The URL can be used to link to this page

09-26-2018 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 INDEX Notice of Appeal No. 1-2018 Charles C. Freihofer, III 1. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-27.1 & 27.2 Area Variance Z-AV-42-2018 Christopher Dwyer 1. Tax Map No. 288.-1-65 Area Variance Z-AV-56-2018 Barbara Reynolds 3. Tax Map No. 295.14-2-55 Area Variance Z-AV-57-2018 Mary Cooper 11. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-83 Sign Variance Z-SV-8-2018 Flintlock Corp. d/b/a Adirondack Gun Range 14. Tax Map No. 288.8-1-14 (Cont'd Pg. 31.) Area Variance Z-AV-59-2018 Linda Clark 19. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-53 Sign Variance Z-SV-7-2018 Saxton Sign Corp. 24. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-32 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 ,r (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 00/26/2016) SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 26, 2018 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL MICHELLE HAYWARD JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. FREER-Welcome, everyone. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those who have not been here this process is pretty straightforward. On the back table there's an agenda and some more information about each application and a bit of the process. We'll call each applicant to the small table here for a presentation. Then we'll read the application into the record, ask questions of the applicant, open a public hearing when a public hearing is advertised, poll the Board and move forward and make a motion as applicable. Then we'll go on to the next application. We have a couple of administrative things. Mike, can you start with the tabling request. NOTICE OF APPEAL NOA 1-2018 SEQRA TYPE II APPELLANT: CHARLES C. FREIHOFER, III AGENT(S) JOHN W. CAFFRY, ESQ., CAFFRY & FLOWER OWNER(S) DARK BAY PROPERTIES, LLC & LAWRENCE A. DAVIS ZONING WR LOCATION 3300 STATE ROUTE 9L APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S LETTER DATED JULY 26, 2018 REGARDING ISSUANCE OF A SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 67-2017 GREGORY TERESI. CROSS REF SP 67-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.5 ACRES & 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-27.1 &27.2 SECTION N/A The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an Appeal application from Charles C. Freihofer, III; Agent: John W. Caffry, Esq. The Appellant is appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals relative to a June 26, 2018 form letter from the Zoning Administrator relative to the issuance of Site Plan Review approval 67-2017; Gregory Teresi. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2018 CHARLES C. FREIHOFER, III, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled until the November meeting with pertinent data to be submitted by the middle of October. Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So since we did advertise a public hearing. MR. FREER-I'm going to open a public hearing for that Appeal, NOA 1-2018. Is there anybody here in the audience that wants to speak to that application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to keep the public hearing open, and we'll advertise as such for the November meeting. Okay. Mike? AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2018 SEQRA TYPE II CHRISTOPHER DWYER AGENT(S) STEFANIE DILALLO BITTER, ESQ., BPSR OWNER(S) CHRISTOPHER DWYER ZONING MDR LOCATION 1232 WEST MOUNTAIN ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN TWO SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLINGS ON A 1.37 ACRE PARCEL; 1,632 SQ. FT. 2 (Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 00/26/2013) (FOOTPRINT) AND 1,140 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT). REQUESTING THE SECOND DWELLING TO BE A GUEST COTTAGE AND NOT TO BE RENTED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM LOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS FOR EACH DWELLING UNIT LOCATED IN THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT; MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS 2-ACRES PER DWELLING UNIT. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FROM RESTRICTION THAT ALLOWS ONLY ONE DWELLING UNIT PER LOT IN THE MDR ZONE. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JUNE 2018 LOT SIZE 1.37 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.1-65 SECTION 179-3-040 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Christopher Dwyer. Applicant proposes to maintain two single-family dwellings on a 1.37 acre parcel; 1,632 sq. ft. (footprint) and 1,140 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum lot size restrictions for each dwelling unit located in the MDR zoning district; minimum requirement is 2-acres per dwelling unit. Also, relief requested from restriction that allows only one dwelling unit per lot in the MDR zone. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-42-2018 CHRISTOPHER DWYER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Tabled to the October meeting with pertinent data to be submitted by the middle of September. Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. There is a public hearing scheduled for that application, AV 42-2018. Is there anyone here in the audience that would like to make a statement about that application? Please come to the table and identify yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED TOM WILLIAMS MR. WILLIAMS-My name is Tom Williams. This is my fiance Hillary Johnson. We appreciate the time you've given us to talk. The reason why we're here is we're the prospective buyers of the property, the Dwyer house. We moved up here recently from Albany. I took a position at the Glens Falls Hospital as one of the docs in the ED and I do Medical Directorship for some of the EMS agencies here. So I moved up here in July with Hillary and we chose this house for a lot of reasons. We do a lot of outdoor stuff. It's a prime location for some of the great outdoor activities around here, but the big thing that we moved here for is because of the in-law apartment that's under review currently. Both of us have family from out of the state. Hillary's parents live in Kansas. Mine live in Connecticut. So we try to keep them as involved as possible. It's a little difficult with the travel. So having a facility like this that would specifically allow them to stay with us was really key in our decision to move here or at least this house. I read the minutes from the June meeting and I spoke to our neighbor, Ms. Guay. I saw the concerns that she raised, and a lot of them have to do, understandably, with a lot of the issues with the previous owner. She raised a lot of concerns and they're very reasonable concerns. She had a lot of issues with the tenants at the previous house which I think anybody would reasonably have, but when we're moving in there those issues go away. We neither are interested nor need to rent the building out. It's not going to be rented out and it's primarily for our parents who are extended family who both have siblings as well that we would love to host in the area. She also raised some concerns about dogs and pets and things like that. Those have been resolved. So that, again, I don't think has any bearing on the zoning issue, but just to settle the issue it's been taken care of. So we're in the position that we want, you know, we're young, we're going to start our own family at some point hopefully, and with family at a distance it's really helpful to have something like this where we can keep our family close and keep them involved in our lives, and I was also reading in the Town of Queensbury Comprehensive Plan from 2007, and there's a section in there that specifically talks about in-law apartments and the goal for the Town to be able to keep families together and being able to carve out parts of the home or a garage which this facility would be in order to create those in- law apartments and to keep families together. So that's what we wanted to come here today and just express to you guys. We're not here to make money off of this facility. We're not here to rent it out. We spoke to our neighbors. We're just here, we want a quiet place to live and we want to keep our family close and we're hoping this house will be able to provide us that opportunity. So that's what we wanted to say and we appreciate your time. 3 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/26/2018) MR. MC CABE-Can I make a suggestion? MR. WILLIAMS-Sure. MR. MC CABE-If you've reconciled with your neighbor, it would be really good to have a letter from her stating that. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. Sure. We'll definitely go by and talk to her. MR. FREER-But you're not the applicant. MR. WILLIAMS-I'm not Mr. Dwyer, no. MR. FREER-The previous owner is doing the application. MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. So we're the prospective purchasers of the house. MR. KUHL-Did you make this deal subject to its approval? MR. WILLIAMS-Yes. We haven't closed on the house. The purchase is still pending this. When we started the purchase we didn't know about the zoning issue. So we're coming into this midway it sounds like with everybody else. So the bank loan is obviously contingent on the fact that this zoning issue is resolved. So we can't close on the house until the zoning issue is resolved. MR. KUHL-Smart move. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you very much, and you got the drill, right? They're going to come back in November with their story, and I think Mike's, from my personal point of view, and I think I speak for some of the other Board members, one of the criteria that we're not bound by State law to consider, but it's useful to know what the neighbors think and obviously there was a big issue with the neighbors. So any amelioration or mitigation you can do would be helpful to this Board. MR. WILLIAMS-Yes, certainly we'll bring it up with her and hopefully. MR. KUHL-Can I just ask a question of Staff before they leave the table? MR. FREER-Sure. MR. KUHL-If they were to take the kitchen out, it would no longer be a dwelling. Right? MRS. MOORE-So the Dwyer's have been given direction about what is to be removed and there's a pending, this is in the Staff Notes, there's a pending building permit that says here's the items to remove, and I apologize, there's specific items that are to be removed. I just can't remember. I'm not. MR. HENKEL-But we'll find that out next month. MR. KUHL-I just wanted to ask that question. MRS. MOORE-I know. MR. KUHL-I had a situation years ago with a mother/daughter house, but anyway. MR. WILLIAMS-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. Is there anyone else who wants to speak to this application? Okay. We're on to Area Variance 56-2018, Barbara Reynolds. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-56-2018 SEQRA TYPE II BARBARA REYNOLDS OWNER(S) BARBARA REYNOLDS ZONING MDR LOCATION 26 CROWNWOOD LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN EXISTING 12 FT. BY 24 FT. GAZEBO IN ITS CURRENT LOCATION IN THE REAR YARD. EXISTING HOME IS 2,168 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF. AST 378-2018 GAZEBO WARREN COUNTY (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 295.14-2-55 SECTION 179-3- 040; 179-5-020 CRAIG MEADE, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-56-2018, Barbara Reynolds, Meeting Date: September 26, 2018 "Project Location: 26 Crownwood Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain existing 12 ft. by 24 ft. gazebo in its current location in the rear yard. Existing home is 2,168 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR The existing gazebo is 3.5 ft. 