Loading...
02-21-2018 (Q ween lb uiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 21, 2018 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-76-2017 Joe Orlow 2. Tax Map No. 290.5-1-21 Area Variance Z-AV-7-2018 James Schneider 9. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-18 Sign Variance Z-SV-3-2018 AJ Signs for Aviation Hospitality 13. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-96.1 Area Variance Z-AV-9-2018 Todd Lewis 23. Tax Map No. 279.15-1-69 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING 1 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) FEBRUARY 21, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. FREER-Good evening, everyone. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those who haven't been here before, it's actually quite simple. On the back table there's information for each application and a bit about the process. We'll call each applicant up to this table, unless they already know to be here at the start, and they'll make a presentation. Roy will read the application in. We'll ask questions and we'll open a public hearing, and I think we have a public hearing scheduled for all of the items on the agenda today. I'll poll the Board and get a feel for what the thinking is and then we'll make motions as applicable and then we'll go on to the next application. So we have a full Board tonight for the first time in a while, so welcome to the new ZBA members, Catherine and Brent, and Catherine will be acting as a voting member and Brent's here as an alternate in case someone decides they don't want to participate on one of the applications, and just sort of get up to speed on some of these things tend to get tabled and you may see them when you're in the voting position. So welcome. Can I get a motion to approve the meeting minutes? APPROVAL OF MINUTES January 17, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 17 1h, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hamlin January 24, 2018 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JANUARY 24th, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mrs. Hamlin MR. FREER-Okay. So first application is Joe Orlow. OLD BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-76-2017 SEQRA TYPE II JOE ORLOW AGENT(S) GARRY ROBINSON OWNER(S) JOE ORLOW AND MICHAEL ALUND ZONING WR LOCATION 11 WAGON TRAIL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AND COMPLETE 2 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) CONSTRUCTION OF AN 891 SQ. FT. SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. THE PROJECT HAS BEEN REVISED WITH LOFT AREA REDUCED HEIGHT LESS THAN 5 FT. AND THE ENTRY DECK HAS BEEN REDUCED FROM 144 SQ. FT. TO 84 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY, AND ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS RELIEF FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA RATIO (FAR) REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF RC 631-2016 RES. ALT.; BOTH 630-2016 DEMOLITION INTERIOR ONLY WARREN COUNTY PLANNING NOVEMBER 2017 LOT SIZE 0.07 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 290.5-1-21 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-4-050; 179-5-090 GARRY ROBINSON, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; JOE ORLOW, PRESENT MR. ROBINSON-I'm Garry Robinson, consulting engineer, and I represent Joe Orlow, and this Joe Orlow. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy, could you please read it into the record. MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm just going to read the revision. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-76-2017, Joe Orlow, Meeting Date: February 21, 2018 "Project Location: 11 Wagon Trail Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain and complete construction of a 891 sq. ft. single-family home. The project has been revised with loft area reduced height less than 5 ft. and the entry deck has been reduced from 144 sq. ft. to 84 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks, permeability, and road frontage requirements. Relief Required: Section 179-3-040 Dimensional requirements The applicant proposes to complete construction of a home on a .07 ac pre-existing parcel. The building under construction is 24.9 ft. from Sunnyside North, 6.2 ft. from Wagon Trail, 4.6 ft. from the rear east property line, and 6.8 ft. from the rear south property line. The zone requires a 30 ft. setback from the front property lines and rear property lines as the lot is a corner lot. Relief is requested for permeability where 67.4% is requested where 75% permeability is required. Revised: 1) Floor area ratio - relief is no longer requested as loft area has been reduced below 5 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant has indicated the project is currently incomplete and will be completed as presented. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the size of the parcel, the location of the existing home and location of the septic area. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 5.1 ft. from Sunnyside North, 23.8 ft. from Wagon Trail, 25.4 ft. from the rear east property line, and 23.2 ft. from the rear south property line. Relief is requested for permeability 7.6% in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. 3 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to complete construction of an 891 sq. ft. single-family home. The home will have two open decks; one is 84 sq. ft. and the other is 36 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the home on the parcel with the deck areas. The elevations show the exterior and interior of the home including a storage loft area. The applicant has received a Local Board of Health septic variance. The applicant had been informed a building permit and variance application were required for the project. The applicant was requested to provide supporting information in regards to the original footprint of the home. The applicant has included the Real Property Service footprint diagram that was complete prior to renovations —the only addition is the 84 sq. ft. open deck (west side) and the 36 sq. ft. open entry porch area (south side)" MR. FREER-Okay. So we've been at this since before. MR. ROBINSON-We were here a couple of months ago. I think the public hearing was left open and we tabled the application. We made the changes that were requested of us when we were here. We talked about those things at the Board meeting, and I don't think I can add more, unless anybody has any questions and you want me to go through my dog and pony show. MR. FREER-Catherine, have you been out to this location? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes. MR. FREER-So with that I guess we'll keep the public hearing open. Let me first see if the Boar has any questions for the applicants. MRS. HAYWARD-1 just want a couple of clarifications. The size of the new deck as opposed to the size of the original proposed deck, could you clarify that for me, please. MR. ROBINSON-We actually moved the deck over. It was going to be 24 foot wide. We made it 17 foot wide. So it was decreased. MR. HENKEL-So it's 17 by what, by 7? Or did you change that, too? MR. ROBINSON-No, it was six feet wide, and it's going to be 17 feet. So you can see it used to come out right to the edge of the property, or the building and go straight across, and now it no longer does that. We moved it over. There was thought that it was too big so we moved it over so that it's actually on the one side. If you look at the floor plan it's just, the door is right in the middle, okay. So the door's right here. So what it does is it just moved over to just past this door. So it comes out this way, and then the stairs go down. The parking will be over here. That's why we had it come out this side. I don't know if that helps or not. MR. UNDERWOOD-Are you building this to sell this, or are you going to keep it for yourself? MR. ORLOW-We'd like to keep it for ourselves. I have fond memories of Sunnyside. It's been in our family. MR. HENKEL-You did get approval from the Board of Health? That's all set? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. That was the first thing we had to do. I don't know if everybody doesn't know the whole process, but what happened was Joe had been asked to do some maintenance at this site. He did a little more than he should have without a permit so he got cited. Dave Hatin had some issues with the work that was being done so we got a little behind the eight ball. Joe hired me and what we have is Dave Hatin laid out the things that we need to do, which was go to the Town Board for the septic variances and then come to you guys for variances, and then we need to go back to Dave to actually bring him final plans for the building so that he can review the plans, and that would include looking at what's on site and making sure everything that's there was done correctly and then making any changes if we need to. MR. HENKEL-When you said he did some maintenance, he took the whole building down, right? MR. ROBINSON-1 think what happened was, he was asked, the walls were in bad shape. It hadn't been mowed, it hadn't been cleared. So he did some of that work and then when they 4 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2015) started doing the building they found that, okay, well we're going to repair this wall and the walls were bad. They'd been rotted and they needed to be replaced. So he just got to a point where he just kept going and did every wall, but again, that's a building inspection thing. That's why it was cited and we ended up where we are. MRS. HAYWARD-How long ago was the work done to remove the walls from the house? MR. ORLOW-It was approximately two and a half years ago, and then we were shut down, and that's why it looks the way it does. And then we started this process. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay, and just to clarify your comment about the deck, you said it was 17 feet? MR. ROBINSON-Yes. MRS. HAYWARD-1 don't seem to have that drawing that you were referring to, because what I see here it says 14 feet. MR. HENKEL-Yes, it is there. MRS. HAYWARD-It is? All right. I see 14 feet. MR. HENKEL-Right here. You've got it right there. MRS. HAYWARD-1 see 14 feet. 14 or 17? You said 17. That's why I'm trying to clarify. MR. HENKEL-That's right. I wrote 17, too, yes. MR. ROBINSON-Sorry. MRS. HAYWARD-1 feel obtuse. Thank you for that clarification. MR. FREER-Okay. Other questions? So we have a public hearing. Is there anyone here who would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPEN MR. URRICO-There's no written comment since the last time. MR. FREER-Okay. So I think we'll poll the Board. Roy, do you want to go first? MR. URRICO-No, but I will. PAT SORESINO MR. SORESINO-1 have a question. Do I get to add it? MR. FREER-No, if you want to make a statement then that was what I just offered. Okay. So if you wouldn't mind coming up to the table. MRS. SORESINO-Hi. I live across the street, and I'm just curious about exactly where is the deck. There was no deck initially. MR. FREER-Could you state your name for the record, please. MRS. SORESINO-I'm sorry. Pat Soresino. I'm at 16 Snug Harbor, and it's a little dirt road. I'm not happy about the holding tank being four feet from my property line also, and now we have a loft that could be another bedroom. It's changed the height of it to five feet. Is that what's coming down now? Does that mean the roof actually is going to come down so it can't be a bedroom later on? Because I understand when you have a holding tank each bedroom has to have an additional holding tank. MR. FREER-Staff? MRS. MOORE-That question can be directed to the applicant when the applicant comes back up. 5 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. SORESINO-Okay, but my question is that the, one of the questions is they said they lowered the loft. The ceiling has to be lowered because it's a two story building now. MR. FREER-Right. MRS. SORESINO-And they're saying that they have to change the loft. So does that mean that they're going to take the roof off? MRS. MOORE-I can answer that. That is not the case. The roof does not come off. MRS. SORESINO-The roof does not come off. So I don't understand how you can pursue having it not be a bedroom, you know, once you close your doors, then it becomes a bedroom. Now we have holding tank that's really not going to hold the sewer of multiple bedrooms, because the house across the street had to have three holding tanks because of the size of a two story over there, and the neighbor didn't want one holding tank and they had to put in three. MR. HENKEL-That's based on bedrooms. This only has one bedroom. MRS. SORESINO-Well if we have a loft and we're not going to take the roof off, that's a bedroom. MR. HENKEL-Well the height of the ceiling is only five feet. So, you know, unless you've got midgets. MRS. SORESINO-Well we kind of put a tarp over this house and we did what we wanted to do. The whole thing went up in the dark kind of thing, and now we're going to say okay you have to make the building lower. You can put a fake roof on there, a full ceiling and we have a bedroom because we have the room. MRS. MOORE-That's not the case, and that would be inspected by Building and Codes. MRS. SORESINO-It will be at that day, but then later on things change, but it doesn't matter. After every one of these meetings, everyone said, this thing will never happen and everything has happened, and now we have a deck that's going to be in the street, and they didn't have any property to begin with. It was a 400 square foot house. Now it's a 900 square foot house and it was all done. At the last meeting, there are so many meetings on this, there are so many Board members, I really don't know if any. It's very confusing, because the last Board meeting there was a gentleman who built a deck in the back of his house and it was too big. Do you know what they told him? You have to get rid of it. You have to take it down. Now we have a whole house with no permit sitting on cinder blocks from the 1940's. Take a look at these cinder blocks of the houses. The back of it is sitting in the dirt. The back of the house is sitting in the dirt. We have a tarp over it, so did anybody really see what we've got going on here? But we're just going to, we have it listed as to continue construction of something that just got put up with like spit. MR. HENKEL-But that's all got to pass codes. That's not really what we're dealing with here. We're giving them variances, approval on variances. MRS. MOORE-So it's an Area Variance. MR. FREER-So you oppose us providing the variances they're requesting. Is that what you're? MRS. SORESINO-I'm all for having a nice house in the neighborhood on a lot that's .06. It should suit the lot. It shouldn't be pouring outside of their perimeters and being right in everybody else's face. Everybody's dealing with, we built the house. It took us three years to get a plan that would fit on that house that stayed exactly in the footprint, that didn't go high. Do you know it was two inches off and we had to come to the Board and explain why the house, the pouring of the house was two inches off. There was a mistake on the pouring of the concrete and we had to beg for forgiveness, and we didn't build outside of the perimeter. We didn't build too high. It took me months to find a house that I would be able to find what I needed, but now we're building a house that doesn't suit the neighborhood. Now we don't even have room for a shed or other things that will make it look ridiculous. I'm all for it to look good, but if you're going to paint a pig, it's not going to be good, and that's what people do over there. If you go to Glen Lake, people do things right, but if you go to this area, and I love Lake Sunnyside. I'm all for everybody like trying to make it better, and trying to like clean it up, and I'm starting to lose my heart in it, to tell you the truth. It's just too exhausting. I'm worried 6 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2015) about my water now and we plow the road. He doesn't plow the road. We keep the road cleared. You have a dirt road now with his deck that wants to be four feet from the road. Do you know what snow looks like up here? Like on a dirt road that's just water all the time. We just put gravel on the road, and like we're always fixing it. We have another house right down the road from it also 5 Wagon Trail, which is immaculate and it's a beautiful little cottage that put our kids through college, the rent. We keep it up. My husband is there twice a week. We plow for our tenant. He took eight coats of paint off the house and painted it, new windows, new roof, and you know, we're proud of it. So what am I saying? I'm saying that to me you've got a big deck, a huge house on a tiny lot, and it doesn't fit, and now we have one holding tank on my property line basically and it's really not very fair. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. That's good. That's good input. MRS. SORESINO-Okay. MR. FREER-Is there anyone else who would like to make a comment on this application? Okay. Seeing no one, we're back to you, Roy. MR. HENKEL-Well, do we want to let him explain anything? MR. FREER-Yes. You can come back up. MR. ROBINSON-Tell me what you'd like me to explain. MR. FREER-So I will say that I understand this is not the holding tank forum. That's for the Town/Health Board, but we do have an obligation to look at the whole application. So I'd like for you to comment on the holding tank sizing. MR. URRICO-And location, and the location of it, too. MR. FREER-And the location. MR. ROBINSON-It's a one bedroom house. MR. FREER-Okay. So how big is the tank? MR. ORLOW-Two thousand gallons, which is what the Town requires. It's the minimum that the Town requires. MR. FREER-Okay. The location? MR. ROBINSON-The location is, of course it doesn't exist yet, right? We know that. Location is right here in front of the house. It's four feet off the house and four feet off our property line. MR. HENKEL-There's no way of putting it where there's more grassy area? MR. ROBINSON-There's separation issues, and we went through that with the Town Board and this is where it ended up. MR. FREER-Aren't these in an ultraviolet light system for the water? MR. ROBINSON-We are using, the Town Board as part of the approval, asked us to use an ultraviolet disinfectant system. Normally what we do, when we don't meet separations, we do something different. The reason that we're using that there is because of our holding tank here. There's a drywell on the lot across the street that's within 25 feet, which the separation requirement is like 150 feet. So that's why they asked us to use a UV disinfection system. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. ROBINSON-Is there anything else? MR. FREER-Do you want to comment on anything else that she brought up? MR. ROBINSON-1 mean, most of it didn't really have to do with what we have. I mean, the building is not two stories tall. It's a one story building with a 12/12 roof. So I mean the one story is right here, and then there's a loft in it that's about half the building. So when the roof comes up, what we're doing is we have a ceiling that runs right across here with collar ties, and we moved, what was asked is, we didn't meet the FAR, the Floor Area Ratio. So the FAR says 7 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) anything that's five feet has to be considered living space. So what we did was we moved that down to where it's four foot nine inches. MR. FREER-What was it before? MR. ROBINSON-It was five feet. It was exactly five feet. The intent isn't to have a bedroom up there. The intent is to have storage up there because it is a small place and the idea was we just wanted to have a place to store some things so that we can keep. We don't have much closet space. There's one bedroom. You can see from the floor plan that there's, you know, it's not a very big place at all. MR. HENKEL-It's basically the same footprint that the original camp was on. MR. ROBINSON-It was there. It was the same footprint. We went to the Assessor's Office. There was a question about that last time. We went to the Assessor's Office. We got some pictures of the whole building that was there. The foundation and location didn't change. We've made it a little smaller. In the back, this area here, the foundation is actually a little bigger back here than what we used. There was a little deck on the side. There was actually a side entrance over here. So there was a little deck porch, open porch with stairs, and what we did was we put the entrance on the other side and then we have an entrance on the front. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-In looking at the conditions, the criteria for considering an Area Variance, one of the main thrusts of our task is to grant the minimum relief necessary, and when you're dealing with something that's .07 acres, everything matters, every inch, every foot matters, and I'm still torn over the requested Area Variance being probably more than I would like to see. So I think we would have to grant too much relief for this project to continue as stated. So I would be against the variance at this point. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-As Roy states the lot is miniature. So almost anything that is done here is going to require significant variances. The major thing that we're asked, you know, we've okayed a lot of five foot and six foot from the setback in other cases. The main thing that we're granting here is the permeability, but it's understandable that there are going to be problems with the permeability when you only have a .07 acre lot. So I guess in my mind it justifies the 67 versus 75 that we're being asked to do here. On the plus side I think that it's going to improve the looks of the property considerably and the other thing is we are going to get a septic system that we know something about, where as if we just left things the way they were, we didn't really know what the existing septic system is. So in my mind what we're getting for what we're given is justified. So I would approve the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. If this was a new project, I don't see how we could pass this, but since this was an existing camp and they're building basically on the same footprint and they are making the property better with a proper water system and a better holding tank which is better for everybody in that area, and like Mike says, we've granted those type of reliefs for four and five feet, I'm not big on it, but I would have to say because it was an existing I'd have to say it's acceptable. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to pass and go to Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Although aesthetically that's a huge improvement, what you've proposed, you know, from what's existing, my concerns are the substantial request that you're making, requests, plural, that you're making of the Board and the Town are related to permeability and setbacks and I know it's a pre-existing structure. It's not really been existing in its former state for over two years. I'm not in favor of today's plan. It's an undersized lot. It's not a buildable lot. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-So we're very clear. The information from the Assessor has confirmed that you are building on precisely the same. I agree with everybody, but I have an issue with permeability. Not that big a deal, but it is a really substantial lot, and it does seem, I'm just thinking perhaps some sort of relief, but not as much as you're asking for. That there could be 8 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) some sort of compromise on one of the decks or porches in some way that could bring the size down some. I'm kind of leaning towards not in favor of what you're asking for. MR. FREER-Okay, and Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to be concerns, when we're looking at essentially urban density here with no infrastructure as far as sewers or anything like that. Holding tanks to me are just stopgap measures. Whether they work or whether they're effective, you know, the Department of Health doesn't recognize them in the State of New York. I don't know why the Town keeps approving them on a regular basis, but I think if you look at all the, in the greater scheme of things here, if you look at all the cabins that exist in close proximity to each other, we could have the same request on all re-dos on all these cabins here. We're not really doing anything, we're not making the situation better, other than aesthetically more pleasing because we're still way over the density and because we're right next to Lake Sunnyside, that goes for that whole neighborhood over there. I think that's always a concern with the size of the buildings based upon the size of the lot, and .07 acres I think you're way overbuilding on this lot. MR. FREER-Okay. So you're a no as well. Okay, and I'm a no as well. I consider neighborhood input important, and there was nobody here speaking up in favor of moving forward and all the other things that were said are appropriate that this is definitely asking for a significant amount of variance and so I'm not in favor of the current proposal either. So your options are to table it. MR. ROBINSON-And I think that's what we'd like to do. MR. FREER-Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Joe Orlow. Applicant proposes to maintain and complete construction of a 891 sq. ft. single-family home. The home will have two open decks; one is 144 sq. ft. and the other is 36 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum property line setbacks, permeability, and road frontage requirements as well as relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum property line setbacks, permeability, and road frontage requirements as well as relief from the maximum allowable Floor Area Ratio (FAR) requirements for the WR zoning district. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-76-2017 JOSEPH ORLOW, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Tabled until the first meeting in April with appropriate data to be submitted to the Town by the middle of March. Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2018, by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-When would you like to table it to? MRS. MOORE-The April meeting would be another, the applicant could potentially bring in new information by March 15th to be on April's agenda, if that's what the applicant and the Board. MR. FREER-Do we have room on the April agenda? MRS. MOORE-At this time we do. MR. FREER-Okay. AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay guys. MR. ROBINSON-Thank you. 9 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2013) MR. FREER-Next on the agenda is James Schneider, 14 Ladd Lane. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-7-2018 SEQRA TYPE II JAMES SCHNEIDER AGENT(S) JEFFREY DOAK OWNER(S) 14 LADD LANE LLC ZONING WR LOCATION: 14 LADD LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RESIDENTIAL ADDITIONS; ONE IS A 59 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL PORCH WITH 46 SQ. FT. PORCH ENTRY AREA. THE OTHER PROPOSED ADDITION IS A 58 SQ. FT. INFILL OF EXISTING COVERED PORCH FOR KITCHEN EXPANSION. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SHORELINE SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE IN A CEA. CROSS REF P-SP-6-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING: FEBRUARY 2018 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1- 18 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-6-050 JAY HOPECK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy, could you please read it into the record. STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-7-2018, James Schneider, Meeting Date: February 21, 2018 "Project Location: 14 Ladd Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of two residential additions; one is a 59 sq. ft. residential porch with 46 sq. ft. porch entry area. The other proposed addition is a 58 sq. ft. infill of existing covered porch for kitchen expansion. Relief requested from shoreline setbacks and permeability requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from shoreline setbacks and permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential The applicant proposes a 105 sq. ft. new porch and entry way and a 58 sq. ft. infill of an existing covered porch for a kitchen expansion. The addition is to be located 69 ft. 2 in where a 75 setback is required. The site permeability relief is requested with 73.64 % proposed and 75% is required. 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 character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home is non-compliant and the addition is to the non-shore side of the home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 5 ft. 10 in. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: 10 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) The applicant proposes residential additions for an existing home —one addition is a 105 sq. ft. new porch and entryway. This includes a utility room underneath the new porch area. The second addition is an infill of 58 sq. ft. to increase the kitchen area. The plans show the location of the additions and elevations." MR. URRICO-And then the Queensbury Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And they adopted that motion on February 13th by a unanimous vote. MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Can you please identify yourself? MR. HOPECK-Sure. Good evening. My name is Jay Hopeck. I'm an architect representing the client, Jim Schneider. If I could just add to the summary. The one small addition which is the 58 square foot, that is an existing porch that's there. We're basically just infilling the walls to expand the inside kitchen area some. The entry addition right now is just a 30 inch door with kind of a gang plank to get there. So we're putting a 59 sq. ft. footprint addition, lower level is a mechanical room, and then it's an enclosed entry porch with a new kind of a deck to get in there with a 36 inch door. Neither of those additions go out beyond the existing building. All the rooflines match. The facades match. The fascia's and everything match. So there's really no impact at all on the aesthetics of the building. Everything is kind of matching the existing character. We want to keep it that way. And then with the permeability we actually, 75% is required. The original existing was, I think it was like 69.37%. We eliminated a parking area when they put the new leach field in. So we actually increased the permeability from the existing up to 73.64, so that the delta for the variance we're looking for is a 1.46 delta from the 75%. So in our minds it's minimal impacts with our request with those three items. Again, the two physical additions are either within the porch. We're just, again, enclosing the porch or putting an entry porch on, but nothing comes out any farther than the existing building. Right now it's nonconforming with the 75 foot setback, but we're staying right at that original phase. We haven't exceeded it all, not even with the gutter lines or the roof lines that are there. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. We have a public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. There's one. "I have no objection to James Schneider's proposed project." And that's John Boomer and he lives at 23 Woods Point Lane in Lake George. MR. FREER-And do we know where that is? MR. MC CABE-It's just down from. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. So I'm ready to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Mike this time, please. MR. MC CABE-1 think what the applicant is asking for is absolutely minimal, and he's actually improving permeability. So I guess I have to go for this project. MR. FREER-Okay. So I guess I got out of line once again, but first I guess we should ask if there are any Board questions for this applicant. MRS. HAMLIN-The loss of the parking spaces, that was all in conjunction with the new construction? MR. HOPECK-Previously done, yes. MRS. HAMLIN-Having to do with that. Not having to do with this current project. MR. HOPECK-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-And that silt fence that you have there where the kitchen is being bumped out there under that porch, what's behind that? I couldn't tell. Is there like a retaining wall there or something? I'm just more worried about that kitchen. There's got to be some flooding with the steepness of that slope going down. MR. HOPECK-1 think there's a small retaining wall. My partner, Jeff Doak is the one who has been running this project, but I believe there's just one retaining wall. 11 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MRS. HAMLIN-Well there appeared to be two levels of retaining wall when I looked at it. MR. HOPECK-1 believe that's what it is. MRS. HAM LIN-So you're confident that that kitchen's not going to get flooded out? MR. HOPECK-Yes, I am. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. HOPECK-The client never had an issue there previously. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. HOPECK-Doesn't mean in the future you won't, but right now we're certainly confident. MRS. HAMLIN-All right. MRS. HAYWARD-Could you explain the infill underneath the kitchen area, what do you mean by infill? MR. HOPECK-So where the kitchen area is, off the existing kitchen there's a door that went into a little screened porch. So the structure was all there. We're just enclosing the two walls. The roof remains the same, the footing foundation, the structure. So the infill is just a two wall infill, and we're going to turn what was previously the 58 square foot screened porch area into a kitchen area. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. I thought you meant soil. That's why I was. MR. HOPECK-No. MRS. HAYWARD-So I understood your plan. It doesn't look like those pictures today that's for sure. So, okay. Thank you. MR. FREER-So my question is have you already started this project? It looked to me like you had already done it, or what's going on with that? MRS. MOORE-1 was going to say they have an interior alteration building permit, and they haven't started this phase of the project. MR. HOPECK-It's a two phase project. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HOPECK-We wanted to do it all in the first and we got stopped on that portion which we're here for tonight. So phase one is underway. Hopefully we'll get approval in phase two. MR. HENKEL-Unfortunately those additions are all within that 75 feet so that stinks. Even though it's really not effecting it. One question I've got, when you're looking at these projects, wouldn't it be smarter to start looking at, because I see there's a big oil tank there. It's just an accident waiting to happen. You'd think they'd kind of be pushing to go to like propane. I know it's a stupid question, but it's just an accident waiting to happen. You've got that tank sitting out there on a slope that's going towards the lake. MRS. MOORE-1 think that's re-located already, isn't it? MR. HOPECK-1 believe so. MRS. MOORE-1 actually think it's been re-located, and I think we talked about it at the Planning Board level. MR. HOPECK-That's correct. My partner was there for that meeting, but that has already been remediated. I mean it's a good catch and it has been taken care of. MR. FREER-Okay. So your thoughts, in addition to that? 12 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MR. HENKEL-I think it's definitely a plus. It's really not affecting the lake any. It's going to make it a nicer project. I would even be for something not having a ramp there anymore. That's kind of unsafe really, but it's a good project. I'm all for it. MR. FREER-Okay, and except for my question of timing and following the rules, I can support this, too. It's minimal. It's not heading toward the lake, but it's a pretty steep piece of property. So I would support it as well. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor of it for the reasons everyone else has said, but also I appreciate the improved permeability next to the lake. MR. FREER-Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-Yes, I'm in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the 75 foot setback, you know, is a reflection of that part of the area, you know, with the similar camps and the steepness of the banks coming down there, but because the front of this place is 50 feet back from the lake, that's much further than a lot of places up on that lake. We can take that as a plus, and all the construction's going to be on the back side there. So I don't think it's going to disturb anything. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Can I get a motion? Roy? I'm sorry. You're last now. MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. I think it passes the test. MR. FREER-Okay. Now we need a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from James Schneider. Applicant proposes construction of two residential additions; one is a 59 sq. ft. residential porch with 46 sq. ft. porch entry area. The other proposed addition is a 58 sq. ft. infill of existing covered porch for kitchen expansion. Relief requested from shoreline setbacks and permeability requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review for expansion of a nonconforming structure in a CEA. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from shoreline setbacks and permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040 establishment of districts-dimensional requirements —waterfront residential The applicant proposes a 105 sq. ft. new porch and entry way and a 58 sq. ft. infill of an existing covered porch for a kitchen expansion. The addition is to be located 69 ft. 2 in where a 75 setback is required. The site permeability relief is requested with 73.64 % proposed and 75% is required SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018; 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 the requested change will improve the appearance of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The variance requests are minimal. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. We believe that they're going to be improved. 