Loading...
2011.05.18 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 2011 INDEX Area Variance No. 14-2010 Steven and Christine Johnson Page 2 Area Variance No. 22-2011 Andrew West Page 2 Area Variance No. 23-2011 Andrew West Page 3 Area Variance No. 24-2011 NSB Hospitality LLC – d/b/a Rodeway Inn Page 4 Sign Variance No. 25-2011 Judith Frolish/Saratoga Sign Pro’s, Inc. Page 7 Area Variance No. 26-2011 Christopher Stevens Page 14 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES 0 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING MAY 18, 2011 7 PM MEMBERS PRESENT Steven Jackoski, Chairman Richard Garrand, Jr. Vice Chairman Roy Urrico, Secretary James Underwood Brian Clements John Koskinas, Alternate filling in for Ronald Kuhl Community Development Office Staff Present: Keith Oborne, Land Use Planner Sue Hemingway, Stenographer Mr. Jackoski: Good Evening, I would like to call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting Wednesday, May 18, 2011 at 7:00 pm. We do have a fairly light agenda this evening, one item has been removed and I will be making a couple of brief modifications to the agenda at the beginning here. First I would like to mention to everyone that there is a handout on the back table that helps with understanding the process of the Zoning Board of Appeals; so if you haven’t referenced that and would like to; it is there. Tonight’s agenda, the first item is the meeting minute approval of March 16, 2011. Do I have a motion? Motion to Approve the Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2011 Introduced by Mr. Urrico, seconded by Mr. Koskinas Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clement, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: Normally we wait until the end of the meeting to address any further business that may come before the Board but this evening I have been asked and have granted a request from Mr. Salvador to address the Board on a matter that is apparently not specific to any particular application. He has assured me that it will be 3 to 4 minutes. Mr. Salvador: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I am speaking from a document that I have received; that has been published by the New York State Department of State. It’s from the Office of Community Sustainability. This is dedicated to the Zoning Enforcement, issue of Zoning Enforcement. And, in here they talk about the duties and responsibilities of the Zoning Enforcement Officer. The Zoning Enforcement Officer is the municipality represented in Land Use Regulations and Enforcement. And enforcement of the zoning law in the fairest methods discussed in this document. The Zoning Enforcement Officer’s power is limited to enforcement of the law as it is written. The operative word is “written”. We have 2 projects that we had just recently gone through; one was the Schermerhorn project over here on Gurney Lane and the word was Office. In the code; it was an allowable use in that zone; and it was Office. And the Zoning Administrator had determined that meant equally office building. The other one is the Hayes and Hayes project; it was Duplex in the singular. I can tell you when that was being developed, in the Zoning Ordinance, nobody ever dreamed that more than one duplex building would be allowed on a single parcel of land; but again, as it is written. The basic powers of the ZBA fall within two areas; judicial and I’ll call it jurisdiction. The Appellant jurisdiction allows an aggrieved party to bring an appeal of a decision to the Zoning Enforcement Officer to the ZBA for review. Aggrieved parties may include the recipient of an enforcement action and unsuccessful permit aqua kempt for a third party. To me a third party means anyone other than the first two categories. There is no definition here on limitation or standing. The other thing that they talk about in here is; all too often this Board and the Planning Board tends to issue permits that are highly conditioned and you have to be very very very careful that you are not trying to legislate and, in fact, change the intent and the written word of the Zoning Ordinance by pervading certain things based on certain conditions. The Code, the State Law uses the word modifications. The Planning Board can approve site plans and subdivision plats with modifications. It doesn’t talk about conditions and that’s an area where I think we’re overstepping our bounds. Thank you for your help. Mr. Jackoski: Would you be willing to leave me a copy of that? Mr. Salvador: This is my only one; I’ll get a copy. 1 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Mr. Salvador. Mr. Salvador: It’s online. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, continuing with Administrative Items we do have an application of Steven L. and Christine Johnson which I do not see in the audience this evening. Its Area Variance No. 9-2010 and I believe, we as a Board have decided that we should issue a denial without prejudice; correct? Mr. Oborne: Based on your most recent tabling, the crux of the application to submit revised plans or issue a denial without prejudice. Mr. Kuhl: Mr. Chairman, I have a question: What happens when, if they come back with a plan? All of the documentation we have on that is null and void? Is a resubmittal based on the existing documentation? Mr. Oborne: No, it’s based on whatever plan they put forward. Mr. Kuhl: Because we had certain rulings on it; certain things we didn’t like about it. Mr. Oborne: Absolutely, so if that’s on the record to as how they want to proceed and they present a revised plan to you, based on the minutes they certainly can research that. Now I’m just following the direction of the Board, to let that applicant down. Mr. Kuhl: Will it come back as a revised something or will it come back as a new something. Mr. Oborne: It will come back as a new number, a new variance. Mr. Underwood: I think that in the statutes it has to be substantially different than what was previously presented. It can’t be the same thing again. Mr. Oborne: If they want to go ahead and submit the exact same thing; they can. Now will they get an approval based on that? The minutes basically say they wouldn’t. Mr. Clements: I also have a question about the timing. And I’m thinking that this was done before the new zoning came in? Mr. Oborne: It will have to go to the new zoning code. Mr. Clements: It will go to the new Zoning Code if they apply again. Mr. Jackoski: And, we have not heard from them. Mr. Oborne: We heard back from them in March, I believe, it think it was February or March meeting to request to table it to May, knowing that they would have to provide plans then. Mr. Underwood: They have not formally withdrawn or anything? Mr. Oborne: No, they are aware. Mr. Jackoski: I think that the record should show that I did in fact sell some property to this applicant in the past; I don’t think it’s a conflict, I just want the record to show as, I have as a board member, and I did have that history Mr. Garrand: MOTION TO DENY WITHOUT PREJUDICE AREA VARIANCE NO. 9-2010, STEVEN AND CHRISTINE JOHNSON by Introduced by Mr. Garrand, seconded by Mr. Clements Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski, Mr. Garrand NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: Under New Business; first item under New Business is Andrew West, Area Variance No. 22-2011. It is the owner’s Sharon Davies, Et Al. It’s my understanding that we need to table this matter because we did not receive the appropriate recommendation from the Planning Board given at last night’s meeting. 