives are very limited because this activity is part of a bigger land purchase/activity. 3. The requested variance is substantial for the size but the mitigating circumstances is it's permanently connected to a larger lot so there's not going to be any development on this parcel that's requesting the waiver. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because of the revolving safety zones that the airport is required to maintain has driven some of this and tree growth has driven some of this. So it's not really 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-0184-2016, ROSS DUBARRY, AIRPORT MANAGER WARREN COUNTY, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MR. STEVES-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0175-2016 SEQRA TYPE 11 OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGENT(S) VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ZONING CI LOCATION 102 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 231 SQ. FT. PRIMARY ENTRYWAY ADDITION TO THE EXISTING RETAIL/OFFICE BUILDING. THE NEW ENTRYWAY WILL BE 21 FEET 8 INCHES IN HEIGHT AND 8 FEET IN WIDTH. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF THE BUILDING AND FOR THE ASSOCIATED SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS. CROSS REF SV PZ-0177- 2016; SP MOD PZ-174-2016; SP 20-2014; SP 39-2013 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL JULY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-13 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-7-050 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0175-2016, Omall Family Limited Partnership, Meeting Date: July 20, 2016 "Project Location: 102 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new 231 sq. ft. primary entryway addition to the existing retail/office building. The new entryway will be 21 feet 8 inches in height and 8 feet in width. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of the building and for the associated site improvements. °10 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy "IB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from front property line setback of the Commercial Intensive zone -Cl. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The Commercial Intensive zone requires a 75 ft. front setback. The new entry way area is proposed to be 44.69 ft. at the east corner and 43.75 ft. at the west corner from the front property line. 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 considered limited due to the location of the existing building. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minor to moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested 30.31 ft. on the east corner and 31.25 on the west corner. 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 minimal 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 a modification to an approved site plan to renovate the front fagade to create a new entryway to the building. The entry way is to be 33 ft. in height with a width of 7 ft. from the main building at the columns and 8ft width at the top. The new entry way is to be consistent with the existing masonry building. The building is arranged for three tenants and the new entryway will be at the Tenant One space." MR. MC CABE-If you could state your name for the record. MR. RYAN-My name is Dan Ryan. I am with Vision Engineering. I am here on behalf of the applicant who owns the property. I'll give you a little background. This project had been in front of the Planning Board previously. It is one of the parcels remaining along Quaker Road which requires re-development. This project's been ongoing in the planning stages for two to three years, and we're at a point now where we can move forward with the entire re- development and including occupying what we're defining, and I'll show you, as tenant one space, which is that northeast corner or quadrant of that existing building. So we do have a tenant that will be located in that front area. In working with the Planning Board previously, the biggest issue we had attempted to resolve with this re-development is right now the property is one large open curb cut. There's no traffic control, and it hasn't been a great situation, historically, in terms of pedestrian and traffic safety. So one of the first things we did in the initial stages of the planning was focus in on providing dedicated parking on the east side of the building predominantly as it currently exists, but adding some green space in the front of the building and providing a direct route in and out of the property via a controlled access. So that is one of the benefits of this project in re-developing that site is that we'll provide a little safer environment. We did have the County review at that time. It is a County highway, and they were generally appearing that the project was beneficial from their perspective as well. So now we are here two years later. We had a small cleanup project. We did find an underground storage tank, fuel storage tank, that had to be cleaned up. So that has been remedied and removed and DEC was involved with that spill report and getting that closed, and so that was something that took place in the last year and a half, getting that out of the way so that the rest of the re-development could occur. Today we're here before you, almost directly �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy "IB/\ II\4eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) related to occupying that tenant one space. As you can see, if you want to go to C-3, Laura, I think it's the next page, so this is the site plan, essentially as it was previously approved by the Planning Board. We've clouded a few of the changes that we're proposing in this round. We have been to the Planning Board. We were there last night. They did their initial review and I believe their recommendation was that they did not see any major adverse impacts from what we're proposing here as modifications to this site plan. Essentially as described in our application, and in particular for this variance for the front setback, we're proposing to add a focal point on that front tenant space, and that is going to be achieved by providing a projection and an elevated front fagade at that main entrance