Loading...
04-24-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 INDEX Area Variance Z-AV-15-2019 Richard & Barbara Jones 1. Tax Map No. 308.18-1-11 Area Variance Z-AV-17-2019 Columbia Development 7. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-5 Sign Variance Z-SV-4-2019 Columbia Development 14. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-5 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH’S MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING APRIL 24, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JAMES UNDERWOOD RONALD KUHL MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN MR. FREER-So welcome to tonight’s Queensbury ZBA meeting. If you haven’t been here before the process is actually pretty simple. Back on the table is some information about each applicant. We’ll call the applicant to the table. Make a presentation and then we’ll decide how to proceed. We have no minutes to approve this evening and I’m not showing any administrative action. Is that correct? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. MR. FREER-So we’re ready for the first application, which is Richard and Barbara Jones, Z- AV-15-2019. Is someone here to represent them? Okay. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-15-2019 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD & BARBARA JONES OWNER(S) RICHARD & BARBARA JONES ZONING MDR LOCATION 33 HONEY HOLLOW ROAD, BEDFORD CLOSE SECT. 5 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO MAINTAIN AN EXISTING 11 FT. SECTION OF FENCE AT 6 FT. IN HEIGHT IN THE FRONT YARD OF HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS FOR A FENCE INSTALLED IN THE FRONT YARD. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.18-1-11 SECTION 179-5-070 C RICHARD JONES, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-15-2019, Richard & Barbara Jones, Meeting Date: April 24, 2019 “Project Location: 33 Honey Hollow Road, Bedford Close Sect. 5 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to maintain an existing 11 ft. section of fence at 5 ft. in height in the front yard of home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and height restrictions for a fence installed in the front yard. (Applicant notified staff the fence was 5 ft. not 6 ft.) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief requested from minimum setback requirements and height restrictions for a fence installed in the front yard. 179-5-070-accessory ...fence 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) The applicant requests to maintain an 11 ft. portion of fence at five feet in height in the front yard -the fence is with the 30 ft. front yard setback. Where a 4 ft. fence height is the maximum allowed in the front yard. 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. The fence section has been in the front yard since 2006. The applicant’s neighbor has taken issue with the fence height in the front yard. The fence may be considered to have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood area. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to lower the fence height or relocate the fence section to a compliant location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief request may be considered to be minimal relevant to the code. The relief is requested 1 ft. for the height of the fence. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The requested variance may have minimal to no adverse impact of the environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The requested variance may be considered to be self-created. Staff comments: The applicant requests to keep an existing 11 ft. section of fence at 5 ft. in height in the front yard where the fence has been since 2006. The applicant has indicated the fence was inspected by Code Compliance officer when installed and no changes were required at that time. A neighbor complaint about the fence triggered a site visit by the Zoning Administrator and Code Compliance Officer. Town staff determined a variance was required for the 11 ft. section. The plans show the location of the fence and a photo of the fence section.” MR. FREER-Hello. Welcome. Please identify yourself. MR. JONES-Good evening. My name is Richard Jones. I’m the applicant and I reside at 33 Honey Hollow Road. To give you a little history, we bought the house in 2005 and we installed a fence section in the backyard. We enclosed the backyard in 2005/2006, and 2006/2007 we added the section on what would be the south property line which is the section which is in question which would be 11 feet. In July of last year I had the property line staked because my neighbor was, at that point, attempting to build retaining walls. When we staked the property line we found that the retaining walls are actually over and he had to move them which I think is what triggered his complaint against me for the fence section. When the fence was put in there was a complaint made by someone in the neighborhood. Supposedly we were putting up a stockade fence. It is not a stockade fence. It’s a picket fence, and Bruce Frank came up and inspected the fence at that time, took pictures and indicated that everything was fine at that point. I looked in my files and I’m not sure what the zoning requirements were in 2005/2006. I don’t know if they are the 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) same as they are now and maybe Craig could answer that. I’m not sure, but I had nothing in my file that indicated what they were at that time. So what we’re asking is that we be able to keep the 11 foot section of fence at five foot in height. The entire fence that comes down through is five feet in height. It does not obstruct traffic coming out of driveways. It is not objectionable. The driveway for the neighbor adjacent to us is two to three feet higher than our grade on our side. So it does have an effect of limiting some of the view that we have from vehicles that are parked in his driveway, that type of thing. I’d be happy to answer any questions that the Board may have. MR. FREER-Okay. So does anybody on the Board have any questions? MR. KUHL-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Are you saying that the entire, I mean you have more sections of the fence than these as I observed your property. MR. JONES-Yes. MR. KUHL-Were they all put in at the same time? MR. JONES-The backyard was done first and then this section was added separate. MR. KUHL-Was it inspected and approved when you put it in? MR. JONES-We were told we didn’t need anything as far as a permit or anything, or a variance. One of our neighbors complained that we were putting in a stockade fence. Bruce Frank came up and inspected it and said everything was fine. He took pictures and left. And that’s the last we heard of it back in 2006. MR. KUHL-Okay. I have a question for Staff. Craig, our records reflect everything that the applicant is talking about? MR. BROWN-I don’t know the answer to that. I can certainly check with Bruce and see what his records show. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I didn’t do an inspection. So I couldn’t answer that question. What I can tell you is that the Zoning Code doesn’t require permits for fences. It just identifies what types of fences and what size fences you can have in a particular yard. So he’s correct in that a permit wasn’t needed, but compliance with the Code was. MR. KUHL-I understand that four foot is the norm and anything above it requires variances. MR. BROWN-Correct. Well the proviso there is on a side property line in this location you could install, if you wanted to, a six foot tall privacy fence right up to the 30 foot front setback line and in this case it’s a five foot fence that extends beyond that 30 foot line. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. BROWN-Once you hit that 30 foot line it’s supposed to drop down to four feet. MR. KUHL-But from what the applicant is saying, he did it all in the right vein. He had it installed and got it approved and it was said it was correct. That’s what I’m hearing. MR. BROWN-I don’t know the answer to that. I can check into that. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. HENKEL-The fence doesn’t need to get approved because you’re not getting a permit for it anyway. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. HENKEL-So as long as you know the Code, like you said, it’s supposed to be four feet beyond. MR. BROWN-Once you get to that 30 foot setback line it’s supposed to drop down to four feet. That’s correct. MR. FREER-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? Okay. Please come forward, and identify yourself for the record. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED RICHARD KOKE MR. KOKE-Hello. I’m Richard Koke, 31 Honey Hollow, Queensbury. When Dick put the fence up originally I did call the Town regarding the height of the fence because I think it’s on your permit that says 48 inches high, and I did question it when it went in, but I didn’t pursue it. It said, the notes, within Codes, fine. So the end result is over the years if you do drive through our neighborhood, and I did do a lot of driving through Queensbury in the last month or so and looked for a fence, even though this falls under whatever terminology you want to say, it’s more like a stockade fence. I can’t find any that’s really, unless it’s a corner lot, business lot, that looks like this in the neighborhood. I don’t think anybody would want a stockade fence out to the road that’s not really appropriate and it’s kind of an eyesore in one aspect for sure. So that’s why I’m objecting to the fence, to that height, and also I know the variance is looking for just distance. Now can you clarify on the distance again what that is? Can you clarify what the fence is supposed to be again, from the corner of the front of your house to the front of the road? MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty feet from the frontage. MR. KOKE-Frontage of your home? MR. UNDERWOOD-So this protrudes 11 feet into that frontage. MR. KOKE-Okay. So from the front corner of your house? MR. UNDERWOOD-Thirty feet from the road frontage. MR. HENKEL-Setback. MR. KOKE-Okay. Setback from the road frontage back. Okay, and the height is supposed to be what? MR. UNDERWOOD-It can be up to six feet, but when you get to the 30 feet zone it’s supposed to drop to four feet. MR. KOKE-So once you get to 30 feet you drop to 4 feet. MR. UNDERWOOD-So it’s a foot too high. MR. KOKE-I’m not too sure about this, but didn’t you have a Code before that was from the corner of the front of your home forward? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. FREER-We’re not going to get into that. Do you have any more comments about this application? MR. KOKE-No. So this fence right now is 63 inches tall. So it’s over the five feet, or over the 60 inches. It is 63 and it does go forward past the setback. That’s the only comment I have. MR. FREER-And are you the complainant? MR. KOKE-Yes, I am. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Would anybody else like to make a comment on this application? Okay. If you’d let Mr. Jones have his seat back. I don’t really want to turn this into a neighborhood argument, but our procedure is for you to have a chance to rebut any of the public hearing comments. So if you’d like to do so. MR. JONES-All I would say is that it’s not a stockade fence. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing, and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And I’m going to start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. I’m trying to choose my words carefully. The variance itself I think is minimal technically because, you know, per the Staff Notes, it’s one foot or maybe a little more than one foot in excess in height for 11 feet of the fence that goes around your whole property, and when I went and looked at the property and looked at the fence, there was spacing between each of the, I’ll call them pickets although they’re tall. I think it’s sufficiently far enough back that it provides for safe sight lines, too, for ingress and egress from your property. So with that I’m in favor at this time. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Like Mr. Koke was saying, I’ve driven around developments in Queensbury and I don’t think it’s, I haven’t seen too many fences like that that have been allowed to go that far beyond their house border. I understand what Michelle’s saying. It’s not a bad looking fence. I don’t think we really want to start allowing, especially in neighborhoods like that. It would be different if there were a junkyard there. Then maybe I could understand that, but I think you should keep it within the Code. So I would not be for it as it is. I think you should keep it to the Code. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes. I took a look at this, and in the past we’ve been pretty stringent about the four foot requirement. In fact I can’t think of too many instances where we okayed more than four feet in a front yard, and then also this is a, you know, existing. Now I understand it’s been existing for quite a while, but if this came to me as a new project tonight, I could not support it, and therefore I will not support it tonight. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Looking at the balancing test, I don’t see this as being a major affront to the Code. I think it’s something that we might have allowed had it come to us right away, 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) but being that it happened such a long time ago, 2006, I think it would be almost draconian to apply the Code right now, currently, after it’s been there for a while. MR. FREER-Okay. So you support it? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think we have to keep in mind it’s only an 11 foot section of fence that’s one foot too high and you could have put a six foot tall fence up along that property line. It’s only a five foot tall fence. I think that, you know, given the fact that it’s been over a decade that the fence has been up. It doesn’t extend all the way out to the road so it would affect sight lines for people backing in and out of the driveways, and I think the neighbors next door topographically are a little bit higher than the yard that the Jones’ have on the other side of the property line. So I think that the foot of difference is not going to make that much difference to me. So I’d be in favor of keeping it the way it is. MR. FREER-Okay, and Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I don’t find this fence to be as detrimental to the whole area. I think if Mr. Koke would have run up Potter Road he would have seen a lot of six foot stockade fences. For me, this is not a, it’s a comfortable looking fence. I don’t find it offensive, and for me I would be in favor of the 11 foot. So, Mr. Koke, Mr. Jones, I grew up with my parents not talking to the people next door. I would encourage you to find some common ground and to be good neighbors and do neighborly things. I’m not basing my opinion on my past, but I am in favor of the project, but I would hope you people would find a way to be good neighbors. With that I’ll be quiet. MR. FREER-Okay. I would point to the Board of six foot stockade fence at the corner of Garrison and North that we approved, which is a corner lot, but in any case, I also support the proposal, and I echo Mr. Kuhl’s urging that we try to find ways to be good neighbors in terms of what we see here on the Zoning Board. So with that I’m going to ask for a motion. MR. KUHL-I’ll make that motion, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard & Barbara Jones. Applicant proposes to maintain an existing 11 ft. section of fence at 5 6 ft. in height in the front yard of home. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements and height restrictions for a fence installed in the front yard. (Applicant notified staff the fence was 5 ft. not 6 ft.) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief requested from minimum setback requirements and height restrictions for a fence installed in the front yard. 179-5-070-accessory ...fence The applicant requests to maintain an 11 ft. portion of fence at five feet in height in the front yard -the fence is with the 30 ft. front yard setback. Where a 4 ft. fence height is the maximum allowed in the front yard. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 24, 2019; 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) 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 the fence is not really, it is a see-through fence. It’s not a stockade fence and to me it blends into the environment. 2. Feasible alternatives may have been limited but they are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is / is not substantial because __________ 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? 5. The alleged difficulty is self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 15-2019 RICHARD & BARBARA JONES, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: Duly adopted this Wednesday, April 24, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Henkel, McCabe MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. MR. JONES-Thank you. MR. FREER-The next application. AREA VARIANCE Z-AV-17-2019 SEQRA TYPE II COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) GAVIN VUILLAUME, EDP OWNER(S) THE SARATOGA HOSPITAL ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 124 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES DEVELOPMENT OF A 1.04-ACRE PARCEL AND A 0.106 ROW AREA BY DEMOLISHING THE EXISTING RESTAURANT TO CONSTRUCT A TWO-STORY 17,700 SQ. FT. (FAR) MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND ASSOCIATED SITE WORK. THE NEW BUILDING IS 8,800 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT WITH THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND PARKING ON BIG BOOM ROAD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACKS AND PERMEABILITY 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) REQUIREMENTS. PLANNING BOARD: SITE PLAN REVIEW REQUIRED FOR NEW COMMERCIAL CONSTRUCTION. CROSS REF SP 19—2019; Z-SV-4-2019; AV 11-1990; SP 18-1990; DISC 4-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2019 LOT SIZE 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040; 179-7-050 GAVIN, VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Go ahead, Roy. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance Z-AV-17-2019, Columbia Development, Meeting Date: April 24, 2019 “Project Location: 124 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes development of a 1.04-acre parcel and 0.106 ROW area by demolishing the existing restaurant to construct a two-story 17,700 sq. ft. (FAR) medical office building and associated site work. The new building is 8,800 sq. ft. footprint with the main entrance and parking on Big Boom Road. Relief requested from minimum setbacks and permeability requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for new commercial construction. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief requested from minimum setbacks and permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes an 8,600 sq. ft. (footprint) medical building to be located on a parcel with frontage on Main St, Big Boom Rd, and the Northway. The building is to be located 2 ft. from the property line along the Northway where 100 ft. is required. The building is to be located 39 ft. from Big Boom Rd where 50 ft. is required from the road centerline. Relief is also requested for permeable of 20% where 30% 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. The proposed variance will have minimal impact on the character of the neighborhood - the building is to be two story where Main Street zoning that is adjacent to this property is encouraging the construction of two story buildings on Main Street. 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. There may be feasible alternatives to minimize the variance such as a smaller building however, variances may still be required due to the lot configuration and the location of building in the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief from the Northway is 98 ft. and 11 ft. from Big Boom Rd. The relief requested for permeable is 10%. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The requested variance may have minimal to no adverse environmental impact in the neighborhood. The project includes a storm water management system for the site, connections to utilities for sewer and water. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The requested variance may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes an 8,600 sq. ft. (footprint), 2 story 17,700 sq. ft. medical building with associated site work. The building is to have the parking area and patient entrance to the rear of the building off of Big Boom Rd. The applicant has indicated the required 56 spaces and proposes 76 spaces -the information submitted indicate the other medical buildings used 6 spaces per 1,000 sq. ft. Town code for small office 1 space per 300 —59 spaces and health related is 1 space per 500–36 spaces. The board may consider the permeable request and parking information during the review. The plans show the location of the building on the parcel with the associated site work.” MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal and that motion was adopted April 23, 2019 by a unanimous vote. MR. FREER-Hello. Welcome. Please identify yourself. MR. VUILLAUME-Sure. I’m Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design Partnership. I’m representing Columbia Development, the applicant. KEVIN RONAYNE MR. RONAYNE-Kevin Ronayne from Saratoga Hospital, representing obviously the owner of the property. MR. FREER-Okay. So just briefly I think you’ve covered a lot of it in the description there. I think as you know this project’s been in front of the Board twice now. We just had our second meeting last night. When we first started the project, looking at the Zoning Code, we found that the positioning of the building really was going to require a variance no matter where we put it essentially. There’s an existing restaurant on the property as you know now. The Code required us to have certain setbacks to the frontages, both on Main Street and Big Boom, and then later we found out that there was also a setback requirement along the Northway that basically goes across our entire parcel. So we couldn’t put the building anywhere without upsetting that one variance for sure, but the one interesting aspect of this project is that it falls within a zoning district, and Craig can correct me if I’m wrong, that where we’re at with this CI-18 is we’re really the only parcel along Main Street, us and I think the parcel across the street, that are within this zoning district. A lot of the other zoning districts are really located in the Main Street Zoning Code. So this project really does fit in very well with some of the requirements and setbacks for the Main Street corridor. So I think if you look at the Comprehensive Master Plan for the Town, they really want to have a nice streetscape and have this thing more of an urban look, and I think we’ve achieved that with the layout that we’ve proposed. So granted we do need these variances and I’ll go over each one of them just briefly in more detail, but keep in mind that the original goal here is to have this building fitting into more of the Main Street character that’s along Main Street. So with that I’ll just quickly point out the three variances. Obviously we’ve already identified them and I’ll just kind of explain to you why we really need these variances. The one obviously is the simple one off the Northway. It’s a 100 foot setback 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) and that encompasses essentially the whole width, if you look at the Site Plan. If you measure 100 feet off of here, you’re probably at almost three-quarters of the way down our property. So we do need the variance for that. The other two frontages we have the required minimum on the frontage along Main Street. However, we do not have the additional setback that’s required along Big Boom Road. An interesting thing, again, to point out with the frontage along Big Boom Road is that the setback along with the permeable variances that are required, we’ve done everything we could to try to minimize those setbacks and those minimum area requirements by purchasing some additional land from the Town. There was an additional triangular piece at this corner. I’ve got some other maps and you probably have them in your files, that shows the additional right of way that the applicant is purchasing in order to create more green space at the corner. So we’ve gone to great lengths to try to minimize those variances, especially with the green space. We’ve purchased the additional land. Right now at that corner as you know it’s all parking and pavement and really it’s more urban looking than probably everybody would like. Again, that project and that restaurant was developed many years ago. The entire parcel is almost paved. I think it’s 10% permeable now. We’re proposing to double the green space. So we’re increasing it up to 20%. And then the other thing to point out with the green space is that not considered in the calculations is this green area here that I’ve just quickly highlighted. That’s all now one big curb cut and it’s all paved, and that will be returned to green space also. It’s not part of our calculations, but it is green space in front of the project within the Town right of way that will now be green space. So that’s pretty much a summary of the variances and why we’re requesting them. MR. FREER-Okay. So you just heard how we do business and I’m going to ask the Board if they have any questions for the applicant. MR. URRICO-I have a question for Craig. Craig, at one point they were considering moving the ramp off the Northway. Is that still on the table at some point? MR. BROWN-Not that I’m aware of, and if it’s on the Department of Transportation’s plate, it’s under a whole bunch of stuff. There’s no immediate plan. MR. URRICO-Wasn’t that the main reason for moving the light and aligning it on Big Boom Road? MR. BROWN-Yes, that was one of the plans to plan ahead for that and the thought was to be able to re-locate the ramp further south and come through the, kind of in the area where the storage units are there and the Concord Pools place is, but obviously those properties have developed. MR. URRICO-So it’s no longer on the table. MR. BROWN-I would believe it’s no longer on the table. It’s not on our table. It’s on the State’s table, but I haven’t heard any rumblings. MR. URRICO-Okay. I have a question for you, then. Will there be overnight stays there? I mean will there be beds? MR. RONAYNE-No, sir. Our intent right now for the building is the first floor would house urgent care, imaging and laboratory services, and the second floor would be physician’s offices for rotating specialists and stuff to come up into the area, but definitely not overnight stays. Probably similar hours to how we operate our facility down in Wilton at Exit 15, you know, seven a.m. to nine p.m., something along those lines. MR. HENKEL-No outpatient surgery in the future? 