Loading...
10-25-2017 Q ueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/23'47] QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2017 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-64-2017 Richard and Maureen Otto 1. Tax Map No. 289.11-2-24.2 Area Variance Z-AV-65-2017 Matt Ellsworth 7. Tax Map No. 295.10-1-41 Area Variance Z-AV-68-2017 Diane and Natasha Berube 15. Tax Map No. 295.15-2-7 Sign Variance Z-SV-10-2017 Ray Sign (McDonald's) 20. Tax Map No. 302.64-49 and 48 parking lot 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. Q QQueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 25, 2017 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY HARRISON FREER JAMES UNDERWOOD JOHN HENKEL MICHELLE HAYWARD, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE TOWN COUNSEL-FITZGERALD, MORRIS, BAKER, FIRTH-MIKE CROWE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Hello, everyone, I'd like to call to order our meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals for this Wednesday October 25" at 7 o'clock here at the Queensbury Activities Center on Bay Road. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, it's actually quite a simple process. There's an agenda on the back table with some Staff Notes and there's a basic explanation of how we conduct ourselves. I'll call each applicant to the small table here. Roy will read the application into the record and then Board members will listen to the applicants. If necessary we'll ask some questions. We'll open up a public hearing when a public hearing is advertised, and for everything this evening there is a public hearing advertised. We'll poll the Board at some point and then take action accordingly. Fortunately for everyone here we don't have any housekeeping to do this evening. So that's kind of nice. We're going to start right away with New Business. Richard and Maureen Otto, 31 Country Colony Road, Area Variance Z-AV-64-2017, a Type II SEQR with a public hearing scheduled for this evening. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-64-2017 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD AND MAUREEN OTTO OWNER(SJ RICHARD AND MAUREEN OTTO ZONING MDR LOCATION 31 COUNTRY COLONY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 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. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.42 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 289.11-2-24.2 SECTION 179-5-020 RICHARD & MAUREEN OTTO, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-64-2017, Richard and Maureen Otto, Meeting Date: October 25, 2017 "Project Location: 31 Country Colon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 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 minimum property 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 5 ft. rear setback where a 30 ft. setback is required for each. 2 Q uee::a:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the door size and locate to a compliant location. 3. 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 conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. S. Whether the 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 building to be used for storage for lawn equipment and furniture. The plans show the elevations and floor plans of the building." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. It's a very straightforward application. I assume you just want us to ask you questions at this time, or would you like to add anything to the record before we start asking questions? MRS. OTTO-1 think on Number Four in my application there's a typo, where it will not have any adverse effects. So I just wanted to bring that up. MR. FREER-You didn't say who you are. MRS. OTTO-My name is Maureen Otto. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. MR. OTTO-And I'm her husband Richard. MR. JACKOSKI-Are there any Board member questions before I open the public hearing? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I've got a question. Have you thought of anything else, I mean, any other way of adding that garage like to the existing two car garage that you have now? Have you thought of that? MRS. OTTO-We tried to cover every base that we, we've looked into a lot of different options. We really didn't want it to be a garage, but because of the size of the doors it makes it a garage. So right now we have stuff in storage not even close to home. We're paying monthly to store stuff and we can't basically park our garage in our garage. MR. JACKOSKI-But could you reduce the width of this door? Because that would solve so many problems. MRS. OTTO-Sure I guess. MR. JACKOSKI-But as my fellow Board member suggested. MRS. OTTO-See the reason why we were having the two, I think four foot doors swinging open is because we have large furniture that we want to store in there that would be a pain in the neck to get in with a smaller door, and then also our tractor and snow blower and all that other stuff. 3 Q ueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MR. JACKOSKI-But the typical door going into a home is no more than three feet wide. So if you had two 3 foot doors that opened at six feet or less, it wouldn't be considered a garage anymore. You'd still have the issue with setbacks and too close to the line, but that could be one resolution to part of the application. MRS. OTTO-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Did you guys build this shed in the back here on someone else's property? MRS. OTTO-Yes, and it's on our property. Part of it is off of our property. Daniel Barber owned it at the time and he told us to put it there. MR. HENKEL-Do you have it in writing that he told you to put it there? MRS. OTTO-Possibly. We can talk to Dan Barber. MR. HENKEL-And that's approximately, what, eight by ten? MRS. OTTO-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So I believe the application stated they needed 25 feet for the rear setback? MRS. MOORE-It's a 30 because it's a corner lot. So there's no sides. MR. HENKEL-It's 30 and 30. MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open that public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address the Board on this application? Seeing no one, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board at the moment. You do have some options. So you might hear that from Board members. MRS. OTTO-Okay. We also went around to all of our neighbors and showed them the plans. MR. HENKEL-You have signatures here, right? MRS. OTTO-Yes. We got them a letter, they looked at the plans that we have and they have no problem with it. It will look nice. We're going to make it look like the house. MR. JACKOSKI-Would anyone like to volunteer to go first? MR. HENKEL-I'll go first. I think it's too much relief. You're looking at 25 feet and two setbacks. I think it's just way too big, the size of the property that's less than a half-acre. I think there's other alternatives. I would be happy with another garage added to the two car garage you have there, and that would probably be acceptable, but not to me giving up relief of 25 feet in two areas plus the size of it. I would not be in favor of it as it is. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I'm still sitting on the fence on this one. I can understand your need for it. It looks to me like with the family moving to Ireland and storing things is the issue at the present time. I don't know if that puts it into a permanent issue or not. So I'm going to wait and see what everybody else says first, thanks. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I agree with John. Too much relief on too small a lot. So I think there's something we can work out here because I'm a big advocate of getting neighbor input and you've done a great d. Q ueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] job of that, but, you know, my kind of ball park figure, if it's five acres or more I can justify, you know, a second garage when only one is needed, maybe three acres, but a half an acre lot, it's a bad precedent for us. Plus there's alternatives to reducing the variance they're asking for on the setbacks. So I don't support the application as presented. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I'm impressed that the applicant did approach the neighbors and get their okay. I would be in favor of this. I could overlook the setback, but I can't overlook the second garage. So if the doors were reduced from eight feet to six foot so it becomes an auxiliary structure as opposed to a second garage, then I could support the application. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I think I'd like to see us table this application and give the applicants a chance to think about reducing the size of the doors so it eliminates that need for a second garage and changes it to an accessory structure and also talk to your neighbor about the property setback and whether there is something that can be done there to prove that you were given permission to put it there. MR. JACKOSKI-The little shed. MR. URRICO-The little shed, yes. So that we don't have an overabundance of setbacks here. I think I would like to see us work with this applicant. