Staff Notes Packet for ZBA Mtg. Wed October 25 2017 k"I�tzff Notes
ZBA Meeting
Wednesday, October 25 , 20 1 7
Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
Meeting, Wednesday, October 25, 2017 Time, 7:DD- 1120 prn
Queensbury Activities Center- 742 Bay Road
Agenda subject to change and maybe found at: www,queensbury.net
NEW RUS IN E,",
Applicant(s) Richard and MUurrt'.n Otto area Varianct No Z-AV-64-2017
Owner(s) Richard and MUuroun Otto SE RA Type II
Agenqsn1ft Lot Site 0.42 Acre(s)
Location 31 Country Colony Road Zoning MDR
Ward No. Ward 1
Tax Id No 289.11-2-24.2 Section 179-5-020
Cross Ref n1a Warren County Planning n1a
Public,Hcariing October 25,2017 Adirondack Park Agency rda
Project Description Applicant proposes construction ofa480 sq, k detached garage fad ng A]ice Drive. Re]lef requested for a second garage on a
arcel where only one is al lowable and from the,min imum PmPerty lint setback req ulrements of the MDR eon ing district.
Applicant(s) Malt Ellsworth Area Variance No Z_AV-65-2017
Owncr(s) Matt Ellsworth SE RA Type I]
A Cnt s n/a Lot Size 0,49 Acre(s)
Location 23 Jacque]ine Drive-Leh Iand Ioark, Phase t ,Zoning Old SX-20 Lehland Park, Phase 1;
Ward.No. Ward 1 current MDR
Tax Id No 295.10-1-41 Scetion 179-3-040; 1744-080
Cross Ref Subdivision No. I"6 Lehland Estates Warren County Planning ala
Public Htari n October 25 2017 Adirondack Park Agcncy n/a
Pmiw.Descriptiggg Applicant proposes construction of a 368 sq.ft.deck. Relief requested from rninirnurn setback rcquircrncuts for the
subdivision entitled Lchland Park,Phase 1
Applicant(s) Diane and Natasha Berube Area Variance No Z-AV-68-2017
Owner(s) Joseph Leuci(Foothills Builders SE RAT e I I
A s Joseph Leuci Foothills Builders Lot Sine 1.6 Acre(s)
Location Lot 9,74 John Clendon Road Zoning MDR
Ward No. Ward I and 3
Tax Id No 295.15-2-7 Section 179-3-040
Crass Ref SB PZ ]63-2015 Wiirren County P la min n/a
Public Hearing October 25,2017 Adirondack Park Agency n/a
Project Description Applicant proposes construction of duplex, Relief requested for a second dwelling unit(duplex)without the required land
area or density in the MDR zonft district.
Applicant(s) Ray Sign Sign Variance No ZISV-10-2017
Qwner(s) Renee Reardon Sly PA Type [Unlisted
Agent(s) Ray Sin Lot Size 4.71 and 0,30 Acre(s)
Location 819 State Route 9 Zoning Cl
Ward No. Ward 2
Tax Id No _ 342.6-1-49 restaurant and 48 parking lot Section Chapter 140
Cross Ref SP 75-2014-AV 88-2014;SV 87-2014 Waren CountPlaruiin October 2017
Public Heart Octobtr 25 2017 Adirondack Park cnc n/a
Prot eet Description Applicant proposes installation of a 1539 sq.ft. LED changeab le Freestanding sign(pre-mcnu boards). Rc I ief requested from
number of allowable freestanding signs For the busi nus-M Oonatd's Restaurant
Any further business that the Chairman determines may be properly brought before the Zoning Board of Appeals.
Revised Version- 10.6.2017 sh(corrected Tax Id for Berube Z-AV-68-2017)
Final Version: 10.3.2017 CWLMIsh
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff Notes
Area Vmrianve No.. 64-201.7
Project Applicant- Richard & M§turcen Otto
Project Location: 31 Country Colony Road
Parcel History: nla-
SrR Type: Type 11
Meeting Date: October 25,2017
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes ccxnstruction of 480 sq. ft. detached garage facing Alice Drive. Relief requested for a
second garage on a parcel where only one is allowable and from the minimum property line setback
requirements of the MDR zoning district.