that exists there now, and so ultimately what's being proposed is we're removing the old four foot cedar shake overhang. We're going to clean that up with some nice EIFS finishes and getting more modern finishes there, and then providing this projection which will become the focal point for that tenant one space, and so we did provide some sketches which will depict precisely what we're proposing there. The unfortunate part of this project is the existing building, front of the building, is entirely encroaching within that 75 foot setback. So by removing four feet and, you know, adding two inches, we're almost essentially encroaching on that setback. So there really is no other means without a variance to do anything along the front of the building. We do feel this is an important upgrade to the building. It hasn't been really renovated in quite a few years, and it's probably one of the less modern looking buildings along Quaker Road now. So it's a little bit overdue. So my clients are very excited about getting this project moving and getting this re- development finished. So basically the first step here for this first variance here tonight is requesting the relief for the front setback for that front fagade structure. MR. MC CABE-Any questions? MR. FREER-You said the first variance. MR. RYAN-We're on subsequent to this for some signage. MR. MC CABE-He's going to be in that seat for a while. MR. RYAN-I don't want to confuse and cross the two. So we figure we'll deal with this first. MR. FREER-I see. MR. RYAN-Absolutely. I'd be happy to answer any other questions. We do have sketches, as some of the details are not entirely etched in stone in terms of accent colors and that sort of thing, but we did provide as much detail as we could at the time the application was submitted. MR. MC CABE-Colors aren't our deal. MR. RYAN-I figured that, but again the focus being the variance, yes, for the setback. MR. URRICO-Do you know what the history of the building is? MR. RYAN-I don't personally have enough history that I could probably give you anything valuable, other than it's been, there's been the foreign company there for quite a few years. I think that's Four Star. They'll be leaving and Carpet One Floor Master from across the road will be coming to this tenant one space. MR. MC CABE-I think it's been some sort of furniture floor place for a long time. MR. RYAN-Pretty much that type of retail. MR. URRICO-Well, the reason I was asking was you said they found fuel tanks? MR. RYAN-Yes, we're not sure how that got there. In fact, there wasn't any history available that could be discoverable that would have even had an indication that that fuel storage tank, or why it would have been in there at some point. There's been some speculation, but nothing that, you know. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? So there is a public meeting advertised tonight. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this matter? See, no one, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. MC CABE-So with that I'll close the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'll poll the Board. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 have no problem approving it. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I'm good. MR. URRICO-Yes, I think this will be an improvement. I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-As am 1. So I'll ask for a resolution. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Omall Family Limited Partnership. Applicant proposes construction of a new 231 sq. ft. primary entryway addition to the existing retail / office building. The new entryway will be 21 feet 8 inches in height and 8 feet in width. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of the building and for the associated site improvements. Relief requested from property line setbacks. As noted in the discussion here this evening, we recognize that the front of the building does not meet the 75 foot setback from Quaker Road, but the new fagade that will be created will be slightly more in compliance with that setback as opposed to what it is. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 20, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited due to where the building has been constructed in the past, and it's recognized it's an update of the original fagade of the building. 3. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. There's going to be better access created in and out of that for what's currently available. It's just simply an open freestyle. 4. 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; 5. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0175-2016, OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 201h day of July, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MR. RYAN-Okay. Great. '13 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.air/ ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. MC CABE-Part One's done. SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0177-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP AGENT(S) VISION ENGINEERING OWNER(S) OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP ZONING Cl LOCATION 102 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF AN ADDITIONAL WALL SIGN FOR A TENANT IN THE BUSINESS PLAZA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES UPDATING ALL SIGNAGE. THE PLAZA IS TO HAVE THREE TENANTS WHERE ONE TENANT PROPOSES TWO WALL SIGNS; ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE ON NEW ENTRY AT 100 SQ. FT., AND ONE ON THE EAST SIDE AT NO GREATER THAN 45 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS PER TENANT IN A BUSINESS PLAZA. CROSS REFERENCE AV PZ-0175- 2016; SP MOD PZ-174-2016; SP 20-2014; SP 39-2013 WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL JULY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-13 SECTION CHAPTER 140 DAN RYAN, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0177-2016, Omall Family Limited Partnership, Meeting Date: July 20, 2016 "Project Location: 102 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of an additional wall sign for a tenant in the business plaza. The project includes updating all signage. The plaza is to have three tenants where one tenant proposes two wall signs; one on the north side on new entry at 100 sq. ft., and one on the east side at no greater than 45 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs per tenant in a business plaza in the Commercial Intensive zone–Cl. Section 140 Signs for which permits are required—location of signs and size of signs The applicant proposes an additional wall sign for Tenant One. In a business complex a tenant is only allowed one wall sign. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the project includes fagade upgrades for a new entry way where Tenant One is proposed to have two entrances. The fagade upgrade is for the north face that would include signage for Tenant One then a new sign fagade is proposed for Tenant One and Tenant Two on the east face where a majority of the parking is located. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is for a business complex tenant to have two signs where only one is allowed. 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 a minimal impact within the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a modification to an approved site plan to renovate the front fagade to create a new entryway to the building. The plans show the location of the north face and east face for Tenant One signage to be Floor Master Carpet One. The project also includes a new freestanding sign to be in the planter box listing the three tenants and to be internally illuminated." �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy "IB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. RYAN-Okay. Again, Dan Ryan, Vision Engineering. I'll walk you through a little bit of what's going on with the signage here. As you understand, the zoning regulations or sign regulations allow, we'll start with the freestanding sign at the entrance of the site. Currently there is an existing sign planter with a freestanding sign within that that's probably the same sign that has been there for many, many years. This is simply a replacement of that sign. We did provide a sketch of the approximate dimensions, showing that there would be three tenant panels within that, and that's basically a Code compliant sign per that regulation. So that would be the first sign. As you did describe in your notes, each, being a business complex, each tenant is allowed one wall sign, building mounted wall sign, up to 100 square feet. Obviously each tenant would want that installed for each of those locations. We have basically the two front tenants, one being on the east corner, one being on the west, and then basically the southeast tenant, which is what we're describing as Tenant Two. Their only entrance is accessed from that east side of the parking lot. Okay. So Tenant One, which is, as I described previously, is Carpet One Floormaster. We're proposing this new front entrance, and we would like some signage on that, basically become a hallmark of the company, location wise, branding wise, similar to the Lowe's and the Home Depots, but obviously on a much smaller scale. So we did provide details describing that signage that's going to be on that front canopy or entrance structure. Essentially what we have is a EIFS finish with individually mounted, illuminated letters. Okay. They would be mounted. They're each about one foot six inches tall. You'll notice this says Floormaster on the top. Do you have that color rendering I sent you? Right here. Okay. So this would be the lower lettering within that front entrance canopy. That entire lettering occupies 30 square feet. So it's not astronomical in size. Just above this would be the name Floormaster of similar size and colored lettering, and so we anticipate that we'll be well below 100 square feet, but we figure we would try to basically make the application simple as for the 100 square feet, but we believe this front area would occupy about 60 square feet in total, in terms of the illuminated lettering. Okay. So that's on the front. The variance we require is Floormaster would like a second sign, wall mounted, on the side entrance, and so if you go to that side sketch, I don't know if it's SK-7, yes, right there. So basically from that east parking lot, east side parking lot, there will be an entrance, which we presume will be the predominant primarily used entrance for the retail store, and so in order to direct people to that entrance, we're asking for a second wall mounted sign, and that's what the variance is about today. That sign would basically be no greater than 45 square feet. We anticipate it to be closer to 30. It's basically going to be illuminated, back lit illuminated, pre-fabricated sign that would be similar to the existing sign they have across the street, which is bigger than what we're anticipating, but of similar style and color. So the variance is essentially requesting a second wall mounted sign for Tenant One. MR. MC CABE-Any questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-So that's strictly due to the fact that that's going to be the main entrance? MR. RYAN-That's for the main entrance. The front is more the location and branding, really probably won't get used a lot, if at all. So it's really for this main side entrance essentially. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? We do have a public meeting scheduled for this evening. Is there anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this matter? Seeing no one, do we have any written correspondence? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written correspondence. MR. MC CABE-I should have opened the public meeting first. I'm sorry. I'll open the public meeting. Nobody's in the audience, no written correspondence. I'll close the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll poll the Board. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I'm okay with this. MR. MC CABE-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm okay with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? '115 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy "IB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. URRICO-I'm not okay with this. I'm against the second sign. Sorry, but I just think, given its location, that close to the Quaker Road, I think it's a bad precedent to set. So I would be against it. MR. RYAN-If I may, I think our argument to that would simply be the fact that we have a very unique scenario where all of the parking is on one side. MR. URRICO-1 understand that. I read through it. I understand that. MR. RYAN-Is there anything we could do to mitigate your concerns? Aside from using the front entrance and relocating parking to the front of the building? As it stands now? MR. URRICO-I'm not going to negotiate right now. MR. RYAN-I'm just asking. I'm trying to get some feedback on if there's an alternative. MR. URRICO-Make it a smaller sign. You don't need 45 square feet to tell people where to get, how to get to the store. MR. RYAN-Would 30 square feet be something you'd consider? That's why I'm asking. Is there an alternative? MR. URRICO-Make it the same size that you would use for parking directions. MR. UNDERWOOD-Could you do it so it fit just over the top of the doors, that size? I mean, you could shrink it in this way and put it down lower and it wouldn't have to be up above, as high up. MR. RYAN-There's alternatives, I guess, if that's what you're asking. Certainly the higher the better. You know, the building is only 16 feet tall. So it's a relatively small building. It's one story. We were trying to get it elevated on a skew that's basically a two foot skew from front to back, so that it was a little more visible from the parking lot as you enter, so that you could very easily be directed to the store. That's similar to what they have across the street where the signs on that retail shop are skewed a little bit towards the front. It doesn't add a lot of visibility, but it does improve, it makes it a little bit easier for eye-catching in terms of getting in and out. So the reason we were elevating it was for the reason of building that box skew on the fagade up above the doorway. Again, if the sign was more suitable and something that was more acceptable, is 20 square feet? We're looking to elevate it, provide a small skew so that it is more visible, and then it has to be illuminated. We don't see any other way of directing tenants other than putting stickers on a door, which hardly directs people in the proper direction. So then we've got to go back to the drawing board about parking, primary entrances and how do we configure this tenant to have a primary entrance for its patrons, and so if there was a way to get something that you would feel would be agreeable, we would reduce the square footage of that sign if that was something, is it the principle of two signs or is it really the size and the detriment it has, because, again, we feel this project is unique. MR. URRICO-You're asking for 100% relief for a second sign in the area that's already over signed. MR. RYAN-On the side of a building. MR. URRICO-I'm not going to negotiate with this. This is my opinion. You have my judgment. You have the option of waiting for a full Board. MR. RYAN-Well, I'd probably request that we be tabled to the next meeting. MR. MC CABE-So can I have a resolution to table this request until? MRS. MOORE-You can table it to the next meeting, which is July 27tH MR. FREER-Well, are you going to have a full Board then? MR. RYAN-There's probably no guarantees on who's showing up? MR. FREER-I'm not here next week. '16 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. RYAN-I guess we would ask, if we had to table it again due to the number of people, we would want, obviously, a more full Board if possible. We would table to the next meeting if we thought we would have more members. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I know Steve will be here next week, but I don't know about Ron, and obviously Harrison. MRS. MOORE-My understanding is that Ron will be here. MR. FREER-What about John? MR. MC CABE-You thought John was going to be here tonight but he called at the last minute. MRS. MOORE-John called in, but it's my understanding he'll be here next week. MR. MC CABE-So, yes, you'll still be short next week, but you won't be short three. You'll only be short one. MR. RYAN-How Many do you have to have for a majority vote? MR. MC CABE-You have to have four. So you only need four votes no matter how many are here, and you'll get an indication. So we'll have a resolution to table this until next week. MRS. MOORE-The 7/27 meeting. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Omall Family Limited Partnership for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of an additional wall sign for a tenant in the business plaza. The project includes updating all signage. The plaza is to have three tenants where one tenant proposes two wall signs; one on the north side on new entry at 100 sq. ft., and one on the east side at no greater than 45 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs per tenant in a business plaza. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0177-2016 OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Tabled to the July 27, 2016 Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MRS. MOORE-1 would also suggest the Board re-open the public hearing and leave it open. MR. MC CABE-So I will re-open the public meeting and leave that open. PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. RYAN-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-We'll see you next week. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0178-2016 SEQRA TYPE II CELLCO PARTNERSHIP d/b/a VERIZON WIRELESS AGENT(S) DAVID C. BRENNAN, ESQ. YOUNG & SOMMER, LLC OWNER(S) CITY OF GLENS FALLS ZONING PR-42A LOCATION CITY OF GLENS FALLS WATER TANK (AVIATION MALL ROAD) APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF AN 11 FT. 6 IN. BY 16 FT. EQUIPMENT BUILDING FOR ANTENNAE COLLOCATION PROJECT ON THE CITY OF GLENS FALLS WATER TANK. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF 12 PANEL ANTENNAS AND SITE WORK. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE TELECOMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM SUPPORT BUILDINGS, AND SITE IMPROVEMENTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS FOR THE PARKLAND (PR-42A) ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF SP PZ -01710-2016 , BP 6503 YR. 1980 CHLORINE ROOM ,1.7 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL JULY 2016 LOT SIZE 1.53 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.9-1-43 SECTION 179-5-130, 179-3-040 HYDE CLARK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0178-2016, Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless, Meeting Date: July 20, 2016 "Project Location: City of Glens Falls Water Tank (Aviation Mall Road) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of an 11 ft. 6 in. by 16 ft. equipment building for antennae collocation project on the City of Glens Falls Water Tank. Project includes installation of 12 panel antennas and sitework. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for construction of the telecommunications system, support buildings, and site improvements. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks and permeability for the Parkland (PR-42) zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The Parkland zone requires a 100 ft. front setback. The new equipment shelter is proposed to be 28 ft. from the front property line. Permeability required is 90% applicant proposes 85.4% existing is 86.3% at a 0.9% change. 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 considered limited due to the existing parcel configuration and the location of the existing Water Tanks. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 72 ft. 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 minimal 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 equipment shelter is to be 184 +/- sq. ft. and 12 ft. in height. The shelter is an open structure to provide coverage of the equipment for the operations of the antennas to be located on the tank. The existing northern water tank at 122.6 ft. high and will be utilized to place the 12 panel antennas and associated equipment for the operations of Verizon cell service. The plans show the antennas will be located at 108 ft. height of the tank. The submission includes elevations of the equipment shelter and the placement of the antennas on the water tank." MRS. MOORE-Just as a note, I apologize. The revised information about permeability is a little different. It should be 74.4, and that was due to property that we identified as being a taking by the DOT. So it actually made the property smaller. So that figure should be 74.4%. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is that from the Northway side? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. '18 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. MC CABE-So they're proposing, what is it, 74? MRS. MOORE-.4. MR. MC CABE-And the existing is 86.3, or is that? MRS. MOORE-The existing is really 75.9. MR. FREER-So it's a miniscule change. MR. URRICO-So it's .5. MRS. MOORE-Yes. The size of the property was reduced. MR. URRICO-So we're adding to the notes that it's a .15% change? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Good evening. MR. CLARK-My name's Hyde Clark. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Young/Sommer in Albany, here on behalf of the applicant, Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon Wireless, and this is a proposed co-location on the existing water tank, and we do have two area variance requests. Verizon Wireless is considered a public utility, so I would ask the Board to take Rosenberg into consideration when going through what standards we have to meet for the proposed area variances. The setback, the current water tank is 75 feet from the front lot. So it's not a reduction from the 100 feet. It's already 25 feet under what's required. We would be going to, as stated, to the 26 feet. So the equipment platform that's creating the need for the area variance for setback, as stated, there's a limited space where we can place the equipment. So that's kind of due to how the water tank site is set up. That's where we need to have that equipment. It's a small equipment platform. It's 11.6 feet by 16 feet in size, and just in terms of co-location in general with the Zoning Code it is a permitted use in this zoning district, and I think that is a beneficial project when we're able to co-locate on an existing structure and meet our needs and provide coverage where we have gaps and not have to build a new structure. So I think this is a good project, and I'd like to take any questions from the Board at this point. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you required to be set back from the tanks as far as where the proposal is? You have some minimum setbacks from the tanks where the structure's got to be built? You can't build it like right up against the structure, obviously. MR. CLARK-Yes, just how the inner compound works and our standard lease size, because every equipment platform is. MR. UNDERWOOD-And that's all going to be fenced off? MR. CLARK-And there's going to be expanded fence compound. So all of our equipment is secured. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. MC CABE-So that's going to block off the cross country ski trails now. MR. CLARK-Is there a trail? MR. MC CABE-So, would you guys be willing to re-cut a trail that, you know, where you block it off? Would that be a big request? MRS. MOORE-Is it truly there? MR. CLARK-1 wasn't aware that there was a trail. MR. UNDERWOOD-The trail comes through in the back of there, kind of like, it's going to be built like right in the middle of where the trail comes through, but I mean I think that in the past sometimes they've had to come on the southeast side along the tanks there anyway. So I think what they'll probably end up doing is adding on somewhere else in the park to make up the difference. '19 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ II\4eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. MC CABE-If they're going to have equipment in there, you might get some. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well, I know, but they'll have to plow, have it plowed to get access to it, you know, so I think that would create a situation where they'll just have to modify the trail somehow, add to it, to make up the difference. MR. CLARK-And I just know how the current vegetation is kind of provides a natural screening so you won't see that equipment. MR. UNDERWOOD-Right. MR. CLARK-1 don't know if we want to get into. MR. MC CABE-1 was just trying to get the trail continuous. That's the Glens Falls High School cross country trail. MR. URRICO-You'll have better coverage there when you're playing Poke-mon Go. MR. MC CABE-1 hadn't considered that. Any other questions? MR. FREER-So my question is a little bit broader. If somebody else, will this thing lend itself to co-use if there's another carrier that wants to take advantage of this, or is this strictly a one? MR. CLARK-1 mean, we've had other sites where you can have maybe one additional carrier. I know the water tank's limited. I'd have to look at the structural report, see if another carrier would be. We look at more if there's additional carriers if we're proposing a tower. We want to be able to build it so that you can have additional, but in terms of an existing structure, we have that information. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Any other questions? There is a public meeting scheduled for this evening. So I will open the public meeting and ask if there's anybody in the audience who would like to speak on this matter? Seeing no one, I'll ask is there any correspondence?? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-1 don't see any. MR. MC CABE-Given that, I'll close the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'll poll the Board to see how everybody feels. Jim, how do you feel? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think the Town has always pushed for co-location, whatever cell company has come in and asked for it, and I think this is a prime example where you wonder why they haven't been on there all these years. It's an obvious high point along the Northway where you need more signal, and as far as the setbacks, you know, from the Mall access road in the back there, I don't think it creates any hardship or anything. Most of these things have a tiny amount of traffic generated, you know, as far as maintaining and stuff like that. So I don't see there's any negatives. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I support the project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with Jim. MR. MC CABE-And I also support the project. So I'll ask for a resolution. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Cellco Partnership d/b/a Verizon Wireless. Applicant proposes construction of an 11 ft. 6 in. by 16 ft. equipment building for antennae collocation project on the City of Glens Falls Water Tank. Project includes installation of 12 panel antennas and sitework. Planning �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.air/ ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) Board: Site Plan Review for construction of the telecommunications system, support buildings, and site improvements. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks and permeability for the Parkland (PR-42) zoning district. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 20, 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 it's a very small structure and it's already part of a setback that is not compliant. 2. Feasible alternatives are very limited. The idea that co-locating is better than building new towers is being supported by this project, and therefore it makes sense. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because with regard to the large structure and the setback it's already non-compliant as previously stated. 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 but it's part of the bigger project that helps minimize cell tower complaints. 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-0178-2016, CELLCO PARTNERSHIP D/B/A VERIZON WIRELESS, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MR. MC CABE-You're all set. MR. CLARK-Thank you very much. MR. UNDERWOOD-Good luck with it. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0187-2016 SEQRA TYPE II TIM BARBER & CARRIE INGLEE AGENT(S) TOMAS ANDRESS OWNER(S) TIM BARBER & CARRIE INGLEE ZONING RR-5A AND LC-10A LOCATION 35 & 48 INGLEE MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION MODIFICATION INVOLVING A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN LOTS 3 AND 2 OF SUBDIVISION NO. 15-2002 JEFFERY INGLEE. LOT 2 (300.- 1-40.2) (SANKEY) EXISTING 13.95 ACRES INCREASED TO 18.71 ACRES AND LOT 3 (300.1-40.3) EXISTING 12.23 ACRES TO BE DECREASED TO 7.47 ACRES. PLANNING �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) BOARD: SUBDIVISION REVIEW IS REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED LOT CHANGES WITHIN A PLANNING BOARD APPROVED SUBDIVISION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NO ROAD FRONTAGE AND LOT LESS THAN 10 ACRES. CROSS REF SB MOD PZ-183- 2016 OF PREVIOUS FILE SB 15-2002 TO CREATE 2-LOTS; SP PZ 182-2016; AV 28-2013 POOL; BP 2003-680 SFD; RC 289-2016 ATT. GARAGE (1,800 SQ. FT.); BP 2002-015; BP 2010-075 SFD WARREN COUNTY REFERRAL JULY 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 13.95 ACRES & 12.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 300.00-1-40.2; 300.00-1-40.3 SECTION 179-3-040; CHAPTER 183 TOM ANDRESS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; TIM BARBER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0187-2016, Tim Barber & Carrie Inglee, Meeting Date: July 20, 2016 "Project Location: 35 & 48 Inglee Mountain Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a subdivision modification involving a lot line adjustment between lots 3 and 2 of Subdivision No. 15-2002 Jeffery Inglee. Lot 2 (300.-1-40.2)(Sankey) existing 13.95 acres increased to 18.71 acres and Lot 3 (300.-1-40.3) existing 12.23 acres to be decreased to 7.47 acres. Planning Board: Subdivision review is required for the proposed lot changes within a Planning Board approved subdivision. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for no road frontage and lot less than 10 acres for property in the Land Conservation Ten acre-LC-10 and Rural Residential five acre—RR-S. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The Land Conservation Zone requires 10 acres per parcel. The new proposed parcel is to be 7.47 ac Section 179-4-050 Frontage requirements Parcels are to have 50 ft. of physical road frontage. The new proposed lot will have 0 ft. of road frontage. 