Loading...
07-17-2019 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2019 INDEX Area Variance No. 9-2019 Gary Hillert 2. REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE Tax Map No. 289.10-1-53 Area Variance No. 29-2019 Ronald & Linda Ball 2. Tax Map No. 295.6-1-48 Sign Variance No. 6-2019 Spruce Hospitality 12. Tax Map No. 309.14-1-86.11; 309.14-1-89.1 Area Variance No. 30-2019 Michael Shearer 16. Tax Map No. 240.5-1-6 Sign Variance No. 7-2019 Jason Tyler 22. Tax Map No. 302.5-1-92.11 Sign Variance No. 8-2019 Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell 26. Tax Map No. 288.8-1-6 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 07/17/2019) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 17, 2019 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT HARRISON FREER, CHAIRMAN MICHAEL MC CABE, VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY RONALD KUHL JOHN HENKEL MICHELLE HAYWARD JAMES UNDERWOOD LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE th MR. FREER-Welcome, everyone, to the July 17 crazy day on the Northway Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. For those who haven’t been here, the process is quite simple. There’s information on the back table about what we’re going to do. We’ll read the application into the record. We’ll ask questions of the applicant. We’ll open a public hearing if there’s one scheduled. We’ll poll the Board and then we’ll make a motion as applicable. Before we get started, I believe we have a couple of administrative actions. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 19, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 19, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: th Duly adopted this 17day of July, 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE June 26, 2019 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF JUNE 26, 2019, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2019, by the following vote: MR. FREER-I’d just like to thank Mr. McCabe for being my voice at that meeting. I was hoarse and couldn’t talk so he actually ran the meeting. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM REQUEST TO FURTHER TABLE: AREA VARIANCE 9-2019 GARY HILLERT The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gary Hillert. Applicant requests to maintain a deck addition next to the shoreline with a portion over the shore. Project also includes maintaining a fence sections on the shoreline side of the home. Relief requested from minimum shoreline setback requirements for the deck. Relief is also requested for the fences that have been constructed near shore area. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE Z-AV. 9-2019, GARY HILLERT, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Tabled to the first Zoning Board of Appeals meeting in August with re-submission of materials as soon as possible. th Duly adopted this 17 day of July 2019 by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Can I share information with the Board? MR. FREER-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Mr. Hillert has stopped in and indicated that the deck that was hanging on the water, he’s removed that deck and the Zoning Board will only see the fence information that he’s provided. So he’s updated his plans and you’ll get that submission for August. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. AYES: Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Now I think we’re on to Area Variance 29-2019, Ronald & Linda Ball. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 29-2019 SEQRA TYPE II RONALD & LINDA BALL OWNER(S) RONALD & LINDA BALL ZONING MDR LOCATION 28 SARA-JEN DRIVE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO HAVE A 450 SQ. FT. POOL CONSTRUCTED AND 270 SQ. FT. POOL WALKWAY SO A PORTION IS LOCATED IN THE SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD. POOLS ARE TO BE LOCATED IN THE REAR YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM REQUIREMENTS FOR POOL PLACEMENT IN THE REAR YARD. CROSS REF POOL 333- 2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.49 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 295.6-1-48 SECTION 179-5-020 LINDA BALL, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy? STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 29-2019, Ronald & Linda Ball, Meeting Date: July 17, 2019 “Project Location: 28 Sara-Jen Drive Description of Proposed Project: Applicant 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) proposes to have a 450 sq. ft. pool constructed and 270 sq. ft. pool walkway so a portion is located in the side yard and rear yard. Pools are to be located in the rear yard. Relief requested from requirements for pool placement in the rear yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from requirements for pool placement in the side yard. Section 179-5-020 –pool Applicant proposes a portion of the pool to be located in the side yard where pools are to be located in the rear 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. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the home and size of the parcel. The plans show existing bushes on the side property line were the pool is to be placed. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for a portion of the pool to be in the side yard. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have minimal impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a portion of the 450 sq. ft. pool in the side yard of an existing lot with a single family home. The information submitted shows the lot configuration with the proposed pool and walkway around the pool. In addition, the applicant has shown the fence around the pool.” MR. FREER-Welcome. Could you please identify yourself and add anything you’d like to the record. MRS. BALL-My name is Linda Ball. My address is 28 Sara-Jen, Queensbury. There is no other place to put it, really, if we do the back setback. The only spot we have is on the side. Most of it is hidden by a shop that was added on to our two car garage. I think about a third of it would be in the side yard, that wouldn’t be behind the building. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from Board members? MR. HENKEL-Could I ask a question of Staff? I mean this survey here doesn’t show, the survey we have from Van Dusen doesn’t show where the septic system. Now where they have drawn out, is that, according to your records, is that where it is? 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MRS. MOORE-That’s correct. MR. HENKEL-That is correct. Okay. MR. FREER-Any other questions? Okay we have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to speak on this application? Okay. Ma’am, if you would relinquish your seat. Welcome. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED ELSIE BEDROSIAN MRS. BEDROSIAN-Elsie and George Bedrosian, 16 Lehland Drive. Would it be possible for my husband to pass out a sheet of paper to each Board member and Staff? I’m going to just start talking. When I saw the plot plan, it said that the pool is a 450 square foot pool, but if you do the calculation it’s actually 465 square feet, not 450. The Ball’s property is .49 acres. Our living quarters are along the back of the house. So we see the back of the Ball’s house, and because our houses are all set, we see their west side yard and Sara-Jen Drive. We heard from neighbors that the Ball’s wanted to add a pool to their property. The Ball’s did not approach us. Once we heard about their interest in the pool, we went to Town Hall to learn about the rules and regulations concerning pools. We know that there must be 20 feet between their pool and our common back property line and 10 feet from the side line. Most importantly pools cannot be placed in the front yard or in the side yard. If you look at the approximately 100 homes in Lehland Estates, on Google earth, you will see swimming pools in backyards and in almost all cases the pools are backed by woods. For some background, I have seen and documented in 2018 33, and there were three axel 10 wheel dump trucks and 18 smaller landscape dump trucks delivering fill to the Ball’s property. We are not home all the time and soil could have been delivered while we were out. Additional we were not in residence for 51 days in the fall. When we returned neighbors said more fill had been delivered while we were away. To give you a perspective of the amount of fill added to the property, along the back of the house there were two above ground cellar windows, one below the dining room window which was on the east side, and one below the bedroom window, and I’m not talking about the narrow rectangular windows that you sometimes see in basements near the ground. These were up in the foundation, but after all that fill had been put in the windows are no longer visible. After all that addition, they’re gone, covered by dirt and then they’ve been topped off by patios. You see the addition on the back of the house and on the east side there is a patio and on the west side there is also a patio. The topography of the property was changed, completely changed. Now we are further concerned about the impact of a pool and surrounding walkways. Environmentally what impact will the additional changes have on the soil’s ability to deal with water or how will it affect the runoff of rainwater or melting snow? We have been in this home for 15 years and have not had basement water or standing water on our property and want to keep it that way. We have several other concerns regarding this request. When the land is excavated for a pool