Relief Reguirecl:
The applicant request relief for second garage znd from the minimum pToperty line setback requirements of the
MDR zoning district on parcel.
Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures—garage:
The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached where only one garage is allowed. Relief is also
requested for the, setback 5 ft front setback and S ft rear setback where a 30 ft setbaok is required for each,
crite ria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town La�uv:
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 propep-ties will be imeated by the granting of this arca variance. Minor to no impacts to the
neighborhood may be anticipated,
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an arra variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the
door size and locate to a compliant location
, Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial
relevant to the code. The relief requested is to allow two garages where only one is allowed. Relief is also
requested for 25 ft for rear and front setback.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental coaditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considemd
to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area,
5. Whether thio alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
staff comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a 480 sq ft detached garage. The applicant has indicated the buildirig to be
used for storage for lawn equipment and .furniture. The plans show the elevations and floor plans of the
building.
Zoning Board of Appeals— Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbuyy 742 Bay Road Queensbury, NY 12.8{}4 {518) 761-8238
T{FWJ] [FQ.UCTFISMy
Area 'Variance Resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove
Applicant lame: Richard and Maureen Otto
File Number. Z-AY-64-2017
Location: 31 Country Colony Road
Tax Map Number. 289.11-2-24.2
ZBA Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2017
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard and
Maureen Otto. Applicant proposes construction of 480 sq. ft. detached garage facing Alice Drive. Relief
requested for a second garage on a parcel where only one is allowable and from the minimum property line
setback requirements of the MDR zoning district.
Relief required
The applicant request relief for second garage and from the rninimuin property line setback requirements of the
MDR zoning district on parcel.
Section 179-5-020—Accessoa Structures—garage:
The applicant proposes a second garage that is detached where only one garage is allowed. Relief is also
requested for the setback 5 ft. front setback and 5 it. rear setback where a 30 ft. setback is required for each.
SEQR Type II—no further review required;
public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 17914-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267
of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF
1 , There is / is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
2. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been
included to minirnize the request OR are not.possible.
I The requested variance is/ is not substantial because —
4. There is 1 is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district?
Page 1 of
5. Is the alleged difficulty is f is not self-created because
. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (approval) / would be out ei hed b denial the resulting detriment to the health, safety and
welfare of the neighborhood or community;
7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary;
8. The Board aIso proposes the following conditions:
a)
b) 7
c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution,
BASED ON TIE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE 1 DENY AREA, VARIANCE
-A - 4-2017 Richard and Maureen Otto Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded b
duly adopted this 25"° day of October 2017 by the following vote:
AYES;
NOES
Page 2 of 2
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Department Staff dotes
Area Variance No.: 65-2017
Project applicant: MRit EllswortlL
Project Location: 23 Jacqueline Drive— Lehland Park, Phase 1
Parcel History: Subdivision No. 15-56 Leyland Estate
SEAR.Type: Type 11
Meeting late: October 25, 2017
Description of Proposed Project;
Applicant proposes construction of a 368 sq. ft. deck. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for
the subdivision entitled Lehland bark, Phase 1.
Relief Required•
The applicant requests relief for a 316 sq. ft. deck addition fi oni tninimum setback requimments for the
subdivision entitled Lehland Park. Phase 1.
Section 179-4-080—Setbacks for porQhes, canopies, and decks. (Revised)
Revised the applicant has reduced the deep from 368 sq. fl. to 316 sq, ft, where the rear setback is to be 9 ft. and
a 20 ft. setback is required (Setbacks for Sub 1 -86 Phase 1 Front 30. Rear 20, Side 10 sura 30 existing house is
compliant).
Criteria for considering an Arca Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In malting a determination, the board shall consider:
1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the
neighborhood may be anticipated.