2 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Oborne: I would suggest that you open up the public hearing at this point as it was advertised tonight. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you for that guidance. And it’s my understanding that if we do decide on a date; what date would that be? Mr. Oborne: I would reference the tabling motion pending Planning Board recommendation. Mr. Jackoski: Leaving the date open. Mr. Jackoski: Mr. Secretary, did we receive any written comment? Mr. Urrico: No. Mr. Jackoski: I am opening the public hearing: If there is anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board, please approach the table at this time. Mr. Salvador, may I remind you that we do, of course, however, have a time limit. Mr. Salvador: Since this will be tabled, I just want to make a suggestion to you and comment. The current situation with this project and a lot of others like it is that you send it to the Planning Board for a recommendation and the Planning Board has elected to hold their meetings on the subject of recommendation without public comment. Now there is a lot of information out there that could come before a Board through a public comment process and if the public is locked out of this than the Planning Board is making its recommendation without knowledge of a lot of things that are going on and this is what’s happening. Fortunately, they caught a detail that they addressed; then there is no way they could have done it last night. The other problem is that I wish you would take a look at this schedule; this is most foolish to have – a Town Board meeting on Monday, the Planning Board meeting on Tuesday, then you folks meeting on Wednesday to approve; some of these projects are complicated; very complicated and this is just not practical. It’s not good for the applicant and it’s not good for everyone involved in the project. Of all of the problems with this project is that there is a little confusion as to who really owns this parcel of land. And I just happened to show up at the Town Board Monday night that the Town Assessor’s Office and the Warren County Clerk’s Office, tax map and section have listed this property and the title of this property in the name of the Joshua Rock Corporation and yet everything you see here is in other people’s names. Now, it’s not sufficient that these people are stockholders in the corporation but they seem to be able to qualify for a permit. A corporation has to be assigned a permit if they are entitled to one. The deeds, I have looked at this way back to the 1888’s; the deeds are very nebulous. It’s just terrible the way they are written to try to understand them. But in any case, there is this question, and as a result of it, the Town Board has conditioned their approval on the Town Attorney making a determination as to who owns the land; and that’s where that stands. But the Planning Board went ahead, last night with their approval process, recommendation to you folks without even considering this issue. They tabled it on another issue. It’s going to take some time to sort it out. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Mr. Salvador. Is there anyone else in the audience at this time that would like to address the Board concerning this matter? Mr. Urrico: Mr. Chairman, I do have a letter in here; if I can find it again, I notice some people have a letter from the Waterkeeper. Mr. Jackoski: I’m going to leave the public hearing open; it is public record and I can certainly read it in next time unless you can find it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, Continuing without any further public comment at this time; I am going to leave the public hearing open. I would like to suggest that Roy, maybe you take a shot at a resolution; is that okay or someone else? Mr. Underwood: I can do that, if you want. Mr. Underwood: MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 22-2011 ANDREW WEST 12 JOSHUA’S ROCK ROAD, Introduced by Mr. Underwood, seconded by Mr. Kuhl: Pending commentary from the Planning Board and we will await their recommendation; we are not going to set a definite date because it will probably be at least a month away if not two months now. Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None 3 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: The next item on our agenda, again, is the same applicant and owners: It is Area Variance No. 23-2011, it is a SEQRA Type II; there is a public hearing on this matter as well. I’m not going to read in all of the project descriptions; we are again, going to table this particular item as well. But I will open the public hearing. Are there any letters in this folder Roy? Mr. Urrico: No. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board concerning this matter? Mr. Koskinas: Could we hear the letter first? Mr. Jackoski: I don’t think he could find it. Mr. Jackoski: Being that no one in the audience is willing to address the Board in this matter and to conclude I think we should table this similar to the last one that Jim, you would be willing to do that? Mr. Underwood: Yes, I make a motion Mr. Underwood: MOTION THAT WE TABLE AREA VARIANCE ANDREW WEST, Introduced by Mr. Underwood, seconded by Mr. Clements: The project location is 12 Joshua’s Rock Road. We will be waiting to hear from the Planning Board in regards to this project. It will be either a month of two from now. We will leave the date open. Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: The next item on the agenda is Applicant NSB Hospitality, LLC. d/b/a Rhode Way Inn, Gary Hughes is the Agent. It is Area Variance No. 24-2011, Type II; there is a public hearing and I will turn it over to Roy for a brief description of the project and staff notes. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is proposing a 942 sq. ft. expansion to existing office/lobby to include a 164 sq. ft. handicap ramp and 80 sq. ft. canopy. Further, the applicant proposes 2,062 sq. ft. of decks and landings to existing motel. In making this application, the applicant is requesting relief from the front and side yard setback requirements as well as for the expansion of a nonconforming structure. Additionally, the applicant is requesting relief from the Floor Area Ratio and permeability requirements of the CI zone. Parcel will require area variances as follows: Front Setback – Request for 54.4 feet of front setback relief from the 75 foot requirement for the proposed handicap ramp. Front Setback – Also, request for 24.4 feet of front setback relief from the 75 foot requirement for the proposed office addition. Travel Corridor – Request for both the quantified and qualified expansions listed above from the 75 foot Travel Corridor setback requirement for the upper Route 9 Travel Corridor Overlay District. Side Setback – Request for 7.1 feet of side setback relief from the 20 foot requirement for the proposed northern deck expansion to the motel. FAR – Request for 3,076 sq. ft. or 7.0% increase from the 30% requirement for all proposed expansions qualifying as floor area ratio. Permeability – Request for an additional 1,196 sq. ft. of impermeability or a total of 77.4 % impermeable from the 70% allowable for the CI zone. Expansion of a non-conforming structure requires the approval of this board. And in making this determination the Board shall consider simple test criteria: 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. 