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. RONAYNE-No, sir. MR. UNDERWOOD-Craig, if we applied the Main Street guidelines to the Big Boom Road section there, I assume it would fit within those guidelines, the setback, the minimal that they need? MR. BROWN-Well this isn’t in the Main Street Zoning District. This is in the CI-18 district. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I’m just saying if we interpret it that it was an extension of the Main Street district, even though it’s out to the, it changes zone at that point in time, it probably would fall within the realm of reality on Main Street. MR. BROWN-Yes, it’s fairly close. I’m not sure the numbers exactly match the Main Street setbacks, but the concept of having a street oriented pedestrian looking streetscape is definitely consistent with the Main Street style, yes. MR. UNDERWOOD-It seems like that’s what they’re trying to achieve which makes more sense. MR. HENKEL-There’s probably no way of squeezing any more permeability in that area. You’ve pretty much squeezed out all you can. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. MR. HENKEL-You need all those parking spots, you’re saying. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes. This has been brought up several times and we really feel that this is the minimal amount of parking that’s going to be needed for this facility based on other similar ones. MR. HENKEL-There’ll probably be quite a few employees. There’s a lot of rooms there so you’re probably going to have 20 or so employees at least, right? MR. RONAYNE-I would say easily. So typically if we had a little bit more land I’d want a couple of more parking spaces. Typically the use is for medical office, especially with office upstairs, and the early morning lab hours and such the parking lot could get full pretty quickly, but the challenge we find often is trying to look at the existing office buildings to try and locate medical spaces, that there’s never enough parking. MR. URRICO-There’s a parking lot right across the street. MR. FREER-You could put a bike stand in there. Okay. Any more questions from the Board? We have a public hearing scheduled. There’s nobody in the audience. Roy, are there any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there’s none. MR. FREER-Okay. With that I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And I’m going to start with John. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. HENKEL-The only thing that concerned me was the permeability, but you’ve explained what you did there. There’s nothing you can do with the setback there along the Northway on the west side. I think it’s definitely a great project for the area. You’re going to employ some people and it definitely fits into the corridor there. So I would definitely be in favor of the project as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, John. Mike? MR. MC CABE-This will be the fourth building that I’m aware of that was on the site and it’s, in my opinion, by far the most attractive and considering that this is basically an entrance to our Town, you know, I think much more appropriate than certainly Smokey Green’s was years ago and the Copper Kettle. So I support the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I agree with my fellow Board members. It’s a great project and it’s going to improve the looks of the area. MR. FREER-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, the setbacks from the Northway, I mean it’s a given no matter what you built on that site you’d probably need a setback variance for that, and Big Boom, I think with the re-alignment of the road it’s achieved what the Town had hoped for on that, too. I think the addition of green space that they’re putting around the building, the increase in the permeability from what currently exists mitigates what they’re asking for here, and I think, you know, with medical offices there’s never enough parking on a busy day. So you don’t want people milling around, driving around in circles. So it makes more sense to keep it the way they propose. MR. FREER-Okay. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, without the Main Street corridor that we’re trying to achieve there I would definitely be against this, but based on that I think it’s going to blend in and I think it’s a good structure as a beginning of the Main Street district. So with that said, is this minimal? Are we giving you minimal? You’re asking for a lot, but it’s going to blend in with Main Street, so I would be in favor of it. That’s a qualified in favor of. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Well, my only concern, which I think it’s a substantial request all told, is traffic. You say you’d like a bigger parking lot, and I’m sure you could use it, but the people trying to make a left hand turn to leave to get back to the Northway would be my biggest concern. Especially with people coming in and out of specialty care and urgent care. So I think for that reason I’d have to say I’m not in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. You mentioned the Board, you mentioned the Planning Board, right that you’ve been to. We’re a different Board with a different set of rules taking a look at some of the things that Roy read into the record about minimal, and the parking/permeability is bothersome for me but you guys have made a legitimate case. So I’m kind of in the Mr. Kuhl realm of a qualified support. So with that I’ll ask for a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application Columbia Development. Applicant proposes development of a 1.04-acre parcel and 0.106 ROW area by demolishing the existing restaurant to construct a two-story 17,700 sq. ft. (FAR) medical office building and associated site work. The new building is 8,800 sq. ft. footprint with the main entrance and parking on Big Boom Road. Relief requested from 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) minimum setbacks and permeability requirements. Planning Board: Site Plan Review required for new commercial construction. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief requested from minimum setbacks and permeability requirements. Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements The applicant proposes an 8,600 sq. ft. (footprint) medical building to be located on a parcel with frontage on Main St, Big Boom Rd, and the Northway. The building is to be located 2 ft. from the property line along the Northway where 100 ft. is required. The building is to be located 39 ft. from Big Boom Rd where 50 ft. is required from the road centerline. Relief is also requested for permeable of 20% where 30% is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, April 24, 2019; 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. We believe that this project will generally improve the character of this part of the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are generally not reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance, although it seems substantial, it’s really not considering the fact that there have been a number of other buildings in this particular area and not very far from the location of the proposed building. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. In fact we think that the green space provided will indeed improve the environmental conditions. 5. The alleged difficulty is, of course, self-created. 6. In addition the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary; 8. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) Duly adopted this Wednesday, April 24, 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: Mrs. Hayward MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. Don’t come back asking for more parking spots. MR. RONAYNE-No, we won’t. MR. FREER-Okay. The next one is the Sign Variance for the same applicant. SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV-4-2019 SEQRA TYPE II COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT AGENT(S) GAVIN VUILLAUME, EDP OWNER(S) THE SARATOGA HOSPITAL ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 124 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW 17,700 SQ. FT. MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AND TO INSTALL A 70 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN TO BE LOCATED LESS THAN 15 FT. FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF TWO WALL SIGNS AT 68 SQ. FT. TO BE INTERNALLY LIT. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM SIGN SIZE AND MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FREESTANDING SIGN. ALSO, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE TWO WALL SIGNS EXCEEDING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN SIZE OF 30 FT. CROSS REF Z-AV-17-2019; SP 19-2019; AV 11-1990; SP 18-1990; DISC 4-2018 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING APRIL 2019 LOT SIZE 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-5 SECTION CHAPTER 140 GAVIN VUILLAUME, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance Z-SV-4-2019, Columbia Development, Meeting Date: April 24, 2019 “Project Location: 124 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a new 17,700 sq. ft. medical office building and to install a 70 sq. ft. freestanding sign to be located less than 15 ft. from the property line. Project includes installation of two wall signs at 68 sq. ft. to be internally lit. Relief requested from maximum sign size and minimum setback requirements for the freestanding sign. Also, relief requested for the two wall signs exceeding the maximum allowable sign size of 30 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum sign size and minimum setback requirements for the freestanding sign. Also, relief requested for the two wall signs exceeding the maximum allowable sign size of 30 sq. ft. Chapter 140-Signs The applicant proposes a free standing sign of 70 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 45 sq. ft. The free standing sign is to be located 2 ft. from Main St and Big Boom Rd where a 15 ft. setback is required. The two wall signs are proposed to be 60 sq. ft. each where the maximum allowed is 30 sq. ft. 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. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) There is to minimal change to the neighborhood as the signs are to match the scale of the two story building. 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 each of the signs to be compliant. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. Relief requested for the free standing setback is 13 ft. for both road setbacks and 25 sq. ft. in excess. The relief requested for the wall signs is 30 sq. ft. in excess for each sign. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The proposed sign variances may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a free standing sign on a portion of property that is being received from the Town. The plans show location of the sign and the parcel configuration in that area. The wall signs are to be located at the Main Street side of the building and the rear of the building that has views from the Northway. The plans show the location of each of the signs and the typical wording for each sign.” MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. You guys know who you are. We know who you are. Would you like to add anything? MR. VUILLAUME-Just real quick. Again, the signs, there are three signs that we’re requesting a variance for. Two of them are the wall signs. One is the freestanding sign. So I’ll just quickly, the wall signs, again, we’re looking for some additional square footage because of our location there and the nature of the project. It’s important that the people visiting the building, especially the elderly, help patients quickly identify the building as they come off the Northway. So that’s kind of one of the main reasons that we want to make sure that this signage along the building can be easily seen as one comes off the exit ramps. So those are pretty straightforward, and we feel that the signage, you have our building elevations. We feel that the signage that were shown on these is proportional to the building. So we’re good with that. We hope that you folks are good with that. The sign, as far as the location of the pylon sign, we don’t have a lot of locations, really, to put this pylon sign unfortunately due to the tightness of the property. We did purchase, as I mentioned, some additional land. The sign would be located in that land that we are purchasing from the Town. We had to leave a certain amount along the intersection for some of the existing utilities. We had several discussions with the Highway Superintendent on the land we purchased and it was determined that this one triangular piece where the sign is located is really the best location for the sign. The other thing, too, I don’t know if you can see it on some of the site plans, but there is also a water main that also is very close to this sign. So we can move it a little bit but not a lot from what we have shown on the plan. As far as the square footage, again, this would just be a monument sign. This isn’t a pylon sign in any way. So we’ll keep it low to the ground. That’s really the reasoning for the Sign Variances. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-I have a question, Mr. Chairman. Now the wall signs, are they going to be lit, down lighting or what are you going to have. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. VUILLAUME-I believe internally lit. LED. MR. URRICO-I have a question. You probably answered this already, but is there going to be a pharmacy on site, any type of pharmacy? KEVIN RONAYNE MR. RONAYNE-No. MR. FREER-Any other Board member questions? MR. MC CABE-I have a question for Staff. Craig, we had a similar request from a similar business down the road, and I’d like to know how big is the sign at Hudson Headwaters? MR. BROWN-I would have to look that up. I don’t know off hand. The freestanding sign, wall sign? MR. MC CABE-It’s a freestanding. We gave them a hard time, and, you know, I don’t think that we can, you know, grant a bigger sign to Columbia Development than we did to Hudson Headwaters. We did okay the two wall signs down there. I don’t have a problem with that. I don’t have a problem with the location, but I don’t believe we Okayed so many square feet for Hudson Headwaters. I thought it was more like 50. MR. FREER-Okay. Well we haven’t begun our deliberations yet. MR. MC CABE-I’m just asking if we know how big that sign was, and maybe we could find out how big the Hudson Headwaters is. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. KUHL-If you had to move the monument sign up towards Corinth Road and not get the sign on the front of the building or the north side of the building, could you live with that? You have the geography. You’ve got the monument sign alongside the building, right, on the Big Boom Road side. Suppose you moved it to where you have it on Corinth Road and that would show your property. They’d see the big building. They’d see the sign and know. MR. RONAYNE-Where exactly would you want us to put the sign? We can’t put it here at the corner. MR. KUHL-You can’t? MR. RONAYNE-No, that’s in the Town right of way. MR. KUHL-Yes, well we’d give you a variance for the Town right of way. MR. FREER-The Highway Department wouldn’t like that. MR. KUHL-But it’s going to be green. Right? MR. VUILLAUME-Well, there’s some greenery. There’s a lot of utilities at that intersection. There’s a transformer pad. There’s a lot of electrical utilities. MR. HENKEL-Do you really need that big sign on the Big Boom side once you’re, it’s not like it’s multiple buildings. You’ve only got the one building. 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, it’s really I think the primary reason for the signage here on Big Boom was really for people coming up I think along Main Street from the, it would be the east. MR. RONAYNE-Yes. As we’ve done at our Exit 15 campus, it would be a similar style of sign, smaller, but it would list the services in the building. Urgent care and the hours would be on that sign to show urgent care, imaging, you know, laboratory, and show the hours on that sign exterior. MR. HENKEL-Being so close to the road, though, that’s a big sign for being so close to the road. If you were 45, 50 feet from the road then maybe you’d need that size, but with this being right on the road. MR. FREER-So, you know, one of our tasks is to issue the minimum variance practical. Right? And so this is a pretty big request, and, you know, we see this a lot. I agree with Mike. We can even constrain it to no bigger than the one we approved on the other property. We don’t have that data in front of us. If you, you know, you could come back and argue it if you decided else. MR. VUILLAUME-For now that’s pretty close to what we have here. Again, I don’t know what. MR. FREER-We can get you that information. MR. VUILLAUME-That would be great. MR. FREER-Okay. So we have a public hearing scheduled for this application. There’s nobody in the audience. Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. We have to do SEQR for Sign Variances. MR. UNDERWOOD-Do you want to poll the Board first. MR. URRICO-You’re not going to poll us? MR. FREER-Yes, I’ll poll you first before we do SEQR. Sorry. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. FREER-Okay. So, Mike, you’re up. MR. MC CABE-Again, I stated my views. I think we approved a standing monument sign and two wall signs for Hudson Headwaters. So I would agree with that. I don’t have any problems with the setbacks, but I don’t think that the signage, either the wall signs or the monument, should be bigger than what we approved for Hudson Headwaters. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I don’t have a particular size of sign in mind, but I do think they need to scale them back, at least the size of them. I’m not objecting to the number of signs. I think it’s an area that needs some signage because you have traffic coming off the Northway, Main Street, and they need to be directed carefully I think to the property. 