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for tine
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as due
to the existing home location and orientation on the lot.
. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate
relevant to the code. The relief requested is 11 ft,
4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood may lac anticipated.
5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created.
Stab'comment:
The applicant proposes a 316 sq. ft, ground level deck addition to an existing home. The applicant has indicated
there is a fence in the rear yard of the home anal the deck is located off the back of the home. The plans show
the deck location and size.
L&
METAL FABRI
P.O. Box 516 � toot
. r,
FO RT EDWARD, N EWS ,YORK 12828TTO,
Phone (518) 747-5447
Fax(515) _746-95I
lansfa€lsmetal yahoo,com
5 .
.-'T
�,n
f
1
r
1
4
IIrL
1
J11 Af f
zi
;.� Zoning Board of Appeals— Record of resolution
4 Town of Queensbury 742 Bay load Queensbury, NY 12844 (518) 761-8238
TOM-1i dque-c'llSury
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve /Disapprove
Applicant Name- Matt Ellsworth
File Number- Z-A -65-2017
Location: 23 Jacqueline Drive—Lehland Park, Phase 1
Tax Map Number- 29.5.10-1-41
BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2017
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Matt Ellsworth.
,applicant proposes construction of 368 sol. ft. deck. Relief requested from minirnum setback requirements for
the subdivision entitled Lehland Park, Phase 1.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a 316 sq. ft. deck addition from minimum setback requirements for the
subdivision entitled Lehland Park,Phase 1.
Section 179-4-080 —Setbacks for porches, canapies, and decks: (Revised)
Devised the applicant has reduced the deck from 368 sq. fL to 316 sol. #t. where the rear setback is to be 9 ft. and
a 20 :ft. setback is required(Setbacks for Sub 15-86 Phase 1 Front 30, Rear 20, Side 10 sum 34 existing house is
compliant).
SEQR Type II—no f other review required;
public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 2.5, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-084(A) of the Queensbury To%Vin Code and Chapter 267
of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is 1 is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
2, Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, are reasonable and have been
itnciuded to minimize the request OR era not possible.
3. The requested variance is f is not substantial because
4, There is 1 is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or
district?
Page 1 of 2
5. Is the alleged difficulty is / i s not self-created because
. In addition the Burd finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
outweigh (apnroval) f would be outweighed b denial 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;
S. The Board also proposes the following conditions:
a) Adherence to the items outlined its the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS. I MADE A MQUON TO APPROVE I DENY AREA VARIANCE
-A -65-2017 Matt Ellsworth, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded b
Duly adopted this Wednesday, October 25, 2017 by the following vote:
AYES;
NOES:
Page 2 of
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
Community Development Departmeni Staff Notes
Area Variance No.: 68-2017
Project Applicant. Diane & Natasha Berube
Project Location: Lot 9, 74 ,lohia Clendon Road
Parcel History: SB PZ 163-2016
SEQR Type: Type 11
Meeting Date: October 25,2017
Descri ption of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes construction 0 Nuplex. Relief requested for a second dwelling unit(duplex) without the
required land area or density in the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief for a second dwelling unit (duplex) without the required land arca or density in tlie
MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Establishment of district MDR Zone
The applicant proposes to construct a 2,270 sq ft floor area home with a 640 sq ft area to be used us an in-law
apartment—new home to be a duplex, The MDR density requires 2 ac per unit if not on town water and se"\er -
4 ac would be required for the duplex where 1,6 ac is existing-
Criteria for considering nn Arca Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law:
In making a determination, the board shall consider-
1. Whether an undesirable change will he producedin the character of the neighborhood or a detriment
to nearby properties will be creatO by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to no impacts
to the neighborhood may be anticipated.
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to
the location of the property beim in th.e Modemte Density residential zone which allows duplex units.
There is only one septic system proposed and water connection to Town ateT will be completed as part of
Construction.