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 would include expansion in 4 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 compliant locations to avoid some of the variances requested. However, with the overbuilt nature of the site relative to the code, feasible alternatives may be limited. Whether the requested area variance is substantial? The totality of requests may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Staff says: with the parcel’s impermeable nature as well as topography, any additional impervious surface may have an adverse effect concerning stormwater. However, the deck portion of the expansion has stormwater controls proposed. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created? The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: 1.Lawn appears to be offered in place of existing macadam north and east of freestanding sign. This would affect permeability calculations, please quantify change to permeability, and adjust calculation prior to ZBA meeting. 2.Permeability denoted on page 1 does not correspond to permeability denoted under Site Development Data, page 3 of application. Please correct. 3.This basic application was approved on March 25, 2009 with the subsequent site plan application approved on May 28, 2009. The applicant did not submit for a building permit within the one year time frame from the original approval dates nor did the applicant request an extension for the area variance and site plan approvals for this project resulting in the lapse of approvals. 4.Please note that the zoning requirements have changed since the initial approval, specifically front setback requirements went from 50 feet to 75 feet. The Planning Board approved a motion that this will not produce any undesirable changes in the neighborhood. The Planning Board did this last night and, based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that was approved unanimously. Mr. Oborne: I’d like to make a clarification on the permeability aspect under number 1 of the staff comments: The applicant is proposing a lawn in place of the macadam so that the permeability is in the positive direction. So, I would just say to the Board, I would not worry too much about the permeability. If you go with the permeability I have in the Staff Notes; it’s okay. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Good evening Mr. Hughes. Mr. Hughes: Good Evening, my name is Gary Hughes and I’m representing Sam Bhatti of NSB Hospitality and I’m here to answer any questions or concerns the Board might have. Mr. Jackoski: So it is pretty straight forward given where it was in the past. Any Board members have any questions? Mr. Kuhl: Seeing as how you already got an approval of this and it didn’t go forward, the same thing that was previously done? Mr. Hughes: Well, before it was the owner Mohammad Tariq and has since then entered in to a corporation with Sam Bhatti. They are now partners in a limited liability corporation and so financing is in place as far as I know. Mr. Clements: I have a question, did I miss this? In the Area Variance that we approved before; the applicant proposed a 223 sq. ft. addition to the existing motel including a handicapped ramp. This one is 942 sq. ft.? Mr. Hughes: Let me clarify that! Mr. Clements: I wish you would. Mr. Hughes: What it was before, if you looked at building number 1; the building addition. Mr. Clements: That’s the office you’re talking about. Mr. Hughes: Yes, that is correct. It’s going to be a sloped roof coming off the gable end and what we have done, is he is proposing to do now is, on the next page, we are adding, basically, a second floor 5 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 storage area over that. And that is the extra square footage, other than take the whole roof off and putting a deck over it, would be advisable…. So that’s where….unintelligible… Mr. Clements: Is the footprint the same as it was for? Mr. Hughes: Unintelligible Mr. Clements: This just going up another story. Mr. Hughes: Right! Mr. Oborne: Unintelligible Mr. Underwood: The travel corridor overlay has always been 75 feet anyways, and even though he has increased our setback to 75 ft. from 50 ft., we sort of took…. Mr. Oborne: Unintelligible Mr. Underwood: So that just brought that in to …. Mr. Jackoski: There is a public hearing scheduled this evening. At this time, I would like to open the public hearing. Roy, are there any comments in the public record? Mr. Urrico: There are no comments. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Sir; I would like to open the meeting to the general public. Is there anyone that would like to address the Board at this time for this project? Having seen none, before I close the public hearing, maybe we should poll the Board quickly. Why don’t I start with Brian? Mr. Clements: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I see this as a positive change, particularly with the permeability issue. It looks like a good project. It’s on the same footprint so I think that the criteria is the same as it was, almost the same as it was, in the last variance that we did, so I would be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Brian; Jim? Mr. Underwood: I think the only real change is that addition of the second story on the three and it’s on the same footprint and it’s not going to alter the permeability or anything. It think the permeability issue is somewhat improved by the grass; it’s going to be planted out there, instead of the macadam, so I would be all for it. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Ron? Mr. Kuhl: I agree with my fellow Board members. We have already approved it in its former time and the addition of the grass is good. Mr. Jackoski: Mr. Koskinas? Mr. Koskinas: I would have to say that this parcel is developed as much as it can be. I wouldn’t like to see you here again. Unintelligible. Mr. Jackoski: Rick? Mr. Garrand: I see no significant changes to the previous application. So, I would be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: And, Roy? Mr. Urrico: Yeah, I’m in agreement with everybody else. Mr. Jackoski: At this time, I suggest we close the public hearing. And do I have a resolution? Would anyone like to volunteer? Mr. Koskinas: Mr. Chairman, I move for approval Mr. Koskinas: MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE 24-2011 NSB Hospitality, LLC d/b/a Rodeway Inn Introduced by Mr. Koskinas, seconded by Mr. Clements: The applicant proposes a 942 sq. ft. expansion to an existing office/lobby to include a 164 sq. ft. handicap ramp along with an 80 sq. ft. canopy. In addition, a 2,062 sq. ft. of decks and landings will be 6 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 added to the existing motel. In granting this variance we are permitting relief as follows: 54.4 feet of front setback relief, 24.4 feet of front setback relief the office addition. Seventy-five (75) foot Travel Corridor setback relief, side setback relief of 7.1 feet. Floor Area Ratio will increase by 7 percent from the 30 percent requirement. Permeability relief is still in the positive direction so it’s easily accommodated. It is a nonconforming structure and this expansion is permitted as acknowledged by this Board. Criteria for this granting this variance and the balancing test; minor impacts to the neighborhood can be anticipated. Number two: feasible alternatives to this relief appear to be very limited. Number three: the relief requested is not considered to be overly severe. Number four: No adverse impact for the environment or neighborhood is anticipated. And we acknowledge that the difficulty is self-created. Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: The next item on tonight’s agenda is for Judy Frolish, Saratoga Sign Pro’s, Inc. for TCT Federal Credit Union, 9 Hunterbrook Lane, Sign Variance No. 25-2011. It is an Unlisted SEQRA. There is a public hearing this evening and I will turn it over to Roy – reading in of the project description and basic staff comments. Mr. Urrico: The applicant is proposes to remove an existing freestanding sign and install a new 27 square foot, 8 ft. 4 in. tall internally lit freestanding sign in approved location. The parcel will require sign variances for height relief. Request for 2 feet 4 inches of relief from the 6 foot maximum allowable height for freestanding signs in the Office Zone. Staff says that there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood and that the applicant could design a compliant sign in regards to height. And, that the request for 2 feet 4 inches or 38% relief from the 6 foot maximum height requirements for the O-Zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. There will be minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood are anticipated. The difficulty could be considered self-created. And staff comments that setback relief was approved for this sign (SV 11-2011) on February 23, 2011. This is a type Unlisted SEQRA. Mr. Jackoski: Welcome and hello, could you please state your name for the record and would you like to add to what Roy has already talked about for this project. Ms. Frolish: My name is Judith Frolish; I’m from Saratoga Sign Pro’s, Inc. I’m representing TCT Federal Credit Union. I’m going to just explain to you, unfortunately, we are going to need an additional variance for the client who had a previous approval in January. At that time, it was understood that the Town Law that changed the height, allowed in that zone, which was not effective but we went for the building permit and we were told that it did apply to us and we would get additional variances. I started working with TCT back in September and we have four branches that we were designing signs for that followed the same design that you have seen and the other three locations, the signs have been installed and the signs at the credit unions would have consistency with their image and they would like to, again, have this sign in Queensbury match the other three which is the reason for this small additional type variance. We don’t think what’s existing would match. To an extent, I guess it could be construed as being self-created; as if I turned my paperwork in 2 days earlier we wouldn’t be sitting here taking time for this tonight. It did occur on December 6, I think that’s when it changed. If we had done it prior to that date, it would be fine. Mr. Underwood: Keith is this something that we missed or? Mr. Oborne: Not you, or the Board, no. Mr. Underwood: so after we passed, when we passed this, the new regulations were in effect at that time? Mr. Oborne: Yes, when I got the plans submitted, I try to go back in time, hopefully to catch the old ordinance, unintelligible…. Mr. Underwood: Yeah, okay, did we consider the 62 inches as the height; when we approved it we had 2 no votes. Mr. Oborne: There was, I believe, if my memory serves me correct, the only issue was the setback from the road. The sign, we believe, was compliant at that time; and it was not. Mr. Koskinas: just clarify that for me! How did we think it was compliant and it turns out that it wasn’t? Was it on the application with a height greater than we read? 7 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Oborne: What you read, the wrong code was applied. Mr. Koskinas: The wrong code. Mr. Oborne: The previous Sign Code was applied to this application. The new sign code should have been applied to the application. Mr. Koskinas: In other words, after the new zoning was issued. Mr. Garrand: The application in front of us, said it was a 62 inch sign. Mr. Clements: Yeah, that is my question; it’s the same as this one. Mr. Underwood: Same exact one. Mrs. Frolish: same exact one as previously before you, at your previous meeting, yes Mr. Garrand: Well, 62 inches; the new sign is 8 ft. 4 inches? Mr. Frolish: It was never 62 inches in height. Maybe the face of this sign was 62 inches. Mr. Underwood: We weren’t counting the base previously. Mr. Koskinas: Can I ask what creates the height. I’m looking at your sketch but is it the sign or is it the base? Mrs. Frolish: Well, it’s a combination, obviously. The base is 36 inches and the sign, I think is at, that’s where the other…unintelligible. Mr. Koskinas: Can the base be altered to put it into conformance? Is it a big deal? Mrs. Frolish: It goes in with a 2 inch high base. The sign would sit…unintelligible. Mr. Koskinas: The sign would sit in the snow. Mrs. Frolish: The problem is that we do have three other branches that have this same exact sign and when we worked through that process initially, all of those signs and all of those municipalities were compliant. And, now we are here with a sign that is not compliant. And, in order to make it so we need to have it sit 2 inches off the ground. Mr. Underwood: Keith, what was the rationale for the change? The Town Board adopted that change? Mr. Oborne: Only in the O-Zone Mr. Underwood: Only in the O-Zone Mr. Oborne: Only in the O-Zone, that’s from …unintelligible… Mr. Underwood: Cause, I’m thinking the last time we ran in to this was a mobile station on the corner of Aviation and as everybody knows, this winter when it was deep snow, you couldn’t see those signs. You could barely see the, you know, whatever was on the top of the sign. Mr. Urrico: I guess my question is: Why have the sign variance at all? If this is always going to be an issue, then, there is something that’s been missed or either the sign variance itself is flawed or the code is flawed or we have to have people comply with it, because if it’s always going to be an issue; with this type of a sign. Mr. Oborne: I can’t disagree with you on that note as far as zoning goes. The Zoning Board of Appeals is relief from the Zoning Code; that’s what your purpose is. Mr. Urrico: I have a question for you; this is the sign that is applied in three different communities, right? Okay, are people going to buy and measure each sign that says this one is taller than this one, I don’t understand the logic in that, we have to be identical. Every community has its own Sign Variance. Mrs. Frolish: To comply, the base of this sign would be 2 inches high. It would be essentially taken as a cabinet and setting it on the ground. Mr. Urrico: Have no other signs that account for different sign regulations? 8 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mrs. Frolish: In this particular instance, we met with TCT and designed the sign that would meet the specifications in all four communities. We designed this based on the knowledge of your Ordinance as well as the others, at that time in September. And, it was their goal to have them all appear the same. Setting this sign down to a 6 ft. height just will not work with this particular design, which would make it entirely different from the other three communities. Mr. Urrico: Do you have any alternate signs, any alternatives that you can present to us that might be compliant? Mr. Frolish: Not without totally reconfiguring this design. I mean this is as unique and eye-catching, it’s worked very well in Clifton Park and Cambridge and Milton. It would take the base away and bring down to 6 ft. then it would like quite strange. You see the picture that we had looked at, at our last meeting. Obviously, 6 feet, whether the Town Board is correct, or in their wisdom to change the O-zone or not in this particular instance is quite obvious that 6 feet would not work. Mr. Underwood: So, it’s just the office zone that we altered the code? And, I think that