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 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 lot size and location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief requested is 26.5 ft. to the rear property line. 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: The applicant was notified by a building inspector the existing gazebo was in location that did not meet the rear setback from a neighbor complaint. The applicant has indicated the gazebo was installed in 2015 and replaced an existing shed structure on the site. The applicant has included photos of the existing gazebo and the real estate listing sheet during at the time of property purchase." MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself and you can add any other information that you'd like to do. BARBARA REYNOLDS MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes. I'm Barbara Reynolds and I live at 26 Crownwood Lane in Queensbury and I had photographs here and I would like to present them to you of the location. MR. FREER-Okay. So give us the summary of why you gave us these photographs, please. MRS. REYNOLDS-Because I live in a wooded area and these people that have adjoining properties have thrown balls into my yard for two and a half years. No, I'm sorry, one and a half years, and I kept throwing them back into their yard because they were children. MR. MEADE-1 think all we're trying to do is keep this, the structure's been there since 2015. There hasn't been a complaint prior to anything except for when we had an issue with the back neighbor, and we're just looking to just keep the gazebo area. She doesn't want to go through 5 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/26/2016) the process of paying to have another survey. She can't afford that, and we just, we had a representative come out and take measurements and we're just looking to keep it the way it is. MR. FREER-Okay, but how did it, you didn't know that there was a side setback or rear setback requirement for the property? MRS. REYNOLDS-No. I never knew. I purchased this through Garden Time and I didn't know that I needed to have a building permit for a structure that was already built. MRS. MOORE-Once she gets through this process she will need a building permit and that's how it came to be inspected by the Building Inspector. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Why doesn't people like Garden Time, people that build these sheds, don't they know? Why don't they know? MRS. MOORE-They do. They've been told and given the same information and they continually. MR. HENKEL-Just drop them off wherever people want them. MRS. MOORE-Unfortunately that happens, and sometimes they miscommunicate with their client and they don't come in and check with the Town. MR. FREER-Okay. Are there any other questions from the Board? MRS. MOORE-He needs to state his name for the record. MR. MEADE-Craig Meade. I'm her grandson. MR. FREER-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. KUHL-Yes. Did you put this right where the old shed was? MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes. MR. KU H L-Okay. MRS. REYNOLDS-And it was falling apart, and I thought I was doing a good thing by improving the property. MR. HENKEL-The exact same size? MRS. REYNOLDS-No. MR. HENKEL-This one's bigger? MRS. REYNOLDS-It was larger. MR. MEADE-This is longer. MRS. REYNOLDS-Longer, yes. MR. MEADE-And it may be close to the same width. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board? MRS. HAYWARD-1 do have one. Do you use this for storage at all? Is it a shed at all or is it just decorative and for your own enjoyment? MRS. REYNOLDS-No. It's storage. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. 6 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/26/2016) MRS. REYNOLDS-And I have glass, the back and the side that's facing their property and it's gorgeous, and I had two children come and weed my property. It was after I moved in, but I have a lot of things to do to this property. I mean it was massive. MR. HENKEL-That was in your report. You went through that. MRS. REYNOLDS-And I was busy taking care of the inside of the house before I started on the outside. Well two children came to my door one day and said can we go and get our balls from your property because I was picking them up and just throwing them back over onto, the kids play with balls, and as a result this woman came out. MR. MEADE-Let's just stay on the subject of the actual location of the shed. MR. KUHL-We can't solve your neighborhood problems. MR. FREER-So any more questions from the Board? Okay we have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to make a comment about this application? Okay. If you could step back and let these people come up and say their peace for us and we'll call you back up. Hi. Welcome. Could you state your name for the record and then tell us what you think. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ANDY CHIRGWIN MR. CHIRGWIN-So I'm Andy Chirgwin. This is my wife Jeanne and we are the complainants. We're the adjacent neighbors. So we're not trying to use this forum to air petty grievances or anything like that. Basically this structure went up kind of overnight and if there was a shed there we couldn't really notice it before. It was maybe a little bit lower. This is a pretty big shed and as our neighbor said there have been balls. It's adjacent to our kids' play yard. That's the whole reason we bought our house is our kids play in the backyard. So some balls have gotten in their yard and that's not right. That shouldn't happen. The police were called about balls going in the yard and it just seemed to be that they might hit this building, this new structure which is, again, three feet from our property line, three feet from our fence. So we moved all the equipment away. We tried to be good neighbors. We moved the equipment away, but there's been continued interactions, altercations, and again this summer our neighbors were cutting stuff on our yard, and we went over to the fence, again the gist would be to improve the area around this structure, and at the time they addressed my wife and the gist we heard is that hey these trees fall on our property, you know, you're liable for it, and so we kind of felt like we had to go on the record at this point because it is really close to our property and we don't want to be held liable for something happening that wouldn't otherwise happen because of its positioning. So again we're just asking for the Code to be enforced or the alternative we could suggest would be maybe some kind of privacy fence or something as a buffer because it's pretty visible from our backyard and there have been times when she has addressed our kids from her fence in our backyard telling them not to do stuff near her shed. So we can compromise if that's an option. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Can I ask you a question? What's your address? MR. CHIRGWIN-We're at 20 Dorset Place. So we're on the cut de sac. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Anybody else want to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No. There is one letter from the applicant but she's clarified her information already. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Mike. MR. UNDERWOOD-You've got to let the applicants come back up. MR. FREER-Come on back up. Do you want to add anything to what was just said? MR. MEADE-1 mean if any damage were to happen it would happen to any shed. It doesn't matter if the shed's bigger than the old shed or not. If a tree was going to come down it would have affected either shed. 7 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/26/2013) MR. MC CABE-Could I ask you a question? It seems like they'd be satisfied if you put a fence up in the area of the shed between the two properties. Is that something you'd be able to do? MRS. REYNOLDS-It's something that I can't afford to do. I cannot afford. I had so many problems with this house after I purchased it. I think you have that letter that I presented to you. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I'm just trying to come up with some sort of, you know, it sounds like we have a problem here, you know, we could certainly ask that you have to move the shed, and that's more than likely going to be more expensive than putting up a fence. MRS. REYNOLDS-It is very expensive. MR. MC CABE-So I'm offering, you know, see if there's some solution here that would be, you know, okay for both parties. MR. MEADE-1 mean even if you put up a fence, a white vinyl fence is not as high as a shed. MR. MC CABE-No, no, but at least it gives some privacy. I mean, you know. MRS. REYNOLDS-If you take a look at the photographs that I handed you, you will see. MR. MC CABE-I've been to the site. I used to live on Dorset Place. I'm very familiar with the area. MRS. REYNOLDS-It's an all wooded area. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. REYNOLDS-And she came out and. MR. FREER-Just answer the question please. MR. MC CABE-Just answer the question. MR. FREER-Would you be willing to put up a privacy fence? MRS. REYNOLDS-1 would be willing to at some time, but I can't afford it now. MR. MEADE-So what is the difference? How far are we off here? MR. MC CABE-A thirty foot distance. MR. MEADE-So then the existing structure that was there would have been off, too. MR. MC CABE-Exactly, but we can't do anything about that. MR. FREER-So we're charged with giving the minimum variance feasible. So we could say no to your variance request or if you guys are willing to make some concessions, I think as Mike was asking, then we could approve keeping the shed there with some constraints, or we could say move it halfway back or whatever. You haven't really presented us any alternatives, but the Code is 30 feet, and you're like less than five feet. MRS. REYNOLDS-That would be in my kitchen. MR. FREER-Not quite. Sixty-one feet is what I saw. MRS. REYNOLDS-1 would have to move it into my kitchen. MR. HENKEL-You've got 61 feet there like he said, 61 feet from the back of the property line, 61.2 according to the survey map. So that would not put it in your kitchen. MRS. REYNOLDS-Or on the deck. What should I do? MR. FREER-So I'm going to poll the Board on whether, what their views are on the application as presented, okay, and I'm going to start with Mike. 8 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/26/2016) MR. MC CABE-So my feeling is that three and a half feet from the edge of the property Is pretty close. Fifteen feet I wouldn't have a problem at all, but three and a half feet I certainly have a problem. If you would be willing to put a fence along the, certainly along the edge of the gazebo, plus a little bit, I think I would be more likely to approve this. I'd hate to destroy a structure that already exists and has existed for a while, but, you know, a simple problem is that it was not placed correctly from the beginning. I don't know whose fault that is, but that's where we're at right now. So that's what I would need in order to favor this variance. MR. FREER-Okay. So as presented you're a no at this time? MR. MC CABE-Right. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes unfortunately I think we've wandered into a neighborhood dispute that has some legs to it. There is, your request far exceeds what we normally would grant under any circumstances. If you had come to us fresh and asked for this kind of relief we would say no most definitely. So I think we need to think about compromising or we're going to say no across the board and then you're going to be left with having to fix the problem in some way, and the cheaper alternative seems to be a privacy fence, to do that rather than move the structure or lower it or change the size of it, but as it stands right now I can't in good conscience say yes to this. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes I think what we're looking at here is an intergenerational gap here. I think everybody has to remember that everybody's young once, everybody grows old once, and so it's a matter of reflection about where you're at, you know, at both times, and I think in this instance here I don't think your neighbors who hit a ball over the fence occasionally, a foul ball or something, is an aggravation. I think that's part of living with humanity and living in a neighborhood, and I think that there's no sacrosanct rule that says things can't fly over the fence whether it's a leaf or a tree falls in the woods or something like that. I think everybody understands the risks that you take in living life each day that we pass through it, but at the same time you placed this building close to the fence there. I don't see that there's been any attempt of damaging this building where it's at. I think the building could remain where it's at, but I think there has to be an understanding between you and your neighbors that you get along and you both give and take a little bit and understand each other's needs and requests. Life is never going to be perfect. You don't get exactly what you want, but you might get most of what you want and I think by being more neighborly you could make this whole situation go away. I think that placing sheds along the margins of the property does in many cases make more sense. Even though you've placed this one here, it's basically replacing an old shed that was there previously. I don't see that anything has really changed in the neighborhood other than there's brand new fence up and somebody's offended one way or the other. So I think that there's time for you to work this out with your neighbor. I would be all for leaving it where it is. MR. FREER-Okay. So you support the application as proposed? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-A little history on my second house. I moved in. My son was seven. My daughter was eleven. They played baseball on the front lawn. The ball went over on Miss Jenny's lawn. She went ballistic. We turned around and put home plate on our side and hit it the other way. The ball never went on Miss Jenny's lawn again. You can work it out, the ball thing. I'm in agreement with Jim about the fact of being good neighbors and stewards. I think that this is a good dwelling, and I'd be in favor of it the way it's presented. I'm sorry for what you people are talking about, but I encourage you to get along. So I will be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Thanks, Ron. Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Well I'm on the fence about it. I'm sorry about that. That's the best euphemism I could think of, but on one hand I'd like to see it stay where it is. It looks great where it is. I understand, but it is in harm's way for any neighbor or any tree, but on the other hand, it was built in a noncompliant location. I'd like to see it in a more compliant location, just because of precedent, too. Because if we say this can stay here, that variance goes with the land and whoever owns that property after you will have to abide by that as well, and the 9 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/26/2018) neighbors would. So I think for that reason I'd like to see it moved to a more compliant location unless you can find it in your heart to put up a fence. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-I'm going to agree with all my Board members. This is a fairly small piece of property and kids will be kids, and that shed's been there since 2015, and up to this point there's been no damage, no broken windows, no broken siding or anything like that, and I do agree with Michelle and Jim that it looks great there, and it really doesn't bother me too much there, but I think you should probably put up a six foot fence to protect it if that's where you want to keep it. I would not want you to move it unless you, you know, if you don't put up a fence then I'm willing to say that you have to move it, otherwise you'd have to put up a six foot fence around it. So I'm not in agreement with it. MR. FREER-Okay. So that lets me off the hook in that there's four noes on the Board right now. For me this is too much variance as presented, especially as I said before, you know, there's obviously neighbor issues that the zoning is there to protect, and so I think I agree that either agree to put up a fence which we can give you a, you know, a constraint to do that, or you have to move it back, and I would say I would be happy with 15 feet, too. So I think you have a choice of either getting it denied, which would cause you to do something, or to compromise, and for me I think I could live with 15 feet away from your property line, even though that's, you know, 50% closer than it's supposed to be per the zone, and nobody, you know, you live in a developed neighborhood and so the fact that there's zoning laws shouldn't be a surprise. So I would say that I don't support it as written. So you can table this and go back and think about which of the alternatives you want to implement that have a lesser variance, or you can agree now to put up a six foot privacy fence at some dimension and then we can re-poll the Board. MRS. MOORE-Probably about ten feet based on what we're. MR. FREER-Don't they come in six foot sections? MRS. MOORE-So 12 feet, yes. MR. MEADE-Do you want to do that? MRS. REYNOLDS-Yes. MR. MEADE-All right. MR. HENKEL-Wooden fence comes in eight foot sections. The vinyl come in six. MRS. MOORE-So no less than 16 feet. MR. HENKEL-Shouldn't it cover the whole thing, though, it's 24 feet long? MRS. MOORE-But it's at an angle. It's up to you. MR. HENKEL-Right, so I guarantee it's going to cover more than 16 feet probably. MRS. MOORE-So are you covering this corner? MR. HENKEL-Because you're away. MR. FREER-The side isn't an issue, right? It's the back. MRS. MOORE-It's just the back. Right. So, I mean, you have that in front of you. Do you want a scale to take a look at it? I mean I'm just suggesting. MR. FREER-So the question is how much fence should we put into? MR. MC CABE-Let's ask the neighbors. What would you guys like to see? MR. CHIRGWIN-Probably three panels. MR. MC CABE-Three panels. Okay. So 18 feet. MR. HENKEL-It would be 18 feet of vinyl. 10 (Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) MR. FREER-I'd like to give a dimensional foot thing, not a panel thing. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to say 18 feet. MR. FREER-A minimum of 18 feet? Okay. MR. HENKEL-What about the people? Do they know roughly what it is, the ones that are having the conflict? MR. MC CABE-Yes, they just said 18 feet. MR. FREER-Well, does everyone understand what we're doing first of all? Any questions about what we're proposing? MR. URRICO-Well I don' think we've heard back from them yet. MR. MC CABE-Yes, they said yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Barbara Reynolds. Applicant proposes to maintain existing 12 ft. by 24 ft. gazebo in its current location in the rear yard. Existing home is 2,168 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR The existing gazebo is 3.5 ft. from the rear 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, September 26, 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 this dwelling has existed in the area for at least three years. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance could be called substantial. However again it has been mitigated by the fact that it has existed for a while. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) A six-foot high privacy fence shall be installed for a length of at least 18 feet between the structure and the neighboring property to the rear along the fence line. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. ,r ,r (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE Z- AV-56-2018 BARBARA REYNOLDS, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this 26th day of October 2018 by the following vote: MR. FREER-So you said should, you meant shall, I think, and do we want to put a timeframe on it? MR. MC CABE-It's a year. MRS. MOORE-It's a year. MR. FREER-Okay. They have a year to put the fence up? MRS. MOORE-Yes. So just to clarify, it's along the fence line that the. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. FREER-And it's a minimum of 18 feet. MR. MC CABE-Right. I said at least 18 feet. I think. MRS. MOORE-Yes. AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. MEADE-Thanks. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks for coming. Okay. Onto Mary Cooper, AV 57-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-57-2018 SEQRA TYPE II MARY COOPER OWNER(S) MARY COOPER ZONING MDR LOCATION 4 GREENWAY NORTH APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 418 SQ. FT. DECK ADDITION WITH A 6 FT. BY 8 FT. COVERED AREA. THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,089 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT). RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MDR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AST 355-2018 DECK WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2018 LOT SIZE 0.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-83 SECTION 179-3-040 MARY COOPER, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-57-2018, Mary Cooper, Meeting Date: September 26, 2018 "Project Location: 4 Greenway North Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 418 sq. ft. deck addition with a 6 ft. by 8 ft. covered area. The existing home is 1,089 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zone -deck. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks The applicant proposes a 418 sq. ft. deck addition with a 48 sq. ft. covered portion of the deck that is to be 8.4 ft. from the side property line where it required to be 25 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: 12 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/26/2018) 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 due to the location of the existing home on the lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief is for 16.60 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a 418 sq. ft. open deck area with a 48 sq. ft. covered area deck. The plans show the location of the deck and the existing home. The applicant has indicated the deck cannot be adjusted to the other side due to the location of the septic system." MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself and then make any additions that you'd like to what was just read in. MS. COOPER-I'm Mary Cooper. I'm at 4 Greenway North here in Queensbury. I bought my house two years ago for myself and my little girl, and then tried to improve it. Currently the backyard we have nowhere to sit, nowhere to cook out. It's all uneven. There is a small covered porch. It's not big enough to get even a little tiny round table with two chairs out there, let alone a grill. Also my garage comes, the back garage door comes up from that small porch as well. So I'm just asking for relief for the setback on the right side to build my deck. My neighbor on the right side as well she has a similar deck that's about 10 feet from our fence line. MR. FREER-So the map that we have has a garage, which neighbor are you talking about? MS. COOPER-Is it the left side? Did I miss something? I'm thinking the right as I'm looking towards my house. Yes, I want to build the deck right along the back side of the garage which the garage is only as well like eight feet, eight and a half feet from the fence line, too. I want the deck to come off of the garage. I wanted it to go the other way, but then when I looked into where my septic tank was located, I can't take the deck the other way because it's located only like three feet from the little covered porch. MR. FREER-Okay. So what were you saying about the neighbor's deck? That was confusing to me. MS. COOPER-The side where I have the problem where the setbacks are at I have a neighbor that has a similar deck and size that only goes back 10 feet from our existing fence line. So I'm just proposing that I can do what she had done. She built a deck that's only like 10 feet from our fence line. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions from the Board for the applicant? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board and start with Roy. MR. URRICO-I think these houses were built at a time when the side setbacks were a lot less than what they are now, at least that's my recollection. I may be wrong on that, but to me this 13 (Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) doesn't seem like an egregious request. I think it's a pretty simple request and I don't think it's going to create any problems. MR. FREER-So you support it. MR. URRICO-1 support it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm in agreement with Roy. It's not going to increase the setback, you know, allowance. It already is 8.3 feet now. So it's not going to change that at all. I think that on these small lots when Greenway North was created they weren't considering these .17 acres lots as being out of the ordinary. Now we consider them to be tiny, no longer permitted, but I think it makes sense for you to have a deck on the back of your house and as your neighbor has one. We've offered similar decks on other houses in the area and I don't have a problem with this one either. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Ron? MR. KUHL-I agree with everything that's been said. I have no issue with it as presented. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement as well for the same reason. MR. FREER-And John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. These lots are all small. Whatever you build here is going to have a setback problem. So I'd be in agreement with it also. MR. FREER-Michael? MR. MC CABE-1 think the applicant has done a nice job improving the property and I'd like to see her continue to do so. I'd approve the application. MR. FREER-Okay. I too support this application. I think it meets the criteria we're charged with evaluating, and so with that I'll close the public hearing, and ask for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mary Cooper. Applicant proposes to construct a 418 sq. ft. deck addition with a 6 ft. by 8 ft. covered area. The existing home is 1,089 sq. ft. (footprint). Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the MDR zone -deck. 179-3-040 Establishment of Districts—dimensional requirement MDR zone 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks The applicant proposes a 418 sq. ft. deck addition with a 48 sq. ft. covered portion of the deck that is to be 8.4 ft. from the side property line where it required to be 25 ft. SEQR Type 11 — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 26, 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. There were no public comments. We recognize the fact that almost all the properties in Greenway North, none of them have requested similar 14 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 00/26/2018) requests. They'd have to ask for the same variance so it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. 2. Feasible alternatives are none based on the small size of these lots and the reasonable size of the deck that's being proposed. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because almost all these properties are on small lots that would require similar relief for proposed projects. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created but it's really created by the size of the small lots from the original subdivision done many years ago. 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; We basically feel that this is going to help her enjoy her property more. 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-57-2018 MARY COOPER, Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Good luck. MS. COOPER-Thank you all so much. You made my day. MR. FREER-The next application is Sign Variance 8-2018, Flintlock Corporation doing business as Adirondack Gun Range. SIGN VARIANCE SV-8-2018 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED FLINTLOCK CORP. D/B/A ADIRONDACK GUN RANGE AGENT(S) EC STUMPF, INFAMOUS GRAPHICS OWNER(S) FLINTLOCK CORP. ZONING CI LOCATION 1540 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES THE INSTALLATION OF 2 WALL SIGNS ON THE BUILDING WHERE ONLY ONE IS ALLOWED FOR THE BUSINESS ADIRONDACK GUN RANGE. SIGN NO. 1 IS TO E 54.30 SQ. FT. AND SIGN NO. 2 IS TO BE 109.79 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE WALL SIGNS AND MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE AT A SETBACK OF 100 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE. CROSS REF SIGN 259-2018; SIGN 260-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2018 LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-14 SECTION CHAPTER 140 EC STUMPF, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-8-2018, Flintlock Corp d/b/a Adirondack Gun Range, Meeting Date: September 26, 2018 "Project Location: 1540 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes the installation of 2 wall signs on the building where only one is allowed for the business Adirondack Gun Range. Sign No. 1 is to be 54.30 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 109.79 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line. 15 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line Cl zoning district. Section 140 signage —Commercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes to place 2 wall signs on an existing building Sign No. 1 is to be 54.30 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 109.79 sq. ft. The property is only permitted one wall sign at 30 sq. ft. up to 100 sq. ft. with a building setback of 100 ft. or max of 200 sq. ft. for a sign with a building setback greater than 100 ft. at 10 sq. ft. increments. 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. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the signs are larger than allowed. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the signage and number of signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The signs exceed the number allowed and the size allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts 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: The applicant proposes two signs with Sign No. 1 to be 54.30 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 to be 109.79 sq. ft. Both of the signs are to have red lettering and to be internally lit. Sign No 1. is to be about 78 ft. from the property line and Sign No. 2 is to be about 74.8 ft. from the property line. The plans show the location of the signs to be installed." MR. FREER-Okay. Hello. Welcome. Identify yourself for the record and add anything you'd like to the read in application. MR. STUMPF-Good evening, my name is EC Stumpf. I'm here from Infamous Graphics Incorporated, representing Flintlock Corporation. One of the situations with this property is it's actually, there's actually three separate entities at the property. So Flintlock Corporation owns the property and then Adirondack Gun Range is a separate entity. So it's a whole separate business, and then Olsen's Gun Center is a retail center in the property. So what we're proposing is a sign to identify, which is Guns and Ammo, the retail center, and then the gun range sign for the actual range itself. Current situation at the building is it does sit down. I'm sure everybody's familiar with the old Flex Appeal gym. So, you know, it sits down off the road. He is in a little bit of a hole, and he does have a definite issue with northbound traffic with the billboards. So he doesn't have visibility coming from, you know, northbound. So he has had issues with people having to come back, turn around and come back in to find him. So we definitely want to have some identification on the property for, you know, both entities, because it is two separate businesses in the property. The property is, the renovations have been beautiful and he's done an excellent job I think, you know, beautifying it and improving the area. So he's just looking to get some more identification the property for what is there because a lot of people don't even know that there's a range there. So that's what we're asking for. As far as any type of impact on the neighborhood, it's internal illumination, LED illumination. It's all low level, low voltage. We would be willing to work with the Board as far as timing of when the signs are on and things of that nature, but currently as it sits he has an old sign in the front of the building that's very outdated and just, you know, it doesn't lend it to what's there. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? 16 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/26/2013) MR. MC CABE-So will the freestanding sign stay there or disappear? MR. STUMPF-It's there currently. I haven't discussed that with the owner at all. That's not something that he has discussed with me. My primary job was the two wall signs. So I can't really speak on that. MR. HENKEL-It does catch your eye. You see that before you see anything else. MR. FREER-Any other questions? MR. KUHL-These are going to be back lit signs? Is that the way it is? MR. STUMPF-Yes, sir. MR. KUHL-Okay. And I assume that the lighting on it will have timers set to go on and off? Or is it going to be manual? MR. STUMPF-It can be either manual, it can be a photocell or it can be on a timer. So it would either be up to, if the Board had a certain specific time that they wanted it on off we could do that. Photo cell or manual if the customer doesn't want to put it on a timer. MR. URRICO-See I see that freestanding sign as a solution to the problem because I think you can better utilize that sign, that freestanding sign, make it a monument sign or something that will display both properties on there, both businesses on there. Then you eliminate the need for the second wall sign. MR. STUMPF-Well, I think that that being said you know the actual, you know being in this business for quite a while, when you're driving on the road, you're going 30, 45, 50 miles an hour, to look up at this sign. I'm just saying, people don't know exactly what's in, he just wants to identify the two businesses in there. I mean, you know, the pylon sign is dated and it's not really something that I was asked to, even to. MR. FREER-Yes, but see we're required to look at things like feasible alternatives. MR. STUMPF-I understand completely. MR. HENKEL-And like what Roy's saying, you're looking straight ahead. When you're driving you're up the hill you're going to see that. Coming down the hill you're going to see that. That's what you're going to see first. MR. FREER-Okay. Anymore questions from the Board? We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, no comments at all. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I'm going to poll the Board and start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we've always dealt with this situation here with previous businesses that have existed here because it is difficult to view the building because you're up higher on Route 9 as you're heading north and south. At the same time we're only supposed to have one wall sign on this building, but if we go down the street on the miracle mile I think almost every one of those businesses has a side building sign over the entrance to their store, plus the also have one on the end of the building, you know, in those multi tenanted structures. So my big issue here I think is the size of the signs, and I understand what you're trying to do with your exposure, but I think if you could make those signs half again as small I think you're still going to accomplish that. I would like to see them only on during the hours of operation like not lit up like neon 24/7. 