where will the excess dirt be dumped? Remember we’ve already had 33 and 18 that I have seen. I can’t see the front of the house. I can’t see he east side yard. The following information is from two different pool companies. After a heavy rainfall, excess water must be drained so the water level is not above the skimmer, and preparing for winter, the pool water must be lowered eight to twelve inches below the skimmer. The water that is drained must be drained into a certain area of the property because of the chlorine or if it is a salt water pool, where will this drained water be deposited? It appears that the field for the septic tank is in this very same side yard. That drain water must remain on the Ball’s property, but what happens if the water makes its way onto adjoining properties? Will the noise from the pump house disturb the peace and quiet? A friend had mentioned that they are unable to sit on their deck when their neighbor’s pump is working. Will the pump be out in the open? Will it be placed inside the addition that the Ball’s put on their two car garage? Will the pump be placed in a shed next 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) to the wall of their house or will it be placed near the back property line? We share the back property line. Once again, we are concerned about permeability if soil and grass are replaced by a swimming pool and the adjacent walkways. So for these reasons and the questions that they raise, we oppose this request for a variance. Thanks. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any other people in the audience want to make a comment about this application? MRS. MOORE-So you had submitted a letter via e-mail. Do you want that one also read into the record? GEORGE BEDROSIAN MR. BEDROSIAN-I did not submit anything right now. MR. URRICO-Is this your letter? MRS. BEDROSIAN-This was when we first heard about it. I asked Craig for information. MRS. MOORE-All right. MR. FREER-Ma’am, would you like to come back up? MRS. BALL-I really couldn’t hear a lot of what she said. The water that she’s worried about, their house sits way above ours on the lot. Their house is here. Ours is here. I can’t see any water running uphill. Like I said, I didn’t hear a lot of what she said. I know the water was a concern. MR. FREER-She also asked about the pump and where the pump would be located because someone told her, my words, that the pumps are noisy and she was concerned about that. MRS. BALL-I guess that would probably be up to the contractor as to where.’ MR. FREER-So you haven’t determined where the pump would go yet. MRS. BALL-No. MR. FREER-Okay, and there’s no permeability requirement waivers that we’re dealing with. Right? MRS. MOORE-Correct. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other comments? MR. KUHL-I had a question. Have you contracted with a pool company yet? MRS. BALL-Yes, we have. MR. KUHL-Okay, and in that contract with the pool company, are they going to be putting a drywell in so that when you backwash or filter the water will go there? MRS. BALL-I don’t know if we discussed that. I suppose it’s possible. MR. KUHL-Well, no, I’d like to know yes or no, and if you don’t know, that’s fine. Just say you don’t know. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MRS. BALL-I don’t know. I don’t know if that’s a normal thing to do. I don’t know. MR. KUHL-I see. MR. URRICO-What about the size of the pool? What’s the actual number? MRS. BALL-The size? It’s 15 by 30. MR. FREER-But there’s a walkout, there’s an additional walkout on the chart. MRS. BALL-There’s three feet of concrete around it. MR. FREER-Okay. On the diagram we have it has 18 feet across the back. So I’m assuming that’s like a three foot walkout. Is that what you’re asking? MR. URRICO-Well the Bedrosians suggested that the measurements were off and I’m trying to confirm what they are. So I’m still not getting a direct answer. MRS. MOORE-So I mean, 15 by 30 gives us 450 and then there’s a walkout piece from the. MR. URRICO-So it’s an additional 15 feet. MRS. MOORE-That’s correct, yes. It’s three feet by five which is 15 feet. MR. URRICO-So it’s 465. MR. FREER-Okay. So the application said 450. It’s really 465. MRS. MOORE-Yes, if you count the exterior steps. MRS. BALL-You’re talking about steps. MR. FREER-Okay. You said the only other document we had was the previous letter. MR. URRICO-That was, the letter was by the same people that spoke. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-And they seemed to think they covered everything they needed to. MR. FREER-Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And poll the Board, and I think I’ll start with Mike. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Yes, I took a look at this and I kind of agree with Mrs. Ball that there is really no other good place for the pool. What we’re being asked to consider here is nothing to do with the design of the pool or runoff or anything like that. We’re being asked to consider can a portion of this pool be in the front yard, if you will, or not the whole pool being in the backyard, and I believe, at least on the other side of this development, we did approve a side yard pool a couple of years ago. So there’s at least one other in the local area, and so I don’t really have a problem with this. I would approve this project as is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Mike. Roy? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. URRICO-Yes, for the relief that we’re being asked to allow specifically, I’m in favor of the application, based on what Mike just gave. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think what’s being requested here is logical where the pool is being placed. It’s the only place on there it can be placed. It’s still going to be 20 feet from the rear property line, which is more than the limits of what we can expect. As far as the side setbacks, it’s almost 30 feet to the edge of the property line. So I’d be in favor of the request. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my other Board members. I think that the letter we have in front of us where they quote somebody said that the pumps were noisy, that’s like second or third hand. I’m sorry about that, but I don’t think the pumps are that noisy and I would imagine that the Ball’s would be good neighbors and put a cover around the pump if it was noisy. So I’m in favor of it the way it is. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Well first I’d like to disclose I’m acquainted with Mrs. Ball and her husband. We’re both neighbors. I have no financial interest in their property at all. I’d also like to add I’m in favor of it as well for all the other reasons that my fellow Board members have said. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, and John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. I think it would be nice if they could put a stockade fence along the back line there, for a little bit more privacy. That would be the only thing I would suggest, and maybe to suggest that the pump would be closer to their addition than towards the front of the house, which could easily be done to make the neighbors happy. So I’d be on board also. Everybody else has to be on board, but I think the fence would be a nice stockade fence across the back to give the neighbors a little bit more protection from the sound. Also like I said the motor could be put up towards their addition towards the front of the house there, to get rid of the noise a little bit. That’s my suggestion. MR. FREER-Okay. Do you want to circle back around with any of those? MR. MC CABE-I think, didn’t you mention that you planned a fence? MR. HENKEL-Well she’s going to have a fence around the pool area, but not along the back there. MRS. BALL-The entire pool would be fenced in. MR. HENKEL-Right, but you’re not looking at, that would be just like a four foot fence, or are you looking at a stockade fence? MRS. BALL-We probably would put a privacy fence in the back. MR. HENKEL-That was my suggestion is across your backyard maybe you could do that for your neighbors to protect, you know, a six foot privacy fence would be nice. MR. FREER-Okay. So do you want to circle back? 8 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. HENKEL-That’s my suggestion and that’s why I suggested it. MR. FREER-Okay. I support this, but I would consider, personally, putting a constraint that the pump, I don’t know how we could do the location of the pump. Okay. So I’m going to, I’ve already closed the public hearing. So I’m going to seek a motion. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ronald & Linda Ball. Applicant proposes to have a 450 sq. ft. pool constructed and 270 sq. ft. pool walkway so a portion is located in the side yard and rear yard. Pools are to be located in the rear yard. Relief requested from requirements for pool placement in the rear yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from requirements for pool placement in the side yard. Section 179-5-020 –pool Applicant proposes a portion of the pool to be located in the side yard where pools are to be located in the rear yard. SEQR Type II – no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday July 17, 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 because at least one other property in this area has a pool in the side yard. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board but are generally deemed not practical in this particular case because of the topography of the house. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It’s moderate at worst. 