. Wh0her the requested area variance is substantial. The relief inay be considered substantial relevant to
the code where the lot size allows for 1 unit and the existing lot size 1.6 ac. Relief requested is 2.4 ae
where 4 ac is required.
4. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of
the area.
$, Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficult} may be Considered self-created.
staff Comments:
The applicant proposes to construct a 2,270 sq ft floor area home with a 600 sq ft area to be used as an in-law
apartment on a 1.6 ac parcel. The vacant parcel is within the John Glendon Subdivision SUB 206-2016. The
information provided indicates the first floor area will include the in-law apartment with one bedroom, living
area, kitchen and bath. The plans show there are separate door entrances to each unit. The driveway arca is to
be shared,
Toning Board of Appeals— Record of Resolution
Town of Q ueenshury 742 Bay Road Queensbury, N Y 12.804 (518) 761-5238
Anim of(t04wj1sb1jry
Area Variance Resolution To: Approve 1 Disapprove
Applicant Name: Natasha and Diane Berube
File Dumber: -A -68-2017
Location: Lot 9, 74 John Clendon Road
Tax Map Number: 295.15-2-7
ZBA Meeting ?ate: Wednesday, October 25, 2017
The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Diane and Natasha
Berube. Applicant proposes construction of duplex. Relief requested for a second dwelling unit (duplex)
without the required land area or density in the MDR zoning district.
Relief Required.
The applicant request's relief for a second dwelling unit(duplex) without the required lana area or density in the
MDR zoning district.
Section 179-3-040 Establishment ol`district MDR Zone
The applicant proposes to construct a 2,270 sq ft floor area home with a 600 sq ft arca to be used as an in-law
apartment —new home to be a duplex. The MDR density requires 2 ac peT unit if not on town water and sewer -
4 ac would be required for the duplex where 1.6 ac is existing.
SEAR Type 1I — no further review required;
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public heating, and upon
consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the QueensburyTown Code and Chapter 267
of ISYS Town Lave and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
1. There is / is r1oL an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby
properties because
. Feasible alternatives are and have been considered by the Board, arc reasonable and have been
included to minitnize the_raquest OR are not possible.
3. The requested variance is ' is not substantial because
4. There is / is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the, neighborhood or
district?
Page 1 of 2
5. Is the alleged difficulty is 1 is not self-created because
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would
out ei lei �qroyal) / would be out eigliad by (denia)) 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;
& The, Board also proposes the following conditions:
a)
b)
c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution.
13 AS ED ON T14E ABOVE FIND INGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPR-0 VE /DEN Y AREA VARIANCE
-A - 8-2017 Dune and Natasha Berube, Introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded by
Duly adopted this 5"' day of October 2017 by the following vote:
AYES:
DOES:
Page 2 of 2
Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals
omrnuniiy Development Department Staff Notes
Sign Valiance No.: 1.0-2017
Project Applicant: Ray Sign
Project Location; 819 State Route 9
Parcel History: SP 75-2014; AV 88-2014; SV 87-2414
SEER ape: Unlisted
Meeting Date: October 25,2017
Description of Proposed Project:
Applicant proposes installation of a 16.39 sq. ft. LEI] changeable freestanding sign (pre-menu boards). Relief
requested from sign type and number of allowable freestanding signs for the business - McDonald's Restaurant
Relief Required:
The applicant requests relief from sign t)-pe and number of allowable freestanding signs for the business -
McDonald's restaurant
Section 140 Signs —number and ty p
The site was approved for one free standing sign and the applicant proposes two additional Free standing signs.
The type of sigm proposed is digital display where the code does not allow for digital display boards.
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. Moderate to substanthd
impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The information submitted indicates it is a digital sign
board with changing menu board—visible from route 9.
. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the
applicant to persue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to have a
compliant signage an site—as a menu board is also provided as part of the drive-tluu order.
3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial
relevant to the code.
4. Whether the proposed variance will have as adverse effect or impact on the physical or
environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have ars adverse
impact as digital sign is not allowed in any zone.