1 think that's a reasonable request. MR. STUMPF-I understand. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 would go for both the signs I think if you shrunk them down a little bit, and as far as shrinking the signs down in size, the current height of those letters I think is about three feet are they? ,17 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 00/26/2013) MR. STUMPF-The current request is 34 inches. We did do a couple of alternative sizes. They should be in your packet. A 20 inch letter for Guns and Ammo. That was something that was a proposal, and then for the gun range currently is 51 inches and we have a couple of different proposals. The next one would be 45 inches or 40 inches after that. So there are a couple of different proposals for that. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think if you went with the smallest ones I would go with it. I think it's still going to accomplish what you want there because I think there will be specific people looking to use the facility. It's a kind of a captive audience. It's not the public at large more so. I think it's more appealing to a specific group of people. MR. STUMPF-Absolutely. It is. Like right now it's just a blank building. So it's a little tricky. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I would grant permission for the smallest size as they've proposed as alternatives and I think that's reasonable. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with the size that Jim has recommended. I also think that you should have a timer on there so it goes off automatically at the end of business. I have no issue. I mean, what would be, what would prevent you from shrinking it down and putting them both over the front doors? MR. STUMPF-If you did that it would be so small that it would be almost not legible. It would be very small. I mean it's almost the scale of the picture that's there. That picture there is almost the scale. So if we shrunk them down it would be pretty minuscule, and he put that addition on to the right. That was what the whole premise behind the gun range there was. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Ron. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm concerned that the roadside sign was not part of the plan. When I go up and down the street I see that immediately and I think it's a missed opportunity not to include that in the plan. I'm not in the sign business. MR. STUMPF-Well there's two owners, different partners there. So they were butting heads. So that's why I was not involved in that part of it. So I was involved with the wall signage for that particular. MRS. HAYWARD-That's unfortunate. I just think this is part of the big picture and I'd hate to have someone have to come back to a Zoning Board meeting and ask for another sign. MR. STUMPF-Yes. Like I said, I was hired for these two. So I discussed it a little bit. MR. FREER-You make a good point. John? MR. HENKEL-That was going to be my question. Do we know the size of that freestanding sign? I know that's not part of this, but what is that? Can that be increased eventually down the road, too? MRS. MOORE-1 haven't been informed of that. No. MR. HENKEL-I'm just saying is that at the maximum? MRS. MOORE-It can't be greater than 45 square feet. MR. HENKEL-I'm trying to think of what is, I mean I saw the sign. It's pretty small. That would be an alternative to expand that to the Code size and then definitely make the signs on the wall smaller. I mean I'd be even willing to go smaller than what Jim's saying if they could increase that, because that's what you're going to see first. There's no reason for the signs. MR. STUMPF-I would have to talk to the customer and, you know, with regard to budgetary, too. I mean he's putting a ton of money into this place. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Well, yes, he's done a nice job. So I'm kind of on the fence on it right now. MR. FREER-Mike? 18 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 09/26/2013) MR. MC CABE-1 never, you know, we'd heard the original application for the gun range, and I didn't realize it was two separate businesses until I heard it advertised on the radio, and so I understand the need for two signs because the gun range is the gun range and guns and ammo are guns and ammo. So I can understand why they'd want two separate signs and I'd certainly support that and I'd go along with Jim if you'd shrink it down a little bit I'd support it more vigorously. So I would approve this application with slightly smaller signs. My eyes are bad so I can't read the other sign. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes this is a slippery slope that we went down many times with the applicant, and I think we also have to consider that in this part of the Town now there are some proposals about developing that corner of Route 9 and 149 and if that happens, then we're going to look at this property as setting the example for what we're going to do there as well when it comes to signs. So I'm going to live up to my reputation as the sign gestapo and say no to either the number of signs or the size of them, because I think we have to maintain the line on what we're allowing in the community. There are many communities where you don't even get to argue about this. They hold applicants' feet to the fire when it comes to signs and they do it very well and they seem to have businesses that thrive there. So I think we should do that. MR. FREER-Okay. So my position is that two signs would be okay, but unless you moved them 100 feet back, which I don't think you can, which that would give you more sign size, the fact that they're closer to the road than is allowed, I would only support this application if the total sign conformed with the zone. So I think that brings me back to Michelle and John in terms of your opinions. MR. HENKEL-I agree that only if I knew what the freestanding sign size was, maybe, but I think that's where you need to have the signage there. I'd agree with you. It should be at Code. MR. FREER-Your thoughts? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree. MR. FREER-Okay. So essentially I think you have support for two signs, but not the size. MR. STUMPF-Okay. MR. FREER-So do you want to table it and come back with a different story and bring into the fray? You're sort of representing only part of the thing. I know you want to sell two signs to them. MR. STUMPF-No, listen, I do this every day. I've been doing it for 15 years. It is what it is. If I do renderings and propose it to him, show him what you guys are suggesting, because if I decide now, so if I did that, I would come back obviously with the proposals, with the renderings to show you folks, would that be something that I would have to be put on next month's meeting for is that something I could do in the interim, or how does that work? MRS. MOORE-So right now our agenda for October has already been decided. MR. STUMPF-Okay. MRS. MOORE-So it would be a November agenda. MR. STUMPF-Unless I decided tonight the size. MR. HENKEL-So what is Code, 100 square feet, right? MR. FREER-Right. MR. HENKEL-So the two signs would have to total 100 square feet. MRS. MOORE-No. So a wall sign is limited to one at 30 square feet. MR. MC CABE-Why does it say 30 to 100 square feet? MRS. MOORE-Because you have to be a certain distance. MR. MC CABE-1 see, so you have to be 200 feet back to get the 100. 19 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So the two signs would have to total 30? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. STUMPF-That I wouldn't even be able to come close to. I mean if, like I said there's two separate businesses in there and it has been granted two signs for other businesses, wall signs. So if you're proposing that I do, what, 32 square feet total for two signs? MRS. MOORE-Thirty. MR. STUMPF-Thirty square feet total for two signs? MRS. MOORE-Right. That's what you're limited to. MR. STUMPF-So that's why I'm asking for a variance. That wouldn't even be worth it. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-I'm willing to give a little bit more than that. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 think if we're going to be practical here, you're going to have to give them two wall signs at maximum size allowed. MR. FREER-Thirty each. MR. HENKEL-I'd go along with that. MR. FREER-Thirty each, or you can make one 28 and one 32. MR. STUMPF-Right. Yes, absolutely. So would I be able to call my client and re-visit this? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. STUMPF-Because I couldn't get him to come. I knew this was going to happen. I told him that, but he didn't want to come. MR. UNDERWOOD-We'll just go on to the next one. MRS. MOORE-So just to clarify, you're tabling it within the meeting so that he can go talk to his client and come back in to this meeting. MR. FREER-Correct? MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. STUMPF-Thank you, folks. MR. FREER-Okay. Next on the agenda is Linda Clark, Area Variance 59-2018. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-59-2018 SEQRA TYPE II LINDA CLARK OWNER(S) LINDA CLARK ZONING WR LOCATION 3 BENMOST BUR LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF TWO PORCH ADDITIONS, EACH 240 SQ. FT. ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND SECOND FLOOR TO AN EXISTING HOME; 1,344 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH EXISTING FLOOR AREA OF 3,792 SQ. FT. AND PROPOSED 4,032 SQ. FT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM PERMEABILITY, FLOOR AREA RATIO, AND MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WR ZONING DISTRICT. CROSS REF AV 61-1989 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2018 LOT SIZE 0.28 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-53 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-13-010 LINDA CLARK, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-59-2018, Linda Clark, Meeting Date: September 26, 2018 "Project Location: 3 Benmost Bur Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant 20 (Queen lbuiry IBA Meetling 09/26/2018) proposes construction of two porch additions, each 240 sq. ft. on the first floor and second floor to an existing home; 1,344 sq. ft. footprint with existing floor area of 3,792 sq. ft. and proposed 4,032 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum permeability, floor area ratio, and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum permeability, floor area ratio, and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional requirements —dimensional requirements Waterfront Residential zone. 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks The applicant proposes a 240 sq. ft. porch addition at the first floor and the second floor (note causing the first floor porch to be a covered porch, the second floor porch is open). The porch is to be 7.8 ft. to the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The project also requires relief from permeability where 64% is proposed a 75% is required (existing 66%), Floor area where 32.3 % is proposed and 22% is the maximum allowed (existing 30.4%). Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the existing house location, and the existing right-of-way on the property. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for the north property line 12.2 ft., permeability is 11% and floor area is 10.3% 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. Staff comments: The applicant has provided plans that show the location of the new porch areas. The applicant has explained the home when under construction was to have the porch addition and due to a setback issue in 1989 the porch was not constructed." MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome, please state your name for the record and add anything you'd like to the application that was read in. MS. CLARK-Hello. My name's Linda Clark. I'm the homeowner of course. I wanted to clarify something in terms of the reason why the porch was not put on. It wasn't put on because there was, that I wasn't allowed to put it on. The issue was resolved, but because I had to engage in a legal suit with my neighbor over it, who has since passed away, I ran out of money. That's why I couldn't put the porch on. It had nothing to do with the fact that I was denied the ability to put the porch on. So I just ran out of money, and I'm kind of like at the other end of my life now. It was a long time ago when I had two little kids. I now have two children with five grandchildren and would love to have a place to have an outdoor sitting area which I do not have on the property, and I thought it was, since the porch was already approved at one point in time, 24 by 8 feet, to add 2 feet was pretty insignificant to request, and it would enable me to put a table on that porch big enough for my grandchildren to sit at. So that's kind of where I'm thinking. It just kind of gives me a little more ability to use the outdoors a little bit more. The second level is my 21 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/26/2016) ability to sit outside. I like enjoying the sun and reading books and that kind of thing and that's what the second level was for. The placement of the door is the master bedroom and instead of putting a roof over the porch, I put a roof over the porch with the ability to use the roof. So it kind of made sense to me. MR. FREER-Okay. Let's see if there's any questions from the Board, please. MR. HENKEL-How do you get a CO having doors that don't go anywhere? MS. CLARK-At one time I had to put steps in where the doors were. I did get a CO. I had steps going out the doors. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So there's nothing there except a railing. MS. CLARK-Yes, there's nothing there now, but the doors are locked and don't get used, but the doors were put in for the porch. MR. HENKEL-I just thought you were from Vermont. MR. FREER-Any other questions for the applicant? MR. KUHL-I guess now you have money? MS. CLARK-Well, I'm a little better off than when I first started. I'm a teacher, a retired teacher, and when you first start teaching you don't get much money and I'm at the other end. I'm retired now. MR. HENKEL-When your neighbor passed you said you were in a lawsuit with them? MS. CLARK-Well see what happened is when the house was plotted out by the surveyors, the surveyors screwed up in terms of the points on the end of the, one end of the house where the porch is, and when they told the diggers where to dig they were off by I think it was six inches. So the house sat six inches closer to the property line than what it was supposed to, and at that time Herb Tyrer owned the property next door and I had already gotten the approval on the variances and everything, but because the house sat six inches closer he thought it was, I don't know, I could never understand it. He sued me over six inches, and if you know anything about that property, the six inch area that was in dispute was a wooded area with a drop. So it wouldn't even have affected the house he wanted to build there. It was crazy. He was very angry because he wanted me to buy his property next door, that one particular area, and he was gouging me on the price of it at the time. I was very limited in terms of my income and I just I said I'm sorry I can't buy that property for what you're asking. I did offer what I thought was reasonable at the time, and since I didn't buy it and it ended up being six inches closer I guess he got a little bit, he got what he wanted a little bit. I don't know. I could never understand it. MR. FREER-Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience who wants to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there are not. MR. FREER-Okay. I'm going to poll the Board and start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Before you poll me, I just have a question for Staff. Did you look back in the original building permit to see that eight foot deck? MRS. MOORE-Yes, and I brought that file with me if you want to look at that plan. MR. KUHL-Okay. So really the relief she's asking for is less than what we're giving her. MRS. MOORE-No, it's more. She's asking for two feet more. MR. KUHL-Yes, but she's asking for two feet, but theoretically if the original plans said she got eight foot. To me it's semantics, but I really have no problem with the way this is presented. I think it's a good use of space. There is a concern over the Floor Area Ratio, but I'll agree with this as presented. I'll go along with it. I'll approve it. 22 (Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2013) MR. FREER-Thanks, Ron. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Actually when I first read it I thought it was more substantial than it was. When I went and looked at the property I think it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. So I'm in agreement. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-I wish the permeability could be a little better. It's 11%. MRS. MOORE-That's because she has to include the roadway in there. MR. HENKEL-Okay, which is deeded right of way. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So in other words she'd be all right anyway. MRS. MOORE-Potentially, but really that throws that number. MR. FREER-Thank you. That was a valuable input. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Yes she's not really on the lake. It does bother me a little bit, you know, she's 1200 square feet above the allowable but it's just an open porch. So I'd be going along with the project. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, the property's set back. It's generally not in the view of a lot of people. The permeability, there's a lot of permeability problems besides her and so what she's asking for is not extreme, and again Floor Area Ratio, when you consider where she's sitting, isn't really that big a deal for me. So I would support the project. MR. FREER-Good. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes I think it satisfies the test. I'd be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes it's not direct waterfront property. I don't think there's any issues with environmental effect on the lake. It's well set back. The overbuilding of the property is not really a question mark in my mind. So I would be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Good. Thanks, and 1, too, support it. It sort of meets the criteria of definitely more beneficial to you than detrimental to the neighborhood. So with that I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. MR. KUHL-Can I make that motion, Mr. Chairman? MR. FREER-Please. Thank you. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Linda Clark. Applicant proposes construction of two porch additions, each 240 sq. ft. on the first floor and second floor to an existing home; 1,344 sq. ft. footprint with existing floor area of 3,792 sq. ft. and proposed 4,032 sq. ft. Relief requested from minimum permeability, floor area ratio, and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum permeability, floor area ratio, and minimum setback requirements for the WR zoning district. 23 (Queen bburry II:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) Section 179-3-040 —Dimensional requirements —dimensional requirements Waterfront Residential zone. 179-4-080 Setbacks for porches canopies and decks The applicant proposes a 240 sq. ft. porch addition at the first floor and the second floor (note causing the first floor porch to be a covered porch, the second floor porch is open). The porch is to be 7.8 ft. to the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. The project also requires relief from permeability where 64 % is proposed a 75% is required (existing 66%), Floor area where 32.3 % is proposed and 22% is the maximum allowed (existing 30.4%). SEQR Type II — no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 26, 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 as this blends in with the line of the home and is a good addition. 2. Feasible alternatives would be considered really limited. 3. The requested variance might be considered to be substantial but it's really not because it blends in. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. You could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created only because it's an add on to the existing. 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-59-2018, LINDA CLARK, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 2018 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Before you go I just want to remind you that this doesn't give you carte blanch approval in that you're going to get a letter from the Town on the other steps in the process. So please comply with them. MS. CLARK-The building permit. Right? MRS. MOORE-You'll need to submit four copies of final sets of plans and they have offered to, you can take the ones that you've submitted back. MS. CLARK-Okay. 24 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetiing 00/26/2018) MR. FREER-So please make sure that you comply with the letter that you get from the Town on the other steps in the process. MS. CLARK-Absolutely. MR. FREER-Okay. You can have all these so you don't have to re-do them. So now you're dismissed. Gather your stuff. Good luck. Thanks. MS. CLARK-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We're onto Sign Variance 7-2018, Saxton Sign Corp. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-7-2018 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SAXTON SIGN CORP. AGENT(S) SAXTON SIGN CORP. OWNER(S) HUSEYIN OZDEMIR ZONING Cl LOCATION 658 UPPER GLEN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES FOUR CANOPY (WALL SIGNS) TO BE LOCATED ON THE FUEL CANOPY. PANEL 1: 178.5 SQ. FT.; PANEL 2: 70 SQ. FT.; PANEL 3 178.5 SQ. FT.; PANEL 4 70 SQ. FT. WITH WORDING AND LOGO FOR SUNOCO & NASCAR. ALSO, A WALL SIGN ON BUILDING AT 16 SQ. FT. PARCEL IS ON A CORNER LOT WHICH ALLOWS FOR TWO WALL SIGNS AND ONE FREESTANDING SIGN. FREESTANDING SIGN PERMIT ISSUED FOR CHANGE OF COPY FOR SUNOCO. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS AND SIZE. CROSS REF SV 28-2004; SV 58-2002; BP 2006-126; WARREN COUNTY PLANNING AUGUST 2018 LOT SIZE 0.50 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-32 SECTION CHAPTER 140 DARREN KATZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-7-2018, Saxton Sign Corp., Meeting Date: September 26. 2018 "Project Location: 658 Upper Glen Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes four canopy (wall signs) to be located on the fuel canopy. Panel 1: 178.5 sq. ft. ; Panel 2: 70 sq. ft. ; Panel 3: 178.5 sq. ft.; Panel 4: 70 sq. ft. with wording and logo for Sunoco & NASCAR. Also, a wall sign on building at 16 sq. ft. Parcel is on a corner lot which allows for two wall signs and one freestanding sign. Freestanding sign permit issued for change of copy for Sunoco. Relief requested from number of allowable signs and size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable signs and size in the Cl zone. Section 140 signage —Commercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes four canopy signs to be located on the fuel canopy and one wall sign on the building. Panel 1: 178.5 sq. ft. ; Panel 2: 70 sq. ft. ; Panel 3: 178.5 sq. ft.; Panel 4: 70 sq. ft. and a building sign that is permitted at 16 sq. ft. — a total of 5 wall signs where two wall signs at 30 sq. ft. tare allowed on a corner parcel. 