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I think we have to keep in mind when we have a medical center it provides critical services to the public and I think that there’s a safety viewpoint thing here, too. People come off the Northway and they need critical care and they don’t think they’re going to make it into the hospital. They can always stop here as a quick remedy to the situation. I think that signage, I think if you went down and measured that sign down at Hudson Headwaters, it’s just a mile down the road. If you’re compliant with the same size as that sign, I have no problem with your location of the monument sign out front. I think it makes perfect sense what you’re doing. I think having the signage, the two other signs on the building, one extra sign in essence, it makes sense to have it visible from the south side as you’re exiting off that south exit ramp, and you will see it, whether you’re coming from the east on Main Street or for the one on the front sign. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Roy? I’m sorry. Ron? MR. KUHL-I think you could make your wall sign, I have no problem with the monument sign. I think you could make your wall sign 30 square feet. You’ve got them back lit and you’re going to light them up. I would think people are going to know where you are. I think you’re going to get the people that are coming there for service and not the people that are looking for an emergency. I don’t think people are going to stop off here instead of going to Glens Falls Hospital. That’s just my only view. I believe that you could get both your signs into compliance under 30 square feet, would give you the extra sign and the monument sign. I think you’re asking for a lot and I think you’re asking for too much. So my recommendation to you would be to bring your wall signs into 30 square feet and monument sign the way you want. MR. FREER-So as proposed you do not support it. MR. KUHL-I do not support it as proposed, no. MR. FREER-Thanks. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I don’t support it, either. I’m okay with the number of sign. I’d just like to see them closer to compliance with our Code and also the recommendation to be more in line with Hudson Headwaters up the street. MR. FREER-Yes. So I agree that you’re asking for too much in terms of sign size variance but I would support constraint to this application so we can issue less variance than you ask for. So if we can craft a resolution that says no larger than the Hudson Headwaters on Corinth Road. It’s on Corinth Road, right? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. FREER-Then I would support that constrained variance. Okay. So now we can do the SEQR. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT 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: th Duly adopted 24 day of April 2019, by the following vote: 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. FREER-And I forgot John, but would you please give us your two cents on your thoughts on this application. MR. HENKEL-I’ll give you three cents. I agree with most of my Board members. I think the wall sign should be a little bit smaller, and I agree that the freestanding sign should be similar in size to the Hudson Headwaters. MR. FREER-Okay. AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Now I’ll seek a motion. MR. BROWN-If I could, just before that motion starts, just, whoever’s going to craft it, just be careful that we go with something like the requested size or no more than, because if the other sign is bigger than 70 square feet, you can’t give them more relief than they’re asking for. So the smaller of the two I guess. MR. HENKEL-Well what did we decide about the size of the wall signs? MR. FREER-Well he’s going to make a motion I think that says no bigger than the wall signs at Hudson Headwaters and no bigger than the monument at Hudson Headwaters. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I mean that’s what we did. Hudson Headwaters requested two signs instead of one. We Okayed that. They’re a certain size. MR. FREER-Not 70 feet. We pretty much know that. We can put that in there. I’m pretty sure, I don’t recall us passing that big of a sign. MR. MC CABE-Well, but again, just like this, they argued that they need to be seen, directed, the signs need to be big enough so that they’re easily seen so that people know where to go because actually there’s two sides to that complex. MR. VUILLAUME-Again, so we are allowed two signs, two wall signs because we have two frontages. MR. BROWN-We can certainly pull that information together and get it back to the Board, if you’re looking to table this. There’s a building there that hasn’t been demo’d. Nothing’s been built yet. So they’re months away from actually needing signs. So it’s just putting it out there as an option. It’s not something they need today. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think rather than holding them up, though, we can approve it with the proper language to make it happen for them, you know, if we’re not going to change our viewpoint at this point. I think that, you know, we can say that the monument sign is going to be 70 square feet or less, depending upon the size of the sign at the Hudson Headwaters down the road a mile, and the signage on the building will be appropriately sized the same as down there, too. So they can go down and measure those signs. MR. FREER-Well we can provide that information to them. Right? MR. BROWN-Yes, my reservation is the Hudson Headwaters complex is a pretty big complex. There’s a lot of wall signs on that building. Specifically which signs. I don’t know if there’s only one freestanding signs or multiple freestanding signs. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. HENKEL-No, there’s two freestanding signs, but they’re both the same. MR. BROWN-See I don’t have that information in front of me and I don’t know for sure. Again, I don’t see the huge rush, but it’s your decision to make. MRS. HAYWARD-I would feel more comfortable. MR. URRICO-Yes, I was wondering if by doing this we’re creating a defacto standard for the medical buildings. So now whenever a medical building comes forward this is going to be what we’re going to allot. We’re not going to allow anything bigger than this. So I think we should make sure we know what we’re talking about before we. MR. HENKEL-This isn’t going to hold you guys up anyway. MR. VUILLAUME-I’m comfortable if you guys want to table this part, and we’ll go back. Because I’d really like to get a look at those signs, get the measurements and make sure they’re going to meet our needs. MR. MC CABE-All right. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Columbia Development for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes construction of a new 17,700 sq. ft. medical office building and to install a 70 sq. ft. freestanding sign to be located less than 15 ft. from the property line. Project includes installation of two wall signs at 68 sq. ft. to be internally lit. Relief requested from maximum sign size and minimum setback requirements for the freestanding sign. Also, relief requested for the two wall signs exceeding the maximum allowable sign size of 30 sq. ft. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum sign size and minimum setback requirements for the freestanding sign. Also, relief requested for the two wall signs exceeding the maximum allowable sign size of 30 sq. ft. MOTION TO TABLE SIGN VARIANCE Z-SV 4-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Until the second meeting in May and we will provide the required information before May st 1. th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2019, by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-Do we have room during the May meeting? MR. BROWN-We don’t have the agendas finalized yet, but we can make room for this. It’s a pretty straightforward thing. MR. MC CABE-All right. We’ll table it until the second May meeting. We’ll present the st information to you by the 1 of May. Is that reasonable? MR. BROWN-Yes, we can get that information to them tomorrow. It’s just I don’t have it in front of me right now. AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, guys. MR. VUILLAUME-We’ll see you next month. MR. FREER-Okay. Before we adjourn, I’d like to get an update on the Freihofer, Caffry Appeal. Do you want to start or do you want me to start? MR. BROWN-Fire away. MR. FREER-So I believe there were three of you that weren’t present, and I think I sent th you the 20 of September letter. MR. HENKEL-I got two. I got the information. MR. FREER-And, Mike, so I’m sure they sent it to you as well. MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR. FREER-You guys are reading up on it. You’ve got all the information. We don’t have the minutes for you to hear the conversation, but that will be available before we have to address this again. MR. MC CABE-Well, now, the people who were, you know, here during the presentation, so you really only need one of us. How are you going to pick which one? MR. FREER-Well, no, I think my position is, you as regular Board members, if you’re willing and want to hear the follow on to that, given the caveat that, you know, you’ve seen that stuff, that’s your prerogative. MR. MC CABE-Well, what happened to the variance? Was it tabled? MR. FREER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR. URRICO-There was no variance. MR. FREER-It was an Appeal. MR. MC CABE-All right. So the Appeal was tabled? MR. FREER-Correct. MR. MC CABE-So then if we do have a completely different Board then there wouldn’t really be a problem. Right? MR. KUHL-Harrison, I thought we said at that meeting that the people sitting would sit and you just needed to fill one spot. Because we had six, they wanted a full Board. MR. FREER-Well, my view is that the regular Board members have the option. MR. KUHL-Okay. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. FREER-But I wanted to make sure that both of the alternates were okay if they were called on to continue, which I believe they are because they were here, but it’s my sense that regular Board members have the option, and I think Mark addressed it by you’ve got the materials and you’ve got the added letter and he said that, you know, you’re going to have to read the minutes carefully, but then it’s up to you whether you want to be part of the Appeal or not, and then if one of you, we need at least one of you to stay on. All three of you can stay on, or, again, if somebody else isn’t available, we’ll man the full Board as we normally do, and I believe that because we had a public hearing and we closed the public hearing and those minutes will be available shortly, we start a 62 day decision clock. So we have to make a decision within 62 days of last Wednesday. Is that your understanding? MR. BROWN-That’s correct. CATHY HAMLIN, ALTERNATE MRS. HAMLIN-62 days from the close of the public hearing. MR. FREER-Correct. MR. MC CABE-Did we close the public hearing? MR. FREER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-I believe I heard you vote, or not vote but at least you said it was closed. MR. FREER-So, yes, the public hearing was closed last Wednesday. So we have, most people were looking for additional information and especially the letter that was, if you recall your package there was a letter from Caffry, I think it was Annex Two, answering the letter that we didn’t have until the meeting that night which is the 20 September letter from Lapper. Okay. So Caffry asked that we read the Lapper letter in context with his response. Okay. So if we had had the 20 September letter, it could have given us last week more time but it was clear they weren’t going to get, they weren’t going to win the Appeal. And now, Craig, please add whatever you’d like or give us an update. I haven’t talked to Mark on this topic, but whatever you can share with us. MR. BROWN-I think you got 99% of the information that I wanted to share about the options that the Board has. Certainly regular members can come back to the Board if they feel like they’re up to speed with the application information. If they don’t, then the alternates certainly have the option. I’m sure that Mark touched on that when you guys had your special meeting, your Executive Session. So you’re right. Either way is a proper option. If the Board is specifically looking for additional information, you know, feel free to give us that direction and we’ll try and get that information from either the Appellant or the property owner or Staff or whatever information you may be looking for, we can pull that information together for you. The 62 time clock does run from the close of the public hearing. That puts the two May meetings in the time that you have to act window because the two June meetings fall outside the 62 day window. Of those two May meeting dates, thth May 30, which is a Thursday, it’s a little strange because of Grievance Day, May 30 which is a Thursday is the better of those two days for Counsel attendance if you wish to have Counsel here for that. So that’s about all I have. MR. FREER-Okay. Do any of the members have any questions for Craig or myself? If I just may back up and share a little bit. MR. URRICO-Can I give my opinion? 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. FREER-Sure. MR. URRICO-My feeling is that when we tabled it or they requested to table, they’re rolling the dice at that point for a different Board. So it shouldn’t matter. We should still have our regular Board here. That means John and Mike, and then we’re going to need an alternate or we may not need an alternate that night, because that’s the makeup of the Board that night. What if somebody is missing that night? Are we going to start this whole process? MR. FREER-That’s what I said is Mike, John, Michelle have the option of sitting because remember all three were absent. So it’s your choice. If you don’t, then one or both of the alternates can sit in. Okay. Go ahead, Craig. MR. BROWN-I was going to say I think that’s an important thing to keep in mind for any meeting. If you’re prepared and ready to act on an application and you don’t have some sort of a conflict where you think you need to recuse yourself, then you should sit and act on that application. If you come in later, whether it’s an appeal or any variance, if you’re not up to speed, you can just excuse yourself and look for an alternate for that reason, I’m not up to speed. So whether a regular member wants to come back, that’s fine. If at this time anybody knows that there’s going to be a conflict, whether they’ve recused themselves in the past on these types of things, make a note now. Then you can plan on which alternates there might be. MR. MC CABE-My feeling is, the six that were here ought to be the six that make the decision, and then Michelle, John, or I, you know, provide the seventh person. MR. URRICO-I don’t agree with that, but that’s just me. MR. MC CABE-We had this situation before, I can’t remember the particular case, but it was a decision made by Craig and it might have been the doll house, but anyway we had alternates and we had them continue and then added to that. MR. BROWN-And again either way is proper. It’s just the decision of the Board. MRS. HAMLIN-Well, if I could interject. I used to teach this stuff, and what we would generally say is that, you know, certainly consistency is important. An alternate should always be prepared anyway, but like I said last week, I have no objection to sitting back if one of the regular members wants to sit in, but ultimately the decision is the Chair’s and that’s the way we usually teach it is that if the Chair thinks that for the sake of consistency it should remain the way it was it can. If the other members who are regulars are fully prepared then it’s, again, his ultimate decision to bring them in. It’s not really the full Board so much because you’re the Chair you’ve got a little bit of clout in some way, but it should be declared in the meeting by those who weren’t there that they have familiarized, the term is familiarized myself with the record. MR. FREER-Unfortunately they can’t make that decision tonight because they haven’t read the minutes, but we’ll make this decision, everybody will know their schedule. There may be somebody absent, you know, and we’ll need two additional regulars. Right? We’re for sure going to need one additional regular because we only had six people. So we’ll try to make that discussion item the first meeting in May, with the best knowledge we have, and you guys, that way the three of you will have a chance to read the minutes of what we talked about last night. It was more than an hour. MR. URRICO-Are we expecting them to come forward with a different application or an amendment to the original Appeal that we know of? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. BROWN-Not that I’m aware of. I don’t think this Board asked for that change. I don’t think they asked for any additional specific information. They just asked for more time. MR. FREER-We actually didn’t even officially table it. Okay. We just. MR. BROWN-Closed the public hearing. MR. UNDERWOOD-Because there were only six people sitting, it was a three, three split. MR. KUHL-They had an option of wanting a full Board. MR. BROWN-Right. MR. KUHL-I think the thing that we’re going to open ourselves up to as a Board is if we don’t have the six people plus one at the next viewing, they can turn around and bring an Article 78 and say I got different players changing in the middle of the game. MR. BROWN-Yes, I think if the Board members that are different, however that makeup is, and this is to Cathy’s point, is if at that meeting there’s a statement that says I’ve read everything, I’m up to speed, I’m comfortable going ahead, that’s a hard argument to settle. If you’re saying I’m different but I’ve read everything and I’m ready to go, you can’t argue that if the member says they’re ready, but again, I think that’s, I didn’t mean to say it’s up to the Board as the Board has to decide how it happens. I think I meant it’s up to the members that are different, and those members make up the Board. MR. URRICO-The point I was getting at is I’m not going to have to read the application. So we’re just basically re-opening the public hearing. MR. FREER-We’re not even doing that. We’re continuing our deliberation. We discontinued our deliberation, right? So the choices are we uphold the, or we, I wrote down the language that I’m supposed to say. MR. BROWN-That you either support the Appellant or deny the Appellant. That’s the easiest way. MR. FREER-We uphold, yes, and there was a third choice, though, that Mark said. MR. HENKEL-This is similar to what we did before. We didn’t give a direct answer. We used our 62 days. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. FREER-And the other part of that is if we make a decision, then we’re going to ask Counsel to help us draft the language. MR. BROWN-That’s your option. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. UNDERWOOD-I had another point that I wanted to bring up. MR. FREER-Michelle had a question. Go ahead MRS. HAYWARD-Is the Appellant under the impression what the Board make up is going to be at their next hearing? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) MR. KUHL-No. MR. BROWN-No. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. All right. Because I heard someone say something like it would be six plus one. MR. UNDERWOOD-Technically speaking I think the primary Board members always sit when available and they only would recuse themselves if they had a conflict of interest or they wanted the continuity to continue. That’s their choice. MR. FREER-Right. MRS. HAYWARD-But my question was, what was said to the Appellant at that meeting? MR. UNDERWOOD-You can come back and have seven Board members. We didn’t say who. So it could be anybody. MR. BROWN-Just like any night at any meeting the Board make up could be different. MRS. HAMLIN-And there’s nothing against the law that you can take the vote when there’s only six members. MR. FREER-Right. But I’ve offered that as a standard practice and Mark recommended that we do that. Right? That we only have six Board members and, you know, if there was a desire to have a full Board that we would oblige. Okay. Any more questions? Going once? th MR. BROWN-Scheduling. I think if the goal is to be able to act by May 30, and I think I just heard there may be some desire to have some Counsel input on that language that you nd act you may want to have it on both meetings, May 22 to talk about it, come up with a draft, th get it to Counsel and then do your final decision on the 30. And I just asked so we can get it on an agenda. MR. FREER-Right. Yes, and what I would propose is that at that first meeting we also decide who is comfortable, because you guys will have had a chance to read the minutes. MR. UNDERWOOD-They can talk amongst themselves. They can talk to Mike and Mike can get back to you. MR. URRICO-Do we have to be concerned about having a quorum and a public meeting? MR. BROWN-Well, I think just like any decision that the Board makes, all the deliberations and decisions that you make have to be done at the meeting. They’re required to be done at an open meeting. MR. URRICO-Discussing who’s going to be sitting on the Board, that could present a potential problem because it was three, three. It’s critical who the seventh person’s going to be. MR. BROWN-So it’s possible. It’s not outside the realm of possibility that you have a ndth certain Board make up on the 22 and you have a different Board make up on the 30. So I think it would be important at the beginning of each of those meetings when you start the deliberations on this topic, those members that are sitting, if they’re different from their most previous decision or discussion, I think it’s fair that they make a statement that says, look, I’m up to speed. I was in the first one but not the second one. Now I’m back on the 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) third one. I’ve been following along, I’m prepared. I’m ready to act. So if whichever meeting that those discussions happen at, I think it should be on the record each time. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, everybody. MR. UNDERWOOD-I just have one more point. Ron and I were talking about and on Staff Notes we used to always have a Parcel History that was on there, and for some reason that disappeared over the years. I don’t know when it stopped being a part of the normal Staff Notes, but I think sometimes that allows us to make a better decision if we know there’s been a variance given previously or Planning Board decision that came down that was, you know, it allows us to craft in our own minds what we’re doing definitely more properly and I think that, you know, like for decades I think that was always the way that it worked on Staff Notes. MR. HENKEL-It is helpful. MR. UNDERWOOD-But I think it gives you some direction plus it gives you the history of the parcel. If there’s already been a variance given and they’re asking for more, then you can ask the question in your own mind is this reasonable or unreasonable. MR. FREER-I thought it was as necessary, because I recall seeing it as well and it was useful, but I didn’t know that they did it every application. MR. UNDERWOOD-I don’t remember if it was every application or whether it was only on ones that were controversial. MR. HENKEL-It was pretty close to every one. MR. UNDERWOOD-I’m pretty sure it was almost every one. MR. BROWN-Yes, I mean a couple of years ago when I was doing the Staff Notes for the Board there was a Parcel History for every project and everything from building permits to Site Plan, Zoning Board. So the notes are the Staff’s, not the Staff’s position but the reading of the Code provided to the Board and if you wish to have that kind of Parcel History in there, we can add that back in. MR. FREER-Yes. Let’s see if it will be helpful. I don’t want to create busy work, but it sounds like people would. MR. UNDERWOOD-No, but I mean sometimes like in the case of this one here where you’ve had a previous Zoning Board decision on parcels involved, it’s important that you go back and read what the thought was at the time because even though it’s a different request this time, you have to look at the context of what the decision was because you’re not going to overturn a Board decision previously unless there’s some major change in thought or Zoning Code. MR. BROWN-Yes, I wouldn’t get too caught up on basing your decision on what the Board has done in the past. I think you want to base your decision on the application that’s in front of you, but it’s at least good background to understand that there is a history on the property. So you really can’t say I’m not going to give you this one because I didn’t give it to you before. You have to focus on the application in front of you. MRS. HAMLIN-One quick question here. Part of the reason why I wasn’t comfortable moving forward during this deliberation was I felt like I needed input or information on a couple of facts in the case and trying to understand those that I think is beyond my knowledge that would be helpful in making a decision. I mean first off that APA language. 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 04/24/2019) Who else has made any opine on these? Does APA’s attorneys have an opinion on this? AG or comptroller, and the other thing is there was a merging of the tax parcel, I think it was 2006 or ’08 where it was put together as one tax parcel. Did that constitute an actual merging of the subdivision? Because if that was the case, then it was later re-subdivided. MR. HENKEL-Well, I think the owner asked for that so it would make it easier. Didn’t they say something about that, it was to make it easier to have it one? MR. BROWN-You shouldn’t be talking about the merits of the case. MR. FREER-Yes. MRS. HAMLIN-I’m sorry, but those are the questions I have. I just wanted to know did that mean a subdivision was actually merged or just the tax parcel? MR. MC CABE-I think that was answered in Lapper’s reply, but again, I don’t think we should be. MR. UNDERWOOD-The other thing is, too, you can’t really call it a subdivision because it’s not a filed subdivision. MR. FREER-Again, this is not the place to talk process. The other point that Mark made was this is already in litigation. MRS. HAMLIN-Right, but where can we get that information, though? MR. FREER-So this is controversial, already in litigation. Right? So the attorneys have, they’ve put it on hold until this Appeal but already in litigation. MR. BROWN-Correct. MR. MC CABE-I make a motion that we adjourn tonight’s meeting. MR. URRICO-Second. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF APRIL 24, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: th Duly adopted this 24 day of April, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 28