S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-created_
Staff Comments•
The applicant proposes two digital sign boards at the entiranee area of the drive-thru prior to customer pacing
orders. The sign beards are 16.39 sq. ft. and will have auto changing displays advertising product. The board
may request if outer than McDonald's product would be advertised.
Oct17-13
Warren County Planning Department
Project review and Referral For[n
Reviewed by Department on Octo r 6, 2417
Project Name: Ray Sign for Mcoonalds
Owner: Reardon, Renee
1D Number: QBY-17-SV 10
County Project#: Qctl7-13
Current Zoning: Cl
Community: Queensbury
Project Description:
Applicant proposes an additional freestanding sign 16,39 sf to bo a digital display board that can change as needed_
Site Location:
819 State Rig
Tax Map Number(s):
302.6-1-48 & 49
Staff Notes:
The Warren CountyPIanning Department finds that the project will not create any significantinter-municipal or county-wide
impacts to the items identified in GML§239,
Local actions to date(1f any)-
County Planning Department:
Approve
Local Action:/Final disposition:
10116/2017
Warren County Planning Department Date Signed Local Official Date Signed
PLPA R RL:fURY"PHLS FORM TO THE WARREN COUNTY PLANMNG DEPARTMENT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF FINAL ACTION
Zoning Board of Appeals—Record of Resolution
Town of Queensbury 742 Bay Road Queensbury.NY 12804 (518) 761-8238
'Fawn d(Lucrru ry
Sign 'Variance Resolution To: Approve / Disapprove
Applicant lame: Ray Sign for McDonald's Restaurant
File Number- Z-SV-10-2017
Location: 819 State Route 9
Tax Map Number. 302.6-1-49
BA Meeting Date: Wednesday, October 25, 2017
The Zoning Bound of Appeals of the Torn of Queensbury has received an application from Ray Sign for
McDonald's Restaurant, Owner Renee Reardon for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of
The Tov4m of Queensbury- Applicant proposes installation of a 16.39 sq, ft. LED chargeable freestanding
sign (pre-menu boards . Re lie f-requested from sign type and number of allowable freestanding suns for
the business - McDonald's Restaurant.
Relief Required
The app]icant requests reIief from sign type and nurnber or allowable freestanding signs for the business -
McDonald's Restaurant
Section 140 Signs —nutnbcr and type
The site was uppxoved for one freestanding sign and the applicant proposes two additional fzeestamding
signs, The type of sign proposed is digital disp]ay inhere the Code does not allow for digital display
boards.
SFQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SE RI
Motion regarding Sign Variance S -10-2017 Ray Sign for McDonald's Restaurant based upon
the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant,
this Board finds that this will snot result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we
give it a Negative Declaration, introduced by who noosed for its adoption,
seconded by
Duly adopted 25`x` clay of October 2017, by the following vote,
AYES:
NOES:
A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, October 25, 2017;
Upon review of the application materials, information supp]ied during the public hearing, and upon
consideration, of the criteria specified in Section 171-14-080(A) of the Queensbury To m Code and
Chapter 267 of NY S Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows:
Page 1 of
I. 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? INSERT' RE SPONSE
. Can the bene fiI sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applioaDt to
pursue, other thm a sign variance? INSERT RESPONSE
3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? INSERT RESPONSE
4, Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions
in the neighborhood or district? INSERT RFSP NSE
5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? INSERT RESPONSE
6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance
would out / would be outweihg ed by 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 1 make a MOTION TO APPROVE / DFNY Sign Variance -SV-10-2017
Rays Sign for McDonald's Restaurant, introduced by , who moved for its adoption, seconded
by .
As per the resobation prepared by staff with the fallowing,
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;
, 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
PA's review is oornpleted;
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 pemi its 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 'Down Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George
Park Commission or other State agency or department.
Duly adopted this 25"' day of October 2017, by the following vote:
AYES,
NOES;
page 2 of 2