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 variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as the signs are larger than allowed. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the signage and number of signs. 3. Whether the requested variance is substantial. The relief may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The signs exceed the number allowed and the size allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 25 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2013) 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes four canopy (wall signs) to be located on the fuel canopy and a permitted building wall sign at 16 sq. ft. The plans show the canopy signage with the Sunoco lettering, symbol and color scheme. The applicant has been working with Staff in regards to building wall signage and has removed an existing 32 sq. ft. signage (non-compliant) and at this time does not propose additional building wall signs — and is aware that a permit exists to place a 16 sq. ft. wall sign on the building." MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome and please add anything you'd like to what was just read in. Identify yourself, please. MR. KATZ-I'm Darren Katz with Saxton Signs. Basically this is just a straight case of corporate identity. The new owner of the gas station, from what I understand, has conformed with all issues that occurred prior with the other owner and being in conformity with the sign codes. As far as signage it's just vinyl applied to an existing canopy that's up there. I have noticed through Google and driving around Town prior to this pretty much every single gas station in this Town has some sort of corporate identity on their canopies. Actually I only noticed one that didn't which is the Stewart's down there, but there was another Sunoco station on the corner of Bay and Quaker that has two canopies, both with full wraps on there and we're proposing basically the exact same thing they have, just on the single canopy. Within those canopies graphics, the corporate identity logo Sunoco. MR. FREER-Okay. Are there any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-Yes. You didn't look at enough Sunocos. If you look at all the newer ones, you'll find that basically the text is removed. The logo, you know, your colors, but it won't say Sunoco, and I guess that's what we've approved for the new Sunoco's on 149 and Ridge and for the Sunoco that's down the road from the gun range that we talked about there. MR. KATZ-1 live in the Berkshires. I came through a little early, drove around, and the beauties of Google, trying to drive around. MR. HENKEL-Yes, so what you're seeing are the old ones. MR. KATZ-Okay. MR. HENKEL-And so the newer ones, that's been our policy and, you know, I think it's worked out pretty well. Your colors essentially are a sign, as far as we're concerned, and so the text kind of overdoes things. So I guess, you know, I'm wondering whether you would be. MR. KATZ-1 think the customer would ask if we could at least have one side with the main road visible with the term Sunoco and their NASCAR logo, If not two, but I understand the give and take. MR. FREER-Okay. Anymore questions from the Board? Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-So there is, the permit exists for a 16 foot wall sign. MR. KATZ-Yes from what I understand. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay and is that going to say Sunoco on it? MR. KATZ-I'm not aware. MRS. MOORE-No, I'm not aware, either. So there's no information about that permitted sign. MR. KATZ-Other than the large sign has been removed, but I don't know about that other. MRS. MOORE-The freestanding sign does have the word Sunoco. MR. KUHL-Are we then only going to discuss the canopy and not the building wall sign? MRS. MOORE-He's permitted a 16 square foot and the text is not. 26 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2016) MR. KUHL-The text is not important. MRS. MOORE-Right. He can have what he wishes. MR. KUHL-So what you're alluding to is that if we would only approve Sunoco on one side of the sign and the colors on the other three that would work for you? You really don't need them on the back part that goes towards the neighbors. You really only need three sides. MR. KATZ-Yes there was the one other side that would have visibility from the other direction coming up, I mean if it was within the standards and not stretching anything too much, two would be, I mean four would be ideal but like I said I understand give and take, but if they could have, I'm just trying to find that. MR. KUHL-My question to you is two versus none, you'd take two. MR. KATZ-Two versus none? MR. KUHL-Yes. Two versus one. MR. KATZ-If I had a choice between taking two Sunocos on the canopy. MR. KUHL-Not two Sunocos. One Sunoco and one color. MR. FREER-The colors are not. MR. UNDERWOOD-The rainbow we're not really considering it to be a logo. MR. KUHL-Well Sign Three is without Sunoco. Right? MRS. MOORE-Right. And that's the backside. It runs the backside. MR. UNDERWOOD-What he's going to have is one Sunoco on the panel of his choice on any of the four sides on the one single canopy and then the other panels can have rainbows on them and the back side towards the store gets a blue one. MR. FREER-Well what about NASCAR? MR. UNDERWOOD-No NASCAR. We didn't allow that on the other ones. I don't think there's NASCAR on the one up on 149. MR. MC CABE-Nor on Route 9. MR. FREER-Was NASCAR requested? MR. MC CABE-I think. Yes, we just said no text. MR. KATZ-NASCAR is part of their corporate identity at this point. MR. MC CABE-It's been around. MR. FREER-I'm sorry. The one that we're going to allow, we're going to allow one it sounds like, but it can say NASCAR and Sunoco? Or no. MR. UNDERWOOD-No NASCAR on it. MR. HENKEL-Just Sunoco. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's considered a separate sign. MR. FREER-Staff, do you agree that's a separate sign? MRS. MOORE-If we look at Panel One that I have the hand on, it's all one sign. I mean if you're asking him to remove that then the sign is the rainbow and the Sunoco text. MR. FREER-And so that gets to the question. MR. UNDERWOOD-You can have the rainbow. You can't have the NASCAR. We didn't allow the NASCAR on the other ones. 27 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2013) MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-Are we specifying what he's going to be able to say on it? I mean if they want to put NASCAR and not Sunoco they can do that. Right? MR. FREER-Well that was kind of what I was asking, you know, whether it was two separate signs or it was all? MR. URRICO-We're going to allow them one lettered sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-One lettered sign. MR. FREER-One lettered sign, and with some size. You're not asking for a waiver for the size? MRS. MOORE-Yes, absolutely. Wall signs are 30 square feet. So it's definitely size and the number of signs. MR. HENKEL-So he's going to keep one wall, the wall sign. He's allowed two wall signs. MRS. MOORE-Correct, because he's on a corner. MR. HENKEL-So he's only going to have one wall sign. Right? MRS. MOORE-No, because he currently has a permit for, and this is why we posted it as five wall signs. MR. MC CABE-The canopy signs are called wall signs. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. So he's only permitted two of the signs. MR. UNDERWOOD-So he gets a wall sign on the building and he gets one on the canopy. MR. MC CABE-He gets two wall signs, and he's got a freestanding sign. MR. UNDERWOOD-Well the freestanding sign is separate. MR. HENKEL-Yes, but it's still a sign. MR. KATZ-Is there any way we could un sign one, remove the NASCAR, have the Sunoco, have just the basic blue and rainbow wraps on Sign Two, Sign Three. Sign Four because of its location to the intersection and the oncoming road, have the Sunoco and the blue on the other side? So then generally we're really just asking for one additional wall sign? That's still partly obstructed on that one side. So how are you, you're not going to see that whole. MR. UNDERWOOD-Hypothetically he's on a corner lot. It's a pretty small canopy. It's not like the giant sized ones we just did on 149. MR. KATZ-Right. MR. FREER-Okay. So we've asked the questions. We have a public hearing. Does anybody in the audience want to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No. MR. FREER-Okay. Now I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm back to Ron. MR. KUHL-I'd like clarification of what you're polling me for. MR. UNDERWOOD-If you look at your plots you've got Sign One that's going to have Sunoco without the NASCAR, still with the rainbow. MR. KU H L-Okay. 28 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 00/26/2018) MR. FREER-What size, though? MR. UNDERWOOD-Well it's got to fit the size of that canopy. It's a small canopy on that gas station. MR. HENKEL-It's 178 square feet. MR. KATZ-It's 42.25 inches high. I would guesstimate the lettering on that currently in the images shown is probably about 40 to 38 inches, and you also do have some retaining around the, retaining around that face as well. MRS. MOORE-So that whole panel is a sign. I mean so it's 42 by 51. MR. KUHL-That's going to be here, right? Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-He's got to have a blue panel with Sunoco on that one, too. MR. KUHL-I'm not in favor of that. I'll give him Sign One on the long one, a wall sign on the building. That's all I'm in favor of. MR. FREER-Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I'm in agreement with Ron. I believe you've got other opportunities for signage on the wall of the building plus the freestanding sign. MR. FREER-Thank you, Michelle. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, with being so close to the road, I agree with Ron. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I hate to agree with Ron, but I've got to agree with Ron. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-I have no problem agreeing with Ron. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll agree with Ron. MR. FREER-So we all think that this dog ain't gonna hunt. So unless you want to accept what he just said. MR. KATZ-So you're saying Sign One we're good with, and we can do colors around the rest of the side. We already are permitted the 16 square foot. They already have nothing to do with that. That's already permitted and it's a moot question at this point. So Sign One with NASCAR, with Sunoco as it appears. MR. FREER-I thought we said without NASCAR. MR. FREER-We said without NASCAR. MR. KATZ-I'm just making sure. We said a couple of things. What do you guys have against NASCAR? MR. KUHL-I go to 16 races a year. So don't worry about it. They don't need this. MR. KATZ-All right. So Sign One, Sunoco, no NASCAR. Sign Two all blue. Sign Three no NASCAR, rainbow wrap. Sign Four all blue. MR. KUHL-Rainbow wrap on Three? MR. FREER-No letters, though. Right? MR. KATZ-No lettering. They're removing that NASCAR logo. Because there's only 16 races. 29 (Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 00/26/2018) MR. FREER-Does that make sense, Laura? Do you understand? MRS. MOORE-1 do. I'm not sure of the relevancy of having that rainbow scheme on the back, but the Board can make that. It faces a property to the back. There is a property behind it. Up to the Board. 