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement with the rest of the Board. I think it's a good looking project. I understand the need for more storage, but considering this variance runs with the land, and over time with that much storage, and for that reason I'm in favor of tabling it as well. MR.JACKOSKI-So what you're hearing, I know you probably haven't been through this process before. The Board is willing to try to work with you folks in some capacity. I don't know when you plan on building this garage, but basically what they're hinting at or suggesting is maybe go back, work with Staff, now that you've heard some comments from the Board that we really don't want to see a second garage, which the door dictates that. We're not too excited about how tight you are to the lot lines. So can you be off the lot lines more? And maybe thirdly, as John suggested, look at adding space onto your existing home, creating that third bay or whatever you want to call it, that, yes you would need lot line relief but probably no more than you're asking for with an accessory structure down in this corner. MRS. OTTO-You mean like put? MR. JACKOSKI-Or attach and extend your garage to the. MRS. OTTO-But that's too close to our neighbor. MR. JACKOSKI-It is, but it's not going to be any closer than this structure. MR. HENKEL-You have 33 feet on that one side, next to the garage. MR. JACKOSKI-There is an opportunity to possibly extend to the side. Unfortunately we're tasked with granting the least amount of relief in order for you to be able to enjoy your property the way you want to, assuming the Code as it's written. So we're here to simply try and work and find that solution. So right now you don't have enough votes from the Board members to actually pass the application as you've presented to the Board. If you'd be willing to allow it to be tabled, you can work with Staff to try and come up with some alternatives so that you can come back in front of us probably in December. MRS. MOORE-December. MR. JACKOSKI-With a submission deadline in November to try to. MR. OTTO-1 mean, we can without a doubt put a six foot door in the front. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, is there enough support as it's located with this under six foot wide door? Q ueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think where they're located, because Surrey Field Association isn't really going to be affected by where the location is, I think the location might be the ideal place for it so it doesn't change the dynamics of the home, too, you know, but at the same time I think that if they go to the door thing that sort of goes away and makes it a shed. MR.JACKOSKI-An accessory structure. Right. So you'd be okay with it as plotted with smaller doors MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle, would you be okay as plotted with a smaller door? MRS. HAYWARD-1 just think it's too big for the lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-No, I think they need to move it away from the lot line somewhat. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-I think it's too much relief also for the setbacks and I'd like to see it a little bit smaller for that size lot. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-As I indicated, I'd support it as is with smaller doors. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I would be in favor of it with smaller doors. MR. JACKOSKI-Do you know what that does? Three and three. I love when they do this to me. MRS. OTTO-It's going to look really nice. MR. JACKOSKI-That's what everybody says. What's the total relief requested on Alice Drive? How many feet of relief are we asking for? MRS. MOORE-Thirty. So the relief itself is 25. MR. HENKEL-Twenty-five on both. MRS. MOORE-Twenty-five on both. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any way you can push that shed off of Alice Drive a little? It's so close to the road for me. I just don't see it working. It's just too close. I understand the road is away from your lot line. I get all that, but I'd be okay if you could push it back to. MR. FREER-It's right now five foot from the lot line. MR. HENKEL-It's five and five. MR. FREER-I'm saying I would give you, if you move it 10 feet and ask for 20 feet relief from the road, I'd be for it. MRS. OTTO-Put it 10 feet off the road? MR. JACKOSKI-Off the lot line. MRS. OTTO-Off the lot line. MR. JACKOSKI-It's an accessory structure. MR. HENKEL-Calling it an accessory structure. It's not going to be a second garage. MRS. OTTO-Yes. 6 QQueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/2347] MR. JACKOSKI-So, Staff, we're okay. The applicant removed the garage door, making it no longer a second garage. Now we're just talking about placement. We're all okay with 25 feet off of the front line, which is Country Colony, which we all know is because it's a corner lot on that one side, and then Harrison's suggested 20 feet of relief off of Alice instead of 25. Okay. I don't know who's going to make this motion. I'm going to close the public hearing and see if we can get a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll try the motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard and Maureen Otto. Applicant proposes construction of a 480 sq. ft. accessory structure (shed) (no longer a second garage due to downsized door size) facing Alice Drive. Relief requested from the minimum property line setback requirements of the MDR zoning district. Relief Required The applicant is seeking property line setbacks on the Alice side of 10 feet and the other side of 5 feet from requirements of the MDR zoning district on parcel. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures: The applicant proposes an accessory structure. Relief is also requested for the setback 10 ft. front setback and 5 ft. rear setback where a 30 ft. setback is required for each. SEAR Type II — 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 hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A] of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because the enhancement will improve the overall appearance of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and have been implemented with respect to the original application. 3. The requested variance is still somewhat substantial, but we feel that it's warranted because of the small sizes involved here. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty of course is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) b) , c) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-64-2017 RICHARD AND MAUREEN OTTO, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 25" day of October 2017 by the following vote: MR. FREER-With smaller doors. '7 QQueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MR. MC CABE-Well, I took away the request for a second garage. So that means that they can't have bigger doors. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Counsel's okay with that? MR. CROWE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Do we want to make it contingent that they get some kind of acknowledgement or relief from the adjoining neighbor regarding the shed? MR. HENKEL-I agree with that. I think that's a good idea. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't think it matters. MR. FREER-Yes, I don't think it's germane. MR. HENKEL-They're looking for a setback there, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but Craig didn't rule on it. So we can't look at anything we didn't get a ruling on. So we will not have that. MR. HENKEL-Fair enough. MR. JACKOSKI-So I have a second by John. No further discussion? Call the vote. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-You're safe. You're all set. Go forward. MRS. OTTO-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. The next item on this evening's agenda is Matt Ellsworth, 23 Jacqueline Drive in Lehland Park. October 25" was the public hearing for this evening. Area Variance Z-AV-65-2017. A Type II SEQR. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-65-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 MATT ELLSWORTH OWNER(SJ MATT ELLSWORTH ZONING OLD SR-20 LEHLAND PARK, PHASE 1; CURRENT MDR LOCATION: 23 JACQUELINE DRIVE — LEHLAND PARK, PHASE I APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 368 SQ. FT. DECK. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUBDIVISION ENTITLED LEHLAND PARK, PHASE 1. CROSS REF SUBDIVISION NO. 15-86 LEHLAND ESTATES WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.49 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 295.104-41 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-080 MATT ELLSWORTH, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-68-2017, Diane and Natasha Berube, Meeting Date: October 25,2017 "Project Location: Lot 9,74 John Clendon Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 368 sq. ft. deck. Relief requested from minimum 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, canopies, and decks: (Revised) 8 Q uee::a:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] Revised the applicant has reduced the deck from 368 sq. ft. to 316 sq. ft. 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 30 existing house is compliant). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited as due to the existing home location and orientation on the lot. 3. 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 be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: 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 and the deck is located off the back of the home. The plans show the deck location and size." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. If you could state your name for the record. MR. ELLSWORTH-Matt Ellsworth. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything you'd like to add to the application, Matt, before we ask questions? MR. ELLSWORTH-1 think that was 288 square foot added. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff, do you have a verification of the square foot added? MR. ELLSWORTH-The original was changed. I think it's now 26 by 14 and 26 by 10 on the second. MRS. MOORE-So this is I have a 10 by 12 and a 14 by 14. MR. ELLSWORTH-1 made it smaller, away from the fence, to make it more presentable. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. ELLSWORTH-It's much shorter, away from the fence. MR. HENKEL-So you added 3 feet. So there's almost 23 1 think. MR. ELLSWORTH-Yes, 23, yes. MRS. MOORE-So it's 26. MR. HENKEL-So what are the setbacks that we're? MR. ELLSWORTH-Ten and nine. MRS. MOORE-Ten and nine, correct, and those are correct on the Staff Notes. MR. HENKEL-Which is better than it was before. QQueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/2347] MR. ELLSWORTH-Right. We came in an extra six foot to try to make it more presentable. MR. JACKOSKI-Any more Board member questions before I open the public hearing? MR. ELLSWORTH-It's not even hooked to the house. It's not a permanent fixture. MR. JACKOSKI-We have a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open that public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there is. "Good evening, my name is Nancy Rowell. I have a property line in common with Mr. Ellsworth — my entire side yard and his side/back. During the week of June 26" of this year, Mr. Ellsworth, who has recently taken possession of 23 Jacqueline, spent much time building a large deck in a small area of his backyard. The deck appeared to be between 350 and 400 sq. ft. — roughly the same size as the deck he is requesting be built in an area variance, - the very deck, Chris Brown asked Ellsworth to hold off on the commencement of, in a July 25" letter. No building permit was posted on the property. On Saturday June 30t", at 9:30 a.m. I approached him, asking if it had ever occurred to him that since there had never been a deck before, should there be one now? He stated he had spent three thousand dollars on materials and he was trying to make it all "nice for me." I told him he wasn't making it nice for me if what he was doing would make it more difficult for me to sell my property later with such an overwhelming deck presence on the property line. I then suggested he visit "Town Code" to find out if what he was doing was acceptable. The closest corner of his new deck was, according to my calculations, roughly 4'8" from what I believed to be our property line. It was so close, I could measure it from my side of the fence. That following Monday morning I visited the Town of Queensbury, only to find that Mr. Ellsworth was building this very large deck without ever having obtained a permit to do so. The earlier described deck was dismantled the second week in October. It has been replaced by an approximate 125 square-foot deck, still without a building permit, I believe. I understand that anything under 100 sq. ft. does not require a permit. It must be noted that the new deck is not built as drawn. If the area variance is granted, the newly added portion of the deck will be pushed even closer than the 9 feet from the property line, as shown in the submitted diagram, because of this drawing error. There are additional drawing errors that make our situation appear more benign. This house is strangely placed in the back corner of the lot and sits somewhat diagonally. Its rear is very near to much of our usable backyard. We are walled in! As I recall from years ago, the corner of the garage is 18 feet from the property line. Mr. Ellsworth would like to see the deck placed on a more narrow portion of his back/my side yard when there are better placement alternatives that would be much less intrusive. There is approximately 30 feet between the property line and the rear of that house on the other side of the new deck, where no neighbor will be so impacted and a potential buyer would also have some privacy. A previous owner poured a concrete patio on the property line, literally, 10 feet from our pool, several years ago. This action robbed us of privacy. Further privacy will be taken if the area variance is granted. Our in- ground pool area will be only feet away from a portion of this deck. I believe that Mr. Ellsworth is asking for "special privilege" over this family's right to enjoy our property, as all others in the development do. 23 Jacqueline is a "flip", a financial gain. We believe this large deck, so closely placed, will further adversely affect our property. It also does not conform; there is no other house set at a diagonal on a corner lot in Leland Estates that has put its neighbor in this kind of a position. All have sizable backyards! This house has sold without a deck, three times in the 15 years since it was built. This house has only been on the market for a month. Having a small deck will not be an unnecessary hardship for Mr. Ellsworth. I ask you to seriously consider denying this variance. If granted, our privacy will be totally lost. Nancy Bulris-Rowell" "I received a letter about a hearing for a neighbor requesting a variance for his property at 23 Jacqueline Dr. in Lehland Estates. My wife Julie and I own the house three doors down at 15 Jacqueline Dr. We will not be able to attend the hearing but wanted to offer our input. I have not met the new owner but have witnessed the work that he has put into this house to improve its value. It's been a great improvement and if adding a deck improves the value and enjoyment of this home, we support it. I know that this property has limited space in the yard so a deck certainly seems appropriate. It's our opinion that the Planning and Zoning Board should grant this variance and allow the owner to continue to improve his property. Thank you for your consideration. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Sincerely, Will and Julie Valenza 15 Jacqueline Drive" "This is in regard to subject hearing scheduled for October 25, 2017. We feel that applicant's construction of a 368 sq. ft. deck will not affect us, located at 19 Jacqueline Drive, or hinder our area in any way. We have every confidence that said applicant will construct a quality deck, being that he has just done so on the entire home. Very truly yours, William M. Beneszewski Carol M. Beneszewski" "I have no disagreement with Matt Ellsworth's application for a variance for the construction of a 368 sq. foot deck on the back of 23 Jacqueline Drive. I have looked at the proposed site for the deck and cannot see that it would adversely affect anyone. Thank you. Carol K. Brown 20 Jacqueline Drive Queensbury, NY 12804" "We are writing to support K) QQueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/2347] the variance for 23 Jacqueline Drive, Queensbury. Our house is directly adjacent to this property to the north. The way this house was built on this lot is truly a shame — the house has virtually no backyard and it appears it is falling into OUR backyard. This house sits so close to our property, it is ridiculous. That being said, we are so thrilled that the house finally has an owner who has done so many nice things to bring the value of the house up — it had gotten very run down over the years. They have gone out of their way to update both the inside and the outside. For years we looked at horrible black mold. The Ellsworth's have put in new landscaping, have painted the shutters, have addressed the mold and the house looks amazing! Providing a nice size deck will only increase the value of this property. We have no concerns about the size of the deck — in fact, we think having a good sized deck will be a good thing. Thank you for your consideration — we hope you approve this variance. Please let us know if you need anything else. Donna and Clark Perkett 21 Jacqueline Drive Queensbury, NY 12804" That's it. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is anyone here in the audience? NANCY ROWELL MRS. ROWELL-I'd like to show photographs. MR. JACKOSKI-So what we have to do is, if you could give up the small table for a little bit here we'll allow this next person to address the Board. So if you could come to the table please and identify yourself and then we can get your comments. MRS. ROWELL-My name is Nancy Bulris-Rowell. I have a property line in comment with said property. MR. JACKOSKI-Is this the letter we just read in? MRS. ROWELL-The first letter, yes. MR. JACKOSKI-So is there anything in addition to what's already been stated in your letter that you can add? We don't want to repeat what you've already addressed in your letter. MRS. ROWELL-I'd like to say that I don't have a huge problem with this gentleman asking for a larger deck. I have a problem with the deck being adjacent to my pool area. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand. That's what we heard in the letter. MRS. ROWELL-I think there's another place on the lot where the deck would work beautifully. MR. JACKOSKI-We understand that. MRS. ROWELL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And you said you had pictures to provide to the Board? MRS. ROWELL-Yes, they're on an iPad. I'd have to pass the iPad. MR. JACKOSKI-We've never allowed that before, because we can't take your iPad and put it into the record. So I don't think we're going to be able to do that. I don't want to utilize information that I can't have in the record. MRS. MOORE-You can e-mail them to me. MRS. ROWELL-Can I e-mail them? MRS. MOORE-Yes. I'll give you my e-mail and give us a second. Do you want us to download them? MR. UNDERWOOD-She can put them up on the screen, if she downloads them. MR. JACKOSKI-No, I want them on the record. If they're being given to the Board as public information. You can do it but I'm not going to spend 10 minutes waiting for e-mails to go through. Is there anyone else who'd like to address the Board in the audience? Seeing no one, we'll see if we can get this up sooner than later. So Mrs. Rowell, while Staff is trying to do that, can you tell us what it is you want us to see in the pictures? aQ Q ueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MRS. ROWELL-Well, most of the backyard is a chain link fence, four feet high. I can look. My entire usable backyard is directly into this deck backyard. It is 20 feet off my property. I've not had any privacy since the house was built. I cannot grow trees, shrubbery because the house provides only shade. Everything we plant dies. We have a pool. The fence can only be five feet tall by Code or covenant I should say, deed restriction and covenant. There's a patio on our property that this gentleman certainly did not build but a previous owner placed there. It's been staged as a patio. The table, I could put my iPad right over the fence in my pool and it's right there. I've never had to trespass it is that close. MR. FREER-Can I ask you a question about your pool? MRS. ROWELL-Yes. MR. FREER-Why is your pool so close to your property line? MRS. ROWELL-I was told by the Town that it needed to be 10 feet off the property line and I had leach fields in the other half of the yard. MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. ROWELL-We have been there 20 years. The pool is 15 years old. The house was built there after the pool was put in. MR. JACKOSKI-Does Staff have them? Look, so, Staff, we're going to move forward here because we're not going to continue to wait for technology, but the reality is the Board members have seen the property. We understand what's there. We have survey maps. We understand what's there. MR. HENKEL-She could put a fence, six foot fence up. MR. JACKOSKI-No, they have restrictions, they have a deed restriction. MRS. ROWELL-I cannot. MR. JACKOSKI-That's her issue. So I'm going to go ahead and ask the applicant to join us back here at the table. You've had plenty of time to comment. You have pictures you'd like to provide to us? MR. ELLSWORTH-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Give them to the secretary, he'll pass them around. MR. ELLSWORTH-This is, her pool is way over here. Our deck is here, not even near her pool. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but the secretary will pass them down. Is there anything else? I mean, there was quite a bit of written comment. So is there anything you'd like to address regarding the written comment? MR. ELLSWORTH-I'm just trying to improve the neighborhood. She thinks I'm decreasing the value of her house. I'm increasing the value of her house. It's increasing the value of the whole neighborhood. When I bought it it was decreasing the value of the whole neighborhood. I paid $185,000 for it. By putting all the money into it it's increasing the value of the neighborhood, not decreasing it. MR. JACKOSKI-You understand that should somebody be utilizing the deck for a party or whatever it is right there on the line, and generally, especially in a neighborhood like Lehland Estates, it's higher rent homes that you have more land to deal with and this is an odd situation. MR. ELLSWORTH-Her pool's the same way. If they have a party there it's going to be. MR. JACKOSKI-On the other side of the line, just not as close as your deck. MR. ELLSWORTH-Exactly. That's why I moved it closer away from her. Because the deck being now back is 10 feet from the fence. The pool 10 feet from the fence. The shed five feet from the fence. Fireplace and fire pit on the backyard. As of right now there's the accessory structure 120 square feet behind the house. Because you had to have something to walk out the back door onto. The addition of the extra 10 by 14 is just to make it a little bit bigger. That's it, and being six inches off the ground, we have patio pavers there. I don't really see how it's going to be an obstruction to the Q2 Q ueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] property. So noted that the applicants have provided the secretary with three photographs. So I'm leaving the public hearing open at this time until I finish polling the Board. Is there anyone who'd like to give their thoughts before I pick on someone? Come on, Mike, you look like you want to go first tonight. Go for it. MR. MC CABE-Whenever you have a house on a corner like that, it presents problems. You don't have the normal setbacks from the side. I'm impressed that a large number of neighbors have expressed their agreement and other things that you've done here and so I guess I'll have to go along with the opinion of the neighbors that feel that this is going to improve the overall appearance of the property and so I will support the project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Do you have clarification, again, what the setback relief is? It changed, right? MR. HENKEL-It did change from when we first got it. MRS. MOORE-So the notes are accurate. The applicant submitted it prior to the notes going out. MR. URRICO-Okay. So 11 feet is correct? MR. HENKEL-No, it's 10 feet and 9. Ten feet and nine feet. One corner is nine and the other is ten. MR. ELLSWORTH-It was going to be five and six originally. There's a new updated one in our Staff Notes. MR. URRICO-And there's a notation in the file from 2001. Can you explain to me what that is? MRS. MOORE-So my understanding is that a corner lot, prior to 1992, had different, allowed different setbacks. MR. URRICO-Okay. MRS. MOORE-Whereas after 1992 things became rear and rear, like if you had a corner lot you only had a front and a rear yard. Before 1992 you had an architectural front and one that, okay, so that's why that note's in there to clarify. Because this lot was created prior to 1992. MR. URRICO-Okay. I'd be in favor of the application as submitted with the noted changes in the relief. MR. JACKOSKI-In other words you've requested less relief. MRS. ROWELL-May I speak? MR. JACKOSKI-No. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 would be in favor, and I do appreciate your need for privacy. Everyone wants privacy in their yard. Had you considered putting up any sort of screening? MR. ELLSWORTH-Screening as in? MRS. HAYWARD-Like shrubs or a privacy fence? MR. ELLSWORTH-She's got a privacy fence. MRS. HAYWARD-Along that part? Okay. And one other question. Had you considered maybe moving the deck a little further to the north toward the other neighbor? MR. ELLSWORTH-1 can't because it's on a hill. They have like a retaining wall they built. MRS. HAYWARD-So I'm in favor. It's a very difficult situation. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? a3 QQueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think the difficulty emanates from where that house was originally sited, you know, it's kind of a weird oddball situation with the hillside there and everything else at the same time. I think that some of the suggestions, we could be creative here. Most everybody has a deck on the back of their house. Where you place the deck or where you propose to keep the deck makes perfect sense. I don't think any other place makes sense to put it anywhere else. The only suggestion I would make is this as an offering to your neighbor. I don't think the patio is really going to be necessary anymore. That's a consideration. You could remove that patio and then put some arborvitae hedge up or something like that that would grow taller and eventually give a little more privacy for both lots at the same time. So I think that's something that we should throw out there and that should be something you should seriously consider as an olive branch to your neighbor to make it all work, but I think what you're doing in improving the house and making it livable and acceptable to the neighborhood makes perfect sense. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes. I agree that what you've done by reducing the size of the deck requirement and setback relief is exactly what we're tasked to do. I would echo in support your agreement to remove the patio, which has really never been, I don't know if it's required to be a setback, but it certainly creates a little bit of more agita for your neighbors, but I would support the application as it is. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it looks like you've got a great support of most of the neighbors. I know the house and you've absolutely done a nice job in cleaning it up and making it better for the neighborhood, but I also agree with Harrison. It would probably be a good idea to move that patio that's right there on the fence line and I think the new adjustment of the deck that you have here compared to the deck that you presented originally is better for the setback there. So I'd be in favor of the project as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any reason you can't get rid of the patio? MR. ELLSWORTH-1 don't feel like I should have to. It was there when I bought the house. Somebody poured it and stamped it with concrete. So we'd have to jackhammer it. Other than that. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 just think the patio seems redundant if you're going to build the deck. MR. JACKOSKI-Because quite frankly the patio is that close to the property line anyway. So get rid of the patio. Move the deck 10 feet off the line. So I'm not in favor of the application as presented if the patio stays. I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-You're on a roll, Mike. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Matt Ellsworth. Applicant proposes construction of a 316 sq. ft. deck. Relief requested from minimum 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, canopies, and decks: (Revised) Revised the applicant has reduced the deck from 368 sq. ft. to 316 sq. ft. 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 30 existing house is compliant). SEAR Type II — 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 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: H Q ueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/2347] 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties because we believe that the application will improve the vision of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not reasonable because of the situation of the house and the topography. 3. The requested variance is not substantial really substantial. It's not particularly large. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. Is 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 (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: d) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-65-2017 MATT ELLSWORTH, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this Wednesday, October 25, 2017 by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-Do we want to put some conditions about some vegetation to isolate it somewhat? MR. UNDERWOOD-Is the applicant going to remove the patio or leave the patio? MR. ELLSWORTH-If I don't have to remove it, I don't want to. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Unfortunately I think you've got too many Board members to approve this application with the patio. I don't think you have enough support without removing the patio. MR. ELLSWORTH-So can we vote? MR.JACKOSKI-But we're going to make the resolution contingent on removing the patio. Otherwise you're going to have a failed resolution and you can't come back to us. Unfortunately that's just. MR. ELLSWORTH-1 mean we're not making her remove her concrete on her pool. It's almost touching the fence. So why should I have to move my concrete? It was there when I bought the house. MR. JACKOSKI-I understand that you bought the house without a deck, too. It's a tough situation but within Code we're trying to give you the minimum relief necessary. Is the patio over the line? MR. ELLSWORTH-No. She said she owns three inches on the fence. The patio's at least 12 by 10. I'd be willing to do some shrubs. MR. JACKOSKI-Let's face it, shrubs aren't going to deal with it. MR. ELLSWORTH-But that patio isn't even involved in the permit, though. The deck is what we're talking about. We were going on the deck, not the concrete. MR. JACKOSKI-We'll be happy to vote for you, but you may end up leaving here without anything. So I'm just warning you. We'll do it, but do Board members want to put in the condition of removing the patio? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MRS. HAYWARD-No. Q" Q ueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MRS. FREER-I'll pass it without that because it wasn't for that. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I'd kind of like to see that patio go. MR. MC CABE-The patio's fine. MR. URRICO-That's fine with me, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Put forward your resolution without the condition to remove the patio and let's see where the vote goes. MR. MC CABE-How about some shrubbery? MR. JACKOSKI-You've got that fence there already. I mean, that's as much as you can get. MR. MC CABE-Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski MR. JACKOSKI-You've been approved. MR. ELLSWORTH-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-The next item on tonight's agenda is Diane and Natasha Berube. It is Lot 9, 74 John Clendon Road. Area Variance Z-AV-68-2017. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-68-2017 SEQRA TYPE 11 DIANE AND NATASHA BERUBE AGENT(SJ JOSEPH LEUCI (FOOTHILLS BUILDERS) OWNER(SJ JOSEPH LEUCI (FOOTHILLS BUILDERS) ZONING MDR LOCATION LOT 9, 74 JOHN CLENDON ROAD 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. CROSS REF SB PZ 163-2016 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.6 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 295.15-2-7 SECTION 179-3-040 JOE LEUCI, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS, PRESENT; DIANE BERUBE, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-68-2017, Diane and Natasha Berube, Meeting Date: October 25, 2017 "Project Location: Lot 9, 74 John Clendon Road Description of Proposed Project: 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 requests relief for a second dwelling unit (duplex) without the required land area or density in the 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 600 sq. ft. area to be used as an in-law apartment —new home to be a duplex. The MDR density requires 2 ac per unit if not on town water and sewer - 4 ac would be required for the duplex where 1.6 ac is existing. 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 no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Q6 Q ueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the property being in the Moderate Density Residential zone which allows duplex units. There is only one septic system proposed and water connection to Town water will be completed as part of construction. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may 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 ac where 4 ac is required. 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. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty 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 Clendon 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 area is to be shared." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Roy. Welcome. MS. BERUBE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record. MS. BERUBE-I am Diane Berube. MR. LEUCI-And I'm Joe Leuci. MR. JACKOSKI-I suspect you just want Board members to ask questions. MS. BERUBE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI- Any questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR. FREER-I guess I have a question for Staff. Can you tell us, is it a separate entrance or two kitchens that make it a duplex? Because it really doesn't look like a duplex. MS. BERUBE-It's the two kitchens. I mean it's going to be a shared basement. It's going to be a shared porch. MR. LEUCI-It will be two living areas, it's just the living area for Diane attaches to her daughter. MS. BERUBE-So I can be with my grandchildren. We want to live together. MR. FREER-So it's the two kitchens? MRS. MOORE-The two kitchens. Two units. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-But there's no separate, one utility, though. MRS. MOORE-It's one utility, and two houses, two separate houses could share a septic system if it's designed for that. So I just wanted to point out that there's only one septic system on that site. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions from Board members? Having none, is there anyone here in the audience, as I open the public hearing, who'd like to address this Board? Okay, and is there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED Q"I QQueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MR. URRICO-1 do not see any written comments. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comments. So if you could give up the table just for a little bit so we can have public comment? Welcome. SCOTT SORGER MR. SORGER-My name is Scott Sorger. I live at 18 John Clendon Road. This whole project of this subdivision I've been contending from the beginning. It was, in my view, wrongly approved under a conservation subdivision being the land was not co-owned by the people in the subdivision and given to the Town of Queensbury. When you give it away, it's no longer part of the project. So instead of the two acre zoning, they already have I think one lot. The smallest is .7. Being they went for a conservation subdivision, none of the variances came before you. They were given the lot size. They were given an almost 1800 foot dead end that's only supposed to be 1,000 by the rules of Queensbury, and they were also given 15 foot setbacks on the property instead of the 25. 1 don't know, none of these things came before your Board. MR. JACKOSKI-And unfortunately, sir, there's nothing I can do. I can only act on what's in front of LIS. MR. SORGER-1 understand. I'm just trying to give you a little history of the thing there, and I'm saying when is enough enough? He's already got the lot size reductions, the length of the road. I don't believe a house of that type, a duplex, would be suitable for the neighborhood. It's getting more like suburban New York, you know, I used to live on Long Island and I tried to get away from that, and I just don't think it's suitable for the area, and they've already been given many variances to build this thing. This was pristine land it should never have been built on. I guess I'm just venting that part. So I don't think it should be approved. It's not suitable for the neighborhood and I guess that's all I have to say. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Is there anyone else that would like to address the Board? Seeing no one and no written comment, I'll leave the public hearing open for the moment and I'll ask the applicants to come back to the table. MRS. BERUBE-Can I just say two things? One is in looking at the outside of the house, it's a 1600 square foot house. It looks like a garage. You wouldn't know the difference. Also we're on the cul de sac. We're on the end where the, what do they call it, Rush Pond. We're going to be one of two houses on the end. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. At this point I think I'll poll the Board and just see where the Board's leaning, if you don't mind. Would anyone like to volunteer to go first? MR. HENKEL-I'll go first. I think it's a good looking project. Yes, it's going to be a duplex, but it's really not a duplex. You've only got one side that's going to be 600 square feet. It can be easily added on later when it's no longer going to be used as an in-law apartment or whatever you want to call it. I would, you know, even though they're looking for 2.4 acres of relief, I know that sounds like a lot, but in this case like I said that doesn't look like it would fit in the neighborhood, to me it fits in the neighborhood. It definitely doesn't look like a duplex. I would be in favor as is. MR. JACKOSKI-Harrison? MR. FREER-Yes, I can support this application as well. They're not asking for any setback variances or any other variances from us. So the Town has already determined that and what we're being asked to do is approve this second unit which really integrated into a house. So I would support it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if we looked on a large scale across the Town of Queensbury you would see that a lot of places up on Lake George have extra kitchens in them for entertainment purposes or for overflow people in the summertime. I think that in this instance here I don't really consider this to be in the sense a true duplex situation here where we're going to have multiple cars and things like that and double down on what's allowed for the area, but at the same time I think there should be concern about what we're doing here because at the same time if we allow this here are we going to be able to say no to anybody else that says they have the same thing. If you remove that kitchen out of there it's no longer a double unit. Correct? 2 QQueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/2347] MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it's simply the kitchen presence that triggers this whole thing. So I don't think I would vote for it unless you remove the kitchen. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-My concern is with Mr. Underwood is the kitchen, and eventually, you know, it's a small 600 square foot apartment on a modest size house, but I mean, they could remove the kitchen when it's no longer needed, you know, that it would revert back to a one family. I don't know if that's possible to add that into a motion or not, but otherwise I'm in favor of it. As you look at our society, we need more and more in-law apartments. So I think it's something that's going to come up again and again, but I'm thinking when it's no longer an in-law apartment it would be a duplex and turn into a rental situation. That would be my concern. I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike? MR. MC CABE-1 don't like it. It's supposed to be four acres for two houses. If we approve two houses on less than two acres, I think we're opening ourselves up for all sorts of problems in the future, and although it does look like a very feasible plan, I don't think this is the right spot for it. So I would not support this project. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, if you look at the definition of a Moderate Density Residential zone in our Code the whole point of it is to strictly protect the single family neighborhoods, residential neighborhoods, and I don't think granting relief for something below two acres is doing that. I think it's starting to change the Code. So I would be against it. MR. JACKOSKI-Unfortunately you've got four no votes, I believe. MR. UNDERWOOD-There's three so far. I'm not sure about the fourth. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle, I thought you were? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm sorry. So I've got Michelle as a yes, Harrison as a yes, John is a yes, I'm a yes. So I'm going to 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 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 requests relief for a second dwelling unit (duplex) without the required land area or density in the 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 600 sq. ft. area to be used as an in-law apartment —new home to be a duplex. The MDR density requires 2 ac per unit if not on town water and sewer - 4 ac would be required for the duplex where 1.6 ac is existing. SEAR Type II — 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 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 a home that is really not designed as a standalone duplex but rather an in-law apartment. Q�1 QQueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/2347] 2. Feasible alternatives are limited because the situation is they're building a house and they want to have privacy with two kitchens for part of it instead of having to share a kitchen. 3. The requested variance could be considered substantial because you would typically put two houses on four acres in this situation, but they haven't asked for any variances for septic relief. So it must be specked to meet the requirement of the size of the house. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. It is self-created as far as the criteria but that doesn't have to be the deciding factor. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approvall the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That the second kitchen can remain for 25 years. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-68-2017 DIANE AND NATASHA BERUBE, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 25" day of October 2017 by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-I'd like to comment. I think we should condition it that it's a mother-in-law apartment with that kitchen in there for no more than 20 years. MR. FREER-Okay. I agree with that. MS. BERUBE-You're giving me 20 years to live? MR. JACKOSKI-You get the big part of the house. The way I look at that is your grandchildren would probably be out of the house by then, to be quite honest with you. MR. FREER-I'll say 25 years. MR. JACKOSKI-I mean, I think 20 years is fair enough, or even 15 is fair enough for the applicant. Because they'd have to come back to the Board if they want to continue to use it as a duplex or mother-in-law apartment or in-law apartment, then they could come back to the Board and ask for an extension. But right now, is that something we can do, Counsel? MR. CROWE-That's something you can do. It's reasonably attributed to the relief that you're granting. MR. JACKOSKI-Right. MR. FREER-I condition it on 25 years. MR. JACKOSKI-All right. Twenty five years, with that condition to the motion that the second kitchen can remain for 25 years. Call the vote. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood MS. BERUBE-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Enjoy yourselves. The next item on this evening's agenda is Ray Signs. 819 State Route 9, McDonald's. Sign Variance Z-SV-10-2017. This is an Unlisted SEAR. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. 20 Q ueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV40-2017 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED RAY SIGN AGENT(SJ RAY SIGN OWNER(SJ RENEE REARDON ZONING Cl LOCATION 819 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF A 16.39 SQ. FT. LED CHANGEABLE FREESTANDING SIGN (PRE- MENU BOARDS). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS FOR THE BUSINESS — MC DONALD'S RESTAURANT. CROSS REF P 75-2014; AV 88-2014; SV 87-2014 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2017 LOT SIZE 0.71 AND 0.30 ACRE(SJ TAX MAP NO. 302.64-49 RESTAURANT AND 48 PARKING LOT SECTION CHAPTER 140 DARLA DOLEZAL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; RENE REARDON, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-10-2017, Ray Sign, Meeting Date: October 25, 2017 "Project Location: 819 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of a 16.39 sq. ft. LED 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 type and number of allowable freestanding signs for the business - McDonald's Restaurant Section 140 Signs —number and type The site was approved for one free standing sign and the applicant proposes two additional free standing signs. The type of sign 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 substantial 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. 