13 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) 5. The alleged difficulty is of course self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) 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-7-2018, JAMES SCHNEIDER, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 21St day of February 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Good luck. MR. HOPECK-Thank you. MR. FREER-The next applicant is AJ Signs for Aviation Hospitality. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-3-2018 AJ SIGNS FOR AVIATION HOSPITALITY SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AGENT(S) AJ SIGNS OWNER(S) AVIATION HOSPITALITY ZONING Cl LOCATION 524 AVIATION ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES INSTALLATION OF 3 WALL SIGNS; 120 SQ. FT. EAST; 69.3 FT. WEST, AND 75 SQ. FT. NORTH FOR THE HOME2 SUITES BY HILTON HOTEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SQ. FT. FOR SUCH SIGNS. CROSS REF P-SP-45-2017 SITE PLAN REVIEW; P-SUP-10-2017 SPECIAL USE PERMIT; PZ-DISC-6-2017 DISCUSSION; Z-AV-42-2017 AREA VARIANCE; Z-SV-6-2017 SIGN VARIANCE WARREN COUNTY PLANNING FEBRUARY 2018 LOT SIZE 2.5 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1- 96.1 SECTION CHAPTER 140 KRISTEN MAC LEOD, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT; BHAVIK JARIWALA, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-3-2018, AJ Signs for Aviation Hospitality, Meeting Date: February 21, 2018 "Project Location: 524 Aviation Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes installation of 3 wall signs; 95.7 sq. ft. east; 71.1 sq. ft. west, and 75.6 sq. ft. north for the Home2 Suites by Hilton hotel. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sq. ft. allowed for a wall sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sq. ft. for such signs. Section 140-6 Signs for which permits are required The applicant requests to install 3 wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. Relief is also requested for the maximum size of the sign allowed where 30 sq. ft. is the maximum for one wall sign. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 14 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2013) 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. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood character may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. The applicant could install less signs to be more compliant or 1 sign to be compliant. The applicant has shown the parcel location has viewing points from the Northway, Route 9 and the Mall area but does not have physical road frontage. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The request for additional signage and larger signs may be considered substantial. The relief requested for the number of signs is for 2 in excess. The size relief is for 3 wall signs for 212.40 sq. ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install 3 wall signs of different sizes on the north, west and east side of the hotel currently under construction for Home 2 Suites. A previous approval granted 3 walls signs at 30 sq. ft. where the new application proposes the North elevation 71.1 sq. ft., East at 95.7 sq. ft. and the West at 75.6 sq. ft. The plans show the location of the signage and the location of the building on the property." MR. FREER-Okay. Could you identify yourselves, please? MS. MAC LEOD-I'm Kristen MacLeod with AJ Signs, and this is the property owner. MR. JARIWALA-Bhavik Jariwala with Aviation Hospitality. MR. FREER-Okay. Do you want to add anything to what was read into the record? MS. MAC LEOD-I do not believe so. I didn't catch, in the fifth question actually, no, I'm sorry, for the third question. I'm not sure if it was changed, but we're requesting an overall total of 150 square feet. It states 175, but that was supposed to be changed. MRS. MOORE-But the relief requested, I mean it's the opposite. So I'll re-do the number, but I don't think that's, out of 30 square feet. MR. FREER-So you reduced, did you reduce the sign? MS. MAC LEOD-No, it was written in incorrect, but then we changed it. It was changed before, before the meeting. It states 175 square feet, but it's only 150 square feet. MR. FREER-So the 212.40 is not correct? MRS. MOORE-212.40 is correct. You're only allowed for the 30 square feet. So it's in excess of 30 square feet. It's 212. So how the numbers, the relief requested total. It's in excess of 212 square feet total. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Above what they're allowed? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Does anyone on the Board have any questions? MR. HENKEL-I've got a question. Also, are you going to have signs, there's going to be a driveway going into the Mall eventually, right, is that what they're planning? And there's also going to be an entrance from, by Ambrosia. MRS. MOORE-There's an existing, not existing but proposed freestanding sign. MR. HENKEL-Okay. That's the only problem I have. 15 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2013) MRS. MOORE-1 don't think there's going to be a freestanding at the entrance to the Mall itself, like the Mall at this point. MR. HENKEL-There won't be a lit sign saying up here or? MRS. MOORE-No, not that I'm aware of. There may be some directional signage to meet the Code requirement, but we haven't seen a proposal for signage at the bottom there. MR. HENKEL-That's the problem I have kind of. If you're going to have the signage by the road, do you really need the signage that big on the building, but that's just my opinion. MR. FREER-Okay. Other questions? MR. URRICO-Yes. I want to know if you can reduce the number of signs and the size of them. MR. JARIWALA-I do want to add that when we got our initial Site Plan approval we already had a variance for three signs. MR. URRICO-From here, from the Zoning Board? MR. JARIWALA-Yes. From my understanding, you know, this application, I mentioned this to Laura, and she said it's a moot project, but the project that already got approved has the three signs. MRS. MOORE-Has three signs approved at 30 square feet each. So there's an existing approval out there for that project. This would be considered a new project. So the applicant could move forward with three signs that are 30 square feet. MR. JARIWALA-I mean our biggest issue is we're setback two, three hundred feet at Ambrosia Diner and we have very little visibility from the highway due to the dense tree line in between, and from, the visibility from Route 254 by Aviation Mall, you're talking five, six hundred feet plus. Having 30 square feet, it was initially a mistake when we did the initial thing. That's why we knew that we'd have to come back, but 30 square feet for a sign, for a 60,000 square foot building, you wouldn't even be able to see it. MR. URRICO-So you put in for a variance for 30 square feet knowing that you would have to come back for more? MR. JARIWALA-It was a mistake the first time around, during the approval process. MR. URRICO-You may not have gotten the approval for something bigger had you been more accurate with your figures than. MR. JARIWALA-No, I understand. I'm saying we inadvertently had it 30 feet, because that was based on the architectural elevations and Bohler Engineering didn't modify it to what was necessary based on how far the building is set back. MR. URRICO-You do realize that you're not the only hotel that's along the Northway in this Town? MR. JARIWALA-Excuse me? MR. URRICO-This would not be the only hotel located along the Northway in this Town. So that if we granted you something like this, we're going to hear from some of the other locations that don't have that size of a sign. MR. JARIWALA-I believe the other hotels have significantly large. MR. URRICO-Not this large. MR. FREER-Any other questions for the applicant? We have a public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? MRS. HAYWARD-Can I go back and ask a question? MR. FREER-Sure. 16 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. You got a previous variance for three signs. Did that variance indicate the locations of those signs, or just for three signs? MRS. MOORE-Same locations. MRS. HAMLIN-It said same locations. I mean I'm not trying to question you, how you run your business, but coming from the north, the sign that's on the Northway if you're coming down the Northway, it's actually not very visible given the tree line and the height of your buildings. It almost makes more sense, I travel a lot, so I'm really, I like good signage on hotels because I want to get to my room, and when I come over the bridge, this one is more helpful to me when I come over the overpass if I'm coming from the North. That's more helpful to me trying to find my place, and the one on the other side, if I was coming from the south, would also be more helpful to me than the one that you have right along the Northway. If I were coming from the south, I'd go, oh there it is, if it was facing me as I'm driving south. Do you see what I'm saying? In a way. That one here, I was actually looking for it. I circled around just to see it and went back and looked and by the time I saw it I had to get off. MR. FREER-Okay, but we can't solve their. MRS. HAMLIN-No, but if they couldn't move, like if they still had their three signs, that they could not have it there and have it there. I almost see it as a hazard the way it is. Because if I was looking for it and all of a sudden I had to jump off the Northway and ask because the way it is. It's kind of a hazard. MR. FREER-Okay. Anymore questions for the applicant? Okay. Now we have a public hearing. Nobody's there. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board and start with John. MR. HENKEL-Yes. I'm not for granting this much square footage. I understand there's a need for signs, but I'm not for those size signs at this time. MR. FREER-Okay, and there is a freestanding sign that's already part of your process, right? So I like to think of myself as not the sign gestapo. However, this is too much relief for me as well. So I don't support it at this time. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-1 think the request is far too substantial. I am the polar opposite of Mr. Freer. I don't like the signage. I agree with Catherine. I think it would be a distraction to have these signs, and like Roy is saying, that this mistake, I'm sorry it happened, but I can't base my decision on that mistake. I'm not in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Catherine? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree. I think that the request is too much. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think you have to look at the situation on the other side of the Northway on the west side over there. It's the Ramada over there, right? MR. JARIWALA-The Ramada. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I mean they've dealt with it for years, the fact that they're set well back off with no signage at all that's really visible from the Northway that you can really see other than your giant flagpole, you know, which is pretty obvious, but I think in this day and age most people when they're booking they're going to book ahead anyway. I think you guys have a niche market with your suites. I think you're going to do very well, and I think that, you know, your primary signage is going to be your signage out on Aviation Road on the front side there, and I think that the signs on the building, you're so far set back with the tree line and everything else, even if you put giant signs and made the whole side of the building a sign it still would be hard to see it and I agree that it's excessive what you're requesting. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? 17 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MR. URRICO-I'm against the amount of signage and the size of the signs. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MR. MC CABE-You guys are in a real similar situation to the new guy down the road at Exit 18, and we let them have a bigger sign because they are set back, but we only let them have two. So I would be in favor of at least one of the signs being kind of oversized, but I can't be in favor of three signs when we only let the new guy down the road have two. MR. FREER-Okay, and, you know, part of this is precedent as well. So you don't have the support of the Board with the current application. What action would you like? MR. JARIWALA-I have a question. What if we were to eliminate one of them and keep two of them? Would that be an option for us? MR. MC CABE-In my mind it would. MR. JARIWALA-If I proposed eliminating the one facing the highway, the west elevation side, and we kept the north elevation and the east elevation based on our configuration here? MS. MAC LEOD-Enlarge the east or sizing. MR. URRICO-Isn't the east facing the? MR. JARIWALA-No, no. Remove the west elevation completely, the one facing the Northway, and keep the north elevation side, which, as you can see, I'll show you what page it's on, Page Seven. This is facing, this is behind the Ambrosia Diner, and a lot of the signage, this signage really blends in with the building, the white color, and that's really the only place you could put a sign because it's got like a band where it's proposed, and then keep the east elevation, Page Four, which is the sign in front of the carport, and the people pull in to this driveway, it's not just the hotel that this driveway leads to. The new diner will have an entrance off this driveway. Trying to make a left they can turn into the Mall ring road connector. So we feel like guests making a right into this long 300 foot driveway, having that sign enlarged where guests know that that's the hotel and that's the hotel's entrance, because typically the largest sign is near the carport. So would you be opposed to removing the west elevation and keeping? MR. FREER-So we can, tonight, grant less relief than what you're saying and you're saying you're going to eliminate one of the signs, keep the other two signs at the same sizes that you're requesting. Right? MR. JARIWALA-Right. MR. FREER-Just work with me. So I think you're going to get more support on the Board, but I'm not sure it's going to be enough. So we can poll the Board again with the reduced request and I'll start with myself since I'm trying to go in order, and I will go back to my, I think that's a reasonable accommodation so that we don't set precedents where we have these huge signs, and so I would support eliminating the one sign and allowing the two at the size that you've proposed. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So which one are you eliminating? MR. JARIWALA-We would eliminate the west elevation. So we'd eliminate Page 10. MR. URRICO-75.6 square feet. MR. HENKEL-75.6. Okay. So you're going to keep the 95.6 and this 71.1? MR. JARIWALA-Right. We'd keep Pages Four and Seven. MR. FREER-Okay. So you've got the easiest reversed. MR. HENKEL-So you've got 130 feet roughly over required. MR. UNDERWOOD-Does anybody recall what the size was that we allowed down on Exit 18? MR. MC CABE-1 know one of them we let oversized, the one that was facing out towards the Northway. 18 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think it was 40 square feet. That's what I remember. MR. MC CABE-1 can't recall. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think if we clarify that, we could go to two signs like we had with the Holiday Inn Express down there, and I think that would be a reasonable alternative for them to consider. MR. HENKEL-But we don't know the size. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't know what the sign size was. I don't think Staff does, either. MRS. MOORE-I'm going to look that up. If you want to continue with the polling. MR. FREER-Okay. So one's 90 and one's 70. MR. HENKEL-I kind of agree. They should be similar to the sizes that we allowed at Exit 18. MR. FREER-Okay, and, Catherine, do you have any thoughts? MRS. HAMLIN-I wasn't involved in that, but the setback for the hotel is similar, are you saying, to this? MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. HAMLIN-So the visibility will be about the same then. MR. FREER-Yes, and there are actually buildings in front of that hotel as well. MR. MC CABE-McDonald's. MR. HENKEL-Plus it sits in kind of a hole. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other argument that you could make is that the one that's facing east that they propose over the main entrance, that's kind of internal. It doesn't face the street, you know. So that has less of an effect as far as having two, one on the west side and one on the north. MR. FREER-Okay. So if you'd just give us a second, we're trying to see if that's comparable, the two signs that you're proposing, are comparable to what we granted relief for. MR. HENKEL-Do you have any idea what the size of the sign is going to be, the one by Ambrosia? The one by the road? MR. FREER-Freestanding. MR. HENKEL-Do you have any idea? MR. UNDERWOOD-That's a monument sign. MS. MAC LEOD-Yes. It's a freestanding sign. That's fine. MR. HENKEL-That may be something that they have to ask for forgiveness, too. MR. FREER-No. Hopefully not. MR. JARIWALA-No, that one is already approved. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. FREER-Yes, we're not going to do, Roy would get very upset if they came in asking for incremental variances for signs. MR. JARIWALA-I drive by the Holiday Inn Express all the time. I know the one facing McDonald's. MR. FREER-I agree with you. 19 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MR. JARIWALA-The Holiday Inn Express one that's facing the highway, I know that's a really large sign. I don't know how many square feet it is, but I think it's smaller than our larger one if I recall correctly. MR. FREER-So if we find that that's 65 square foot, will you, tonight, go down to that size for your? MS. MAC LEOD-Which one? Was it for both of them or for, because they're two different signs. MR. FREER-Right. MS. MAC LEOD-For both? MR. FREER-Well, let's see what she comes up with signs if we can for a second. Otherwise we're going to have to ask for more information from you. It sounds like the consensus is not substantially larger than the ones that are down in the recent other areas, and I don't recall what those are. MRS. MOORE-It's 161.17 square feet. MR. FREER-The largest one? MR. HENKEL-No, total. MRS. MOORE-No. You have the sign to be 161. MR. URRICO-So the 80 something feet per sign, but I think one was smaller than the other. MR. HENKEL-This is very similar. MR. FREER-Okay. So that's what I wanted to confirm, that 90 and 70 is the same as 80 and 80 or close enough. MRS. HAMLIN-That's total, the 161, you're saying? MR. FREER-Both signs would be 161 square foot MRS. MOORE-One sign is 161 square feet. MR. HENKEL-And they're asking about the same. MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, 171.3 between the two. So it would be 210 square feet. MS. MAC LEOD-Did that say the second wall sign is 116? MRS. MOORE-One hundred and sixty-one. I'm just going to pull it up now so that we can physically look at the document. MS. MAC LEOD-Okay. MR. FREER-We're not going to let you make it bigger than you already have. MS. MAC LEOD-No, no, we wouldn't. MR. FREER-We can't do that. That's not allowed in our process. MS. MAC LEOD-That's understandable. MR. FREER-Roy would certainly not allow me to do that. I apologize, folks. We'd just as soon try to get this resolved if we can. MRS. MOORE-161. I'll see if I can find an actual picture. So this is 50.81 square feet. So complete, it's 161 is that"H" and the lettering. MRS. HAYWARD-So that's one sign? MRS. MOORE-That's one sign. 20 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2013) MRS. HAYWARD-Okay, and then they came back for another variance, is my recollection, and got a variance for a sign on the east side of the property. MRS. MOORE-And that's, so if you're looking from the Northway, this is that sign that you see, okay, and then I just scrolled past the one that's on the front of the building, and you see that one to the left. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. MR. HENKEL-So what was it again? MRS. HAYWARD-So the total square footage between the two signs? MRS. MOORE-The two signs total is 161 times two. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. MR. FREER-They're both 161? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and it's the setback issue that allows them to have a larger sign. MR. MC CABE-So if you go down to two, then I'm in favor of the project. MR. FREER-I'm sorry. You said each of those are 161? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and what happened in that situation is that property line setback is so great, that's why that one from Corinth Road is the same size. MR. FREER-Okay. So they had a slightly different situation because of the setback. MRS. MOORE-Correct, because the setback allowed them a larger sign. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-The setback from Corinth Road or the setback from the Northway? MRS. MOORE-The Northway. MR. JARIWALA-They have two there at 160, just so I'm hearing correctly? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MRS. HAMLIN-But, Laura, what you're saying is they started with a larger lot. MR. FREER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Their setback distance allows them a larger sign, and so at this time this particular lot is basically landlocked or under a lot line adjustment. So it doesn't have that frontage from Ambrosia Diner, or from the Aviation Road because it doesn't have a physical property parcel. MR. JARIWALA-We have an easement. MRS. MOORE-You have an easement. MR. FREER-So Mike said that he would favor approval of the two signs, the two existing signs east and north, and I'd like to continue to poll t e Board, then, to get a sense of what the other members feel with regard to this reduced variance application. I'll start with Cathy. MRS. HAMLIN-So just to be clear, they're willing to give up the one sign, but they're going to keep the size exactly as requested here. MR. FREER-Size, which are bigger than our Code. MR. JARIWALA-And has the Board's perception changed, now knowing that another hotel has 320 feet? I mean, I know you guys went through and. 21 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MR. HENKEL-Yes, but that's a different scenario because of the setbacks. MR. FREER-Our job is also to grant the minimum variance allowed. So, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think last time when we did Holiday Inn I only wanted them to have the "H" sign on there and what tripped the giant size of the sign was the Holiday Inn Express underneath, you know, the whole thing is counted as the size of it, but with the Home2 here, I think you're looking at overall smaller sized signs than what we allowed on the Holiday Inn. So I would be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I would be in favor of the two signs just as long as we take out that third sign. I don't care which one it is, whichever one they choose. MR. FREER-Okay. What I understood is that you're proposing to remove the west facing 71.1 square foot sign? MR. JARIWALA-Correct. MR. HENKEL-And keep the east and the north. MR. FREER-Keeping the east and the north on the sizes that you proposed. MR. JARIWALA-Correct. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-I'd be in favor of that. MR. FREER-Okay. I think we have, Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Can I get a motion? MR. MC CABE-First we've got to do a SEAR. MR. FREER-Okay. Mike? MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-3-2018, AJ SIGNS FOR AVIATION HOSPITALITY 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 Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted 21St day of February, 2018 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-1 just want to clarify with your SEQR that you're also including the discussion tonight so that we know that there's a reduced number of signs. So it's just a clarification. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. MOORE-1 think you mentioned it. I just want to make sure of that. MR. MC CABE-1 just thought that would be taken care of with the boilerplate. MRS. MOORE-It will for the actual sign, but in this case you're actually seeing SEQR for the reduced number of signs and the size. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. MC CABE-That was information provided tonight by the applicant. MRS. MOORE-Yes. 22 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Now I'll seek a motion for the variance. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from AJ Signs for Aviation Hospitality for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes installation of 3 wall signs; 95.7 sq. ft. east; 75.6 sq. ft. west, and 71.1 sq. ft. north for the Home2 Suites by Hilton hotel. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sq. ft. allowed for a wall sign. The applicant has withdrawn one of the sign requests. The one on the one side, on the west side, is to be removed. So it would allow two signs, one at 95.7 sq. ft. on the east side and 71.1 sq. ft. on the north side with Home2 Suites by Hilton Hotel on both signs as per the request this evening. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sq. ft. for such signs. Section 140-6 Siqns for which permits are required The applicant requests to install 3 wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. Relief is also requested for the maximum size of the sign allowed where 30 sq. ft. is the maximum for one wall sign. (Applicant withdrew the west wall sign, reducing the relief requested.) SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-3-2018, AJ Signs for Aviation Hospitality 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 Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted 21St day of February, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? Based upon what we've done previously on other setbacks for hotels along the Northway, we do not feel that the request for two signs is in excess. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We do not feel that that's necessary. They've gone from three sign requests to two. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We recognize that the relief requested is exceptional because it's asking for more than one wall sign, but due to the fact that the signs are set well back from the Northway and on a separate extension road from the restaurant that accesses the property, the Board deems these are necessary for the proper function of the building. Yes it's an extra sign, but it seems to be justified. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We've done the SEQR and the review shows there will be no physical or environmental negative impacts on the immediate neighborhood. 23 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We would say yes at this point because they want an extra sign. 6. 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-3-2018, AJ SIGNS FOR AVIATION HOSPITALITY, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 21St day of February 2018, by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-You do need to clarify the size of the sign, just to clarify that we're removing the 71.1 sq. ft. on the west side and maintaining the 95.6 sq. ft. on the east and the 75.6 sq. ft. on the north. I think it was incorrectly stated. MR. FREER-Okay. So that's correct. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think I said that. MR. FREER-That's what you said. Okay. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Good luck. MR. JARIWALA-Thanks. MS. MAC LEOD-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. One more applicant. Todd Lewis, Area Variance Z-AV-9-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-9-2018 SEQRA TYPE 11 TODD LEWIS OWNER(S) TODD LEWIS ZONING MDR LOCATION: 18 RAINBOW TRAIL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AN ALREADY INSTALLED 216 SQ. FT. SHED AND GRAVEL AREA AROUND SHED. APPLICANT HAD INSTALLED THE SHED IN THE YEAR 2013 IN A COMPLIANT LOCATION PER BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL. APPLICANT THEN RELOCATED THE SHED TO A NONCOMPLIANT LOCATION ACCORDING TO BUILDING AND CODES. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIDE AND REAR YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF BP 2013-349 SHED WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 279.15-1-69 SECTION 179-5-020 24 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) TODD LEWIS, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-9-2018, Todd Lewis, Meeting Date: February 21, 2018 "Project Location: 18 Rainbow Trail Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain an already installed 216 sq. ft. shed and gravel area around shed. Applicant had installed the shed in the year 2013 in a compliant location per building permit approval. Applicant then relocated the shed to a noncompliant location according to Building and Codes. Relief requested from side and rear yard setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from side and rear yard setback requirements of the moderate density residential zone. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures The applicant has relocated a 216 sq. ft. shed to a non-compliant location where it is 11 ft. 8 in from the side of the east property line where a 25 ft. setback is required and 22 ft. 3 in from the rear property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. 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 character 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 relocate the shed to a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested on the east side property line is 14 ft. 4 in and from the rear property line relief requested is 7 ft. 9 in. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed will have minimal impact to the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant has relocated an existing 216 sq. ft. shed to a non-compliant location on the property. The applicant received a building permit in 2013 for the shed to be located near the existing patio area and then moved it to behind the garage. The applicant has also installed a gravel area around the shed. The survey shows the location of the shed currently and the aerial photo shows the location in 2013." MR. FREER-Hello. Could you please identify yourself? MR. LEWIS-Todd Lewis. MR. FREER-Okay. Todd, do you want to add anything to this application? MR. LEWIS-No. I'm just here to beg for forgiveness. MR. FREER-Okay. Anybody on the Board have questions? MR. URRICO-Yes. How did they find out that you moved the shed? MR. LEWIS-Drone probably, that's what I assume. Removal of earth, or neighbors. 25 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MR. FREER-I guess my question is what drove you to move the shed? MR. LEWIS-Well, probably in the beginning I purchased the shed and then asked questions later and found out that the size of the shed and the size of my lot, I needed a permit. So where I located I couldn't move the shed in from the front of the property because I didn't have any access to the backyard. So I had to get permission from my neighbor behind me to move it into his field, which he asked to do in the wintertime because moving the trailer and back there and all that, he didn't want anything to get buried and make ruts and all that, and then, you know, it sat in the location, what I got a permit for, for a couple of years, didn't do the right thing. Just time went on, and then of course here we are today. MR. FREER-But you still haven't adequately answered me. There was an access problem where you had it before? Is that what you're saying? MR. LEWIS-No. I wasn't, I couldn't bring the shed in through Rainbow Trail, which is where I live. I had to go in through my neighbor's field, and we had to do that in the wintertime when the ground was frozen. So I bought the shed, came in to get the permit, and that's when I found out that I didn't have sufficient setbacks. So I got a permit to put it by my patio years, where it sat for two and a half years or so, and then I prepped the area behind the garage to level it off and then I moved it. MR. URRICO-So your intention all along was to put it where you put it now, you have it now? MR. LEWIS-Yes. MR. HENKEL-It's a better location. MR. LEWIS-Yes, it is. MR. HENKEL-You would have gotten forgiveness if you'd have come to us and asked us. Now we have to deny it. MR. FREER-Any other questions for the applicant? MRS. HAMLIN-Well it sat there for two years. Why was it a problem there for you? MR. LEWIS-Well, it was basically in the middle of my lawn, and it basically, at the moment that I bought the shed, and they had to deliver it, you know, I didn't do my due diligence in looking ahead of time to say, I can't take the shed and get the permit and do all these things and get it into the field in the back where my neighbor gave me permission to go through to deliver the shed. MRS. HAMLIN-And we can't make a decision based on whether your neighbors like it or not, but it's nice to know you're really close to that fence there, how are they feeling about it? MR. LEWIS-No problem whatsoever. MR. FREER-Okay. So any other questions for the applicant? MRS. HAYWARD-1 do have one question. Did you work with the Code Enforcement to place the shed originally with the proper setback? MR. LEWIS-Yes. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. MR. LEWIS-And that was the original permit that I had. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing on this. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There's no written comment. 26 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board, and I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. Over the years we've dealt with 100's of sheds and I've always questioned the sanity of the shed regulations because they almost, on small lots like this, almost always place them right dead center in the middle of your backyard, which doesn't really make any sense at all, and I think where you placed the shed is where any one of us would probably place the shed, over near the back corner of your property. Since none of your neighbors have any problem with it, since you're an agricultural area, further back from there, I don't think there's any problem, question that you're going to negatively impact anybody. So I'd be in favor of leaving it right where it is. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-1 agree with Jim. I'm in favor of it. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. The location of the shed makes sense. It doesn't look bad. As long as the neighbor doesn't have a problem, I don't have a problem. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with everybody. It's the best location for it. No problem. MR. FREER-Okay. I can live with this variance request as well. It sort of meets all of the criteria that we're trying to enforce here. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement. When I went and looked at it, it was hard to see with the fence you have in place. It blends in with the neighborhood. MR. LEWIS-That was kind of the point. MR. FREER-Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-I agree that it's in a more logical position. MR. FREER-Okay. So can we get a motion? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Todd Lewis. Applicant proposes to maintain an already installed 216 sq. ft. shed and gravel area around shed. Applicant had installed the shed in the year 2013 in a compliant location per building permit approval. Applicant then relocated the shed to a noncompliant location according to Building and Codes. Relief requested from side and rear yard setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from side and rear yard setback requirements of the moderate density residential zone. Section 179-5-020 —Accessory Structures The applicant has relocated a 216 sq. ft. shed to a non-compliant location where it is 11 ft. 8 in from the side of the east property line where a 25 ft. setback is required and 22 ft. 3 in from the read property line where a 30 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, February 21, 2018; 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. The existing shed seems to fit very nicely where it's positioned. 27 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, is not when you consider the size of the property. 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 (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) 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-9-2018, TODD LEWIS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 21St day of February 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. MR. LEWIS-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. First of all I guess two things I'd want to bring up. First, again, welcome to the new members of the ZBA. I think based on my experience you'll find a lot of what we end up looking at is Waterfront residential stuff, includes three lakes and a river, and so you'll see a lot more of that. The sign thing you've got a pretty good, we've had a couple of sign applications, and I worry that we get a reputation of if you want three then you bring five and we'll reduce it. So I think there's some pretty tough attitudes towards Sign Variance and I totally support that. The second point I wanted to make was how we assign alternates. We haven't had two alternates in a long time. So if you're both going to be available, you're certainly, I guess I would recommend that you sort of alternate if you're both going to be here or let each other know if you're not going to make it, and for people who are going to be absent, if you can let folks know in advance, that would be good. I'm traveling the second week of March. So are we still having that? MRS. MOORE-We're still having that meeting because we did poll everyone and there were enough members to hold the meeting. MR. HENKEL-That's the third week of March. Right? MR. FREER-Right. The third week in March I'll be in China. MR. MC CABE-That's going to be tough. So I will be here. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. MC CABE-1 make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MR. FREER-I'll second. Okay. We're adjourned. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF FEBRUARY 21, 2018, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: 28 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 02/21/2018) Duly adopted this 21 st day of February, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 29