1, as Staff, don't see. I'm assuming a blue would be sufficient. MR. FREER-So, did you get that, sir? The Number Three sign really, it has no need to have rainbow on it. MR. KATZ-That's your choice. For us it doesn't matter whether it's blue vinyl or it's printed vinyl. MR. HENKEL-It would make it cheaper for you. MR. FREER-Okay. So do we think we know? Are there any more questions about what the current proposal encompasses? MRS. MOORE-So the applicant reduced it to two wall signs. MR. FREER-Right. MRS. MOORE-So compliance. So the only thing that you're dealing with now is the oversized sign. So he has reduced the variance request. MR. FREER-Right, and that's our job is to try to get the minimum variance that he can live with, and to your point, Jim, these aren't huge canopies. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, it's smaller station. MR. FREER-So to fill that canopy with that sign as proposed is okay by me. Does the rest of the Board agree? MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. MC CABE-We've got to make a SEQR motion. MR. FREER-Okay. Go ahead. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-7-2018 SAXTON SIGN CORP. FOR SUNOCO BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MRS. MOORE-Before you move on to the motion, did you close your public hearing? MR. FREER-Yes. We'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-Okay. So now I think we're ready for a motion for the constrained application variance that we've discussed. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Saxton Sign Corp. for Sunoco for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes four canopy (wall signs) to be located on the fuel canopy. Panel 1: 178.5 sq. ft. ; Panel 2: 70 sq. ft. ; Panel 3: 178.5 sq. ft.; Panel 4: 70 sq. ft. with wording and logo for Sunoco & NASCAR. Also, a wall sign on building at 16 sq. ft. Parcel is on 30 (Queen bburry II:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) a corner lot which allows for two wall signs and one freestanding sign. Freestanding sign permit issued for change of copy for Sunoco. Relief requested from number of allowable signs and size. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable signs and size in the Cl zone. Section 140 signage —Commercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes four canopy signs to be located on the fuel canopy and one wall sign on the building. Panel 1: 178.5 sq. ft. ; Panel 2: 70 sq. ft. ; Panel 3: 178.5 sq. ft.; Panel 4: 70 sq. ft. and a building sign that is permitted at 16 sq. ft. — a total of 5 wall signs where two wall signs at 30 sq. ft. are allowed on a corner parcel. SEQR Type: Unlisted [ Resolution /Action Required for SEAR] Motion regarding Sign Variance Z-SV-7-2018 Saxton Sign Corp. for Sunoco based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 26th day of September 2018 , by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, September 26, 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 will not be an undesirable change produced in the character of the neighborhood nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance because signage has existed in this area for a long time with the previous two gas stations. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an sign variance? Not that we can determine. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We do not feel that it's substantial with the changes that have been made. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? (no comment made) 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE Z- SV-7-2018 SAXTON SIGN CORP. FOR SUNOCO, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. Sign One should be as shown, less the NASCAR lettering. B. Sign Two should be as shown less the text. C. Sign Three should be as shown less the rainbow and NASCAR logo. D. Sign Four should be as shown less the text. 31 (Queen bburry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2013) 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; E. 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; F. 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' G. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; H. 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 261" day of September 2018, by the following vote: MR. FREER-So I think the bottom line is we're just giving them a size variance because he gets two wall signs. He's got a permit for one and this is the second one. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. KUHL-Did you put in that recommendation a 16 square foot wall sign on the building? MR. UNDERWOOD-It already is. MR. FREER-They already have that. MR. UNDERWOOD-It already is. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. MR. KATZ-Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Have a good night. MR. FREER-So I see someone else in the, okay, so, sir, do you want to come back up and talk Sign Variance? SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-8-2018 FLINTLOCK CORP. d/b/a ADIRONDACK GUN RANGE (Cont'd) MR. STUMPF-I spoke with my customer, and he would like to just table it to the next meeting. He wants me to propose a couple of little things to him and show him some drawings. So I could get the paperwork in for, when's the cutoff for? MRS. MOORE-The November meeting is October 15th MR. STUMPF-October 15th? Okay. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Flintlock Corp. d/b/a Adirondack Gun Range for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes the installation of 2 wall signs on the building where only one is allowed for the business Adirondack Gun Range. Sign No. 1 is to be 54.30 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 109.79 sq. ft. Relief requested from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line. 32 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 09/26/2018) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of allowable wall signs and maximum sign size at a setback of 100 feet from the front property line Cl zoning district. Section 140 signage —Commercial Intensive zone The applicant proposes to place 2 wall signs on an existing building Sign No. 1 is to be 54.30 sq. ft. and Sign No. 2 is to be 109.79 sq. ft. The property is only permitted one wall sign at 30 sq. ft. up to 100 sq. ft. with a building setback of 100 ft. or max of 200 sq. ft. for a sign with a building setback greater than 100 ft. at 10 sq. ft. increments. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-8-2018 FLINTLOCK CORP. d/b/a ADIRONDACK GUN RANGE, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to the November meeting with the appropriate material to be submitted to the Town by the middle of October. Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: MR. FREER-I think the other thing, discussion wise, you know you should consider what's going on. You've heard several people say about the. MR. STUMPF-I'm going to speak to him about it. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. We'll see you. MR. STUMPF-All right. Thanks, folks. MR. FREER-I have a question for the Board and Staff before we adjourn, and as is apropos, it applies to signs. So while I don't want to appear that I'm getting too stringent on signs, it seems that the Sunoco on Ridge and 149 has decided that flag signs are a substitute for what we didn't approve. MRS. MOORE-Right. So he has been notified that he needs to remove the flags. MR. FREER-Okay. So I don't have to make a formal complaint. MRS. MOORE-Not that I'm aware of, no. I believe he's been told. MR. MC CABE-And I have a proposal. I feel very uncomfortable with the Freihofer case where we're disapproving the action by Craig Brown, and I would like to see Counsel come and give us a little tutoring on that particular. MR. FREER-Yes well I asked for an opinion from Counsel prior. So something written to explain what's going on and for them to be here at the meeting. MR. MC CABE-Well I'd like to talk to him a little bit ahead of time so that, I don't feel I have a real good grasp of that and I'd like them to give us a little bit more of a background than what we got in our Staff Notes if that's possible. MRS. MOORE-1 will look into it. I know that they'd be able to give you some written information, and I know they'll most likely attend the meeting that is scheduled with some attorney that can be at the meeting at that time. I don't know if we can, I'll look into what your request is. A tutorial about what an Appeal. MR. MC CABE-The different aspects of that. I mean we've done Appeals before, but this one's different, and I don't feel comfortable with the information that we have. MR. UNDERWOOD-My suggestion is that we ask them at the beginning that they make a statement regarding what their concerns are and requesting the, you know, whatever bug they had about the Zoning Administrator's determination, if in fact, even though it appears there was no determination made at this time. 33 (Queen lbuiry ZII:3A Meetling 00/26/2013) MR. MC CABE-So I guess that's why, and I don't understand it either, and that's why I'd like a little tutorial. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, I think if you want a historical perspective, go back and read the minutes of the Zoning Board's conclusions that they drew, you know, with the initial meetings, and Roy and I were both there, and our comments are pertinent to the situation, but I'm still, at this point, unclear as to why they are appealing and what they're appealing. I would like them to clarify that at the beginning of the meeting and then if Craig's going to be here Craig can respond to that, too. MR. KUHL-But Freihofer's made it all one piece. MRS. MOORE-You understand that the applicant's not here. You're discussing an application. I would discourage you from doing that. So your request is to communicate with Counsel to get them some written comment, attendance. MR. FREER-Written opinion. MRS. MOORE-And if I can get a tutorial on the overview of the subject matter, then I'll see if they can do that as well. MR. MC CABE-That would be good. MRS. MOORE-1 do have one other item for the Zoning Board. The unapproved development committee is going to meet on October 23 d after their, around 7:30 when they only have one item on that agenda. MRS. HAYWARD-What's the date again? I'm sorry. MRS. MOORE-October 23 d, and I understand from Harrison that only a few would be attending, and so I just want to make sure. You'll get a notice. MR. FREER-So the dilemma, I think, in keeping with Open Meetings, is that we're not allowed to have. MRS. MOORE-A quorum, but if it ends up being more than a quorum, I'll look into that detail and ensure that it's noticed, and I think that's the key is that it needs to be noticed. MR. MC CABE-So this is regarding people that apply for. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do things without a permit and then come in. MR. MC CABE-Like tonight. MR. UNDERWOOD-And I think our opinions are all kind of in line with each other. So as long as we have a spokesperson there, like maybe the Chairman or Vice Chairman. MR. FREER-Yes, I would plan to be there. MR. UNDERWOOD-That's all we need. We don't all need to show up on mass and have it be counted as a meeting. MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. MOORE-That's all I have. MR. UNDERWOOD-We can always have an Executive Session meeting with ourselves and you can report to us what you hear and what you find out, or we can come and sit in the audience as members of the public, we don't have to comment. MR. FREER-Okay. Well, you're going to check on what we can and can't do and we'll comply. MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-I'll make a motion that we adjourn tonight's Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. 3 (Queen lbuiry II:3A Meetling 00/26/2018) MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: Duly adopted this 26th day of September, 2018, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 35