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 considered limited due to the existing parcel configuration and the applicant's intent to resolve outstanding neighboring access items. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 2.53 ac for lot size and 50 ft. for physical road frontage. The modification addresses neighboring concerns with access to and from property that is within Lake Luzerne though lot 3 and easements on property in Queensbury. 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 minimal 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: �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy "IB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) The applicant's proposal for a subdivision modification to address neighbor concerns with access and easements created a parcel less than the 10 ac for the LC 10A zone. The plan provided shows the new lot arrangement along with the access easements where the undersized parcel is associated with other property in Lake Luzerne under the same ownership. The proposal will continue to allow access to Lot 3 over Lot 2 and Lot 1 through easements that are noted in the submission. The project is also part of the existing access improvements that are submitted for Site Plan review where the Town Code compliance officer noted the road improvements violated the site plan and subdivision regulations and the submission for subdivision modification, area variance, and site plan addresses those items." MR. MC CABE-So let me ask just a question. Are we close enough to Lake Luzerne where we have to inform them of what we're doing? MRS. MOORE-They're informed. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So state your name for the record, please. MR. ANDRESS-Certainly. Tom Andress with ABD Engineers, and with me also is the applicant, Tim Barber. We're here tonight for an area variance as was noted for frontage for the lot and for the lot size. This whole subdivision is coming about because of an agreement between two neighbors. For a very long time, prior to Mr. Barber being involved in purchasing the property, there had been some type of dispute between the Inglees who originally did this subdivision in 2001, sold, built a house and sold one of the lots to Mr. Sankey and for whatever reason a dispute arose out of that dispute. It's been longstanding. Mr. Barber has recently in the last year become involved in the property purchased jointly the land, looked at him wanting to be able to utilize, he has a parcel in the Town of Lake Luzerne where the access road that we're dealing with with the Planning Board goes around into that parcel wanted to be able to live up, or not utilize it because it's a camp, but utilize it and not have disputes. So because of that, we're subdividing the lot. Again these lots were created in 2001. We're actually going to take a parcel Mr. Barber has at 35 Inglee. He has, right now he has on Lot 3. It's 12.23 acres. He's actually going to take 4.76 acres, it's almost easier to see on these little maps over here. You have the heavy dark line. That's the existing lot for Mr. Sankey, and the light is Mr. Barber's lot. What we're doing is we're going to actually take all of this land in here, as it shows over here, and it's all being added to Lot Two, Mr. Sankey's land, and Mr. Barber will just have this small remaining parcel which is the 7 is, less than 7 and a half acres. Right now the access is actually through the adjoining parcel and then through easements that are set up across the land. So these are all existing easements. So Mr. Barber never did utilize this 25 feet, but it did have, it's sort of hard to see, but there's a light line there. Each of the two parcels have 25 foot frontage. So I assume at that time either they had gotten a variance because of the 50 foot required for each or maybe in 2001 it was before the requirement for the 50 feet. What we will do is actually we will bring Sankey's property into compliance because now it will have 50 feet, but of course Mr. Barber won't have any of that as legal access, but he does have, again, a legal easement all the way through to his property. So right now this parcel is a buildable parcel. Mr. Barber could build a house on that. That was approved by the Planning Board to build. In fact, there was some intention to build a house here, which would have been right in here. The Sankey house is right there. So it would have been very close. That would have, again, created a situation between neighbors that probably would have just escalated the conflict. So Mr. Barber has decided not to do that. Again, he will sell this land or give this land to Mr. Sankey with the provision that he will not be able to build another house on there also. The remaining parcel up here is very steep slopes that Mr. Barber will not build a house on there, and I think, as we spoke with the Planning Board last night, we will put a notation on that so that's not a buildable lot either. So effectively what we're doing is eliminating a buildable lot, but in the process of doing that we're creating these variances. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you guys in the blue line up there, you get reviewed by APA? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. BARBER-Yes, we're fully permitted up there. MR. UNDERWOOD-So there's not going to be anything created on that substandard lot. It's just going to be in perpetuity and that's going to be deeded that? MR. ANDRESS-This piece will be the substandard lot. There won't be any building, but in the Town of Lake Luzerne, this is Mr. Barber's other land. So it will be utilized for part of it. MR. UNDERWOOD-Would you access that land via the same access point, over on the left side? �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy ZIB/\ II\4eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. ANDRESS-It does. That is the only access to it is through these other parcels. Right. MR. URRICO-Who maintains the easements? MR. BARBER-1 do. MR. ANDRESS-And that is, as you read in the opening review, Mr. Barber was actually maintaining the access road up to the property this spring when this dispute occurred and there was a complaint filed with the Town by the adjoining owner, which started this whole thing. So we do have an application in to the Town. They're reviewing the work we did to make sure that's all in conformance. MR. MC CABE-Is the Inglee Mountain Road a Town road? MR. BARBER-No. MR. ANDRESS-No. It has the address as Inglee but the closest is Tuthill down here. MR. MC CABE-Questions? Other questions? There is a public meeting advertised. So I'II open the public meeting and I'll ask if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address this matter. Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any correspondence on this? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-I do not see any correspondence. MR. MC CABE-So with nobody to address and no correspondence, I'll close the public meeting. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'll poll the Board. Roy, how do you feel? MR. URRICO-I think this sounds like a good plan, but my only concern is what if something happens between now and the time the deed is actually drawn up and signed? Will we be approving something, before the fact, that could change? The deed is already filed? MRS. MOORE-Right, not for each of the lots, but the easement access is already completed. The access easement is completed. The deeds have not be filed to give land to Mr. Sankey or to maintain the land that Mr. Barber owns. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think what we can do, if we approve it, is we can also note the fact that no structures will be created on that lot that's being conveyed, the land that's being conveyed, nothing will be built on the parcel that remains because of the steep slopes over on the other side, on the north side. MRS. MOORE-And the Planning Board will do the same. MR. UNDERWOOD-I mean, I think that's our system of checks and balances. MR. URRICO-I'm okay with it, then. MR. MC CABE-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. It's interesting to see people giving land, but it makes sense. I think that the whole 50 foot frontage kind of thing, this is all old sort of stuff that I hope we're not creating, I think we're solving the problem. I hope we're not creating additional unintended consequences. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that the 50 foot requirement, I think like, too, in this situation here you're in the middle of nowhere basically, you know, it's not like you're on a major road where you're going to have more access created and more traffic. MR. MC CABE-And I also support the project. So I'll call for a resolution. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Tim Barber and Carrie Inglee. Applicant proposes a subdivision modification involving a lot line adjustment between lots 3 and 2 of Subdivision No. 15-2002 Jeffery Inglee. Lot 2 (300.-1-40.2)(Sankey) existing 13.95 acres increased to 18.71 acres and Lot 3 (300.-1-40.3) 1:,4 �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.air/ "IB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) existing 12.23 acres to be decreased to 7.47 acres. Planning Board: Subdivision review is required for the proposed lot changes within a Planning Board approved subdivision. Relief requested for no road frontage and lot less than 10 acres. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 20, 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. 2. Feasible alternatives do not seem to be feasible in this situation here. They're going to be conveying that parcel on the lef hand side of the parcel to the right hand side to make it more compatible in size. It's going to be 18 plus acres in size. The small lot that will be created, the sub-standard sized lot on the right side of the property, it's noted that both the conveyed parcel will have no more buildings built upon it and they've agreed to that with the Planning Board also, and that the steep slopes on the sub-standard sized produce lot on the right hand side of the parcel will also not have any structures completed on that because it's incompatible with the Town Code in regards to the steep slopes that are apparent there. So that's our system of checks and balances here. Again, the whole reason for this change is to create, diffuse the situation, whether it's a dispute between the property owners. The original access to the property owners. The original access to the property that accesses to the Luzerne property over the Town property, Town line will remain in force and remain available for future use of the buildup in that area. 3. 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; 4. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0187-2016, Tim Barber and Carrie Inglee Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 20th day of July 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MR. ANDRESS-Thank you. MR. BARBER-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-I have a question. What am I supposed to get from this? MR. UNDERWOOD-From Salvador? I think that's an informative thing. I think he's raised the issue previously with us about. MR. FREER-What's the purpose? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think it's a semantic call on his part, and I think that he's brought it up numerous times in the past. MRS. MOORE-Our alternates are used in the manner that you've seen before. �Qa.aeeir.n,raIba.airy "IB/\ 11\1eediiiir.ng 07/20/2016) MR. MC CABE-As they are in other municipalities. We're not the only ones. MR. URRICO-It even says in there something about local law can revise the conditions. MR. FREER-Yes, but our local law doesn't, right? So I don't care. Why are you telling me this, them? MR. UNDERWOOD-He's just informing us. MR. FREER-This is from December 2015. We're just getting it? MRS. MOORE-He just came in today with it. MR. UNDERWOOD-He just handed it to us at the beginning of the meeting. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-For you're reading pleasure. So is there anyone who'd like to close the meeting this evening? MR. FREER-Motion to adjourn. MR. UNDERWOOD-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 20, 2016, Introduced by Harrison Freer who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 20th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Freer, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe, Acting Chairman 1:'6