was in the sense when we’re looking at Professional Parks, where everybody’s sign would be kind of like on the beltway through there. Mr. Oborne: we have updates…unintelligible… Mr. Koskinas: But the character of this park verses, for example, a bank on Quaker Road or even on Bay Street is quite a bit different. And, I’m sensitive to the rest of the people who belong in this park and are a resident in this park; their signs are compliant. Mrs. Frolish: They are not conforming to the new ordinance. All of the signs that are there now, the dentist and the church, are all higher than 6 feet. Mr. Koskinas: Okay, thank you. Mrs. Frolish: I know the one across the street is probably even 10 ft. high. Mrs. Frolish: There’s no one else in this neighborhood, Mr. Koskinas: conforming to the new code Mrs. Frolish: under the new code, because we are the first ones to apply. Mr. Jackoski: With the 3 ft. high sign that you referred to backlit like this is. Unintelligible… Mr. Koskinas: it has a ground light Mr. Phelps (TCT Credit Union representative): And this sign is only lit into the letter, just TCT Credit Union is lit, there’s nothing else lit on the sign at night. Mr. Jackoski: Is it on all hours of the night? Mr. Phelps: It’s on photoelectric cell. Mr. Jackoski: so it doesn’t turn off at midnight and come back on at …hour? Mr. Phelps: No, it does not. Mr. Koskinas: It’s interesting to me, you know, I see these signs lit up all over the place at night and the businesses are closed. What’s the point of having the sign on? Mrs. Frolish: Marketing Mr. Garrand: In the summertime, it appears that this sign will be kind of monolithic on this property. Granted, in the wintertime it is obscured by the snow. But summertime, it’s going to stick out. Mrs. Frolish: There will be landscaping that will help it to blend into the environment, so it’s not going to just look like a big tombstone sticking up out of the ground. It will definitely will have landscaping; they’ve done an excellent job at that branch of doing other landscaping. Mr. Garrand: What type of landscaping do you have at the other branches? Mr. Phelps: around the side? 9 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Garrand: Yes Mr. Phelps: Little shrubs and flowers; the Clifton Park branch has not had anything done yet, we’re in the midst of putting the new, lawn going back in there; so we’re waiting for that to be done before we do a lot of the shrubs around the base of it also. Mr. Underwood: Keith, I’m thinking, of, like if you had a ….unintelligible…hedge that came up to the bottom of where it is, it’s still going to be over height, but you know it’s; visibility is key to having a sign too. Mr. Koskinas: As a point of reference, see if you could Keith, the Ordinance allows for most commercial enterprises to have both the monument sign or a pole sign, and building signs. Is the office area allowed, O-zoning allowed a sign on the building? Mr. Phelps: The issue with that at the moment, where the building is located, when you come around the curve. You wouldn’t see it. The sign, originally, we asked for a variance to bring it out closer to the road for visibility of the sign itself, because of where the building location is. Mrs. Frolish: The front of the property has a curve on it, as you are probably aware of from our previous discussions and in order to make the sign visibility, brought it forward to avoid having to trim the trees. But those trees, in the previous picture, are winter, obviously there are no leaves on them, but most of the building frontage is blocked by those same trees, there wouldn’t be a good visible spot on the wall. Mr. Phelps: And we are trying to keep the trees, we don’t want to take the trees down; that was one of the alternatives we had when we talked about the variance, moving the sign closer to the road, was so we didn’t have to cut any trees down, because if we had agreed, put it back where we would have not met you guys, we wouldn’t have seen it because of the tree. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, anymore discussion at this point? Mr. Kuhl: If in fact, a sign would have to be compliant, it would have to be 70 percent of what it is now, if you wanted to have the same amount of base and the same amount of TCT Credit Union. Consequently, you could shrink it down to where the top could be 43 inches and the bottom could be 25 and that would give you 68 inches. I mean you could shrink it all by 70 percent. Mrs. Frolish: We could shrink the entire thing Mr. Kuhl: And you would still accomplish your customers knowing TCT would look the same; it would just be smaller. So, it’s not to say that you couldn’t come into compliance and still have your blue-zone, your credit union and your TCT. Mrs. Frolish: I think at that point, we’d probably would get into a readability issue than trying to have people recognize the sign and read the sign and still, on a curved road way, when they have limited visibility to begin with, if we start deceasing the letter size then their reaction time is going to be greatly diminished. Mr. Koskinas: Yeah, but you probably have about 95 percent of your customers know where you are anyway? Mr. Phelps: At the present those that use it, I would agree with that. Hopefully, with growth, they won’t. And that’s what we’re aiming to do, is to grow that branch. Mr. Koskinas: But I’m just suggesting to you that if we deny you, you could shrink the whole thing and still be in compliance. And your customers would still recognize you. Mr. Phelps: Yes, the sign is ready to go in, but yes we would have to refabricate the whole sign. Mr. Koskinas: Oh, you’ve already paid for it? Mr. Phelps: Already paid for it. Mrs. Frolish: After we got your approval a few months ago, the sign was fabricated. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Could there be a modification to the base of that fabricated sign, where it wasn’t 3 feet but it was more of a foot and a half, or 2 feet? Mrs. Frolish: That’s a possibility. 10 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Garrand: Let’s split the difference and call it 7 feet. Mr. Underwood: You’re asking for 28 inches of relief from what we approved previously. But we did have the two new ones. Which made a good case for your no votes too? Mr. Clements: Are we making comments here now? Mr. Jackoski: We can continue asking the applicant, but I haven’t opened the public hearing yet either. Mr. Clements: Well, this is more to the Board. First of all, this is the sign we approved before, is that correct? Okay, number 1, number 2 is – 36 inches; this is closer to the road, as they go through falling snow through there and I agree with what Roy says, that maybe there would be; the Sign Ordinance change, in the wintertime, if you even, brought that base down to 24 inches, some of that sign may be covered in the wintertime. So, I don’t know if, let me put it this way, I would be in favor of this for two reasons; number 1 because we approved it before and number 2, because I don’t think they are going to be able to see the sign because it’s so close to the road and when they do the plowing, there’s going to be too much snow there. Now maybe for other signs, that are not set so close to the road, it may not be as much of an issue but I would think that the Town Board would want to look at that again. Mr. Jackoski: Let me just clarify: When this Board approved this previously, because I wasn’t a member of this Board, you all understood that this sign was 8 ft. 4 inches tall. Mr. Kuhl: Oh Yes. Mr. Clements: Yep. Mr. Underwood: And, previously, sign height could, be what, 12 feet? Mr. Oborne: It could be 15. Mr. Underwood: 15 feet, it could have been at that time, and its 62 inches, I think that was the rationale for those of us who did approve it. It’s actually below 15 ft. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, hearing no more discussion at this time I would like to open up the public meeting. Roy have you received any public comment. Mr. Urrico: No, I do not see any public comment. Mr. Jackoski: Having no public comment in the folder, is there anyone currently in the audience who would like to address the Board on this matter? Mr. Jackoski: Having seen no one take us up on that offer, I would like to poll the Board. Brian, I think you were already polled. Mr. Clements: I was. Mr. Jackoski: So, why don’t we go to John? Mr. Koskinas: Mr. Chairman and applicant, my reservations last time and the reason why you didn’t get my support last time was the setback, my position on that hasn’t changed. I think Queensbury Sign Ordinance made a great leap forward; I don’t think we have done enough to make the signs look like this community should look like. So, I respectfully, I stand with a no vote, but I will say for the benefit of this Boards ears, that whatever prevailed on them to agree before, seems to be unchanged and I don’t think this is any of your doing. So, I am sensitive to your appeal. I’m a no vote. Mr. Jackoski: Jim Mr. Underwood: I’m torn by what we have done. They were acting on good faith. I think the Board deliberated in good faith and when we approved this we all had an idea what we were going in, it was just a matter of a date, set in time that altered the course of history. It would be nice if we could bring everything into compliance when we forward from that date, like automatically, wave a magic wand, but I don’t think, in effect, there are two things here. Yes, we should bring things in to compliance with the code; otherwise we wouldn’t alter the code. But number two, I think we have to deliberate, is it reasonable for us to ask them to, like throw this sign out, or put it down on the ground. And I don’t think that putting the sign down on the ground makes any sense either. I think, had we known that the Sign Code was going to be changed, that we could have altered our perceptions when we approved it previously to bring it in to more compliance than we thought it was going to be but I’m unsure what to do here, but I’m going to wait and listen to everyone else. 11 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: I’d actually like go out of sequence here because I want to ask Staff before we continue rd with comment. I’m reading the motion that was approved prior, February 23, I believe. It says, the applicant proposes to remove existing freestanding sign and install a new 27 sq. ft. 62 inch tall internally lit sign at new location. Then we continue to talk about setbacks. Again, I have to ask, how does the 62 inches relate to the true height of 90 inches? Because I do not understand that, Mr. Garrand: Its 100 inches. Mr. Jackoski: Sorry, its 100 inches, so I just want Staff to clarify, a previous application, 62 inches, or was it this current height. Mr. Oborne: It’s my understanding, it’s the current height, nothing has changed. Mr. Frolish: The 62 is the distance of the sigh itself and the overall height is a different dimension on your application. Mr. Jackoski: So this is a 62 inch tall sign Mr. Frolish: The semantics of the motion, they were actually approving a sign that is 62 inches tall by 74 inches wide. This is what’s counted in your 27 square feet, is just this part, the base or any structural elements are not counted in your sign area. Mr. Clements: I would say what we are looking at is the square footage of the sign. Mr. Oborne: That is correct and this is 62 inch post sign. Stands the base, that resolution based solely on setback and had nothing to do with height. So, I understand what you’re saying. To have it clear? It most certainly should have said 83 inches. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, I will continue polling the Board. I just wanted to make sure we addressed this. Mr. Clements: You also had on this sign, the last time it was going to say drive-thru or something like this, I recall, I was talking about that, so you’ve taken that off, was that on the white part? Mr. Phelps: Yes, it was. That’s where it said 24 hour ATM Mr. Clements: Okay. Mr. Phelps: You called us on that and asked if we were going to put one there. We said we might be back. Mr. Jackoski: Anymore? Ron. Mr. Kuhl: When I first saw this, I was against this. But, you know, the points that were brought up here is you came with the sign, and I remember vividly seeing the sign and that’s what we approved. We approved the location of this sign. And I’m going to stay with my approval, but it’s our oversight and how we missed it, I don’t know. But you came with this, and we approved it once. So I’m going to stay with the approval. Mr. Jackoski: Roy. Mr. Urrico: It’s unfortunate that this found some special circumstances but my position on the Sign Variance really has not changed. I’ve been on the Board a long time and I’ve seen evolution of the Sign Variance and each time there is an evolution, there comes a special set of circumstances that require us to look at it closely and then we inevitable grant somebody special relief and that becomes the new defector status quo for that particular area and then the next person comes in a and says well you granted it to the other guy, why not us. And then we end up shooting ourselves in the foot and end up with ineffective sign variance and the signs are scattered all over town of bad decisions that this Board has made with the Sign Variances. And, I just don’t want to see going down that path again. But that is just me, and I think there will be some impacts to the neighborhood. I think the applicant could design a compliant sign, regards to height. We’ve asked that as a request and, you said pretty much that that cannot be done. There doesn’t seem to be any compromise. I think the request of 2 feet 4 inches is moderate and therefore, I think it’s significant in terms of a new sign variance. I don’t think there’ll be any environmental impacts, but I think the sign difficulty was created by you, and you had the opportunity to fix it as well. So I would be against it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, Rick. Mr. Garrand: I think the sign is a little large for this parcel. I’ve never seen anyone drive over 20 mph around that loop; very slow driving. While 6 ft. is a little bit small, given the fact that it is so close to the road, we’re responsible for that variance. I think the base could be cut down a bit which would still 12 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 require the variance, but also by the same token, somebody was in the O-zone when they missed this one. This shouldn’t be back for a second go around. Mr. Oborne: I’m not happy it’s here, I’ll tell you that right now. Mr. Garrand: Neither are we but I do think, I do agree there is a little bit of leeway as far as the base goes on this sign. Like I said before, if the base was cut down a foot, I think it would make it less obtrusive for that neighborhood. So at this point I would be leaning on the no side. Mr. Jackoski: Leave it to the new guy, alright, I wasn’t here before, so I have to look at this as a whole new application and I’m concerned about its height. I know there’s an economic impact because it’s caught in the quandary. I kind of agree with Mr. Garrand, that if there was some way to reduce it, in height, I‘d probably be more in