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) The Board proposes that you put a 24 foot in length, six-foot privacy fence on the back of the pool. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. _29-2019 RONALD & LINDA BALL, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: th Duly adopted this 17 day of July 2019 by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-The Board proposes that you put a six foot privacy fence on the back of the pool. Is that okay with you? MRS. BALL-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote, I just want to clarify. So you’re asking for an 18 foot length of six foot privacy fence. I just want to make sure. MR. HENKEL-Eighteen feet across, would it be, because that would enclose that whole area. There’d just be people hanging out on the cement. MRS. MOORE-Well that’s what I meant. MR. HENKEL-So it has to be longer than 18 feet. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. HENKEL-Right? It would be wherever they have their fenced in area. MRS. MOORE-So it would be. MR. FREER-Twenty-four. MRS. MOORE-Okay. Twenty-four feet. MRS. BALL-They sit higher than we do. An eight foot fence. MR. MC CABE-Then you’d need more variances. MRS. BALL-For what, an eight foot? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MRS. BALL-Yes. I mean as far as them seeing it, I don’t think that’s going to happen. MR. MC CABE-The six foot is what we can do and that’s going to provide some exclusion, plus it’s also going to provide a sound barrier. MRS. BALL-I mean if that’s what we have to do then I guess. MR. MC CABE-I think it would be warranted and worth your while to get the pool in the side yard. It would give you some privacy. MRS. BALL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-So is that clear? MRS. MOORE-It is. So I would say 24 feet worth of fence. Okay. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. URRICO-Are we negotiating this now? MRS. MOORE-No, I said for the back of the property, and she said. MR. URRICO-I’m going to withdraw my vote on this. MR. MC CABE-That’s fine. So I just want to make sure that, you know, we’ve covered the back of the property. MRS. MOORE-And that’s specific to the pool fence that you can see, it says fence. It’s not on the back property line. That’s why I want to be sure that I’m clear that when she comes with the final plans that fence line specifically says six foot on that, where it says fence. MR. MC CABE-That’s what I intended. MRS. MOORE-Right. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a motion. Did you second it, John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. MR. FREER-But it sounds like we need some discussion, Roy. MR. URRICO-Well, I just think we’re doing this the wrong way. This should have been brought up before we got to this point. Now we’re negotiating with the applicant as to what kind of fence should be put up. MRS. MOORE-I just wanted to make sure it was clear. MR. URRICO-But I think it’s wrong the way we’re doing it. MRS. MOORE-Okay. That’s fine. As Staff I need to be clear. MR. MC CABE-That’s the only way that I know how to do it. MR. FREER-But there was that discussion before we. MR. URRICO-Not about size, about length. MR. FREER-Okay. MRS. BALL-That’s it. Is it necessary that it is a privacy fence? MR. URRICO-See this portion should be closed. We shouldn’t be having this discussion here. MR. FREER-Okay. So what is your? MR. URRICO-Call the vote. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. URRICO-Maybe not everybody agrees with me. MR. FREER-Okay. So we’ve had some discussion and we’re calling the vote on the motion as articulated with. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. HENKEL-I think Roy was right. I was the one that suggested that. I don’t think everybody else was on board with that either. I think we threw that in there without everybody else. So I think Roy’s right in saying that. MR. FREER-How do we get ourselves out of this? MRS. MOORE-So you can amend your motion. Because Mike McCabe. MR. HENKEL-I was the one who said that condition. So maybe I’m wrong. MRS. HAYWARD-We would still need to vote on it once the motion was amended and clarified. MRS. MOORE-Right. So you’re in the middle of your motion. Mike McCabe can say I’d like to amend the motion, and if you’re going to remove that and say it as is. MR. FREER-He made a motion. We have a second. I think we can continue to discuss it. MRS. MOORE-Yes, but sooner or later, if during your discussion you come up with something that doesn’t resolve, Mike may need to amend it right now. MR. FREER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-And if Mike made it, he can amend it. MR. MC CABE-And I don’t feel bad about making it because again we had some, during the discussion period we had some discussion about privacy fence and it was mentioned that. MR. FREER-Well we’re not going to interact with. MR. MC CABE-No, no, I’m just saying that that’s what I heard and I think it was a fair solution to the problem and so I included it in the motion. MR. HENKEL-But unfortunately she’s up there, did she decide that that’s the way she wanted it. That’s the only problem. MR. FREER-We’re going to make the motion with the privacy fence there, right? That’s how I understand it. So we’re providing less relief than she requested, by the constraint on the motion, which we have the right to do. MRS. MOORE-Right. I mean you can add conditions. MR. FREER-We’re adding a condition. MRS. MOORE-You’re adding a condition, but if during your discussion you find that that condition is not what you as Board members agreed upon or you don’t. MR. FREER-We can change it. MRS. MOORE-You can change it. MR. FREER-Right. So are you okay with the condition, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. FREER-Ron? 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. KUHL-Yes. MR. FREER-Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes. MR. FREER-As am I. So now I want to vote on the motion. MRS. BALL-Can I say anything? MR. FREER-No. MRS. BALL-I’m done. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: Mr. Urrico MRS. MOORE-All right. I’ll talk to the applicant afterwards, because if that’s not something, she can always come back to this Board with a different proposal. MR. FREER-Right. MRS. MOORE-Okay. MR. FREER-She can come back with a different proposal. Okay. Thank you. We’re on to Sign Variance 6-2019, Spruce Hospitality. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 6-2019 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SPRUCE HOSPITALITY AGENT(S) TYLER C. HERRICK OWNER(S) EDWARD MOORE, SR. ZONING CI-18 LOCATION 21 BIG BOOM ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES 2 WALL SIGNS FOR THE FAIRFIELD INN & SUITES BUILDING CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION. WALL SIGN #1 IS PROPOSED TO BE 92.77 SQ. FT. AND LOCATED ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. WALL SIGN #2 IS TO BE 40.37 SQ. FT. AND IS TO BE LOCATED ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF SP 25-2010 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2019 LOT SIZE 3.57 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 309.14-1-86.11; 309.14-1-89.1 SECTION CHAPTER 140 TYLER HERRICK, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 6-2019, Spruce Hospitality, Meeting Date: July 17, 2019 “Project Location: 21 Big Boom Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes 2 wall signs for the Fairfield Inn & Suites building currently under construction. Wall sign #1 is proposed to be 92.77 sq. ft. and located on the front of the building. Wall sign #2 is to be 40.37 sq. ft. and is to be located on the side of the building. Relief requested from number of wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of wall signs. Section 140- signs 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) The applicant proposes four signs where only 2 are allowed. Wall sign #1 is proposed to be 92.77 sq. ft. and located on the front of the building. Wall sign #2 is to be 40.37 sq. ft. and is to be located on the side of the building Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law and Chapter 267: 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. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce the number of signs. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 2 additional signs that are wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed if there is a free standing 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 project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes Wall sign #1 is proposed to be 92.77 sq. ft. and located on the front of the building and Wall sign #2 is to be 40.37 sq. ft. to be located on the side of the building. The plans show the location of the signage on the building.” MR. FREER-Welcome. Would you like to add anything? MR. HERRICK-Tyler Herrick from the Spruce Hospitality Group. Thank you for taking the time. Basically we have gotten a, or we have two signs that have been approved. One’s a monument sign that would be on Big Boom Road. The other one is a small, more of a directional sign. It’s on the porte cochre that comes off the hotel. As stated basically we’d like to add two more signs on the building. It’s very similar to the Holiday Inn Express suites that was put up across the other side of I-87, and this is a request based on Marriot International brand standards. This isn’t something that we as a company came up with. This is what their brand standards are for all of their properties. So the larger sign, as stated, will be on the front of the building, centered, that would be looking out toward Big Boom, over the retention pits and toward Main Street, by the Sunoco, and the other one would be on the west end of the building looking out towards I-87. We’re not requesting any kind of pole signs or anything freestanding, aside from the monument sign which is right at the drive. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from the Board? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. URRICO-No comments. MR. FREER-Okay, and I’ll poll the Board. I’ll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And then I’ll poll the Board and start with Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes I think we’ve pretty much established a standard for signs on major intersections like I-87. So I would be in favor of the application. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Roy. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I would agree with Roy. Both at Exit 18 and 19 we’ve done the same thing on almost every hotel that’s gone up in recent times. So I have no problem with the request. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I agree with my Board members. This is what we’ve been allowing others to do and it’s minimal. It’s a minimal request. So I’d be in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’d support the project. MR. FREER-John? MR. HENKEL-The way it’s situated, it’s in a very awkward spot, so I’m for it. MR. FREER-Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, I feel it’s fair. It’s the same thing we did with Holiday Inn and the same thing we did up at Exit 19. So I support the project. MR. FREER-I, too, can support this request and we’ll go ahead with SEQR next. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 6-2019 APPLICANT NAME: SPRUCE HOSPITALITY/TYLER HERRICK 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 this 17 day of July 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Now I’ll accept a motion for the Sign Variance. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Spruce Hospitality/ Tyler Herrick for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes 2 wall signs for the Fairfield Inn & Suites building currently under construction. Wall sign #1 is proposed to be 92.77 sq. ft. and located on the front of the building. Wall sign #2 is to be 40.37 sq. ft. and is to be located on the side of the building. Relief requested from number of wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from number of wall signs. Section 140- signs The applicant proposes four signs where only 2 are allowed. Wall sign #1 is proposed to be 92.77 sq. ft. and located on the front of the building. Wall sign #2 is to be 40.37 sq. ft. and is to be located on the side of the building SEQR Type: Unlisted \[Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 6-2019 Applicant Name: Spruce Hospitality/Tyler Herrick 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 this 17 day of July 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday July 17, 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 this is going along with the standard that we’ve been approving on other hotels and we don’t believe it would be undesirable. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? No, not really. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No, it’s really not. The second sign is only 42 square feet. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No, it will not as it blends in with the overall building structure. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? We might suggest that 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; 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) 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 SV 6-2019 SPRUCE HOSPITALITY/ TYLER HERRICK, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA’s review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel’ D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. th Duly adopted this 17 day of July 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Thanks. Good luck. MR. HERRICK-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We’re on to Area Variance 30-2019 Michael Shearer. AREA VARIANCE NO. 30-2019 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL SHEARER AGENT(S) MICHAEL SHEARER OWNER(S) MICHAEL SHEARER ZONING WR LOCATION 52 RUSSELL HARRIS ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE A ROOF ON AN EXISTING 528 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE AND TO CONSTRUCT A SECOND STORY STORAGE AREA. The second story is to be 528 SQ. FT. WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT TO BE 25 FT. AND TO HAVE ACCESS STAIRS ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE GARAGE FOR THE ND 2 STORY. THE EXISTING HOME IS 864 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) AND 264 SQ. FT. PORCH WITH THE GARAGE ADDITION; THE FLOOR AREA INCREASES FROM 1,642 SQ. FT. TO 2,042 SQ. FT. (FLOOR AREA). RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND HEIGHT. CROSS REF SP 42-2019; AV 33-1; SP 36-11 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2019 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.27 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 240.5-1-6 SECTION 179-5-020 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) GABRIELLE AND MICHAEL SHEARER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 30-2019, Michael Shearer, Meeting Date: July 17, 2019 “Project Location: 52 Russell Harris Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove a roof on an existing 528 sq. ft. detached garage and to construct a second story storage area. The second story is to be 528 sq. ft. with a building height to be 25 ft. and to have access stairs on the outside of the garage for the 2nd story. The existing home is 864 sq. ft. (footprint) and 264 sq. ft. porch with the garage addition; the floor area increases from 1,642 sq. ft. to 2,042 sq. ft. (floor area). Relief requested for setbacks and height. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for adding a second story to an existing garage for setbacks and height. Section 179-5-020 –garage, Section 179-3-040 –dimensional requirements The applicant proposes a second story on an existing garage. The garage height is proposed to be 25 ft. where 16 ft. is the maximum allowed in the waterfront zone. Relief is also requested for the side setback where 5.2 ft. is proposed and 12 ft. is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the height or size of the addition. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 6.8 ft. from the side yard setback and 9 ft. in excess for the height, 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. The applicant proposes no changes to the existing site conditions. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to add a second story addition to an existing garage. The addition is to be 528 sq. ft. and will allow for storage and workshop area for the owner. The applicant has indicated there is no bathroom and the access to the second story will be from stairs on the outside of the building. The applicant has explained a shoreline buffer was established during a previous review. The applicant has indicated the existing home is 864 sq. ft. and the addition to the garage would assist with storage.” 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Could you please identify yourself and add anything you’d like. MRS. SHEARER-Gabrielle Shearer. MR. SHEARER-Michael Shearer. MRS. SHEARER-We have to put a new roof on the garage so we figured this was as good a time as any to give ourselves some storage space. MR. FREER-Okay. MR. SHEARER-The garage needs a little TLC. It needs to be re-sided, re-roofed, and we thought if we were going to put a second story on it now would be the time to do it. MR. FREER-Right. Okay. Are there any Board questions for the applicant? MRS. HAYWARD-How tall are the ceilings going to be in the second story? MR. SHEARER-On the first floor what currently exists is eight foot three inches and the second story was projected to be eight feet. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. I wasn’t sure if you were going to go to the gable. MR. SHEARER-It has dormers off on the side. So eight foot is not all the way up to the ridge. MRS. HAYWARD-Okay. That’s what I was wondering. Thank you. MR. KUHL-I have a question. Have you had an engineer look at it to see if the footings for the garage will handle the additional weight? MR. SHEARER-I’ve talked to Jarrett Engineering and they told me that the footings would support it as long as I don’t finish it, in other words don’t make it a finished living space. MR. KUHL-You have that in writing? MR. SHEARER-I have that in a phone call. MR. KUHL-If you could only do it 24 feet high or 20 feet high, if you couldn’t get 26 feet in height, if you could only build it 24 foot, would you? I mean why 26 feet? MR. SHEARER-Why? Because that was what I’ve got on our drawings. I have a friend who is an architect who made up drawings for me, and he said that height could probably come back down a few feet. MR. KUHL-I mean if you had put a bon style roof on it you could lower the height. You could get another friend who knows how to make a bon style. MR. FREER-You’re asking for a height variance. MR. KUHL-Yes, that’s why I’m interested in the height. I’m interested in reducing the height. Can you do that? MR. SHEARER-Can I do that? MR. KUHL-Yes. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. SHEARER-I assume I can. If I could reduce it, I would. MRS. SHEARER-I think that the answer is he could probably bring it down to, what did we look at, the 423 or something like that. When the plans get drawn up, they actually haven’t been finalized yet, Jarrett Engineering, they’ll draw up the plans, that could be lowered. I think that’s what he said. MR. KUHL-Well we’re charged with minimal variances, and what you have here is what we have to vote on. I’m not here negotiating with you, okay, but I’m saying that in reality you could lower it with a bon style roof, and if you don’t get this approved at 26 feet you will change it, won’t you? But this is what you brought and this is what we’re going to vote on, okay. MR. FREER-Or we could put conditions on it. MR. KUHL-I’m not going to engineer it. MRS. SHEARER-I was going to say part of it was we didn’t want to pay an engineer to draw up all these plans if the answer was going to be no, we couldn’t put a second story on it. MR. SHEARER-Right. MR. KUHL-Yes, but then you’re suggesting that you’re going to come back and it’s going to cost the Town money by having us sit here and vote on another plan. So do you spend the money before or do you spend the money after? I mean we’re charged with approving or disapproving what you brought to us. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled for this application. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment on this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comments? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is no public comment. MR. FREER-Okay. So I’m going to close the public hearing. MR. HENKEL-So what did we decide on, they’re going to drop it down to 23? MR. URRICO-We still have to poll the Board. MR. FREER-Yes, I’m going to poll the Board right now. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. SHEARER-Can I ask a question? I have to come to you with a set height? MR. FREER-Yes, that’s what you’re asking for. We can reduce it. MR. URRICO-What you’re asking for requires a variance, a height variance. You’re asking for something a little more abnormal than we’re used to receiving for a height variance. I don’t know what the other Board members are going to say, but you’re unlikely to get that approval, is what I’m sensing from what people are saying here. So you’re going to have to, if you want a garage with extra storage space, you’re going to have to bring that down a little 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) bit before you get approval. That’s what we’re suggesting. I don’t want to speak for everybody. MR. FREER-Okay. So I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-I’ll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there’s two ways to look at it. If this was being proposed to be attached to the current home there, we have to keep in mind it’s a pretty small place. It’s 900 square feet, you know, it’s not a big McMansion up on the lake or anything like that, but at the same time, if it were attached to the house, even though you could call it living space up there and utilize it as such, you still would be under your floor area ratio for the project. This one’s been proposed as a detached garage, and the detached garage height is 16 feet. They’re asking to make it well over 16 feet in height, but I think in the balancing test I think we have to listen to what the aims and objectives of the applicants are and I think that because it’s only going to be storage, it’s not going to be living space, it’s not going to have plumbing or anything, even though it’s going to be over height, I think it’s a reasonable request. They don’t really have much area to store things in a small cottage. I would be in favor of the variance. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Jim, and Ron? MR. KUHL-I think, if in fact it’s just for storage, I think that they’re asking for too much height and I would not be in favor of it. I think that if it’s just storage they’re looking for, they don’t need the eight feet. I would not want to start a precedent in the area to where we’re approving higher than the standard because it would just snowball from there. So I would be against it. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, Ron. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I agree in that I’m concerned about the height as well. That’s why I asked about the height that I didn’t see on the plans. Sorry about that. I’d like to see you find a design where we wouldn’t have to grant such a large variance for your project. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you, and so that’s a no initially for the as proposed. MRS. HAYWARD-Yes. MR. FREER-Okay. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I also agree with Jim and Michelle and Ron. They’re not asking for a lot, but yet like Ron said we can’t really start allowing that kind of height on a building. So I’d say I agree with you needing that eight foot in that storage area up there, but I think you still could get away with that eight foot and drop the height of it down at least two feet. So I’m not on board with it as is. MR. FREER-Thanks, John. Mike? MR. MC CABE-I have no problem with the setback. I would approve that, but particularly in this area we’ve been pretty stringent on what we’ve allowed over the standard height and the nine feet is way too much. I would consider something on the order of 20 feet. MR. FREER-Okay, and, Roy? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. URRICO-Yes, there’s two things I think going against this application. That’s the fact that they’re asking for a height variance but also that it’s in the Waterfront zone. So we have two things that we have to sort of protect against an establishing a new height status quo there would be something that I wouldn’t want to do either. So I would say bring the roof down. MR. FREER-Okay. So I, too, don’t support the application as presented. There are a couple of things you can do. You can table it and come back with a lower, it sounds like everyone has no problem with the setback variance, but the height variance they don’t want to provide and extend that much of a height variance. So you can table and come back with a plan that is less of a height variance, or you can agree to some height variance that we can agree to here and move on with your project, but that would be more difficult since you haven’t engineered it. MRS. SHEARER-So is it basically 26 is too high? I mean I know we thought 28 was the limit. So we misunderstood. So you’re more like it would have to be 20 or it would a have to be 16? Because I don’t really think we could do a second story at 16 feet. You’re just saying we have to come back with a different. MR. FREER-Well what you’ve heard is that 26 is too much. MRS. SHEARER-Right. And then I heard 20 is what he was saying. MR. MC CABE-If twenty-five is what you’re asking for. I said that 25 is too much for me. I’m thinking more like 20 would be the max, but that’s just me. MRS. SHEARER-You’re right, I am on a little tiny piece of property. A house that’s not a foot off my property, that’s 28 inches high. MR. MC CABE-The problem we have is that if we okay this height, then we have a hard time turning down the next person who’s looking for a large height. MRS. SHEARER-Okay, because it’s a separate garage. Is that my understanding is that because it’s a separate garage? MR. HENKEL-If you were to attach it to the house, you’d be all set. MRS. SHEARER-That’s what I’m thinking because the people on one side of us have it attached to their house and they have a, or they’re putting in a two car garage, and the people on the other side are a foot off their property and they already have a two story house. So for us, we’re looking at this teeny little place. MR. FREER-So it sounds like maybe the best thing, I can’t tell you what to do. We can, if you insist that we vote, we’re not going to pass it. So probably the best thing to do is just to table it and go back and take a look at some of the other alternatives. Because that’s one of the criteria that we use, are there feasible alternatives. So would you like to request to table it? MR. SHEARER-Yes, we’ll table it. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Michael Shearer. Applicant proposes to remove a roof on an existing 528 sq. ft. detached garage and to construct a second story storage area. The second story is to be 528 sq. ft. with a building height to be 25 ft. and to have access stairs on the outside of the garage for the 2nd story. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) The existing home is 864 sq. ft. (footprint) and 264 sq. ft. porch with the garage addition; the floor area increases from 1,642 sq. ft. to 2,042 sq. ft. (floor area). Relief requested for setbacks and height. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO30-2019 MICHAEL SHEARER, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled until the first meeting in September with the pertinent material to be submitted to the Town by the middle of August. th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, 2019, by the following vote: MR. MC CABE-How much time do you feel that you might need? MRS. MOORE-September. MR. MC CABE-September. MR. SHEARER-If I’m ready sooner, is that going to be a problem? MR. FREER-No, we’re going to establish that right now. You’re going to have to submit by th August 15 anyway. MRS. SHEARER-All right. That’s fine. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. We’ll see you in September. MRS. SHEARER-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. On to Sign Variance 7-2019 Jason Tyler, Ollies, Aviation Mall. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 7-2019 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED JASON TYLER AGENT(S) JASON TYLER OWNER(S) AVIATION MALL NEWCO, LLC ZONING ESC LOCATION 578 AVIATION RD., AVIATION MALL APPLICANT PROPOSES TO PLACE A 108 SQ. FT. TEMPORARY SIGN FOR OLLIE’S EMPLOYMENT. THE CODE ALLOWS FOR A 32 SQ. FT. TEMPORARY SIGN. SIGN IS TO BE LOCATED NEAR THE FOOD/RESTAURANT ENTRANCE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIGN SIZE FOR A TEMPORARY SIGN. CROSS REF TEMP SIGN 395-2019, SP 29-09, SV 87-08 & MANY OTHER SITE PLANS & VARIANCES 1989 TO PRESENT WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2019 LOT SIZE 48.35 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 302.5-1-92.11 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JASON TYLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 7-2019, Jason Tyler, Meeting Date: July 17, 2019 “Project Location: 578 Aviation Road Aviation Mall Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to place 108 sq. ft. Temporary Sign for Ollie's employment. The code allows for a 32 sq. ft. temporary sign. Sign is to be located near the Food/Restaurant entrance. Relief requested from maximum allowable sign size for a temporary sign. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from maximum allowable sign size for a temporary signs. Section 140 –signs The applicant proposes a 108 sq. ft. temporary sign where the maximum temporary sign allowed is 32 sq. ft. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law and Chapter 267: 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. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the sign to a compliant size. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 76 sq. ft. in excess. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to place a 108 sq. ft. free temporary sign for Ollie’s hiring event on the front of the Aviation Mall food entrance area. The signage is proposed to stay up for 48 days per the permit application.” MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. Please identify yourself and add anything you’d like. MR. TYLER-Jason Tyler. I’m the operations rep for Aviation Mall. For this particular sign obviously we’ve had a little bit of a stay as far as new tenants and new business at the center. So with the anticipation of the Ollies Bargain Outlet coming to the center they’re going to be bringing approximately 55 jobs to the center. So from not only employment for the area, the sign size is, unfortunately it is large, but we anticipate high visibility, especially putting it in the location where the bus stop is, to get people who come to the center on a regular basis to see that, come in to the center and apply for jobs at Ollies and I think it would be positive for the area. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Any comment, any questions from the Board? MR. MC CABE-It looks like the sign is already up. MR. TYLER-No, it was taken down. Unfortunately RGM had put it up. He made the decision too quickly. So the sign has been taken down. It was put up by mistake. We made the mistake. We took it down. It was visible. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. URRICO-Is the location of the sign near the location of the hiring facility, the store? MR. TYLER-Ollies, in anticipation of the grand opening, they’ve been doing hiring events in multiple areas of the Mall, just giving specific events. This one is going to be centrally located to that area. MR. FREER-But you basically blew off our Sign Ordinance. You were ignorant of it or what, I mean, this is 32 feet and 108 feet? MR. TYLER-The sign was provided by the Ollies Bargain Outlet corporate team. This wasn’t something that was orchestrated by the Aviation Mall. So in support of the center that’s why we went in for the application. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions? MR. KUHL-How long is the sign going to be up? MR. TYLER-Approximately 48 days. That’s just temporarily just to promote Ollies, job growth for Ollies. MR. KUHL-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. We have a public hearing scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to make a comment about this application? Seeing no one, Roy, do we have any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No, there is none. MR. FREER-Okay. I will say that I did get a call from a Town Board member who had gotten a call from a constituent who strongly opposed this sign, but I wasn’t provided in writing. No formal message. With that, I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-And poll the Board. I will start with Ron. MR. KUHL-I think it’s great today that we hang out signs wanting to hire people. I really do. Unfortunately we see them all over the place and it’s crazy, but it would be nice if this were a smaller sign. Hopefully the bigger sign will bring in people. I’m not going to stop this. I think it’s a good thing. I also think that Ollies could have looked into what we allow, size for temporary signs. It would have been a little bit more respectful of the Town Board members. So I’m in favor. MR. FREER-Okay. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-I’m not in favor. I think it’s way too substantial. I appreciate the need to put a sign up and I like the fact that it’s going to be temporary, but I think they could find a happy medium where they could find a new sign not quite as big. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, only being 48 days I would have no problem with it. If it was longer than that I would have a problem with it, but I’m on board as is. 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. FREER-Okay, and, Mike? MR. MC CABE-So considering the area I think that if we insisted on a smaller sign it would kind of get lost and also considering the fact that it’s temporary, I think that a larger sign is required in that particular area. So I would support this project. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-I’m not in favor of the size of the sign. I think a smaller sign would be adequate. Most of the people that can see it are located on the Mall premises already because you can’t really see it from all parts of Aviation Road, and I’m just thinking ahead that at some point they’re probably going to come back and ask for a wall sign on the outside of the Mall and I think that this would establish a precedent that they would want to follow. So I would say no. MR. FREER-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I have mixed feelings about it. I think that retail’s in a difficult situation, though, nationwide. At the same time, this is substantially larger than what we allow, almost three times the size of what we allow. So I would not be in favor of it. MR. FREER-Okay, and I do not support it as presented either. Triple of our Code is kind of insulting in terms of, you’re the main guy there. You’re going to have to sort of keep people on balance with regard to the Code. MR. TYLER-Could I make a comment? And unfortunately I’m new to the area. I just came to the area and just took over the center in September. So I apologize, and again this wasn’t in any way to offend anybody. One thing I did notice when I came to the center is J.C. Penney did have a fairly large sign that was posted on the side of J.C. Penney promoting appliances, and in that respect I can respectfully understand where you guys are coming from. I would just like to see if we could re-consider, just for the purposes of the temporary nature of the sign and obviously for tailoring the sign more towards employment rather than promoting appliances or anything to the effect. MR. FREER-So from my standpoint I wouldn’t approve anything more than 50 square foot, which is 20% above our Code, but I don’t know what the rest of the Board feels, where to go from here. Any thoughts? Ron, can you live with 50 foot? MR. KUHL-I’m not commenting. I approved what he asked for. MR. FREER-I’m sorry. Michelle? MRS. HAYWARD-Yes, 50 square feet is far less substantial. So I would go for that. MR. FREER-And, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I would okay with 50 feet and I would also suggest that the Code Enforcement Officer go out and visit J.C. Penney. MR. TYLER-The sign unfortunately has been take down, once J.C. Penney. MR. URRICO-Just remind them that next time. MR. FREER-So we can condition approval of this variance if you agree to reduce it to 50 square feet. Do you want to do that, or do you want to table it? 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. TYLER-The specific nature of the application, this was a sign provided by Ollies and unfortunately that’s the only sign that we’re going to be receiving from them for this specific event. I can definitely go back to Ollies, but being that they’re going to be doing this event and opening towards the end of August, it’s time sensitive. I don’t think that they could turn around a sign like that in a short notice. MRS. MOORE-You, as the applicant, you could withdraw your application and you would not be allowed a sign. MR. TYLER-Unfortunately if it is going to be declined, I’m between a rock and a hard place unfortunately. I don’t think that Ollies can turn around a sign, or cut down the sign to that size. MR. FREER-Okay. It doesn’t hurt to ask. I mean we’ll approve a 50 square foot sign, versus the 108 square foot sign, but you’re not going to have any sign if we vote on this as submitted. MR. KUHL-We can’t vote on it. Let’s table it and let him do his homework. If we approve a 50 and he hangs the 100, we’re dead. MR. FREER-No, he can’t do it. That’s enforcement. We can approve a 50. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. FREER-But if you don’t want us to approve it. You have to agree to it is my point. You don’t have to hang it. MR. TYLER-At this point if it’s going to be declined I’d like to withdraw just for the sheer fact that I don’t think given the retail outlet that they can produce a sign on short notice prior to the hiring event. MR. FREER-That’s your choice. Okay. Then it’s withdrawn. Okay. Thanks. On to our next application. MR. TYLER-Thank you. MR. FREER-This is Sign Variance 8-2019. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 8-2019 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED MEYER, FULLER & STOCKWELL AGENT(S) MEYER, FULLER & STOCKWELL OWNER(S) 1557 ROUTE 9, LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 1557 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE AN EXISTING 16.67 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN WITH A 24 SQ. FT. SIGN AND TWO 5 SQ. FT. PANEL SIGNS. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A 12 FT. HIGH BY 10 FT. WIDE SIGN STRUCTURE TO BE INSTALLED TO HOLD THE PANELS. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 33-2009, SP 6-2007, SV 64-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2019 LOT SIZE 1.16 ACRE(S) TAX MAP NO. 288.8-1-6 SECTION CHAPTER 140 MATT FULLER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT MR. FREER-Roy. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 8-2019, Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell, Meeting Date: July 17, 2019 “Project Location: 1557 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) Applicant proposes to replace an existing 16.67 sq. ft. freestanding sign with a 24 sq. ft. sign and two 5 sq. ft. panel signs. The project includes a 12 ft. high by 10 ft. wide sign structure to be installed to hold the panels. Relief requested from setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for placement of a new sign structure setback requirements. Section 140-signs The applicant proposes to install a 12 ft. by 10 ft. sign structure that is to be 0 ft. from the front property line where 15 ft. is required. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law and Chapter 267: 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. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to place the sign in a compliant location. The applicant has indicated the existing sign is over the property line. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Relief is requested for placing a new sign structure 0 ft. from the property line. Relief requested is 15 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove the existing signage that is located over the property line and to install new signage that is to be on the property line. The applicant has provide photos showing the existing signage on Route 9 in this area where the signs are in close proximity of the road.” MR. FREER-Okay. Welcome. Please identify yourself. MR. FULLER-Thank you, everybody. For the record Matt Fuller with Meyer, Fuller and Stockwell and also a member of the holding company 1557 Route 9, LLC. Last year when we moved our practice down from Lake George Craig was kind enough to work with us to allow us to bring our old sign down with the idea we were going to have a new sign designed and come back. When we bought the property we had a survey done. We actually checked with Craig and Laura on all the prior approvals and found that the prior sign was granted right on the property line. I did give you a copy of the survey. When we had the survey done it looks like it was right on the line and Laura and I followed up after. I checked with Kristin Darrah which she kind of drilled in on that part of the survey right there, and it’s about six inches over the property line into the Route 9 right of way. So our proposal, to clarify and 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) make sure we’re all clear on it, our proposal would be that, if you see on the design I presented there’s a little overhang, kind of a roof structure on the sign. We’ll have that at or actually just inside the property line. I won’t make mistakes here. So before they do any work we would have Kristin come out and shoot that like and stake it, just to make sure that the overhang is inside that property line. But just going to the merits of why we want to do this, as you guys can see, to the north, I don’t know if anybody’s been out there, but t there’s actually a little stream that comes down from the Northway that enters into that, you can see the culvert of the driveway if you look at the picture of the sign I have looking north there. The stream actually dumps in under that. So in terms of actually shaving back vegetation, that’s a wetland. I don’t know if it’s jurisdictional to anybody, but I’m certainly not going to go in there and start hacking down vegetation in a wetland. We do have our landscaper kind of weed whack along the road there. You can see in the picture it’s gotten a little high with the rain, but we do keep that kind of low to keep that visibility. From the south, you can see from the south looking north the Mohican Motel, their property’s a little wider, it stretches a little closer to Route 9. I think their sign is close to the property line, but it kind of shields us. So I think, again, if we pushed it back to the 15 foot setback, which is going to, if you’re coming north on 9, push the sign back even further. The only concern with that for us is that is where the drag strip kind of takes off there where Route 9 splits into two lanes and everybody wants to pass you. So people turning into our property coming north, we want to give them as much time to see the property to our offices as possible. Coming south we’re not so much concerned, but that dip where that culvert is it gathers the water is a concern to us. So I think going to the merits here, the detriment to the neighborhood, I can’t really say that there’s any. I don’t think there’s any impact to the environment. I think it makes sense for what we’re trying to do, and the fact that the sign that is there is just over. We’re going to pull it back. We were also in the process of cleaning up an old application and we figured out the sign that was there, when it was approved, probably should have had a variance but it never got one. So we’re here to clear that up. MR. FREER-Okay. Any questions from the Board? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’ve got a question. Did you get a hold of the Highway Department at all to ask them if they could cut some of that back a little bit? I mean that’s ridiculous. I went past your place and I pulled around in that parking lot beyond you and you can’t see signs at all. MR. FULLER-Again, we did look into it a bit, but to answer your question though, I did not contact them. MR. HENKEL-They might want to cut some of that back for safety reasons. I mean with all the signs, you’ve got a speed limit sign there. There’s too much crap there. MR. FULLER-Yes, we do keep it down to the extent that we can, but right along that property line there’s a couple of nice bushes that when we do it, we pull back, I don’t want to get rid of them. I forget what they were, but they’re kind of nice. So we’re going to pull it back a little bit, but not, the vegetation is actually sitting there. MR. HENKEL-If you took that sign 15 feet off from what it is now, you would never see it. MR. FREER-Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? MR. KUHL-Are you going to light this sign or no? MR. FULLER-That’s a good question. So there is power to the sign right now. There’s actually a wire outlet. Our proposal would be to just string LED under the eaves facing down. So that would be it. And it’s a three part sign. I forgot to mention that. Obviously 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) the main part for our firm, our title, and then we do have a tenant in there, one of our clients that leases a space from us. So whoever, you know, leases that other space, we’re going to keep that changeable, that panel. MR. URRICO-Matt, is the relief up to that post, or is it up to the sign? MR. FULLER-The eaves of that thing runs right along kind of the outside of that post. What we will do is keep the entire structure inside. So if that means the post has got to move back a couple of more feet, fine. That eaves will stay inside our property line. Obviously we want to get as close as we can. MR. URRICO-So the actual sign is off the property line? MR. FULLER-It is, yes, the eaves hang out. MR. URRICO-And the posts are also off the property line. MR. FULLER-Yes. 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? Please come up. Welcome. Please identify yourself. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARILYN STARK MRS. STARK-Good evening, Ladies and Gentlemen. I’m Marilyn Stark and I represent the operator and owner of the Mohican Motel and Royal Hospitality. The Mohican Motel is right adjacent to the property in question. I’m going to give you a small scenario of our history of the Mohican Motel. The Mohican Motel road signage on Route 9 has been a long history of existence. In the early 1950’s the Mohican Motel was built along with the development and installation of two road signs. During this past winter of 2019 a picture of the North Indian sign was on display in the Chapman Museum as a historical treasure to the community. We are located in a very, very historical area called the French Mountain Commons. Both of our signs were grandfathered during the time Queensbury introduced a sign compliance. The north sign of the Indian is of particular interest and value in many ways. Its beauty lends attention to visitors, local people and vendors, etc. to our location as well as offering a slower, safer traffic flow to the intersection of Route 149 and 9. Warren County’s economy is very dependent on local, state and occupancy tax dollars which is collected by the hotel industry. Advertising to the travelers is our tool in attracting the tourists. In closing with this comment, erecting a large sign closer to Route 9 would obstruct Mohican’s tourist view of our sign and also cause a hazardous situation exiting Mohican’s driveway going north. With respect to our neighbors, we would enjoy having dialogue with them and producing a sign that would not impede the view and authenticity of the heritage of our historical sign at the Mohican Motel. Thank you for your time. MR. FREER-Thank you. GEORGE STARK MR. STARK-I want to ask a question. Here’s the existing sign. Okay, and it’s going to stay in that location or it’s going to be further south? MR. UNDERWOOD-Further in. 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. STARK-Further in. I understand that. MR. FULLER-No, it’s going to stay right there. MR. STARK-That’ll alleviate a lot of my concern that it was going to stay an existing, or even further in. MR. FREER-Please identify yourself, sir. MR. STARK-I’m sorry. George Stark. My wife and I own the Mohican Motel for 34 years. Our main concern is not to block that north sign, the Indian head, you’re not going to block it off there, but the motel part down below. If the sign is going to be moved in, it still seems to me like having a panel 12 foot by 10 foot or a support beam 12 by 10, to support 24 square feet and five feet and five feet seems like it’s really cumbersome. I’m sure it’s going to be done good and everything, but it just seems like a lot of frame for a little sign, you know. If that’s the way the architect designed it, that’s the way he designed it. MR. FREER-Do you have this picture, Laura? Sir, have you seen what it’s going to look like? MR. STARK-Well I see it just now up there. MR. URRICO-Slide 22. I’ve got it. MR. STARK-Okay. Are you going to put it up? MR. URRICO-I can let you look at it. MR. STARK-I understand. Now the sign itself, the main sign, not the two panels, is like four by six, twenty-four square feet. To have a thing 10 foot wide by 12 foot high seems like an awful lot of frame for a little sign. That was my concern, plus having it closer to the road. It’s not going to be closer to the road. Actually it would be further back so it would be less of an impact, but still it seems like a lot of sign. That’s all. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. MR. FULLER-I’m at a bit of a loss. We’re not going to interfere with their sign at all. In fact, if you look at the one picture there’s like a northern heritage corridor trail sign that DOT, huge brown sign, looking from the north coming south, that completely obscures, right there, the Mohican Motel sign. So we’re further in the property line than that. In fact as I was sitting there I looked on the survey. The Mohican sign is actually not on their property line. It’s in the right of way. So I apologize. I was wrong about that. That’s why we pulled the sign back within the property line because I know that the Town can’t grant approval for a sign that is in State DOT property lines. You couldn’t grant me a variance over the property line for that. So I guess I would just completely disagree. I don’t think we’re going to have any impact whatsoever to their sign. MR. URRICO-So you’re actually further back than that, the current sign. MR. FULLER-Yes, we’re like 10, 15 feet back further than that. MR. URRICO-And the only thing that’s going to be at that line is the overhang. Everything else is going to be in. MR. FULLER-Yes, and from the south our sign is obscured by the Mohican sign, which frankly I like that. I kind of like history myself. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) MR. FREER-Okay. Do we have any written comment? MR. URRICO-No, there’s no written comment. MR. FREER-Okay. I’m going to close the public hearing and poll the Board. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. FREER-I’ll start with Michelle. MRS. HAYWARD-Thank you. I looked at the property and have to admit I was looking at your property as well, Mr. and Mrs. Stark because I didn’t want that to be blocked. I didn’t find, in my research, that this proposed sign would block sight down the road, which would include your sign. So I’m in favor of it. I think it’s going to be a good project and an improvement to what’s there. MR. FREER-Okay. Thank you. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, I’m also in favor of the project and I would definitely get a hold of the Highway Department, see if you can get some of those bushes cut back. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks. Mike? MR. MC CABE-Yes, all we’re being asked to do is to forgive a setback here and I think that we’re better than we are, I think the resulting project will result that we’re better than we are now. So I would be in favor of the project. MR. FREER-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, they could very easily keep the sign where it is in its current location, and they’re actually improving the design of the sign and moving it back. So I think that’s a winner for everybody. MR. FREER-Okay. Thanks, and, Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I think this is the third time that this sign has appeared before us. It was with Dave Kline two or three times previously. In this case here I think you’re moving it inside the property line. If we required you to go back to what the setbacks are supposed to be no one would see the sign. It would be impossible, and I think because the road’s going away when you’re coming from the north you’re getting further away from the property line. The impact of where the sign is is minimized. I mean it’s so different than what exists now, and I think that the new sign would be an improvement. MR. FREER-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have to say thank you to Mrs. Stark. I never knew that that Indian was so, had such historical value, really. I think your fear of your customers coming out of your property, I don’t think that sign’s going to block their view. I really don’t, and where the sign is located, I don’t think we could do a better job, and as my other Board members say, if it were moved back it wouldn’t be seen at all. So I would be in favor of it. MR. FREER-I, too, can support this variance. It’s unusual to get right up to the road, but Route 9 has a long history of grandfathering and development and I think this is well within good taste. So I’d support it, and I guess, given that, I will look for a motion. 32 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes to replace an existing 16.67 sq. ft. freestanding sign with a 24 sq. ft. sign and two 5 sq. ft. panel signs. The project includes a 12 ft. high by 10 ft. wide sign structure to be installed to hold the panels. Relief requested from setback requirements. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for placement of a new sign structure setback requirements. Section 140-signs The applicant proposes to install a 12 ft. by 10 ft. sign structure that is to be 0 ft. from the front property line where 15 ft. is required. SEQR Type: Unlisted \[Resolution / Action Required for SEQR\] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 8-2019 Meyer, Fuller & Stockwell 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 James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: th Duly adopted this 17 day of July 2019 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday July 17, 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 nor will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? Because essentially the sign is going to be in the same location that it’s been all along. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We find that it’s not really feasible because of surrounding materials. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I suppose in one respect it could be considered substantial but considering that there’s already an existing sign, we would have to say that that’s no more than moderate. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We find not since a sign already exists. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Again, not really because there’s already been a sign on there before. 33 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) 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. 8-2019, MEYER, FULLER & STOCKWELL, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michelle Hayward: 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 Duly adopted this 17 day of July 2019, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE MR. FREER-Okay. Good luck. MR. FULLER-Thank you. MR. FREER-Okay. Can we get a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 17, 2019, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Harrison Freer: th Duly adopted this 17 day of July, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mrs. Hayward, Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Freer NOES: NONE 34 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/17/2019) On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Harrison Freer, Chairman 35