Loading...
07-27-2016 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2016 INDEX Sign Variance PZ-0177-2016 Omall Family Limited Partnership 1. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-13 Area Variance PZ-0179-2016 John &Victoria Weinhold 8. Tax Map No. 301.8-1-89 Area Variance PZ-0181-2016 Jacqueline Wheeler 14. Tax Map No. 227.17-1-17 Sign Variance PZ-0188-2016 Heidi Underwood (Adirondack Enrichment) 22. Tax Map No. 296.19-1-1 Sign Variance PZ-0191-2016 Kimberly Lockhart, P C 26. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-78 Area Variance PZ-0173-2016 Jeff Baertschi & Kirsty DiBella 29. Tax Map No. 239.12-2-42 & 43 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 ,I (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) SECOND REGULAR MEETING JULY 27, 2016 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHAEL MC CABE JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL JAMES UNDERWOOD, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT HARRISON FREER ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-So welcome to all of you who haven't been here in the past. Welcome the opening of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals agenda for today, July 27th, here in the Queensbury Activity Center. It's a very easy process. We'll call each application. The applicant and their agents will join us at the small table here. Roy will be kind enough to read the applications into the record as applicable. The Board members at that point will ask the applicants or their agents if they want to add anything to the record at that time, or if Board members will simply start ask questions of the project. Hopefully we'll have some dialogue and discussion. At some point I'll open the public hearing, public comment period, listen to public comment or hear public comment that's been provided in writing, and then we'll get additional comments possibly from the applicants or agents and then the Board will get polled to kind of get an idea as to where we're going with the application. Hopefully we'll get approvals and I'll close the public hearing, seek motions, and move accordingly. It's very simple. It's very easy, and we'll start with Old Business. OLD BUSINESS: 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 27, 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. 2 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) 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." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. MR. RYAN-Good evening. I'm Dan Ryan with Vision Engineering on behalf of the applicant. We've prepared the application documents as well as the site plan drawings and sketches that were included in the application. We've been to the Planning Board. We have been granted Site Plan approval, and so from the planning perspective the minor site plan changes that we had proposed have been approved at this point. So the final piece of this puzzle. We were here last week. I see some new faces so I will describe briefly what is being proposed in terms of the signage concern and give you a little background so you have an understanding of why we have a need for this additional tenant sign. Primarily the renovations to this site, it is a re- development project. The biggest focus of this project in the past has been to provide a better safety condition for traffic accessing the site. Currently the entire width of the property is paved. In working with the Planning Board and in getting comments from the County Highway Department, it was recommended that we focus an access point at one location rather than having an entirely open curb cut across the property width. So the site plan which we did include, although it doesn't actually pertain to the sign, it does provide that background, that the primary use of the site is on the east side of the existing building. By doing that, we're requiring the patrons of the business to use the side entrance of that building that is proposed. Historically the front entrance has been the access point to that front retail store, and again, because of that traffic safety concern, that area is now getting landscaped, and so all of the parking and patrons will be utilizing the east side of the property. What we're proposing essentially for your consideration today is the front northeast corner tenant is going to be Carpet One Floormaster. They're across the street currently and they'll be re-locating to that front corner retail space. They are proposing that front entrance fagade modification. That will be the main focal point for branding and to improve on the storefront in compliance with the upgrades that are in the Town standards for retail, and in doing that we will have some business lettering mounted to that front structure. That lettering is simply individual letters that are backlit that will be mounted directly to the face of the building and the total area of that lettering on that front entrance equates to about 60 square feet in entirety. So that is considered the first wall sign for Tenant One. The variance we're requesting is for the side entrance for tenant one. If you look right about where Craig's pointer is, that is the new primary entrance and access point to that retail space from the parking lot. So that'll be used primarily probably be 100% of the time for people going to that store. So what we're asking for is approval of the second wall sign 3 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) for Tenant One. That wall sign is two feet by eight feet in dimension. Craig, if you want to pull that picture up that I sent you, if you've still got that, this is the sign across the street. The only component that we're going to be re-locating is the Floormaster Carpet One panel. That is a two foot by eight foot panel. We're proposing to take that panel off that freestanding sign and re-locate it above that side entrance and mount it to the wall. The only extra detail I would like to provide is that that wall fagade of the door will have a fagade frame constructed. That will be on about a 30 degree skew, and the purpose of that is basically to get a little bit better visibility for people coming in to the parking lot to direct them to the entrance. The last supporting item I'd like to cover, I think it just warrants that this particular project does have merit, due to the re- development, due to the traffic and safety concerns that have been focused all of the utilization of the site to the east side of the property. We feel that this extra sign has limited visibility. It's only visible if you're driving by, if you're going east on Quaker Road. You're not going to turn your head back to look at it. It's only visible from Quaker Road traveling west, and the fact that it is on the side of the building and does have limited visibility, we would hope you would consider that this is necessary and certainly doesn't have any major impacts that would be of concern. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any Board member questions at this time before I open the public comment period? MR. URRICO-How will you identify Tenants Two and Three? MR. RYAN-The Code permits a 100 square foot wall sign for each tenant. So those tenants, when they do occupy the space, will provide their own signage in compliance with the Code. At this point in time we don't have any tenants for those spaces and so we can't give you any specific details. Ultimately the building will have four signs. The totality of the signs for Tenant One. We have 60 square feet on the front and 16 square feet on the side. We don't even exceed 100 square feet combined. So we feel like four signs, for a 20,000 square foot building, shouldn't seem excessive, especially considering there could be 10 tenants and 10 100 square foot signs, but there's only three tenants currently, and the intent is to stay that way. MR. HENKEL-But Tenant One's going to be on the freestanding sign, too? MR. RYAN-There will be a freestanding sign that's there now. The plan is to basically replace that in kind with a new structure, and there will be a sign, a panel sign, for each tenant on that freestanding sign. MR. KUHL-The sign you're suggesting for the east side, that's two by eight. Is that backlit or is that just the sign that's on the pedestal across the street? MR. RYAN-That's backlit. So it is a frame that's got internal lighting. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? Okay. We do have a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public comment period. Is there any written comment, Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board on this particular application? Seeing no one, at this point I'll ask Board members for their input. Would anybody like to volunteer? MR. URRICO-1 have one more question. What size is the sign going above the entranceway? MR. RYAN-The front entrance? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. RYAN-Okay. Craig, can you pull up, we had the one up last night, I think, let's see, you can scroll down to that. That would be fine. SK-1, right there. So basically that front entrance structure that we're elevating in the front part of the building, that will be EIFS of neutral color, and the lettering is simply very similar to the other sign that says Floormaster Carpet One beneath it. Those letters are individual letters. They're one foot six inch tall, and the entire width of the lettering equates to about 21 feet. So you get 30 square feet for the lower lettering 4 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) and less than 30 square feet for the Floormaster component above it. So basically you're talking about Floormaster Carpet One underneath it. Teal colored backlit lettering basically that's mounted right to the face of the building. MR. URRICO-And the one that's in the parking lot? MR. RYAN-The one on the side is that one I showed you. MR. URRICO-Forty-five square feet? MR. RYAN-That one's only 16. It's two foot by eight foot. MR. URRICO-So it's different than what's on the? MR. RYAN-At the time the application was prepared, we weren't 100% sure. We've gone ahead and made that decision in discussion to relocate the existing panel that they have. It's only two years old. They were here for that approval a couple of years ago and they just want to re-use that. MR. HENKEL-Well, why does the one in front have to be so big if you're already going to have a freestanding sign? MR. RYAN-It comes down to, you know, the design itself is to meet the standards of the Town for retail storefront. Branding is a big component of that visibility and people knowing where you are, making that presence. It's similar to the concept of Lowe's and Home Depot where they have the enormous front entrances with the enormous signs. Currently they've been in the back corner of the Mark Plaza across the street. They want a lot more street visibility and so that's really important for that branding side of the business. MR. KUHL-But the reason for the sign on the east is that's going to be the main entrance into the business? MR. RYAN-For utilizing, for everyday use, that will be the entrance that I would say 100% of the time. No one's going to walk around the front to go to the front. MR. KUHL-Because you're going to take the asphalt away from the front and plant greenery? Is that? MR. RYAN-That is all going to be landscaped. MR. KUHL-But bottom line of it, if, in fact, you had to give up one sign, which would you give up, the front or the side? MR. RYAN-Well, if we had to, we would prefer both. If we had to we would go back to using the front entrance and parking in front of the building. It's not the ideal scenario for traffic safety. I think the re-development has so many benefits. I think that that has to outweigh the minor detriments you might find with this extra sign. MR. KUHL-No problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So would anybody like to volunteer to go first? MR. KUHL-Yes, I will. Down the block we allowed Trustco more than the right signage for the same reason, that they wanted the people coming from the east to see their bank and I mean two by eight is not a lot, although you're asking for relief, but I think it's the minimum relief you're asking for, and I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. MC CABE-I'll go next. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Mike. MR. MC CABE-1 took another look at this based on Roy's comment during the last meeting and basically said why would this applicant deserve two signs. So the first thing that I looked at is Quaker Road, and Quaker Road's 100% commercial. There's a lot of signs, you expect the signs, and the signs ought to do two things. It ought to orient you and it ought to direct you. This property historically has been a single business property. The applicant is upgrading the (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) property. It needs upgrades. It's been like that for quite a while. It's kind of set back and hidden, and so I think that the applicant, in lieu of the improvement to the property, deserves the second sign to kind of direct people where to go. So I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I'm still sitting on the fence. Roy brought up a pertinent argument last week about not having more than one sign on a building, but in this instance here, I think, you know, because of the new location of the entryway to the place, it makes sense to have some kind of signage. I still think you could put a smaller more compliant sign. I mean, it doesn't have to be as large as it is. I know that there's a convenience of recycling the sign you have here in its place, but I'm still sitting on the fence. I think I'm still going to be holding back on approval for this. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I really don't have a problem with the 16 square foot sign on the north side. I have a little problem with the front sign being so big, but they are definitely improving the property with eliminating the curb cuts kind of having use of that one big curb cut, to eliminate that. It's a tough one, but I would be for it, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-My concern last week was because we were talking about a 45 square foot sign and now we're talking about a 16 foot sign. That's a big difference to me. I do have some concerns going forward, should more tenants be added and we add two more 100 square foot signs, but for now, I'm happy with the project and I would be in favor of the signs. MR. JACKOSKI-So as I looked at the project, my thought was that if you would agree to the future signs that are coming in for tenants two and three or whomever they're going to be, to not be any larger than the Quaker Road side sign of the, I call it the front of the building, the old entrance area, if they were all similar in size, then I'd be okay with those three signs. MR. RYAN-In terms of scaling, if this one's 60 square feet, you'd want it to generally be about the same scale. MR. JACKOSKI-If you're willing to reduce the size of those, but I think the maximum size that I'd be comfortable giving a second sign for that front sign would be that proposed amount right now. MR. RYAN-That seems reasonable. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I guess I'll go along with you guys. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval that will incorporate that that 16 square foot sign per side. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry, we didn't do SEAR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0177-2016 OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted 27th day of July, 2016, by the following vote AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer 6 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Great. Now can I have a motion for approval that emphasizes the 16 square feet above the east entrance and the 60 square feet on the front north side including any future signs limited to the 60 square feet. MR. MC CABE-Okay. 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 60 sq. ft., and one on the east side at 16 sq. ft. 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. SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance PZ-0177-2016 Omall Family Limited Partnership 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted 27th day of July, 2016, by the following vote AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 20, 2016 and Tabled to Wednesday, July 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? We think not because this is a fully commercial area. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? We think not because of the construction of the entryway. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? It's not substantial. It could be considered moderate. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, this is a commercial area. Signs are the norm. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It was. 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0177-2016, OMALL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 7 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. No future tenant signs will be greater than the 60 square feet each in the front of the building. 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 of July, 2016 by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-We also have a condition, and that is that neither of the additional two signs will be greater than the 60 square feet of the existing sign. MR. JACKOSKI-So to clarify that just a bit, neither of the two additional tenant signs will be greater than 60 square feet each in the front of the building. MR. BROWN-Any future tenant signs. If there's two, three, or five, just any future tenants. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, hang on, I think this Board would have a concern if there were more than three tenants going in there, if they had five in there. So if there's going to be five tenants, then I'm going to reconsider having four 60 square foot signs on that building. MR. RYAN-Currently there are three tenants. That is how the building is broken up in terms of fire area. MR. JACKOSKI-So I'm going to say for three, but if it's going to be for more than three, unless my Board members disagree with me, then they're going to have to come back to us and re-visit that, but we're not going to just arbitrarily grant an additional number of signs. MR. RYAN- So ultimately it's a maximum of four signs, the 16 square foot and three 60's, and that will limit the number of signs, regardless of the number of tenants. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't have a problem, Craig, if they want to come back to us and say they've got a fourth tenant or a fifth tenant or a sixth tenant, but I think this Board is looking at that whole fagade thinking now you're telling us we could have up to six signs. That's a lot of signs. MR. BROWN-Yes, well, not to muddy the waters here, sorry, but by Code if they want to break this building up into as many tenants as they want, each tenant is entitled to a sign. I think what I'm hearing from the applicant's agent is they're offering four maximum, regardless of the number of tenants, and if they're comfortable doing that, and offering it and you're comfortable accepting it, that's fine. I was just, I didn't want to limit you to two if in the future they come in with more tenants, but they're saying four. MR. RYAN-We would have to come back here at that point anyway. If we're agreeing to that, we would come back if there were additional tenants, and just as a side note, Tenant Two does not have any access to the front of the building. That's only rear and side. So there would never be more than a couple of signs on the front anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. 8 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. MC CABE-So my conditions. MR. JACKOSKI-You're fine. MR. MC CABE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. Thank you very much for being patient with us. MR. RYAN-Thank you. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE PZ-0179-2016 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOHN & VICTORIA WEINHOLD OWNER(S) JOHN & VICTORIA WEINHOLD ZONING MDR LOCATION 57 HELEN DRIVE, EVERGREEN SUBD. CORNER OF HELEN DRIVE AND HEINRICK STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE AN EXISTING 4-FOOT WOOD PICKET FENCE FACING HEINRICK STREET AND CONSTRUCT A 6-FOOT WHITE VINYL PRIVACY FENCE IN THE FRONT YARD FACING HEINRICK STREET; 459.19 FT. WITH 160 FT. PORTION CONNECTING TO HOUSE ON HEINRICK STREET. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 6 FT. FENCE ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND TWO SECTIONS FACING HELEN DRIVE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR FENCES LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD. CROSS REF BP 5340 SFD; BP 5785 INGROUND POOL; BP 2002- 562 SEPTIC ALT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.51 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 301.8-1-89 SECTION 179-5-070 JOHN &VICTORIA WEINHOLD, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0179-2016, John & Victoria Weinhold, Meeting Date: July 27, 2016 "Project Location: 57 Helen Drive, Evergreen Subd. corner of Helen Drive and Heinrick Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 4-foot wood picket fence facing Heinrick Street and construct a 6-foot tall white vinyl privacy fence in the front yard facing Heinrick Street; 459.19 ft. with 160 ft. plus portion connecting to house on Heinrick Street. The project includes a 6 ft. fence along the rear property line and two sections facing Helen Drive. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from height restrictions for fences located in the front yard and type of fence in the Moderate Density Residential Zone -MDR. Section 179-5-070 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 6 ft. stockade and will be located on Heinrick St. and Helen Dr. 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 for a compliant fence height. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 2 ft. in excess of the allowed fence height and stockade. 9 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) 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 to install a 6 ft. fence for 459 ft. +/- along Helen Dr. and Heinrick St. The applicant has indicated the need for the fence includes privacy, security, children safety and for their dogs. The applicant has indicated they contacted their neighbors and 27 electronic signatures in support of the fence. The plans show the location of the fence on the property." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. It's a very straightforward application. There's really not much more you need to add, but if you'd like to at least identify yourselves for the Board. MR. WEINHOLD-John, and this is my wife Victoria Weinhold. One thing I'd like to call into the record is the total linear feet is actually 225 square feet along Heinrick Street. So it's the same exact footprint we're talking about replacing, the same as in the pictures you can see there. MR. JACKOSKI-So did you say linear feet or square feet? MR. WEINHOLD-Linear feet. That's tied to the quote we got from. So the fence has been there for approximately 10 years. It's worn, not ideally during that time. Part of the ground is not completely level so sometimes you'll get water that pools, causes the post to rot. So ideally we'd like to replace the fence with a six foot vinyl stockade privacy fence, common for the area. There's one on 65 Helen coming into the development on the corner. Having grown up in Queensbury my whole life, I grew up in Hidden Hills. Grew up on a corner fence, on a corner lot with a six foot fence. The homes in that area also have corner lots with fences of six feet and of privacy nature. We think we would have benefits installing a six foot fence. One would be privacy. Another would be safety for our dogs. We've seen other four foot vinyl fences and not necessarily flush to the ground. We've seen dogs as big as labs crawl under the fence and then crawl back in. Our dogs are approximately 30 and 20 pounds respectively. Given that they're smaller than a typical lab, we feel that the dogs could easily escape if we had to put that kind of fence in when we replace the fence. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Any Board member questions at this time before I open the public hearing? MR. KUHL-Isn't that fence at 65 5 feet, your neighbor's fence as you turn it. Is that not only five feet high? MR. WEINHOLD-1 believe it's, I haven't measured six feet. MR. KUHL-I don't know. I drove around your neighborhood and I saw a fair amount of fences, and I thought they were more five than six. On your property, the way you're doing it, with the undulation of the property, the fence that you're proposing is going to be level or is it going to go with the topographical? MR. WEINHOLD-We're going to keep the topographical. MR. KUHL-So it's going to be wavy on the back then? MR. WEINHOLD-Yes. MR. KUHL-Really? MR. HENKEL-You're going to stay at the 25 feet setback like you are now, not the 30 that's required? MR. WEINHOLD-Yes, no change to the existing footprint. MR. KUHL-Would you consider dropping that to five feet? MR. WEINHOLD-Ideally we would like the six. I mean, the houses on Heinrick Street face directly into our backyard. 10 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. KUHL-I have no problem with that. You knew that when you bought the house. MR. WEINHOLD-Yes, but I also, having grown up in Queensbury my whole life, raised in Hidden Hills and kind of, you know, you raised in the neighborhood where the norm on corner lots is six foot fences, privacy in nature. Sure we should have been more aware of the regulations before we purchased the house, given, you know, growing up in the area, the expectation kind of was, you know, you see it, you think it's normal. Looking at that section of the Code before we purchased the house, but I guess we recognize that we should have been more proactive. MR. KUHL-Well, where I grew up, the first thing we did when we bought a house is we had a meeting and decided if it was going to be basket weave, chain link or stockade. I see the one line on your property had chain link, right, and that chain link is four foot, correct? MR. WEINHOLD-Right. Correct, and there's a six foot fence behind that partial. Additionally on the side facing the neighbor's house, that one is also six foot. MR. HENKEL-Would you be willing to go back to 30 feet? MR. WEINHOLD-1 think the problem we face is with the existing trees on the property. MR. HENKEL-The good thing is you're not coming all the way to the corner so you're not blocking anybody's view as they're coming out of Heinrick onto Helen. That's a good thing. MR. WEINHOLD-Yes, I think we're fairly setback from where that stop sign is. It's a pretty decent area. MR. HENKEL-Looks like you've got enough to go at least five feet into the trees. MR. URRICO-Could I ask Craig a question? Are we allowing two variances or one variance? It's the height and then there's the stockade part of this. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. URRICO-It's considered one variance? MR. BROWN-Well, it's a fence variance. It's for style, I guess it's for style, size and location. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. BROWN-You can't have stockade in the front yard, and any fence can't be taller than four feet. I guess that's two. MR. JACKOSKI-And what about the 30 versus the 25 feet? MR. BROWN-Well, the 30 is, if you want to have stockade fence on the property line, so in this case, you could run the stockade fence down this property line, all the way up to the 30 foot setback. You just can't go past this line of the house. Between the house and this side line, if you have this imaginary line, this is considered front yard. So you could run stockade fence along the property line, past that imaginary line and up to the 30 foot setback line. It has to stay on the property line. You can't, regardless of the setback, you can't compliantly turn and turn that stockade fence any place parallel to the road unless it's either in line with the house or behind the line. MR. JACKOSKI-So what would happen if you simply had a four foot fence and you used landscaping in order to shield yourself for privacy? Because you don't truly, do you really use that very far back corner of your lot that you would need the privacy of a six foot tall fence? MR. WEINHOLD-We would like to. We would like to put in either a bocce ball court in that area. We've considered the landscaping option. Eventually I think we'd like to get there. Initially it might be cost prohibitive. To just do the fence it's probably about $8,000. Probably going to have to spend another eight putting trees along the property line if that's the option. MR. JACKOSKI-So chances are you're going to remove some of those trees anyway. MR. WEINHOLD-Down the line, but not right away. ,1 ,1 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing O7/27/2016) MR. KUHL-You talked about children. How old are your children? MR. WEINHOLD-Given the life of the fence, it would be. MR. KUHL-No, how old are your children? You have children? MR. WEINHOLD-No. MRS. WEINHOLD-Not yet. MR. WEINHOLD-But we have. MR. KUHL-You have dogs. MRS. WEINHOLD-Those are our babies. MR. KUHL-No, no the reason why I ask that is because there were people that had come up and asked for a higher fence and they had autistic children, and that's humbling. Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before we open the public comment period? I will open the public comment period. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. Although there was a mention of 27 electronic signatures, and I don't have a copy of that here. MR. WEINHOLD-Actually that number increased to 34 on that submission, and then I got another letter today. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the public comment period is open and we do have acknowledgment of those 34 signatures. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? Seeing no one I'll leave the public comment period open. Did you have any who you came into contact with in the neighborhood requesting, you know, suggesting that they had concern with the fence? MR. WEINHOLD-No, we even have people that live directly across the street that ended up signing the petition in support of the privacy fence. So we've been very well received in the development. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, Board members. So I guess I'll poll the Board at this time. The public comment period is still open. Would anybody like to volunteer to go first? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I will. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim.. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think on these corner lots it's always difficult because we do want to insure that people have privacy on their properties, and being on a corner lot with the headlights of the cars and everything else it's nice to have a little bit more coverage. The request is excessive over what the Town Code allows, but at the same time, I think that you could do a combination of plantings along there, too, and that would break up those undulations from the contour differences on the property, too. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Well, I'm torn on this. I'd like to see the existing fence replaced, but there's something about a six foot fence that kind of holds me back a little bit. I'd feel much more comfortable at five. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? 12 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. URRICO-Yes. I agree with Jim. I think he's kind of logically presented a sticky problem for the applicant and for us because I think there's obviously the stockade, the reason for not supporting a stockade most of the time is if everybody put up a stockade fence we'd have a fortress like appearance throughout the neighborhood, and even though your neighborhood may be okay with it, we have to approve sometimes lots across the Town, but I think in this case the applicant has made a good case for themselves, and I agree that the undulation of the property would sort of mitigate the height of the fence for the fence, and the stockade appearance. So I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-I think you're asking for too much, and I would be in favor of five foot but not six foot. So as presented I'm against it. I'm sorry. I realize, I think you'd gain the same privacy with five that you would with six. You'd have the protection to your animals and your future children. I just think six foot, maybe it's because of the sweeping turn, I think it's going to glare, and I think it's going to look out of place, from my view of the what that community should look like. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I understand what you're trying to do, and I do like that you're not going beyond the back of the house and it's not going to block anybody's view with the corner there of Heinrick and Helen, but I agree also. I also think it should be, I don't want to set a precedent there of six feet on these lots, so I'd say five feet would be a happy medium there. I'd go with five feet, but not to six. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it kind of doesn't matter what I want. So, I mean, at this point the issue for you is that you can, you've heard what the Board is suggesting. If they voted on the application at this moment, they would deny it. You could request a tabling of the motion and think about it and come back. You could also possibly suggest to the Board that you'd like to amend the application so that it is a five foot request instead. That means you're requesting less relief and that's allowed for us to do, but it truly is up to you. MR. URRICO-Steve, you also might want to mention that we only have six members on the Board, too, and that he still needs four votes. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, except I'm a no vote, too. Even if they got that other member, they're not going to have all their votes. MR. WEINHOLD-Yes, I guess for our understanding, for instances where the Board has found a six foot fence appropriate, what would you view that application as being acceptable to meet that additional foot? MR. JACKOSKI-Every application is different. It's not just a broad sweep of an approval process. If you're unsure, there's nothing wrong with asking us to table the application and come back. I mean, you have heard what the Board is saying about five versus six feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other thing to consider is I don't know if five foot fence is available. It might just be even numbers. So I think you're either going to do four or six. MR. HENKEL-It can be special ordered, but you're right. MR. WEINHOLD-Yes, I think we'll amend the application. I think it's halfway we'll probably have to align the property and the trees, but it's better than the present situation. MR. JACKOSKI-Plus you're getting the fence style that you want as well. MR. WEINHOLD-Is there any restrictions on plantings along the fence lines, that pertain to four foot fences I guess in terms of height or anything like that? MR. UNDERWOOD-You could do an arborvitae hedge and it'll grow 20 feet high, you know, and that'll give you all the privacy that you want, but I would put it on the inside. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant has requested that we amend their application to a five foot height instead of the originally requested six foot height. The location remains the same and the style of fence remains the same, and given that, I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. 1 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John and Victoria Weinhold. Applicant proposes to remove an existing 4-foot wood picket fence facing Heinrick Street and construct a 5-foot tall white vinyl privacy fence in the front yard facing Heinrick Street; 459.19 ft. with 160 ft. plus portion connecting to house on Heinrick Street. The project includes a 5 ft. fence along the rear property line and two sections facing Helen Drive. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from height restrictions for fences located in the front yard and type of fence in the Moderate Density Residential Zone -MDR. Section 179-5-070 Fences The code allows for four foot fences in the front yard non stockade. The proposed fence is to be 5 ft. stockade and will be located on Heinrick St and Helen Dr. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 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. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because fences do exist throughout the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not really reasonable to appease the desires of the applicant. 3. The requested variance is moderate because we're just going a foot above the allowed amount, and the stockade will be mitigated by plantings. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also 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-0179-2016, JOHN & VICTORIA WEINHOLD, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2016 by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-I do want to clarify. I know you guys are going to think I'm crazy for bringing it up, but I think I heard that we thought that the increased height of one foot was going to be mitigated by plantings, but we haven't conditioned this on any plantings. Correct? MR. MC CABE-No. MR. JACKOSKI-So we'll make sure to note that they don't have to have plantings. It doesn't have to be mitigated. MR. MC CABE-They indicated that they're going to have. MR. JACKOSKI-True, but we're not conditioning it on that. Correct? MR. MC CABE-We're taking their word for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. 14 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you and good luck. Be safe. MRS. WEINHOLD-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0181-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JACQUELINE WHEELER AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING; BARTLETT, PONTIFF, STEWART & RHODES, PC OWNER(S) JACQUELINE WHEELER ZONING WR LOCATION 34 GUNN LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES DEMOLITION OF EXISTING CAMP AND OUT BUILDINGS. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,590 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) WITH A TOTAL FLOOR AREA OF 3,966 SQ. FT. 3-BEDROOM, SINGLE-FAMILY HOME ON A PARCEL THAT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC HIGHWAY. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SHORELINE BUFFERING, LANDSCAPING AND ENHANCED WASTEWATER SYSTEM. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NO ROAD FRONTAGE. CROSS REF BP 93-208 REPLACE BOATHOUSE W/PORCH WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.41 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 227.17-1-17 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050 JON LAPPER & LUCAS DOBIE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; J. WHEELER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0181-2016, Jacqueline Wheeler, Meeting Date: July 27, 2016 "Project Location: 34 Gunn Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes demolition of existing camp and outbuildings. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,590 sq. ft. (footprint) with a total floor area of 3,966 sq. ft., 3-bedroom, single-family home on a parcel that does meet the minimum requirement for frontage on a public highway. Project includes installation of stormwater management, shoreline buffering, landscaping and enhanced wastewater system. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for no road frontage in the Waterfront Residential Zone -WR Section 179-4-050 Frontage requirements Parcels are to have 50 ft. of physical road frontage. The existing 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. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 50 ft. for physical road frontage. 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. 15 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes demolition of existing home and constructing a new home on the parcel. The parcel is pre-existing, the real property records indicate the cottage was constructed in 1943. The plans submitted show the location of the existing home and new home with stormwater controls and new septic." MR. JACKOSKI-And if you could just briefly identify yourselves for the record and let me have the microphone back again. MR. LAPPER-Good evening everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Jackie Wheeler an Luke Dobie the project engineer. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. So, Board members, I mean, this is a pretty straightforward application. It's just simply because the road ends. I mean, does anybody have any objection to this thing? MR. MC CABE-No, I think it's a great project. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JACOB JAY SARNO MR. SARNO-Yes, I would. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. If you could, please. MR. SARNO-Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the Board. My name is Jacob Jay Sarno. I'm the husband of Danielle Inwald Sarno. She's a one third owner of the adjacent property at 38 Gunn Lane, adjacent to the parcel at 34 Gunn Lane. I was actually married at Camp Chingachgook, the YMCA camp up the road, about three years ago. By law, I have a vested interest in what occurs next door as it has a direct impact, not only my use and enjoyment of the property, but my family's use and enjoyment of the property, my 17 month old child and my future children. Just a little background info. I'm a licensed attorney in the State of New York. I have a litigation practice in New York City. I frequent Lake George probably every month I've been coming here, ever since I met my wife in October of 2011. This place is very special to me. So as you know the applicant is applying for an Area Variance. In order for this Board to grant that variance, five elements need to be satisfied by the applicant, and we concede off the bat that the second element is satisfied, that without an Area Variance there's no way that the applicant can build on the landlocked parcel at 34 Gunn Lane. However, what I'd like to do is go through each element and explain why those elements are not satisfied and why a variance should, indeed, be denied. So the first element is whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby property would be created by the granting of the Area Variance. It's a two pronged question. So I'd like to focus on the first question. So an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood as this is a seasonal cottage that was established in 1943. It's been a seasonal cottage since 1943. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. Can you help me understand how the 50 foot roadway problem causes that, I mean, I'm not understanding what you're saying, the cottage, whether it's year round or not, all we're focused on is the 50 road frontage. That's the only variance they're requesting. MR. SARNO-Well, Mr. Chairman, I think the other factors. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead and finish with your presentation. MR. SARNO-1 think the other factors absolutely matter, and I think they take precedence and they trump this issue regarding the 50 or the lack of a 50 foot public road frontage. These other elements certainly take precedence, and I'd like to explain to you why. So once more this has been a seasonal cottage since 1943. The character of this end, the south end of Gunn Lane, is primarily comprised of seasonal cottages. In fact, I have a survey map as well as some 16 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) photographs showing you that there are one, two, three, four, five, six, seven other seasonal cottages in this neighborhood. So the character of the neighborhood is comprised of seasonal cottages. MR. JACKOSKI-Isn't Gunn Lane where all these new houses have been recently built in the last five years? Isn't Mrs. Inwald's house a new house as well? MR. SARNO-On this side of Gunn Lane they have been primarily seasonal cottages, and that has been the character of this side of Gunn Lane. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, you do realize that I live and I look right at Gunn Lane, and I can tell you that there are an awful lot of homes that are year round homes there, but keep going. MR. SARNO-1 understand that, Mr. Chairman. MR. JACKOSKI-And just so you know there's usually, and you'll see it in our, there's usually four to five minutes of time allowed for each applicant. It's on the back, but keep going. We'll keep trying to listen. MR. SARNO-Well, I would like to make a record Mr. Chairman, I think it's very important as this has an impact on my family's future use and enjoyment of the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead. MR. SARNO-The applicant only has .4 acres. No large homes should be built on a small acre. Year round use would cause more density in terms of human and vehicle traffic. This intent to build a big family home on a small piece of property which will fill the neighborhood with cars, which they will inevitably park on our property as well as the Eletto property and the Faulkner property. In fact, they already have parked their vehicles on our property three times and they haven't even had permission to build yet, and they've also parked their vehicles on the property of the Elettos and the Faulkners and the truth is right now it's an empty lot, and they're able to park several cars on their empty lot, but once this big home is built, where are they going to put these cars? MR. JACKOSKI-Again, we're not here regarding site plan. We're here regarding simply because of the 50 feet. Are you saying that this is not a buildable lot? MR. SARNO-I'm saying that building such a home will have a negative impact. MR. JACKOSKI-At this point I'm just going to let you keep talking, but I'm really struggling with your arguments, but go ahead. MR. SARNO-And this is also a very important point. This seasonal cottage that has been there since 1943 is an historic structure that's part of the Ripley/Gunn/Fielding farm since 1845. In other words if you grant this variance, an historical structure and a part of Lake George history will be inevitably demolished. Again, this current cottage was originally part of the lands of Fred Fielding who owned the two barns, silo and main house that all stand carefully preserved to this day. Mr. Fielding purchased the farm from Mr. Gunn. Mr. Gunn purchased the farm from Mr. Ripley. This will be the first building belonging to the original Ripley farm to be demolished with Town approval. If this variance is granted by the Zoning Board, this will set a precedent in this area suggesting that not only is the landlocked parcel use being arbitrarily changed from seasonal to year round in order to benefit a new owner, but an historical building will be destroyed in the process. The cottage as it now stands is the structure of the original summer kitchen of the Fielding farm given to Mr. Lee Yoni in gratitude for his service and moved from the farmhouse area on 12 Shore Acres Road down to Gunn Lane's waterfront to become 34 Gunn Lane. This is part of the last historic farm property in Cleverdale and also will be destroyed should this variance be granted. The owners of 38 Gunn Lane, which includes myself, own two barns and a Silo at 183 Cleverdale Road. Two summers ago, the south side of the barn was torn apart due to rotted wood and we carefully restored it at the expense of the Inwald family. The preservation of this farm has been a project of the Inwald family for decades. In fact my family's won awards for preserving the red barn of the Fielding farm. This is a part of history that they're looking to tear down. In essence, if this Board grants this variance they'll be tearing down an important piece of Lake George history and this, for purposes of maintaining the character and integrity of the neighborhood, a granting of this variance will completely destroy that history and the character. Moving on to the second element or the second prong of that first element, which is whether granting this variance will have a detriment to the nearby property, or will create a detriment to the nearby property, there is without a doubt a negative impact and a detriment to our property, our adjoining property. There is no space for 17 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) construction vehicles or many of the applicants guests as it stands. If they park at the end of Gunn Lane, they will block the driveways of three neighboring properties, our property, the Eletto's property and the Faulkner's property. I don't know where these construction vehicles are going to park and where they're going to unload their building materials without blocking our way. Again, I've already stated they've already blocked us on three separate occasions prior to this. They parked on our property this past winter, also parked vehicles on the Eletto and Faulkner property and density is a major issue. This is a landlocked seasonal parcel. It's not meant to be used year round. It can't handle all of this human and vehicle traffic. It's going to create a nuisance for our family and the adjoining properties. Additionally, the applicant has taken the initiative to dig a drainage ditch part way. They created a standing pool of water. So we had a natural drainage ditch where if it stormed, if it rained, there was vegetation on the south side of their property that would stop the water from trickling into the lake. It's worked for years if not decades and the applicant took it upon herself to change the nature of the boundary line to the point where we now have a standing pool of water that the water does not run, and that standing pool of water is a health risk to my family. I have an article, if the Board is interested, from the Star Post-Gazette which I believe is a publication in Glens Falls where they say that standing water, the only way to eliminate mosquito borne illnesses such as the zika virus, we know that there are known cases of the zika virus in New York State, and the only way to eliminate that health risk and other mosquito borne illnesses is to eliminate the standing pool of water. MR. JACKOSKI-Sir, I'm sorry, I've given you three times more than standard. You're going out onto zika viruses. I'm sorry but with all due respect to you, what does this have to do with us granting the 50 feet of relief in the Code as it relates to road frontage? They have a home there now, correct? MR. SARNO-That is correct. MR. JACKOSKI-The topography is the topography that is there now. Correct? MR. SARNO-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-And using the facility now. Correct? MR. SARNO-That I don't know. MR. JACKOSKI-They can use the facility now, correct? You're not saying they can't use the facility. MR. SARNO-Mr. Chairman, they've also torn down trees. MR. JACKOSKI-That's not, the issue in front of me is the 50 feet request of relief on the road frontage application. For you to kitchen sink the zika virus to me just doesn't make any sense, and I'm sorry but I'm going to give you another three minutes to wrap up your discussion. I realize that that could cause problems with an Article 78, but I'm giving you three more minutes. I'd like you to stay focused on what it is about this application, variance request, that is going to not meet the standards of the five criteria. Zika virus I don't think it going to be one of them. MR. SARNO-Okay, well, Mr. Chairman, they have torn down trees on, granted their side of the property, but that has. MR. JACKOSKI-People cannot cut down trees? MR. SARNO-Well, they can cut down trees, but that has a negative impact on the environment, and it has a negative impact on our expectation of privacy. MR. JACKOSKI-Then with all due respect if you needed control of that property for privacy reasons, that should be yours. You could have bought it, and they have a right to enjoy their property accordingly to how they want to use their property. They do not have any responsibility to you to protect your privacy with their trees. MR. SARNO-Well, and also they currently have an illegal dock that has. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, sir, you're kitchen sinking. I'm focused only here. If you've got other problems you need to work with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Administrator and resolve those problems, with illegal docks, etc. The docks unfortunately are not in the Town of Queensbury. They're in the Town of Bolton. You can read the Glens Falls Post Star and it will tell you that those docks are in the Town of Bolton, and I think the Inwald family knows that because they have a dock in the Town of Bolton. Correct? 18 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. SARNO-And Mr. Chairman, it's my understanding that this Board has entertained dock applications. MR. JACKOSKI-No, sir, we do not entertain dock applications at this time. MR. SARNO-On June 29th this Board did entertain a dock application regarding Mr. John Dennett, but that's irrelevant. MR. JACKOSKI-That's Glen Lake. That's a lake that is over there, and your lake is over here. MR. SARNO-Okay. Fair enough, Mr. Chairman. Hold on one moment. So another major concern is how they're going to arrange the construction, where are they going to park their vehicles? How are they going to load and unload their building materials without blocking use of our driveway, the use of the Eletto's and the Faulkner's driveway? MR. HENKEL-It looks like they've got quite a bit to park there. MR. JACKOSKI-Again, that's not in front of this Board, and with all due respect, I built on .08 acres or .10 acres, looking at your properties from my dock. I didn't have a problem. It's a tight space, I agree, but you know, usually neighbors are more accommodating. I get you've got an issue, but they're going to have to deal with that during the construction process. I'm only dealing with the 50 feet of frontage. Frontage. That's their responsibility to keep all the activity inside their boundary. MR. SARNO-And again, we've already had issues with that, though, and they haven't even started. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you have any police reports regarding those issues? MR. SARNO-We don't have any police reports, and we haven't gotten the police involved. We're trying to accommodate as much as we can to a certain extent. MR. JACKOSKI-You've got about another minute of time. MR. SARNO-And I just don't, you know, I believe the legislative intent behind having this rule of having public frontage is to allow for fire trucks, ambulances, other emergency vehicles to get to and from. MR. JACKOSKI-You apparently don't know the area well because the whole east side of the lake in the Town of Queensbury, many people do not, I do not have road frontage. There are 32 houses in my development, I'm sorry, 31, that don't have road frontage. We all get along peacefully. MR. SARNO-And in that case I have no further comments. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? I'm going to leave the public hearing open. We're going to have some significant discussion as a Board on this application to clarify. MR. LAPPER-I want to just put a few things on the record before you discuss it, if that's okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Go ahead, Mr. Lapper. MR. LAPPER-The benefit to the neighbors, because Jackie is neighborly, even though the neighbors aren't, the house is being moved back 20 feet from the lake from what's there now, and that's grandfathered and that can stay there. There are no stormwater controls. This is going to be compliant. A compliant septic system is being put in the back of the property. There's going to be landscaping along the lake frontage which is always positive in terms of both the view shed and also in terms of stormwater and keeping stormwater from the lake. So in terms of the appropriateness of this, also the impacts on the neighborhood, we understand this is not a large lot. So we're not asking for any variances for setback or floor area ratio. What's being built there complies. There were three trees that had to be removed. Jackie's very careful. She met with Bruce Frank on the site. One of them, the trunk was like sawdust, leaning and dangerous and the other two were leaning as well. So she did everything right and had income, that was just an interim effort to make sure that nothing was going to fall on the structures that were there, and that's being more than made up for by the plantings that are being added. This is nothing like the large houses that are being built on the lake, even though 19 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) this is what that was characterized as. This is an appropriate sized house for the lot, and that's proven by the fact that it complies with floor area ratio and all the setbacks. She's doing a lovely paver driveway which is an area where the construction vehicles will park during construction, and be really nice after it's done, attractive house. The property was conveyed with deeded access on Gunn Lane. So they have access and, you know, finally it's not self- imposed because this lot preceded zoning and the lot was on, you know, as the Chairman said like many lots on the lake it has access, which is adequate access. It's just on a private drive rather than on a public road. So Jackie's trying to do something really nice here and appropriate and it's going to be better for the environment with the stormwater controls and new septic system and better for the neighbors. We're sorry that the neighbors are opposed to this, but it's not because of anything that she's done. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Could you help us understand a little bit more in detail how the applicant does in fact have rights of access to the property and from where and where the Town maintained roads or road by use delineation is, if you happen to know that. MR. LAPPER-I know that she has deeded access from her property over the Eletto property to Gunn Lane. MR. JACKOSKI-Over the Eletto property? MR. LAPPER-Yes. Is that a 15 foot right of way? Is that a 20 foot right of way? Is it simply by use? MR. LAPPER-Lucas has that. MR. KUHL-Are the shed's coming down, Mr. Lapper? MR. LAPPER-Yes, everything's coming down. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Everything but some trees. MR. LAPPER-And the boathouse is staying, too. So the deed that we submitted with the application also granting and conveying right of passage in common with others for persons and vehicles over a strip of land extending northerly from the rear of the premises hereby conveyed and along the easterly side of a lot of land formerly owned by Abbie H. Gunn to provide ingress and egress to the right of way deeded to Fred G. Fielding dated March 7th, 1928 and recorded in Warren County Clerk's Office March 10th, 1928 in Book of Deeds 175 at Page 370 to the public highway which leads to Ripley's Point. MR. JACKOSKI-So there's no restriction as to how much ingress and egress width? Okay. Thank you. MR. KUHL-And I make the wild assumption that this house is not on an historical register, right? MR. LAPPER-That's absolutely right. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Given it's not even the original location to begin with. Correct? MR. LAPPER-That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? There was no written comment. Correct? MR. URRICO-There was written comment, but it was from Robin Inwald by phone call. MR. JACKOSKI-Right, but they spoke. Do you want us to read that in to the record, even though you spoke all that time? MR. SARNO-Yes, please. 20 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. URRICO-"On July 20, 2016 Staff Land Use planner Laura Moore received a phone call from Robin Inwald neighbor to the property. She explained three concerns 1) what are the plans for vehicles entering the site with materials and construction so they will not be blocking the Inwald driveway — currently there have been a few times that contractors and owners have blocked access on Right of Way (Inwald explained that the right of way is for access not parking). 2) What are the plans to ensure stormwater is managed and maintained on site — currently disturbance on site has left an area of standing water that is draining onto Inwald property — see photos." There were some photos sent and I think everybody got a copy of the photos. "3) Inwald would request additional plantings along the driveway area to minimize/eliminate car light shining and minimize noise. Staff Laura Moore explained that the information would be shared with the Board." MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. MR. LAPPER-I guess I should just point out that there was a drainage ditch that had a lot of leaves in it. All they did was clean out the leaves,just proper maintenance. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The public hearing is still open. I'm going to request comment from Board members as to what their thoughts are as the application is currently presented, and I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the Town recognized a long time ago that most of the Waterfront Residential property in the Town of Queensbury, whether it's on Glen Lake, Lake George or on the river, oftentimes has shared access to those properties, and I think that the instance here this evening is a case in point. We recognize also the fact that people who purchase property within the Town have the right to improve their properties, and in improving those properties it usually creates a temporary situation where there's a lot of heavy construction traffic, but that's a temporary thing. I know the Inwald family, over the years, has been very responsible. They did a lot of improvements on your property in saving those historic structures, and it's unfortunate in this instance here, I mean, you do have an historic structure, but at the same time it's not a unique structure by any means. There are plenty of other ones within the Town that have been removed also. Time does march on, and I think that the Town also recognizes the fact that, you know, germane to our discussion here this evening, they're asking for relief from no road frontage, and I think we recognize the fact that there are many lots that we've dealt with through the years that have no road frontage, and I think we recognize the situation that you're going to have to deal with with the construction work. The Town apologizes for that, but we can't stop people from improving their property, and I think the situation with the new construction, though it will be new construction that's being done properly, with concern for water runoff into the lake, with also proper stormwater precautions and also with the proper septic handling on site. So I would be in favor of the project as proposed. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I see that you, with the pump station, is it your intention to put a generator in, in case your power goes out? MRS. WHEELER-Yes. MR. KUHL-No, Jim makes many valid points, and improving the property is what we all care to do. It's a shame that this right of way never got to be a Town road, but that's a whole other issue. I have no problem the way this is presented. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-They're only asking for the one variance, and they're really improving the neighborhood, the property. They're handling their stormwater and a great septic system. They're doing everything top notch. So I've got to be for it, definitely for it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I support the project also. I believe that through the improvement of stormwater management and the wastewater system and I guess I'd ask the question, to appease the neighbor, would you put some plantings in to, so that your lights don't shine on to their property? MRS. WHEELER-Right now they have a fence where their driveway is, and they're higher than me. So I don't see where my, and there's quite a bit of hedgerow, and I am going to put a fence along that property side as well. So I think they should be fine. 21 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. MC CABE-What were you thinking in terms of. MR. JACKOSKI-We don't want to debate. I need your opinion on this application? MR. MC CABE-I'm in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think when we look at the criteria, and, Craig, correct me if I'm wrong, it does not have to satisfy every criteria. We have the option to consider the criteria, but what we're basically looking at is providing minimal relief for each application. MR. BROWN-Yes, I guess if you look at it as a balancing test. If the benefits outweigh the detriments, then it's a go. MR. URRICO-I'm looking at this and I see the benefits to the applicant outweighing the detriment to the to the Town and to the Code, and I think they're asking for 50 feet of relief where they don't have any road frontage, something that we've done many, many times on this Board, and I think that's all we're looking at here, and I would be in favor of the application. MR. JACKOSKI-And so as I look at the criterion for the Area Variance, it states whether the benefit can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. There is absolutely no way the applicant can possibly get road frontage to adjoin this parcel. There isn't any way for them to do that. Correct? Not logical. MR. JACKOSKI-And it sounds to me, I mean, unless they bought the Inwald property and went out to Cleverdale Road, but I don't think that's feasible in order to re-build the home that's already there. is there any undesirable change in the neighborhood character or detriment to nearby properties? I am struggling with understanding how a brand new home with all these new site improvements that are planned for the home, including a new septic system, shoreline re-buffering, bringing the home back from the shoreline another 20 feet, could possibly be considered a detriment to nearby properties, let alone a change in the character of the neighborhood, which we all know the shores, especially the west side of Cleverdale, including me being a neighbor and being able to see this property from mine. Whether the request is substantial. It's 100% technically relief because there is no road there, but there also has been a vehicle to allow access to this property, allowed for in the law via a right of way in the deed which was typical for when there was no actual road frontage. So I don't understand how we could do anything else. Is it substantial? Technically it's a yes or a no. Yes, but there is an avenue already in place for accessing that property using a private right of way. Whether the request will have an adverse physical or environmental impact or effect? The environmental impact or effect, to me, seems that, with all these improvements, the quality of the lake is going to be improved with runoff protections, better sanitation. So I'm struggling with how that could possibly be considered, that project could possibly be considered an adverse physical or environmental effect, and whether the alleged difficulty is self-created. I don't believe this applicant created this lot. I don't believe this applicant created the right of ways. I believe the applicant purchased the property. Is has been established as a property that has had a building on it that has been used. Again, I don't see how this applicant created this problem, and therefore, you know, it's relevant but it's not determinative. So as I look at the balancing test here and everything we discussed this evening about this particular parcel I just cannot understand how this can be considered something that we would deny when I look at the balancing test. So I'm fully in favor of the project. I'll close the public hearing and I'm going to seek a motion for approval of the project. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. KUHL-All right. Do you want me to make that, Mr. Chairman? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, thank you, Ron. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jacqueline Wheeler. Applicant proposes demolition of existing camp and outbuildings. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,590 sq. ft. (footprint) with a total floor area of 3,966 sq. ft., 3-bedroom, single-family home on a parcel that does not meet the minimum requirement for frontage on a public highway. Project includes installation of stormwater management, shoreline buffering, landscaping and enhanced wastewater system. 22 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested for no road frontage in the Waterfront Residential Zone -WR Section 179-4-050 Frontage requirements Parcels are to have 50 ft. of physical road frontage. The existing lot will have 0 ft. of road frontage. SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 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. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because this is an improvement to what is there. It is an older building and this is an improvement and it's well within the standard. 2. Feasible alternatives, really there are none because this property has no road frontage. 3. The requested variance is substantial because of no formal Town road, but that's the only way to access this property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty really is not self-created because there is no road frontage. 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE PZ-0181-2016 JACQUELINE WHEELER, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2016 by the following vote: MR. KUHL-But this Board would also like for you people to have your construction people consider the neighborhoods, but anyway. MR. JACKOSKI-I do want to note that Ron said, early in the description of the project, that it does have road frontage, and he meant to say it does not have existing road frontage. MR. KUHL-That's exactly the way this was written, and I put not in there, but I think that the recommendation is saying that if you had road frontage, that everything was proper and in standard. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. So, again, we have a motion for approval. We've gone through the balancing test, any other Board members have any other questions? Call the vote. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MR. LAPPER-Thanks everybody. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. 23 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0188-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED HEIDI UNDERWOOD (ADIRONDACK ENRICHMENT) OWNER(S) ROBERT GOVER/RGJC, LLC ZONING Cl LOCATION 60 GLENWOOD AVENUE APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 9 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN FOR ADIRONDACK ENRICHMENT. CURRENT SITE HAS ONE PERMITTED, FILE NO. BP 7879, 62 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF CC-229-2016 COWL ALT.; CO-135-2016 ADK. ENRICHMENT; SIGN VARIANCE NO. 825 YR. 1983 62 SQ. FT. FS SIGN IN ROW; BP 7879 FREESTANDING SIGN 62 SQ. FT. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2016 LOT SIZE 2.6 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.19- 1-1 SECTION CHAPTER 140 ROBERT & HEIDI UNDERWOOD, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-088-2016, Heidi Underwood (Adirondack Enrichment), Meeting Date: July 27, 2016 "Project Location: 60 Glenwood Avenue Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 9 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Adirondack Enrichment. Current site has one permitted; File No. BP 7879, 62 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from number of allowable freestanding signs in the Commercial Intensive zone–Cl Section 140 Signs for which permits are required—number of signs The applicant proposes an additional free standing sign where only one free standing 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 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 other means feasible for the applicant to pursue other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited as the property has two buildings and the property is a corner lot with all access on Glenwood Avenue. Also, the business location is behind the ice cream portion of the building. 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 parcel to have more than one freestanding sign 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 to install a 9 sq. ft. sign for Adirondack Enrichment. The business is to operate in the rear portion of the building where Sprinkles ice cream operates at the front half. The applicant has indicated that the business entrance is not visible from Glenwood and the sign would provide direction to the business." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. 24 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. UNDERWOOD-For purposes of the record, that's my brother and my sister-in-law, but I don't have an interest in their business. MR. R. UNDERWOOD-So I'm Rob Underwood. This is my wife Heidi. She owns the business. I work for her. So she's my boss, but the purpose is to have another sign so we can identify the building. The existing sign is in front of Glenwood Manor, it's on Quaker Road in front of Glenwood Manor, the antique shop there, and we're going to be on Glenwood Avenue behind the Sprinkles building. We're in the Sprinkles building, what we call the green barn, and we're occurring the back two-thirds of that building. So Sprinkles has the whole front that faces Glenwood Ave., and so our access to our building is, can't really put a sign up on the side of the building. There's no way to really see our entrance from the road, from Glenwood Ave. You also couldn't see it from Woodvale Road because there's trees along Woodvale Road that runs along that side as well. MR. JACKOSKI-Straightforward application. That's how I started the last one. Anyway, are there any questions from Board members on this application? Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll poll the Board. Do you really want to vote on this one? MR. UNDERWOOD-It doesn't matter to me. I mean, I think it's a minimalist sign compared to most of the sign requests, a three by three foot sign. So I mean, it's up to you guys. I'm going to stay out of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So Mr. Underwood is recusing himself from this particular application. Ron? MR. KUHL-No, I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 have no problem. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, with it being hidden there, it needs it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Nobody has any problems with this applications. I'm going to close the public hearing. I'll seek a motion for approval of SEAR. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0188-2016, HEIDI UNDERWOOD (ADIRONDACK ENRICHMENT) 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion for approval of the application, please. 2 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Heidi Underwood (Adirondack Enrichment) for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a 9 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Adirondack Enrichment. Current site has one permitted; File No. BP 7879, 62 sq. ft. freestanding sign. The relief is for an additional freestanding sign. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from number of allowable freestanding signs in the Commercial Intensive zone–Cl Section 140 Signs for which permits are required—number of signs The applicant proposes an additional free standing sign where only one free standing sign is allowed. SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance PZ-0188-2016, Heidi Underwood (Adirondack Enrichment) 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 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 nor will a detriment to nearby properties be created by granting the requested Sign Variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? The benefit to the applicant can't really be achieved feasibly by any other method because of the location of their business. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? The requested Sign Variance is moderate if that. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0188-2016, HEIDI UNDERWOOD (ADIRONDACK ENRICHMENT), Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; 26 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer, Mr. Underwood MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MRS. UNDERWOOD-Thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-We're going to call out of order, if you don't mind. The Kimberly Lockhart project's next. SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0191-2016 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED KIMBERLY LOCKHART, PC OWNER(S) THOMAS CALLAGHAN, DC ZONING Cl LOCATION 357 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING FREESTANDING SIGN AND PLACE A NEW 16 SQ. FT. 8 FT. IN HEIGHT FREESTANDING SIGN LESS THAN 15 FT. FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR SUCH SIGN. CROSS REF. BP 2015-479 16 SQ. FT. FS SIGN PENDING; NO OTHER SIGN PERMITS FOUND WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2016 LOT SIZE 0.82 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-78 SECTION CHAPTER 140 KIMBERLY LOCKHART, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance PZ-0191-2016, Kimberly Lockhart, PC, Meeting Date: July 27, 2016 "Project Location: 357 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing freestanding sign and place a new 16 sq. ft.; 8 ft. in height freestanding sign less than 15 ft. from the front property line. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for such sign. in the Commercial Intensive zone–Cl. Section 140 Signs for which permits are required—location of signs The applicant proposes to remove an existing free standing sign to install a new 16 sq. ft. sign with two tenants. The sign is to be located 3.6 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. 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 27 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) 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 available to place the sign in a compliant location. The location of the existing sign is in a lawn area of the business. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 11.4 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 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 to remove an existing free standing sign to install a 16 sq. ft. sign. The applicant has submitted plans showing the images of the existing and proposed signage. The survey also shows the current and proposed sign location." MR. JACKOSKI-Hello. If you could identify yourself for the record. MS. LOCKHART-Kimberly Lockhart. MR. JACKOSKI-Kimberly, I assume it's a very straightforward application again. MS. LOCKHART-Yes. Let's hope so. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here on the Board who'd like to ask questions at this time of the applicant? It's the topography, it's the location of the building that's causing the problems, correct? MR. BROWN-The problem is that she wants the sign too close to the property line. What's causing it, I don't know. MR. JACKOSKI-Any Board member questions? MR. KUHL-No, it's straightforward. MR. JACKOSKI-I will open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Hearing there is none, I'll poll the Board. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have no problem with it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-It's straightforward. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. 28 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Great. Go for it. MR. JACKOSKI-I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-I'll seek a motion on SEAR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0191-2016 KIMBERLY LOCKHART, PC 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 Ronald Kuhl Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Could I have a motion for approval of the application, please. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Kimberly Lockhart, PC for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to remove existing freestanding sign and place a new 16 sq. ft.; 8 ft. in height freestanding sign less than 15 ft. from the front property line. The applicant requests the following relief, Section 140, Signs for Which Permits are required, location of the sign. The applicant proposes to remove an existing freestanding sign to install a new 16 square foot with two tenants. The sign is to be located 3.6 feet from the property line where 15 feet setback is required. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for such sign in the Commercial Intensive zone— Cl. Section 140 Signs for which permits are required - location of signs: The applicant proposes to remove an existing freestanding sign to install a new 16 sq. ft. sign with two tenants. The sign is to be located 3.6 ft. from the property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance PZ-0191-2016 Kimberly Lockhart, PC 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 Ronald Kuhl Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 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? No, there will not. 29 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing O7/27/2016) 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? Not really because of the distance to the property line. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No, it's not really. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, it will not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It could be construed as self-created, but it's really not. 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; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE PZ-0191-2016 KIMBERLY LOCKHART, PC, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: 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 of July 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck. MS. LOCKHART-Have a good evening. AREA VARIANCE PZ-0173-2016 SEQRA TYPE II JEFF BAERTSCHI & KIRSTY DI BELLA AGENT(S) ETHAN P. HALL — RUCINSKI HALL ARCHITECTURE OWNER(S) JEFF BAERTSCHI & KIRST DI BELLA ZONING WR LOCATION ASSEMBLY POINT ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 2,367 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING WITH FLOOR AREA OF 5,662 SQ. FT. PROJECT INCLUDES NEW SEPTIC, ASSOCIATED SITE WORK AND PARCEL MERGER OF TWO LOTS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS AND FROM HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF. N/A — VACANT LAND WARREN COUNTY 30 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) PLANNING JULY 2016 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES AND 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.12-2-42 &43 SECTION 179-3-040 CULLEN FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JEFF BAERTSCHI, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance PZ-0173-2016, Jeff Baertschi & Kirsty DiBella, Meeting Date: July 27, 2016 "Project Location: Assembly Point Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 2,367 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with floor area of 5,662 sq. ft. Project includes new septic, associated site work and parcel merger of two lots. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks and from height restrictions for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The WR zone requires 25 ft. side setbacks where the applicant proposes 20 ft. on the south side; then the rear setback is required to be 30 ft. and the applicant proposes 22 ft. 10 in. A variance is also requested for the height where 28 ft. is required and the applicant proposes 32 ft. 3in. 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 adjoining right of way. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested for the south side setback is 5 ft. The relief for the rear setback is 7.17 ft. (22 ft. 10in is 22.83 ft.). The relief for height is 4.25 ft. in excess of 28 ft. allowed for height (32 ft. 3 in is 32.25 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 applicant proposes merging two parcels 239.12-2-42 and 43 as one parcel and to construct a single family home. The plans show the location of the new home and septic. The applicant has indicated the water supply will be from the lake through a connection on a lot north of the project site. The project also includes permeable pavers and a swale to assist in stormwater management on the site." MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. If you could identify yourselves for the record, please. MR. BAERTSCHI-I'm Jeff Baertschi. This is Kirsty DlBella. MR. FULLER-My name is Cullen Fuller. I'm with Rucinski Hall Architecture. MR. JACKOSKI-Cullen, do you want to kind of walk through the project quickly for us on why it's sited where it's sited and the combination of all the lots and all that good stuff. MR. FULLER-Absolutely. To start with, we positioned the house on the lot as we did to gain the best view possible for the actual residence into Lake George from the adjoining properties. The 31 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing O7/27/2016) overall layout of the lot is, it's a little narrow, and with 175 feet of road front, that made for the larger side setbacks. So we are, in fact, encroaching on them. We are actually asking for relief from the side and the rear setback. However, the right of way that does exist right now that we are asking relief from happens to be in a trust that is actually owned by Jeff Baertschi and his own siblings. Currently we have letters from surrounding properties available when needed that have given us more or less full approval and likeliness of the actual project, but for the main concern about why we positioned it where it was is we did want to keep as much screen faced along that road as possible and we did want to provide adequate view of the lake and the situation where it actually is in the corner does provide that view more or less. We are asking for relief from height, however the existing site is actually dipped down in that section, and they are looking to raise it up about five feet more or less, to keep it out of, more or less, having it in a hole on the actual site, to provide adequate, you know, surrounding landscaping and, you know, keeping the water away from the actual residence, and we are providing a swale, as noted, and permeable pavers. The actual height of the building is within the variance, but since we are adding feet from the actual low point on site, it is going to put us above the 28 feet. The properties to the rear of the building, they actually face out towards the lake on the other side, so we would not be, we wouldn't actually be, encroach on anyone's view to the lake, or really anyone actually at all. So the height is, I think the variance for the height relief is adequate, and maintaining those setbacks, more or less asking from himself is reasonable. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-So you're going to bring in about five foot of fill to bring it up to level? MR. FULLER-Just on the back side. MR. UNDERWOOD-Just on the back side. MR. FULLER-Just because the property tapers down. MR. UNDERWOOD-Down the other way. MR. FULLER-From the property to the back it tapers down about five or six feet. MR. KUHL-Is this the lot with the trailers and the piles of dirt? MR. FULLER-Yes. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Are those trailers and piles of dirt going to be removed? MR. BAERTSCHI-The piles of dirt are fill to bring up the back, yes. MR. HENKEL-So that shed's going to stay there? It's kind of on your property but you've got it on the Trust property? MR. BAERTSCHI-Yes. It's on my mom's. MR. KUHL-Are you saying that once you're finished with construction and filling in your lawn, if we took a stick and measured it, it would be less than 28 feet, or 28 feet to the peak? MR. FULLER-That's correct. MR. JACKOSKI-From the lawn, but not from the original grade. I'm making sure. MR. KUHL-I'm just asking a question. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I'm trying to verify, too, for the record. That's all. MR. FULLER-Construction drawings are underway and that is correct. MR. KUHL-No, I understand that we have to measure from natural grade. I do, but I just wanted to make sure so that you blend in to the rest of the neighborhood. The worst thing we can do is start letting things go and then everybody will want it. Thank you. 2 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? Seeing no one in the audience and the public hearing is open, I suspect there's no one that's going to comment. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "Please be advised that I reside at 20 Holly Lane, Lake George, New York 12845. This memo is submitted in support of the subject application, which is scheduled for consideration on this evening's agenda. A review of the application indicates that: (1) there is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood; and (2) there are no adverse impacts on physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. Your affirmative consideration of the area variances requested by applicants would be appreciated and supported by the undersigned. William Y Crowell, III" KIRSTY DI BELLA MS. DI BELLA-We have the other written letters, too. Do you guys want those? MR. URRICO-It's from Brian Hogan? MS. DI BELLA-Yes, and then we have four additional ones as well. MR. KUHL-You had everybody over for a barbecue last weekend? MS. DI BELLA-1 wish we would have thought to do that. MR. URRICO-Could we have those four letters, please. MS. DI BELLA-Yes, I'll take out the two you already have. MR. URRICO-I'll read the other one. "I am writing in reference to the above mentioned Area Variance request. I have had the privilege of reviewing the plans for the home being proposed. By all accounts, it is a beautiful building keeping with the character of the lake and surrounding area. I think that the combining of two smaller lots into one is a great idea and furthers the desire of the Town to mitigate environmental impacts in the Waterfront Residential zone. It appears that the requested relief would be minor. Any modification to the request could actually negatively impact the aesthetic quality of the project. Please consider my wholehearted approval for this request. Sincerely, Brian Hogan" 33/34 Holly Lane. "My son, Jeff Baertschi, is building a new home and is requesting minor setback relief and I have no objection to this variance. Sincerely Norma Baertschi" "This letter is to inform you that we are in support of the new home project proposed by Jeff Baertschi and Kirsty DlBella. The new home address will be 82 Assembly Point Road and is adjacent to our land at 17 Holly Lane. We have viewed the plans, understand the variances and discussed the implications with the new homeowners and we want to inform you of our support. Sincerely, Curt and Tami Carstensen" And they're at 17/18 Holly Lane. "To Whom It May Concern: Please consider this letter positive support for the new home being built by Mr. Baertschi on the Assembly Point Road. I think new upgraded houses built to today's standards are a positive for the neighborhood. It certainly adds to the character and valuation. The Baertschi's are one of the original families to settle on the point! It's obvious they respect and love it as we all do. From what I've seen aesthetically in the plans and the choice of colors and style it's all conducive to the surroundings. I'm certain many of us that live here will feel the same. Sincerely, Michael Chyrs 21 year resident of Assembly Point" And it's the same letter but this one's signed by Mark Weinman 93 Assembly Point Road. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any other letters? MR. URRICO-That's it. MR. KUHL-I just have one question. You're talking about a water supply on the north side of the property. Is that going to be dedicated to this house or is that a shared supply? MR. BAERTSCHI-It's dedicated. I bought the, the adjoining property I combined I bought from my aunt, and we have an easement. We put that water line in in the early 70's. We put two water lines in, one for my parents' house and one for her lot if she ever built a house and decided she wasn't going to and sold me the lot. So we have the water line and an easement for it. MR. KUHL-But I mean it's not a shared use water line. It's specifically for this house. 33 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. BAERTSCHI-That's right. MR. KUHL-So if I would buy the house, I would have water. MR. BAERTSCHI-Correct. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other Board member questions? At this point I'll poll the Board. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the side setbacks to me are not any problem. What appears to be the over height of the house seems to be explained, too, by the contours and the dipping away of the property there, too. So I don't think there's been an attempt to build an oversized, over height building. So I don't really think I would have a problem with either. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 feel the same way. I was concerned with the height initially, but I understand that it's good to have the property level and so usually we're pretty tough on height, but in this particular case, I'll forgive it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Like my two previous Board members, I am still concerned about the height. I am hoping that it will be mitigated by the fill, and if that's the case, then I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with the other Board members. I'm in favor of the project. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I like the idea of them combining the two lots instead of trying to build on a .28 or .33 acres, and the permeability is way above, and I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-So just for the record I think normally we would all be jumping at the opportunity to center the house on the lot, avoid the relief because there's no real need for it, but when the applicant began to explain that that's the only place they have the actual view of the lake, thus also moving it to the north would begin to, I suspect, hinder the views from the back lots, Mrs. Baertschi in particular, it makes sense as to why we're siting the house where we're siting it on that parcel. So I'm in favor of it as well. I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion for approval. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Jeff Baertschi & Kirst DiBella. Applicant proposes construction of a 2,367 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with floor area of 5,662 sq. ft. Project includes new septic, associated site work and parcel merger of two lots. The applicant requests the following relief: 5 foot setback relief on the south side; 7 foot 2 inch setback on the other side, and a 4 and a quarter foot relief on the height. The applicant requests the following relief: Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks and from height restrictions for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts dimensional requirements The WR zone requires 25 ft. side setbacks where the applicant proposes 20 ft. on the south side; then the rear setback is required to be 30 ft. and the applicant proposes 22 ft. 10 in. A variance is also requested for the height where 28 ft. is required and the applicant proposes 32 ft. 3in. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, July 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 34 (Queen lbuiry 2I3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the new house will basically provide an enhancement to the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered, but are not really reasonable because in this location the applicant wants a view of the lake. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's moderate due to the fact that positioning of the house presents a view of Lake George and that the height is really a misrepresentation because the lot is going to be raised up in the rear end. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. PZ-0173-2016, JEFF BAERTSCHI & KIRSTY DI BELLA, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 27th day of July 2016 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. FULLER-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. BAERTSCHI-Thank you, gentlemen. MR. JACKOSKI-Thanks, Jeff. So Craig and I have had a discussion. That's why we're not adjourning just yet. I get a lot of requests for waivers of the request for a survey for dimensional relief on various applications. Sometimes as I look at them, and for example it's a pre-existing building and you can see it, you can touch it and everything else and there's an old survey and there's a request for whatever the application is and, you know, we ask them for a new survey and all that other stuff. So Craig and I have had a couple of instances recently with some applications that have come in front of us that the applicants are frustrated because I wouldn't grant the survey waiver request. As Craig and I have talked about some things, maybe it's time for the Board to clarify its position on the need for an actual licensed, formal, current survey or is it acceptable for a licensed individual in the State of New York, which could be an engineer, to utilize an existing survey, with a statement that suggests that the information provided on the document being provided to us is current but not necessarily a formal, new, licensed survey. For example, the siting of brand new home that the engineers and the architects are working on. They have a survey. They plot that new home on that survey with their, you know, capabilities with the computers and all that other good stuff, versus a homeowner who comes in and kind of sketches it on with a big, long tape and says I measured to the line and this is where it is. Do we have to have a formal survey from a survey, stamped, or can we, in fact, allow surveys that have already been done, with a notation that it is representative of current site conditions, but an architect or an engineer actually prepares the document in front of us, and that they take the risk of any errors in the dimensional relief for when they go to do an actual as built drawing submission to the Town? Did I categorize that all well? 35 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. BROWN-You did. If I could just add just a tiny little bit. I don't think that the issue has been requiring a survey, as much as it is requiring the proposed conditions be on the survey. I guess there's a little bit of push back from some surveyors that my survey is to show existing conditions, I'm uncomfortable putting proposed conditions on a map. So the thought is, I guess the request from the engineers or architects, they're request is can we use the survey map and create our own professional map, based on their survey map, to show the proposed conditions. So still getting a survey. Just the proposed map is not done by the surveyor. Because some surveyors are okay with it. Some aren't. So if there's a thought to ease up that requirement on the proposed requirements on an actual survey, that's what we're looking at to just talk about. MR. KUHL-Is that document that those two people create, the surveyor and the engineer, is that what the Town inspector is going to go out there and inspect it to? MR. BROWN-Yes, whatever is submitted and approved by this Board is what we're going to use. MR. KUHL-To inspect it. MR. BROWN-Absolutely, yes. MR. KU H L-Okay. MR. BROWN-And just a follow up to this, Steve and I talked about this when we spoke earlier this week, I guess. My thought is, if somebody's coming to you for a variance for setback relief, it's not unreasonable to request that they provide some sort of as built drawing at the end to confirm that they met the requirements that you put on them when you issued them an approval. This application you just had before you. We're proposing this setback and this is what we say it's going to be. In this case they're required to do a survey because it's a brand new house. If it's an addition to a home or if it's, you know, something else, they're not required to do a survey at the end. New homes are, additions aren't. Now with an addition, if you have a survey to start with, it's pretty easy to do the math, the subtraction and addition, because you know what the setback is on the existing survey. You go out and measure the addition and you can figure out what the setback is pretty close. If buildings are perpendicular to the property line, it's pretty easy. If property lines run at an angle it's harder to calculate that. So the thought is do you want to require an as built survey after the fact, because you're granting variance relief. Just another thing to talk about. MR. MC CABE-So an example, good example, in my mind, is the house that we approved on far west end of Glen Lake. That had quite a few variances associated. MR. BROWN-Brand new house? MR. MC CABE-Brand new house, Canterbury, Canterbury Lane. Now I see that that's finished. Now, do they have to come to you with a, I mean, that was a tight fit. Do they have to come to you with an as-built drawing? MR. BROWN-All brand new houses require a survey, whether they need a variance or not. MR. MC CABE-Initially. MR. BROWN-To get a Certificate of Occupancy they have to show us a survey map. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. BROWN-That confirms the house is on the property and meets the setbacks, if you didn't get a variance, and if you did get a variance, to confirm that you met the variance relief that you were granted. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. BROWN-Yes, absolutely for new houses, but it's additions and, you know, strange situations that might come up. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So, for instance, the guy that put the walkway around the house there, where we had the neighbors disapproved and, you know, it was quite a discussion, and, let me see, where was that. It was on Cleverdale. It was an old house, and the guy made a very eloquent presentation that he's been there a long time and he wanted ramps for his mother who was old and so he could push her wheelchair around. 6 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. HENKEL-You're not talking about Kubricky? MR. MC CABE-Yes. Kubricky. Now for instance, in that particular case there, anyway, that was pretty tight, but it was a good presentation, at least I thought it was, but that was fairly tight. Now, and, you know, we got them to do some reduction in walkways and that sort of thing. Would he have had to get an as built on that? MR. BROWN-Not required to do an as built survey for something like that. If there's a change to the plan, if the plan changed and there was a site plan approval, and they made some changes, you know, minor changes to the site plan, we would probably have them submit an updated plan to document the changes, but if it followed the plan, and we can go out and reasonably look at it and say, yes, this appears to follow the plan, they're not required to give us an actual as built survey. MR. JACKOSKI-So we're going to go back to, with the applications, are we going to require the surveyors to actually formally certify that the proposed plans, which are in front of us on there, is all we're going to accept, or can we, in fact, allow engineers and architects to utilize a survey and because they're licensed professionals in the State of New York allow that document to be presented instead. Because I've been saying. MR. HENKEL-You've been making the decision, and I think you've been doing a good job on that. MR. UNDERWOOD-You're not allowed to modify a survey's plot. I mean, I think that's clear, but you can measure off what's on the plot and draw your plans from that. I think most architects. MR. BROWN-Yes, they create their own drawings for sure. MR. UNDERWOOD-They're creating their own drawings, and I don't think there's a problem with that, and I think the additions we know you're going off a wall that's already pre-existing. So, I mean, that doesn't seem necessary in that respect. MR. URRICO-Well, when we say current, are we talking about accurate? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, because that's my big concern. That's what Craig and I spent a lot of time on, because we all know that a lot of times they want to use a survey from 15 years ago that doesn't show the three sheds, the four patios, the six extra square feet of non-permeable surface, or by the way don't mention the well that's over there that we don't want you to see. MR. HENKEL-Right. It's got to be updated. MR. BROWN-So I think that, again, the issue hasn't been, at least with the complainers, or even the people that are inquiring about this, it's not about getting the survey done. It's about having the proposed information on that survey. Make sure everybody's up to speed with getting a current survey, but creating the proposed map, they're looking to get that done by somebody other than the surveyor, having the ability to have it done by somebody else. MR. JACKOSKI-But, Craig, I'm going to say to you, there are times when I get push back, and you're not involved, when I get the phone calls, where they're frustrated that they've got to go through the expense now before they actually get it approved, of a surveyor, when they've got an old survey and all they want to do is plot it on there, by an engineer or an architect, to make sure they get their approval, and then they'll provide the formal as built survey when the dimensional relief is granted. So it's not just about the proposed stuff going on the survey. It's also sometimes economic. MR. UNDERWOOD-Don't ask for more than is necessary, I think. MR. BROWN-Well, remember, they're coming to this Board, they're seeking relief to do something that's outside the rules, all right. So in order to be in a position where you're most informed to grant them that permission to break the rules, it doesn't seem unreasonable to have a current map of the property. That's my opinion. MR. JACKOSKI-I don't have a problem doing a survey that Van Dusen and Steves will just did six years ago and now the architect comes in, because he's licensed in the State of New York, and utilizes that survey, shows us what the addition's going to look like, where the pool's going to go, wherever it is, the dimensional relief that's requested for that fifth garage, whatever it is, 37 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) as long as there's a statement on there from that professional that the data being presented to us is current and accurate. Because I don't want there to not, for us to miss that there's an extra shed on the property or there's, you know, two more freestanding signs that aren't showing up on the document. MR. URRICO-What are the legal aspects from the surveyors? Is it proper for somebody to use their information and overlay something on top of it? I work in a business where plagiarism is something that people look at and I don't know as that's something they can do. MR. BROWN-Yes, I'm not sure if it's plagiarism if you reference it. If you use it and you don't make reference to it, I think that's what Steve's saying is I've drawn my map based on a survey map, and if you do that. MR. URRICO-I think as long as it's accurate, that's all my concern is, that if we're going to grant 4.5 feet of relief, that we want to be sure that it's 4.5 feet of relief. If we're going to be that specific, we have to make sure that what's being presented to us is exact. MR. BROWN-Right, and that kind of goes to my follow-up that's the second part of it is if you're going to have professionals other than a surveyor calculate that setback number, do you want to get that follow-up survey that proves they put it there? And if it comes on a surveyor's map, maybe you do, if it comes on some other professional map. I don't know. I just wanted to let you know there's a difference. A surveyor calculates it. They're licensed to do that. Is an engineer, architect's math or plan any less accurate? I don't think so, but they're not the ones licensed to determine where property lines are. MR. URRICO-We don't normally see that follow-up map. That's something that you would see. MR. BROWN-It's submitted to us and I confirm that it matches the variance that you granted. Or I send them back. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm going to guess that in the majority of our cases, we can go off of the old surveys because we already know what's there when we go out to do a site, you know, because a lot of times things are proposed, what they're going to be in the future. So as long as we have an accurate survey and it projects what those numbers will be, it's up to them. If they come back with an as built, like you said, if it's new construction, and they're off, then they're going to have to come back for a variance after the fact. MR. BROWN-Yes, but if, like you said, if it's an old survey, it may not be an accurate survey. You said an old survey and an accurate survey. They might not be the same thing. You could have a 15 year old survey that shows exactly the building that's there, but it doesn't show Steve's four other sheds and the basketball court that plays into the permeable number. So you may want something current so you have all the information you can possibly get when you're making a decision. MR. KUHL-But you're only going to know that when you're doing the site visit and you don't do a site visit. MR. BROWN-Well, you'll know it if you have a current survey, right, if you have an up to date survey. You could have an old survey that's accurate with regard to the location of where the building is, but it might not be accurate to show all the other improvements on the property. MR. KUHL-Yes, but what defines an updated survey? We don't know that when we look at. MR. UNDERWOOD-And like you say, it becomes an onerous thing if we're requiring something that's really not necessary, like if it's something like I'm going to add a shed in the backyard or something like that. I mean, it's pretty obvious you're going to go buy some shed, bring it in, drop it on site. So, I mean, siting the shed the proper distance from the property line, you know, I mean, I think that's something that's doable. I don't think it's rocket science. MR. BROWN-Well, what if that survey map they showed and supplied didn't have any other sheds on it, but you go to the site when you do your site visit and there's four other sheds there? MR. UNDERWOOD-Then we would bring it up at the meeting. MR. BROWN-Right, but I guess it's documented on the map. You have that information. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think that's the importance of site visits with your materials, you know, once they've been provided to us. 38 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. KUHL-Are you suggesting this because you're trying to reduce the cost to the applicant of coming to the Town, asking for relief? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. KUHL-Because I mean we had the issue with the people on the west side when they bring in a new trailer, when they take out the old one and they bring in a new one, and they have to have all those staff documents, and that's a big nut for them. MR. BROWN-Well, I mean, cost isn't the real reason, but I suppose there is the cost associated with having a surveyor update his survey map as opposed to having an engineer who's already done all the design work use that map, and there's probably a cost. That's not why I was asking. It was a request and I'm bringing it to the Board's attention. MR. KUHL-Is it a consistent request from the same applicant? MR. BROWN-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would say if they're a professional engineer or an architect we can rely upon their best judgment then, you know, and it'll be on their heads if they're off substantially and it's noted in the after the fact. MR. KUHL-Yes, but we have a certain person that comes in here afterwards, and the house is off because he didn't spend $120 and have the surveyor go out and stake the foundation. He just built the house because it's so many feet off the, you know. MR. MC CABE-Well, the new build, like you said, you have to have a survey. New homes. MR. UNDERWOOD-New homes are going to have to get measured. MR. KUHL-Yes. Well, what is your feeling about the person making the request? MR. UNDERWOOD-Is it because of one single person requesting this, Craig, or is it numerous? MR. JACKOSKI-No, no, no. Regardless, the process should be, what do we want for process? MR. HENKEL-I think it depends on the severity of the mistake. MR. KUHL-There's too many variables. MR. HENKEL-If it's a sign, and it's a foot off, it's not a big deal, but if it's, if you're too close to a watershed or, you know, a wetlands or something like that, I would think that that would be a little bit more severe. MR. BROWN-1 think if you used the parameters that Steve talked about where if the map that's created by somebody other than a surveyor, if that map has a notation on it that says my map is based on an actual survey and a current accurate survey done by a surveyor, however you want to word it, then I think you're probably pretty safe getting a map from an architect or engineer. MR. URRICO-Do you want to put a time limit on it, like a survey within the last five years, the last ten years, something that, we don't want them coming with a 20 year old survey. MR. BROWN-Well, I mean, I think if you say current, right, that's. MR. UNDERWOOD-Current's going to include the structure that's currently on site. MR. JACKOSKI-Current site conditions as of the application. MR. BROWN-Current site conditions survey could be 15 years old, nothing's changed in 15 years. MR. MC CABE-1 built my house 30 years ago. I got the survey when I built my house, but I don't have an update since then. 39 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. BROWN-So that wouldn't be current. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. When I came in front of the Board for the K of C to talk about changing my sign font but it was too close to the road, I was going to have to go get a whole new survey because that survey was in 1996, but nothing else has changed. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't think you would do it in that instance. I'd give you a waiver. MR. JACKOSKI-The Board has directed me to give no waivers if it's dimensional relief. MR. BROWN-Well, if you guys pass a new resolution that says surveyors, engineers, architects can submit plot plans or maps, in addition to a current updated survey, yes, I mean, we filter through those things now. We tell an applicant, this map will work or this map is not going to work, you need to seek a waiver if you don't have a survey. That's how they get to Steve right now is that we, on the front line, tell them if it's going to be good or not. MR. URRICO-1 don't have a problem with it as long as it's accurate and is something we can work with, you know, and it's something you can work with. MR. JACKOSKI-So again, it's okay that it's a licensed professional opinion. MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure, right. MR. URRICO-A professional in that field. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. In that field, right, because we don't want Michael O'Connor being a licensed professional. MR. MC CABE-Well, you could be a licensed professional electrical engineer, and, you know, you don't really get into plots and stuff like that. MR. JACKOSKI-I agree. It should be an architect. MR. BROWN-A civil engineer. MR. JACKOSKI-A civil engineer, a P.E. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I would think the majority of what we get is we always have a professional engineer. We always have an architect. So I mean, I think nine times out of ten it's not going to crop up as a problem for us. MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean, you're certainly going to have them here if they're the ones preparing the maps. MR. HENKEL-Well, if we do have problems, we're just going to have to ask them to table it and get an updated. MR. JACKOSKI-Every time we send them a letter, I always say to Sue, let them know that they're running the risk that the Board may actually require a formal survey if I grant the relief. Okay. MR. HENKEL-And if we have a problem we can always say we need more information. MR. JACKOSKI-Are you okay, now, with what we're going to do? Because you're going to have to guide me every time one of these things come up. All right. Can we go home now? I know what the Board's going to support me on. I don't think we had a formal resolution. MR. BROWN-No, but I guess what I'm saying is if somebody comes in, an engineer comes in and says here's my proposed map and it's not a survey, are we sending that to you for a waiver request and you're going to grant it, or are we just going to say, this counts, you don't need a waiver? Because if you do it by resolution, we don't send them to you anymore. MR. URRICO-Aren't they in a better position to determine whether a map's needed? MR. UNDERWOOD-You're going to do it at the pre-meeting, Steve? Is that the first time you see it or? MR. BROWN-Yes, well, when we see it. 40 (Queen lbuiry I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. UNDERWOOD-The first time. MR. BROWN-Sometimes it's not the pre-meeting. Sometimes they don't have any map and we have to tell them to bring a map. MR. JACKOSKI-So if you want to make a recommendation as to what the wording should be of a motion that's fine, or if you want to come up with wording for a motion for our next meeting, that's fine, too. MR. BROWN-Okay. We'll come up with a draft or something. MR. JACKOSKI-Between now and then, one or two more applications isn't going to matter. MR. BROWN-Except we have one that's hanging out there that fits this category that was recently, a waiver was denied based on a map prepared by an engineer. So if we want to let that one in the queue before the resolution's done, because I know I'll be getting phone calls tomorrow. MR. HENKEL-It depends on why was it denied? MR. BROWN-It's a map that was created based on an actual field survey, but the proposed conditions were created by an engineer. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is it a sign, or what is it? MR. BROWN-It's an area variance for setbacks. MR. UNDERWOOD-Is there something to measure off of, like a building that's already there or anything, just an empty lot? MR. BROWN-So there's a survey that's done, but the proposed conditions, proposed setbacks were done by an engineer. MR. URRICO-1 would let it go. I mean, submit it that way and if we need more information we'll get to it. I think at this point it would be unfair to require them to submit a new survey and then everybody else after that not. MR. BROWN-Right, right. MR. URRICO-Especially since we haven't heard them yet. Right? Are they on the next month's agenda? MR. BROWN-Potentially. MR. URRICO-Potentially. So actually we'll have resolved this already. MR. BROWN-Right. Yes, no the goal is to get them in next month's agenda. That's why I'm trying to talk about it tonight before we finalize our agendas. MR. URRICO-1 would let them in. As is. MR. HENKEL-I agree. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 agree. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm the boss. I get to say. So, I mean, they're telling me what to do, so we'll just go ahead and leave it. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-I approve the waiver, Sue. MS. HEMINGWAY-It's for Chris Boyd, correct? 41 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing O7/27/2016) MR. BROWN-Yes, but we're not going to talk about applications that haven't been before the ZBA yet. That's why I didn't talk about who it is. MR. HENKEL-Didn't hear it. MR. JACKOSKI-But I approve the waiver request, Sue. MS. HEMINGWAY-Okay. Thank you. MR. BROWN-But the plan going forward is to do a resolution, we're going to come up with language? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. BROWN-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Anything else, Craig? MR. BROWN-A couple of small things, but we can do them, if you want to adjourn. MR. JACKOSKI-No, go ahead. MR. BROWN-Are you sure? MR. JACKOSKI-Yes. MR. BROWN-Okay. Resolutions. I think the majority of the resolutions that were done tonight were done very well. You go through the prepared resolution, all of the criteria. You have answers that say because and explains, which is good, it's excellent information to get on the record. There was one resolution that was done that all of the answers to the five criteria questions were one word answers, and the answer was no, no, no explanation. Just be cautious of that. You want to make sure that you're providing information on the record of why you're taking that position because that's what gets challenged in an Article 78. You guys have seen enough of those. MR. MC CABE-Just a comment. Tonight, there was no note on there about per Staff Notes. Usually on the resolutions there's a paragraph proceeding where you go through the five criteria that you make a statement per Staff information, I forget how it was. MS. HEMINGWAY-Actually it says, and it doesn't really it says as prepared by the draft resolution. It doesn't say Staff Notes. So I took that out because. MR. MC CABE-Well, see that's what, Laura told us that we had to have that in to, you know, kind of. MR. BROWN-1 think if you're, and you guys go through it pretty smoothly, but if you're looking for a way to cut a little time out of the meetings, not that it's super late here, but, you know, you don't have to read all of the things that are on those prepared resolutions. If you get to a certain point and say I'd like to make a resolution to approve this based on the resolution prepared by Staff, with the following considerations, and then you go through the criteria, you don't have to read all the Code section and all the, we held a public hearing and 267 of Town law. You don't have to do that, and the reason why is because resolutions are prepared. All that stuff is put in there. We're preparing that resolution based on the draft, and the only things that we change to that prepared resolutions are your answers to the questions, because we're not going to predispose what I should say yes or no to. So all those yeses or noes and pluses or minuses, positive negative answers that you have to come up with, that's what's unique to each application, and that's what you want to expound on a little bit, but you don't have to read all the other stuff because that's boilerplate. That's format stuff that goes in no matter whether you read it in the record or not. It's put in the resolution. So again, you guys do it pretty smoothly, but you don't have to. Because if you say as prepared by Staff, we're going to use this draft resolution and add your answers. So, I mean, just a thought, just putting it out there if we're talking about resolutions, and that's the only thing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are we still on the record? MS. HEMINGWAY-Yes. MR. KUHL-When does the Board get a salary increase, on the record? 42 (Queen lbuiry 2I:3A IMee ing 07/27/2016) MR. BROWN-As soon as Staff does. MR. UNDERWOOD-2029. MR. JACKOSKI-Motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 27, 2016, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 27th day of July, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Freer 43