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 possible to have a compliant signage on site —as a menu board is also provided as part of the drive-thru 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 an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have an 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 entrance area of the drive-thru prior to customer placing orders. The sign boards are 16.39 sq. ft. and will have auto changing displays advertising product. The board may request if other than McDonald's product would be advertised." MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Welcome. MS. DOLEZAL-Good evening. My name is Darla Dolezal from Ray Sign. I don't think the changes here, this is McDonald's, this is their new standard for their signs. They're trying to keep the line moving so that people are informed before they get to that little speaker, and also they're able to change seasonal food and their specials. This is the new sign technology and it's going this way pretty much everywhere. 2: Q ueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MR. URRICO-Everywhere it's approved, right? MS. DOLEZAL-Well, yes, but the technology is coming. We're getting it approved everywhere, for the most part. Very few people are, because of the technology. We're getting an awful lot of requests from customers. This is what they want. This is what they want to see. I don't know how visible that's going to be from Route 9. 1 don't believe it's going to be detracting or distracting, and currently there are no pre-menu boards there. MR. JACKOSKI-So this would be in addition to all those signs that are already in those drive thru lanes? MS. DOLEZAL-Right now there's a menu board and a speaker. MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a pre sign. MR. JACKOSKI-I know. MR. HENKEL-The others would kind of be considered freestanding signs, too, if it's a menu board. Right? Would that be considered or no? Because then you'd have two of those, because you've got one for each drive thru. So how is that considered? MRS. MOORE-The pre menu, or menu boards are not considered a sign because they're not visible from Route 9. MR. JACKOSKI-Because of the angle of them. MR. HENKEL-These aren't going to be very visible either. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there Board member questions before I open the public hearing? MRS. HAYWARD-As far as the visibility from Route 9, I'm looking at the placement and I'm very familiar with the area. I work there, and so as the signs are facing the drive thru lanes, I don't see how those could be visible, the lights could be visible from Route 9. MS. DOLEZAL-I took a drive through before I came here and from the angle I could see I don't know how they could possibly be read from Route 9. They're small. MRS. HAYWARD-All right. Thank you. MR. HENKEL-There's going to be a total of three of them? MS. DOLEZAL-Two of them. One for each lane. MR. HENKEL-Okay. I thought it said three here. You were looking for relief of two. Okay. Sorry, current. MR. JACKOSKI-So what's going on top of the pole sign that's dangling? MS. REARDON-I'm Renee Reardon. For those of you who don't know I own the restaurant. When I was here when we got the plan approved digital menu boards were not, they didn't have them anywhere. They tested them in Texas and in Fargo and decided that that would be the place to go. So if you've been through the new drive thru you kind of know what they look like. They're black. They're static. Nothing changes on them except at 10:30 when it changes from a breakfast menu to a lunch menu. So the pre boards are kind of the things that as you're pulling around it'll show you, like right now it'll show you a picture of crispy chicken tenders, whatever the new product is, but they are, the way they're angled, I mean, you have to have really good eye sight to see them. So for me, if you drive by my Exit 18 store right now you can see those menu boards from the highway. That's how bright they are. These you cannot see. You can't see until you're in the drive through lane. The answer to your question about my road sign is a week before I was going to open somebody decided to steal all the panels off my property. So I had to order all the arches and the rest. So I put it up without it because I didn't have the panels. MR. JACKOSKI-Bummer. MS. REARDON-Well, considering it sat there for 111 days and nobody touched it, the four days prior to opening somebody, it's in somebody's man cave I'm sure of it, but I had to order the top. So it 22 QQueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] will be re-arched, if you will, when those pieces come in, but they're special order. That's why it looks like it does, but other than that, maybe I'm biased, I think it looks beautiful. MR. URRICO-1 have to ask. Do you have to have one for each lane? MS. REARDON-Do you have to? In Exit 18 1 have one. So I don't know, like because if you come into, and that's a two laner. It's been there for four years. When you come in there's one just in the very first section. So I don't know. MR. URRICO-And you can see from both lanes, right? MS. REARDON-Yes. In Saratoga they have the new store that opened at 15. That's the only place that has them. They have one right at each. So it's almost like the customer looks at it and then they pull up to the speaker, which is not really a speaker anymore. MRS. HAYWARD-Is there one lane here? MR. HENKEL-There's two. MS. REARDON-There's one in each, so the people would see the same thing, but they're also programmable so they can be static. So if you said, hey, you can put them up but you can't change them so it's just one picture all the time and it doesn't change, that's, all that's in the technology. Because the other boards, in some places, some people allow the menu boards to constantly change. Like if you go inside they're constantly changing. There's some kind of food footage shooting at you, but the ones in the drive thru, if you said, hey, this is all we want on it, something static that's the same picture all the time, that technology exists. MR. FREER-So the Staff has sort of asked about whether you intend to advertise other than McDonald's product on your sign. MS. REARDON-No. MRS. MOORE-There's, and I'll explain. I quickly searched the Internet and they showed these specific drive thru menu boards with other displays on them like Geico Insurance. MS. REARDON-Do you believe everything you read on the Internet? MRS. MOORE-No, but it's a good question. MR. HENKEL-Pumping gas will do that. The little screen will pop up and you'll get advertisements for everything else. MR. JACKOSKI-So I think it's time that we maybe go back to the Town Board and start questioning technology and the Sign Code and this term digital which really meant,we all know what it really meant, you know, the little bright red lights at the Stewart's gas sign, you know, that technology's no longer digital. We're going to see screens coming pretty soon. So I don't know how everybody feels about the digital part of this application because I think that's the precedent we're going to be most concerned. We don't have any digital signs in Queensbury, except for the Stewart's at Quaker and Dix. MR. URRICO-And the CVS. MR. JACKOSKI-And CVS, but Cumberland Farms has got all these t.v. screens on every gas pump. So I don't know how that's not signage and digital. MR. HENKEL-And they're advertising other stuff other than Cumberland Farms. MRS. HAYWARD-Well, I agree that the Code should be updated to reflect current technology. MR. JACKOSKI-So I don't know where we're going to go with this one, but we've got a lot to do a SEQR tonight. So I'm going to open the public hearing for public comment. Is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board? Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. 23 QQueensary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MR. JACKOSKI-There's no written comment. So I'm going to poll the Board and do SEQR if we get that far. Does anybody want to go first? MR. HENKEL-I'll go first. I think that McDonald's has done a great job with the upgrade of this facility. I was a little afraid because I was used to seeing it in its old form, but I'll have to say I think the new form is fresh and attractive and so I would hate to make it an oddball McDonalds. So I'll go along with McDonalds standards, and I have no problem with a digital sign. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Anyone else? Harrison? MR. FREER-So again I pride myself on not being the sign gestapo but these guys have had more experience with sign noise than I have, and I think the whole digital thing, we should go to the Town and ask them to sort of modernize the sign language, but I don't think you're doing anything outrageous. I think you're trying to make it convenient for your customers and I don't think it'll be distracting for somebody driving down Route 9 to try to decide what the special Mc Frappe is for the morning. So I would approve it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this is the latest attempt at Pavlovian appetite stimulation, you know, and I think ultimately, you know, what we should do is we should go to the Town because I think in this instance here it's not so much of a big deal to me because it's not facing the road. You don't see it from the road, but I think that we should dial this in with the Town Board because I think if we extrapolate all the other restaurants in Town, you know, and all the drive thru's we have, you know, we're looking at a lot of these things being created. Maybe that's the way to go, maybe that's not the way to go. I don't know at this point in time, but I think we should be cautious and I think Steve's comments are more to that point, that we should probably go to the Town Board and say where are these appropriate, if they're not facing the road, if they're not distractive elements. Because