Loading...
05-30-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 30, 2019 INDEX Sign Variance Z-SV-4-2019 Columbia Development 1. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-5 Area Variance No. 21-2019 Michael & Susan Tartaglione 8. Tax Map No. 308.7-1-32 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 05/30/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 30, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE. VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY MICHELLE HAYWARD JOHN HENKEL JAMES UNDERWOOD CATHERINE HAMLIN, ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE MR. FREER-Welcome to the Zoning Board of Appeals. For those who haven’t been here before, the process is pretty simple. There are documents on the back table to give you information on what we’re going to talk about in each application. We’ll call each applicant to the table. I believe we have two public hearings open for both applications. Is that correct? MRS. MOORE-Yes. MR. FREER-And then if there’s somebody here to speak on the public hearing we’ll ask them to come up. We’ll poll the Board and make the applicable motions and then go on to the next application. So Cathy, since we’re short, you’re on Board. MRS. HAMLIN-Okay. MR. FREER-Okay. So we have our seven and the first one is. Are we going to do the Freihofer? MRS. MOORE-You’ve completed Freihofer. The first one is Columbia Development. MR. FREER-Okay. Columbia Development, Sign Variance 4-2019. OLD BUSINESS: 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 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) GAVIN VUILLAUME & KEVIN RONAYNE, 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 57 sq. ft. freestanding sign revised from 70 sq. ft. freestanding sign to be located less than 15 ft. from the property line. Project includes installation of two wall signs at 60 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: Chapter 140-Signs The applicant proposes a free standing sign that has been revised from 70 sq. ft. and now proposed 57 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 45 sq. ft. The free standing sign is to be located 2ft from Main St and Big Boom Rd where a 15 ft. setback is required. The two wall signs are proposed to remain at the proposed 60 sq. ft. each where the maximum allowed is 30 sq. ft. Noting the color scheme has been updated from a neutral color to a red, blue and white scheme. 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. There is 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 13 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 proposal has revised the size of the free standing sign reduced to 57 sq. ft. The two wall signs are proposed to remain the same at 60 sq. ft. size on the side of the building. The applicant has updated the color scheme removing the neutral theme to include a red, white and blue. 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 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) 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. Good evening. Welcome back. MR. VUILLAUME-Good evening. Gavin Vuillaume with Environmental Design representing Columbia Development. I’m here this evening with Kevin Ronayne from Saratoga Hospital. I’ll start off by thanking the Board for granting the variances that we needed for the building. We talked about that building at the last Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. Since that meeting we have researched several other similar sites in Town and we’ve also received our final approval from the Planning Board for the construction of the project. So the only thing remaining, as you remember from our last meeting, we tabled the signage because we wanted to kind of maybe get this more in line with some of the other medical buildings in Town. We’ve looked at the Hudson Headwaters project, which I know was recently constructed, and for their, they have several, I believe, freestanding signs, varying in sizes. We feel that our sign is pretty in between some of the ones that they’ve proposed. We did reduce it from 70 square feet down to 57 and we’re very comfortable with that square footage. We also still need, however, the variances for the location of the sign. Just to remind everyone, so here’s Main Street, Big Boom, and the signage would be right at the corner there. This week I met with the Highway Superintendent, David Duell, and he basically gave me the go ahead with all the sidewalk and curbing work that we’re doing in that area. The utilities, as I think I explained the last time, is kind of critical because there’s a water line that kind of gets close to the building that needs to be re-located. So we have a very small footprint for the location of the sign. You obviously don’t want to get it too close to the intersection and there really is no place for it along the front of the building. So we feel that the positioning and the size of the freestanding sign is adequate for the site constraints and for the project itself. Moving on to the building signage, we obviously have made some modifications to that signage. The square footage is still the same. We think that it is proportional with the building. Obviously it’s very important for I think the people driving by to be able to notice the sign, specifically since we are an urgent care facility. If you want to go to one of those building elevations we can kind of quickly look at that, and getting to that, again, as people come off the Northway they don’t have a lot of time to get into our site, especially approaching from the west. From the east it’s not so bad, but from the west end and especially the Northway they’ve got to kind of get quick glimpse of our building and where we’re located. As the people that are in need of healthcare access that intersection it’s important to see the two signs. This is the sign that would be more visible as someone would get off the Northway and the Main Street elevation shows the signage as someone would be able to visualize it as they’re coming off the, I guess it would be the western side of Main Street. So, you know, again, we looked at some other projects, and again they vary, recent projects. The Holiday Inn has a fairly substantial sign. We’re way below the square footage of that sign, but again, we feel that, there’s a good picture of it, with the couple of little notices. So you can see the sign isn’t very large in comparison to the overall building. So again, we’re just here to kind of request these couple of variances for the signs and that would complete our Town review, at this point, for the project. MR. FREER-Good. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? Seeing none, we have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There’s no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. With that, I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And we’ll start with John. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I think the freestanding sign, definitely there’s not many locations you could put that. I agree with the size. I still have a little problem with the size of the sign in the back. I know you’ve done a good job of downsizing but the sign in front definitely I agree with. I’m still having a little trouble with the sign in the back being that size because once you’re in that parking lot that’s the only building that’s there. So I’m kind of on the fence with that. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. HENKEL-No pun intended. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with it. I understand why the freestanding sign has to be where it is. So I’ll go along with that. They obviously took a look at Hudson Headwaters and they’re right. There’s several signs there. I just want it to be fair since they’re only a mile down the road, and make sure that, you know, we. MRS. MOORE-So just to clarify that, their signs are compliant. There were no Sign Variances granted for them. MR. MC CABE-They came to us for them. What happened? MRS. MOORE-They withdrew that. MR. VUILLAUME-I thought I saw, in looking at the research, that their main sign on the main street was actually 60 square feet and their sign on Carey Road was 40. MRS. MOORE-Well, different from that, they had a recent sign proposal to us that was, so the signs that you’re talking about may have been previous, but they had a whole sign package that I think the Board is talking about that was on all the buildings. They had directional signs. They were also larger than what was allowed, and so they changed their entire sign package to be compliant. So all their building signage and the directional signage were compliant signs. MR. VUILLAUME-Yes, the building for sure. They just have the logo in several locations on the building. MR. MC CABE-So anyway, I don’t think that, just looking at it, and again, in proportion to the building and property, I don’t think that they’re out of line. So I will go along with this project. MR. FREER-Thanks, Mike. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, first of all I don’t think it’s an apples to apples comparison with Hudson Headwaters anyway because they have a clear line of sight from both directions, east and west. Whereas this one does not, coming from the west. If you’re coming off the Northway, you’re coming west. You have to contend with the overpass from the Northway. So I don’t think that’s a fair comparison, but at any rate I’m in favor of the application, signs. MR. FREER-Thanks, Roy. Cathy? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) MRS. HAMLIN-I’m happy with the placement of the freestanding sign. I think it’s an extremely generous variance that you’re asking for, but I think also apples to oranges there’s a much bigger setback with the Hudson Headwaters, where the cut off is on that, but yes that whole configuration with the overpass, I could go along with this. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, as far as the wall signs, I think they pointed out the fact that commercial hotels have bigger signs than what they’re proposing here and because it’s an urgent care center and it needs to be identified, I think it makes sense to have it be a little bit larger so it’s very apparent, not something that you might not see if you weren’t paying attention. As far as the monument sign goes, I think it’s the only logical place to put the signs. The setbacks don’t really seem to be an issue. You’re not going to block sight view if you’re turning left or anything from that intersection. It’s all well controlled to begin with. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in favor. I appreciate the fact that you decreased the size of the monument sign. MR. FREER-I, too, can support this application. So I think the next step is we have to do a 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 John Henkel: th Duly adopted 30 day of May 2019, by the following vote: MR. HENKEL-Can I just ask a question? I don’t know why they’re associated with Saratoga? Why is it nothing’s written about Saratoga? MR. VUILLAUME-So actually the colors of the sign, the monument sign with the white frame and what we call hospital blue background is very much in line with all of our other campuses and our signage, and we may yet end up tweaking the actual wording on the signs so that you may end up seeing that, but we’ve also been. MR. HENKEL-You’d think that would be like a selling point, if people like Saratoga over a certain facility you think they would, it would help you. MR. VUILLAUME-So again the look and design of the sign is very similar to our other campuses and we’re still tweaking the actual wording that would be the outward display. MR. HENKEL-Okay. Thanks. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NONE: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. We’ve finished the SEQR piece. Now I’m going to request a motion for the Sign Variances. We can do them both together or do we have to do them separate? MRS. MOORE-It’s one application. So it’s just one resolution. MR. FREER-Who would like to make a motion to approve the Sign Variance? MR. MC CABE-I’ll make a motion. 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 57 sq. ft. freestanding sign revised from 70 sq. ft. freestanding sign to be located less than 15 ft. from the property line. Project includes installation of two wall signs at 60 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: Chapter 140-Signs The applicant proposes a freestanding sign that has been revised from 70 sq. ft. and now proposed 57 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 45 sq. ft. The freestanding sign is to be located 2ft from Main St and Big Boom Rd where a 15 ft. setback is required. The two wall signs are proposed to remain at the proposed 60 sq. ft. each where the maximum allowed is 30 sq. ft. Noting the color scheme has been updated from a neutral color to a red, blue and white scheme. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] 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 John Henkel; th Duly adopted 30 day of May 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NONE: None ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday, May 30, 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. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? We find that there will not be an undesirable change in the character of the 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) neighborhood nor a detriment to the nearby properties. Signs are common in this area here and none of these signs are gross or beyond our normal expectations. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? Not really, we have seen how this is a fairly tight area and so what has been designed here is about as good as we can get. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We don’t think so at all. We think, it’s, at worst, moderate. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We feel not; it’s in line with other signs in the area. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Of course 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 NO. 4-2019 COLUMBIA DEVELOPMENT, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. th day Duly adopted this 30 of May 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. When are you going to start demolition? MR. RONAYNE-Soon. MR. FREER-Good luck. MR. RONAYNE-Thank you very much. MR. FREER-Okay. The next application is Michael & Susan Tartaglione, Area Variance 21- 2019. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 21-2019 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL & SUSAN TARTAGLIONE OWNER(S) MSLL DEVELOPMENT ZONING SR-1A AT TIME OF SUBD. APPROVAL LOCATION 41 WESTBERRY WAY – PINE RIDGE ESTATES APPLICANTS PROPOSE PLACEMENT OF A 168 SQ. FT. SHED ON THEIR PARCEL. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SR-1A ZONING DISTRICT AT THE TIME OF PINE RIDGE ESTATES. CROSS REF SB 7-2003 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.57 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.7-1-32 SECTION 179- 5-020 MICHAEL TARTAGLIONE, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 21-2019, Michael & Susan Tartaglione, Meeting Date: May 30, 2019 “Project Location: 41 Westberry Way Description of Proposed Project: Applicants proposes placement of a 168 sq. ft. shed on their parcel. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the SR-1A zoning district at the time Pine Ridge Estates. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the SR-1A zoning district at the time Pine Ridge Estates for placement of a shed on the property. The parcel is currently zoned MDR however the zoning setback of SR-1A were established with Pine Ridge Estates subdivision of 2003. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes the 168 sq. ft. shed to be located 5 ft. from the side property line where a 10 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 appear due to the exterior utilities of the home and the orientation of the shed on the lot. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for side setback of 5 ft. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) 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 on 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 to place a shed on the property that does not meet the setbacks. The applicant has indicated the shed location is due to the location of the driveway and the electric power. The plans show the shed that is typical to the one they are purchasing. The shed is to match the color of the existing home and door width will be less than 6 ft. in width.” MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Mike Tartaglione. There are two doors. One is less than six feet. One is a pass through door. That’s the one facing towards the front of the property. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience who’d like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, all we have is the high school kids getting their civics credit, Roy, is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there’s no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. So what I’m going to do is close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-I’m sorry, before I do that, does the Board have any questions? Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board and start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-Yes, I don’t have any problem with the location. I can understand where things are tight there and five feet, we’ve certainly done worse than this. So I would go along with project. MR. FREER-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, it sounds like a big variance but it really is not. I’m aware of the situation through his explanation. I’m in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Thank you. Cathy? MRS. HAMLIN-If I could just ask one question. Is it just because of the outlet that you’re not considering the other side? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Not just so much just the outlet, but the outlet would come into play, with snow blowing it’s electric start. The outlet is right across from it, to be able to plug in. The way the shed is set up, I forgot to mention, there is a front door which is facing the front and it would be easy access to the driveway with the snow blower. The side one is for the lawn tractor which without the relief from the 10 foot setback would make it a tight turn to try to get my lawn tractor out in between the house and the shed. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) MRS. HAMLIN-Well it sounds like you thought it through. This is the only really logical location. MR. TARTAGLIONE-And it was picked out. MRS. HAMLIN-You’re narrow. I went and looked. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes, it is on that side. On the other side there’s a little bit more room and that’s far away from the driveway, but the shed itself, my wife somehow found the exact shed and the exact same color siding of the house, same color trim. That’s why I did all this with the shed. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, it wouldn’t make any sense to put it on the other side of the house. I mean it makes sense to put it where it’s being proposed. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m in agreement as well and it fits in with the character of the neighborhood. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Michelle. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’m on board also with it. No problem. MR. FREER-I’d like to support this application. It makes sense. MRS. MOORE-So I have a question. You mentioned that one of the doors may be larger than six feet? Or less than six feet? MR. TARTAGLIONE-They’re all less than six feet. MRS. MOORE-Okay, because we talked about that and I just want to confirm that we’re not getting beyond what we would consider a second garage versus the shed. MR. HENKEL-This picture that you showed us for the front, that’s going to be the part that’s up towards your house. Right? MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-That’s the one that’s pointing towards the house. MR. TARTAGLIONE-So the single man door is towards the front, towards the street. MR. HENKEL-The single door is towards the street. Okay. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Gotcha. MR. FREER-Okay. I’m ready to close the public hearing. MRS. MOORE-You already did that. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) MR. FREER-Then we’re ready for somebody to make a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael & Susan Tartaglione. Applicants proposes placement of a 168 sq. ft. shed on their parcel. Relief requested from minimum setback requirements for the SR-1A zoning district at the time Pine Ridge Estates. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from minimum setback requirements for the SR-1A zoning district at the time Pine Ridge Estates for placement of a shed on the property. The parcel is currently zoned MDR however the zoning setback of SR-1A were established with Pine Ridge Estates subdivision of 2003. Section 179-3-040 Dimensional Requirements The applicant proposes the 168 sq. ft. shed to be located 5 ft. from the side property line where a 10 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Thursday, May 30, 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. The shed will house the necessary implements to take care of the property. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered but are not deemed reasonable at this particular time. 3. The requested variance, although it looks substantial is really not when you consider that we’re only giving up 5 feet. 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) 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. 21-2019, Michael & Susan Tartaglione, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Mrs. Hayward: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) th Duly adopted this 30 day of May 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. TARTAGLIONE-Okay. Thank you all very much. MR. FREER-Okay. Before we adjourn, I do want to sort of I guess update the Board on some feedback I got from the Attorney on our Appeal, and the sense of Mr. Schachner was that we should have laid out in the actual resolution more of the discussion topics that we did as we deliberated. So, I just, I bring that up just so we can learn from our mistakes and see where all this goes, but I think we’ve gotten in the habit of sort of laying out those criteria in our motions for variances. This was sort of an odd duck and we were sort of caught about who was going to be here this time and the number of votes and all. We’ll see where it goes, but I just wanted to give you guys that feedback that for all of us that we need to focus on putting in the actual motions so that if it goes to court it can be properly defended. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I mean I was ready to do a formal one but I felt we were precluded from doing that. That was my understanding that we’re supposed to be simplified. MR. FREER-Again, obviously we had some brief discussion about that and I had talked to Mark previously about what I wanted to do was to sort of get a sense of the Board and then have us draft and get their help in making sure we dotted all the I’s. MR. URRICO-Can I ask a question? If this was so important, why wasn’t the attorney here? MRS. MOORE-There was a process that we were following. MR. FREER-Yes, he had a conflict. MR. URRICO-If he’s going to sit there and second guess what we’re doing. MRS. MOORE-You can always table. MR. URRICO-We’re entitled to have an attorney here. MR. FREER-So he spoke to me earlier in the week and he said he had a conflict with last week and that he could be here this week, and we had already set up that we were going to have a discussion. My goal of last week was to just figure out, you know, who was comfortable voting and we kind of got ahead of our, at least Mark and my plan. My bad. I’m not blaming anybody. MR. URRICO-No, but you did. MR. FREER-My mistake, then. Let me take the blame for it, not handling it as well as it could have been handled. MR. URRICO-But it was a very difficult case. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/30/2019) MR. FREER-It was. MR. URRICO-It had all of the nuances, plus we had a split group voting on it. So I think maybe in retrospect we should have postponed it if the attorney couldn’t be here. MR. FREER-Again there were a couple of things that we could have done differently. I just wanted to pass along feedback from the attorney about the situation, not, and I used the term mistake more geared at me for not, you know, doing it as well as we could, but again, this was an unusual one and I just want everybody to be aware that the feedback from the attorney was that we needed to put more meat in the motion and I think we do a good job on that with the variances. This was definitely an unusual case and Mark had a conflict last week. And Craig obviously wasn’t forceful in suggesting that we needed meat. He was more inclined to just say keep it a little cleaner. So anyway. That’s all I wanted to say. MRS. HAMLIN-I’m sorry I wasn’t here, but I read your minutes and, I mean, if a court is going to look at that, I mean you deliberated all the points. It is in the minutes. They’re not apt to supplant their judgment for yours. It should have been. MR. FREER-Again, in the abundance of caution that the lawyers like us to do, they want some of that in the actual resolution. Okay. With that I’ll request a motion to adjourn. MR. MC CABE-I’ll make a motion to adjourn tonight’s meeting. MR. FREER-Okay. And I’ll second and with no objection we’re adjourned. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JUNE 30, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: th Duly adopted this 30 day of May, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hamlin, Mr. Henkel, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 14