favor of it. I don’t know if it’s feasible on your end. Mrs. Frolish: As a compromise, would it be enough of a different if we take, right now it’s 38 inches to the bottom of the sign, there is a 2 inch little gap and the base is 36 . If we were to instead of making that 38, make that 28, would that be significant enough to alleviate some of your concerns? Mr. Jackoski: And what is the rationale, by just 10 inches? Mrs. Frolish: That makes a 90 inch total height from the base to the top. It puts the wording down to, right around 6 ft., between 6 and 7 ft. Typically, when we design signs we try to keep the main body of text at 7 feet because that’s what the municipal uniform code for highways has the 7 feet, for all of your traffic signs and street signs. If it goes lower than 7 feet it will be blocked by higher vehicles, snow banks, and other obstructions of the environment. So, that’s why the federal and state standards are 7 feet and I’d like to keep it close to that if we could. Mr. Underwood: So the relief then would be 16 inches of relief instead of 24 ft.? Mr. Oborne: 8 ft., 10 inches or 12 inches? Mrs. Frolish: That’s up to the Board, but I’m thinking 10, because I know it would need 18 inches of relief. Mr. Jackoski: What percentage of that, Roy? Mr. Oborne: Sign Size would be 90 inches? Mrs. Frolish: Yes. Mr. Oborne: Okay, it would be 20 percent relief, as is my understanding. Mr. Underwood: Is there some state standard as she suggested for the height of signs along the roadway? Mrs. Frolish: Highway Signs. Mr. Underwood: But because this is internal… Mrs. Frolish: No but the same rationale would say, if you need to be able to see a highway sign and they always have to be at 7 feet, then if you need to see a commercial sign, that’s how we go about designing them because, certainly, our clients would like them to also be seen above traffic and other obstructions. Mr. Koskinas: At 70 mph Mrs. Frolish: No, highway sign even on this particular street would be 7 feet even at 30 mph, it’s still 7 feet Mr. Koskinas: But that’s not the State Regulation, that’s your thinking. Mrs. Frosts: No, no that’s in that State Regulation and it’s on the municipal code for signs. The Town of Queensbury puts its stop sign at this corner; the bottom of the sigh has to be at 7 feet. Mr. Jackoski: I’m okay with the 10 inches. Mr. Garrand: There’s your four. Mr. Jackoski: We do have a SEQRA this evening that we must go through. Mr. Underwood: So what is our, what does it stack up right now before we get too far? Mr. Jackoski: It seems 4 to 3 at this moment. 13 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Underwood: Because the other thing is that, I’m thinking on the base of there, we could have a complete arborvitae or something planted around the whole thing so you can’t see the base; that’s going to soften it even if we’re going to lower 10 inches. Mrs. Frolish: Yeah, that’s what we are proposing, is a great deal of landscaping there. Mr. Underwood: And, hide the whole base. Mr. Phelps: We normally would have that address on that base somewhere. Mrs. Froslish: Yes, we are actually required by Queensbury Code at this point too, so we do have to have a number there. Mr. Jackoski: I would like to try to move forward with SEQRA if I could. Mr. Garrand: BASED ON THE SHORT ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, THIS BOARD DEEMS THIS BOARD DEEMS THAT THERE IS NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IN GRANTING THIS VARIANCE, Introduced by Mr. Garrand, seconded by Mr. Clements Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas Mr. Clements: MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 25-2011, JUDITH FROLISH, SARATOGA SIGN PRO’S, INC. FOR TCT FEDERAL CREDIT UNION AT 9 HUNTERBROOK LANE Introduced by Mr. Clements, seconded by Mr. Garrand Applicant proposes to remove the existing freestanding sign and install a new 27 sq. ft., 90 inch tall, internally lite freestanding sign in an approved location. Criteria for this sign variance is as follows: The height relief will be for 1 ft. 6 inches from the 6 ft. maximum allowable height for freestanding signs in the Office zone. In making this determination the Board shall consider: One: Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minor impacts. Two: Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. The applicant has made some adjustments to the sign and has approval of the Board. Three: Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The request for 1 ft. 6 inches; 25 percent relief from the maximum 6 ft. height required for the O-Zone may be considered moderate relative to the ordinance. Four: Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts are anticipated. The difficulty could be considered self-created. Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2011 by the following vote AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas Mr. Jackoski: The last item I have on this evenings agenda is applicant Christopher Stevens, as owner also, location 191 Sunnyside East, Area Variance No. 26-2011. This is a Type II SEQRA and I will turn it over to Roy. Mr. Urrico: Applicant proposes a 515 sq. ft. residential addition to an existing 830 sq. ft. single family dwelling. Parcel will require an area variance as follows: East side setback – Request for 10.4 feet of east side setback relief from the 25 foot requirement as per §179-4-030. Staff thinks that there will be minor impacts to the neighborhood; that feasible alternatives would be to expand upward to avoid requested side setback relief. That the request for 10.4 feet or 42% relief from the 25 foot minimum side setback requirement of the MDR zone may be considered moderate relative to the Ordinance. That there would be minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood? And that the difficulty may be considered self-created. The staff says that the Zoning Board may wish to ascertain if the wastewater system is compliant. The expansion is for a Master Bedroom and as a result an upgrade to the system may be required. And this is a Type II SEQRA, no further action is required.\ Mr. Jackoski: Good Evening, if you could identify yourself for the record. Mr. Stevens: My name is Christopher Stevens and I am representing myself to put in a variance for an addition. 14 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Okay, Mr. Stevens, if you don’t mind, if you’d like to add anything to what was already read into the record, there is some concern about the current septic system. Mr. Stevens: I have a coy, I don’t know if you guys have one or not. Mr. Jackoski: Of what? Mr. Stevens: Of the actual current septic from when it was placed, from when I bought the house, prior to when I bought it, actually. Mr. Underwood: How big is the tank? Mr. Stevens: It’s a 1,000 gallon. Mr. Underwood: Okay. Mr. Stevens: With 4, 50 foot run offs on it. Mr. Jackoski: What year was that done? Mr. Stevens: It was done in, 1991. Mr. Underwood: That’s for 3 bedrooms? Mr. Jackoski: It’s a 3 bedroom, yes Mr. Underwood: How many bedrooms are you going to have in there with the addition? Mr. Stevens: 3, it’s currently a 2 bedroom house right now. Mr. Underwood: You’ve got those tiny rooms? Mr. Stevens: Yes. Mr. Jackoski: Are there any other comments at this time from the Board? Mr. Kuhl: You’re planning on going out in the easterly direction, correct? Mr. Stevens: Correct. Mr. Kuhl: And you’re going to put a complete new roof system in? Mr. Stevens: Yes we are Mr. Kuhl: Just on the addition? Mr. Stevens: It’s going to tie into the existing roof structure on the west side going back 20 ft. Mr. Kuhl: Any reason why you just didn’t go out the back? Mr. Stevens: The septic is located there. Mr. Kuhl: Oh, it is, okay. Mr. Garrand: Have you talked to your neighbors on this? Mr. Stevens: Yes, everybody I’ve talked to seems to have no problems, what-so-ever with it. Mr. Garrand: The ones, directly east don’t have any problems with it? Mr. Stevens: No, I have actually spoken to them and they said if it gets all approved they would be more than willing to let us use their driveway or whatever we needed to do to get it done. Mr. Kuhl: And that house sits so far back too, the east side house. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, at this time, are there anymore comments? There is a public hearing scheduled for this meeting. I’d like to open the public hearing and Roy is there any correspondence? 15 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Urrico: No correspondence. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Is there anyone in the audience who would like to address the Board at this time? If you wouldn’t mind giving up the table. Ms. Alagna: Good Evening, Mr. Jackoski: Good evening, if you could identify yourself for the record please. Ms. Alagna: My name is Diana Alagna and I live at 192 Sunnyside East Road, right across the road from Stevens with my husband Paul and my son Gab and I’m here this evening to support Chris and Luann in their request for a variance to build an addition to their home. We do live directly across from the Stevens; they’ve moved in about 6 years ago. We’ve been in our home for 11 years. I have no doubt that allowing them to add on to their home would only benefit the neighborhood. The Stevens keep their home in impeccable condition; the appearance of the house and property is vastly improved since they’ve lived there. And, they are a young couple and they need more space. I’m certain that any addition that they make to their home would be tasteful and beautiful and would be a credit to the neighborhood. Another factor that makes us particularly concerned that the Stevens receive approval of their plans is that we are very concerned that they will move if they are not allowed to make their home bigger; because they really have outgrown it. And, this would be a significant loss to all of us who live on Sunnyside East. One of our concerns is that small house, such as the Stevens, frequently become rentals. With all of the problems that go with having rental houses in the neighborhood, the frequent turnover, the crime, the property deterioration and this impacts on every property owner on Sunnyside East; is this will lower property values and no one wants to buy a home next to or down the road from a run-down rental property. We already have our share of rental houses in our neighborhood that have posed a threat to our safety and security and property values. One house is a level 3 sex offender and another was a center for drug trafficking. And, we don’t need more transients in the neighborhood. We do need solid respectable property owners such as Chris and Louann who want to make their home even more beautiful, for them and for all of us. Please let them do it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you very much. Is there anyone else here, currently, who would like to address the Board? Seeing no one, at this time, I’d like to maybe poll the Board first before we close the public comment period. Is that okay to do? Why don’t we start with Brian? Mr. Clements: Sure, thank you. I think that this is a good plan. I think hearing from the neighbors was good to hear. I don’t think it will be an undesirable change. I think it will be a desirable change to the neighborhood. The people to the east seem to have no problem with it and I’d be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Ron Mr. Kuhl: Looking at it, if we would suggest that you put it on the other side; you would need a variance for that too. And, I mean, going through the whole roofing thing is going to improve the view of the house from the road. Cost wise, go out the back, but that’s where your septic is, so that would kind of get more costly. So, given everything and seeing how’s the fact that you’re going to take this lady out to dinner tonight. I’d be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Mr. Garrand? Mr. Garrand: Wait til you get your next assessment. Yes Mr. Jackoski: Jim. Mr. Underwood: I don’t have any problem with it. I think even if they were proposing new construction on here and we decided the house all built new in the middle of the property, it would fit and if it’s with the neighborhood and it’s unfortunate, I think when everyone puts their house smack-dab in the middle of the lot and they don’t anticipate maybe adding on later, but that’s not something you did anyways. You bought the property as it is. I would be all in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. John. Mr. Koskinas: I think I’m sure you’ve got a tasteful project there and it’s fortunate to have a caring neighbor who will take the time and speak on your behalf. That’s the kind of neighbor I’d like to have. I’m in favor of your project. Mr. Jackoski: Roy Mr. Urrico: I have no problem with the application. I think it’s a good application. 16 Queensbury ZBA Meeting: May 18, 2011 Mr. Jackoski: Okay, neither do I. So having said all of that, we can close the public hearing and I would like to have Mr. Garrand make a motion. Mr. Garrand: MOTION TO APPROVE Area Variance No. 26-2011, Christopher Stevens 191 Sunnyside East Introduced by Mr. Garrand, seconded by Mr. Kuhl The applicant proposes construction of a 515 sq. ft. residential addition. Requested relief is from the side setback requirements. Whether the benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant; the one suggested other means feasible would be in back of the house but that would require removing the septic so that is not feasible. Would this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood or character? No it will not. It will improve the neighborhood and the appearance of the neighborhood. Is this request substantial? I would say this request is moderate. Will this request have adverse, physical, or environmental impacts on the neighborhood given the size of this lot? I don’t think it’s going to have any adverse environmental impacts, what-so-ever and the applicant has also stated that the septic system is adequate. This application may be deemed self-created. So I move we approve Area Variance 26-2011. Mr. Jackoski: Before we have a second, do we want to make part of the resolution that the applicant provides for the public record the document that was referred to concerning the septic. Mr. Oborne: It’s already part of the public record. Mr. Jackoski: I didn’t have it in my packet. Mr. Oborne: Well, it’s part of the public record with the septic application. And just for the record I have reviewed that. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, having a motion, do I have a second. Mr. Jackoski: Any further discussion? Call the vote. Duly adopted this 18th day of May 2011 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: That was the last item on our agenda this evening. Is there any other business that the Board would like to address this evening? Hearing none, can we have a motion to adjourn? Mr. Kuhl: So made. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Ron, a second? Mr. Garrand: Second. AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Koskinas, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Clements, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: Thank you everyone. Meeting adjourned. 17