I know when you drive up through Warrensburg and you go past the meat store to the north with that sign flashing and changing all the time and I know yours is not going to be doing that, but at the same time we have to consider it in the context of what's going to happen across the board, worst case scenario. So we can't say yes to the first one and not anticipate that there's going to be ones that are going to be disasters outside of what you're requesting. So I'm going to say no at this point. Table it. MR. JACKOSKI-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Well I guess my question for the Board is if this is approved it could set a precedent, but I feel we could approve it and then go to the Board. MR. FREER-Yes, I agree with you. MRS. HAYWARD-Because I think it's a minimal impact sign and I'm not usually into signs. I think they can be very distracting, but the way these are set up, it's more of a personal sign for the driver going through. So for that reason I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm not, I think the term digital display has changed significantly per what's being used. I think what we're talking about that's being used on the signs that you see up towards Lake George and the Cool Center, they're animated digital displays. We're talking about a simple sign here basically that's what's being used today in a lot of places and we see it on other, they already exist in other drive thru's for fast food. Just not McDonalds. So I'm not bothered by it. I would be in favor of it. I'm not bothered by it being a freestanding sign. This is not something that's going to be seen from the road, but I do think that we need to go to the Town after. I'm going to be in favor of this, but I think we still need to follow through with the Town and have them re-look at the definition of display signs and what is allowed and what isn't allowed, because this is not something that we should disallow just because it's digital. MR. JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. We've put them through quite the hoops there just to get this project approved initially there and I think it's come out to be a good project and if those signs were roadside to distract the drivers then I would be against them, but where they are they're okay in my book so I'd be supportive of the project as is. 2.d. QQueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/2347] MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing and I'm going to go through SEQR before we go for a motion to approve. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-So, Harrison, can you put forward a SEAR resolution, or Mike, somebody? MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV40-2017 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 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 Harrison Freer: Duly adopted 25" day of October 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Underwood MR. JACKOSKI-I need a motion for approval of the Sign Variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town 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 Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of a 16.39 sq. ft. LED 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 type and number of allowable freestanding signs for the business - McDonald's Restaurant Section 140 Signs — number and type The site was approved for one freestanding sign and the applicant proposes two additional freestanding signs. The type of sign proposed is digital display where the Code does not allow for digital display boards. SEQR Type: Unlisted [Resolution / Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV40-2017 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 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 Harrison Freer: Duly adopted 25' day of October 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Underwood A 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 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 will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to the nearby properties created by the granting of the requested sign variance because it's directed at the customers so that they can make their food choices while they wait in line. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? Not really. This the new McDonald's standard and it takes advantage of newer technology. 25 Q ueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/2347] 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? The request is probably considered substantial because one freestanding sign is now turning into three, but they're not really a sign from the road. So I think that consideration overrides the fact that it's three for one. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. This technology doesn't create a lot of environmental impacts. I'm sure they're using energy efficient lights. So that wouldn't be a factor. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It is self-created, however that shouldn't be the total consideration for granting relief. 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 Z-SV- 10-2017 RAY SIGN FOR MCDONALD'S RESTAURANT, Introduced by Harrison Freer, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. That McDonald's products only be advertised. B. That the signs have to be static. C. 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; D. 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; E. 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. F. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; G. 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 25`h day of October 2017, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-So it's going to be okay that these signs can change content every four seconds or five seconds or two seconds or there could be a streaming video? MR. FREER-I was just going to ask if we want to make it contingent on only McDonald's products for the signs and do we want to, how fast. MS. REARDON-They're going to be static signs. MR. FREER-Static signs. MR. JACKOSKI-How long is the static? MS. REARDON-Like when you change from breakfast to lunch. So in the morning. MR. JACKOSKI-That's fine. I just want to make sure because you could stream videos. You could do all that kind of stuff. You could advertise the Ronald McDonald House and kids running in the fields, I get all that, because the technology's sitting right there. 26 Q ueena:ary ury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, Q0/2347] MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm saying you should be cautious. You should let the Town Board. MR. JACKOSKI-I agree. That's why I'm saying if we go to static like Renee is suggesting and they only change when the product offering changes when it goes from breakfast to lunch, whatever. I'm happy with that. MR. FREER-Right. MR. JACKOSKI-And then if the Town does decide that streaming video is allowed in drive thru's and all that kind of stuff and they do take a chance to look at the technology that's available, then she'd be able to do it, if they change the Code. MR. FREER-Right. So static signs only. So those are my two constraints in my motion. MR. URRICO-1 personally don't care one way or the other. I think restricting them in that way doesn't make sense to me. MR. JACKOSKI-But they've offered it as no problem, but I get it. I understand. We've got issues with Cumberland Farms. They're doing videos right now and we don't know how come that's allowed. MRS. MOORE-Can you repeat the two conditions again? MR. FREER-That McDonald's products only be advertised and that the signs be static with changes only. MR. JACKOSKI-Even though they're digitals or electronic, you know, photo image quality. MR. MC CABE-Well by static we should define that she can change them. MR. URRICO-We're going down a fox hole here. What if they have a Coke product that they're selling? MR. JACKOSKI-They're selling it. MR. URRICO-Okay, but what if they advertise Coke in that process? MR. FREER-That's fine. I'm just saying. MR. JACKOSKI-They sell Coke. They sell Happy Meals. They sell orange. MR. URRICO-Tell Bruce it wasn't my idea. MR.JACKOSKI-So a condition so far is only products being sold by McDonalds and that they're static in order to get approval. If the Town changes the Code to be up and coming with technology, then so be it. That is our motion. Do we have it seconded? MR. MC CABE-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Mike, thank you. Call the vote. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Underwood MR. JACKOSKI-Good luck, Renee, thank you. Any more business in front of the Board? MRS. MOORE-Please note that you have one meeting next month, and I will need to know, if you know that you're not going to attend. MR. HENKEL-When is it? MR. JACKOSKI-It's going to be the 15tH MR. HENKEL-Yes, not a problem. MR. JACKOSKI-I need a motion to adjourn. 27 Q ueena:arvury ZBA �Iee¶t)c, K)/Z1)'/["I] MR. MC CABE-1 make a motion that we adjourn the meeting for tonight. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Mike. Seconded by Roy. Thank you, Roy. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 25, 2017, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 25th day of October, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe,Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward,Mr. Freer, Mr. Henkel,Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-Have a good night. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 28