Loading...
09-28-2022 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 281r,2022 INDEX Notice of Appeal No.1-2022 Starr Mowery 1. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-24 Area Variance No.44-2022 Vision Planning Consultants 5. Tax Map No. 302.11-1-42.11 Sign Variance No.5-2022 Immunotek Bio Centers 10. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-42 Area Variance No.45-2022 Ethan&Jody Burgess 15. Tax Map No. 302.13-1-12 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 09/28/2022) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 28TK,2022 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL BRENT MC DEVITT MEMBERS ABSENT ROY URRICO RICHARD CIPPERLY ZONING ADMINISTRATOR-CRAIG BROWN STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, Wednesday, September 28`h, 2022. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is simple. There should be an agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up,read the case into our record, allow the applicant to present the case, question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised, we'll then open the public hearing and receive input from the public. Then we'll close the public hearing, poll the Board, and proceed accordingly. So our first applicant is Notice of Appeal 1-2022,Starr Mowery, 2 Glendale Drive. NEW BUSINESS: NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. NOA 1-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 STARR MOWERY AGENT(S) STEFANIE DI LALLO BITTER O WNER(S) CKT ENTERPRISES,LLC ZONING CI LOCATION 2 GLENDALE DR. APPELLANT IS APPEALING THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR'S DETERMINATION REGARDING RESIDENTIAL ELEMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL INTENSIVE ZONE. CROSS REF CC-0229-2022 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-24 SECTION 179-16-090 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; STARR MOWERY,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Notice of Appeal No. NOA 1-2022, Starr Mowery, Meeting Date: September 21, 2022 "Project Location: 2 Glendale Dr. Description of Proposed Project: Appellant is appealing the Zoning Administrator's determination regarding residential elements in the Commercial Intensive; (CI) zone. Staff Comments: First,Standing: Was the appeal taken within the appropriate 60 day time frame and is the appealing party aggrieved? Was the appeal filed within the required timeframe: • The Notice of Appeal application was filed with the Town on August 8, 2022. The Zoning Administrator determined, on May 23, 2022 that the proposed revisions to the property at 2 Glendale constitute the addition of residential uses, thus requiring a Use Variance and Site Plan Review. At the request of the applicant or applicants' agent, the Zoning Administrator issued a clarification email of July 21,2022 and it is that email that is the basis for the appellants claim that this appeal is timely. A determination that new residential uses are not allowable at 2 Glendale Drive can be traced to a December 13,2017 letter from the Zoning Administrator to the appellant. • Appellant is the owner of 2 Glendale Drive Second,Merits of the argument if the appellant is found to have standing: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) The issue at hand is that the Town is concerned that the spaces labeled as"office" also meet building code requirements for residential dwelling units and that such residential uses are not allowable in the CI district. The Zoning Administrator has requested that the appellant confirm/certify that the"office"spaces shown on the most recently revised plans will not be used for residential purposes. Use Variance I-20IS was Denied by the Zoning Board of Appeals and that project was to add 4 residential uses in the building at 2 Glendale. The current "office" revision plan is to add 4 "office" spaces with kitchens, bathrooms and laundry facilities. It is the Zoning Administrator position that if the"office"spaces contain all components of a dwelling unit that they will be considered as dwelling units and,to that end,new residential dwelling units are not allowable in the CI district. The appellant's main argument appears to be that individual spaces with a kitchen, shower/tub and laundry facilities should be considered as commercial uses and thus allowable within the CI district." MS. BITTER-Stefanie Bitter. I'm here with Starr Mowery. We do believe it's timely. I'm going to start with that. There have been revisions to the plan. What she was proposing was that there would be residential uses that would remain that were grandfathered,and that was understood,but the modification of the structure that had the area that lost its grandfathered use to the apartment she was trying to make something that was nice or attractive to a commercial track, and in doing so the commercial track tenant that she attracted was looking for internet, a shower, and laundry facilities, all right. When that was presented it was deemed to be a residential use and required a Use Variance. That's the question. What I tried to specify in my Appeal is I thought that that was too strict of an interpretation. If you look at the CI uses,it would be understandable to consider that some of those uses would have showers,would have laundromats,would have kitchenettes. I even mentioned that in my law firm we have showers. We have kitchenettes, and in this post-COVID era we have to provide amenities to commercial tenants to make them as attractive as possible. We totally understand that this area cannot be used as a dwelling. There are no sleeping quarters. There's no closets. There's no bedrooms. It was just a matter for,at that time,a personal service use to have the amenities that they were requesting. It was an acupuncturist at the time. The acupuncturist was looking for those items to be included in the space that she was seeking to rent. That's what I'm looking to turn it. Asking for such a use in a personal service or commercial use in a CI zone for those items to be included would not be considered not permissible and would not go over the threshold and then be considered residential just because it has those three items. Does that make sense? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MS. BITTER-I'll open it up for questions. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.BROWN-So that's pretty close to exactly what we've talked about so far. I think my position is still that the spaces on the floor plan that were submitted,the spaces labeled office all do have closets. There are closets in those office spaces, and historically one of the benchmarks that our Building Department uses for,you know,when they look at a floor plan for a house,what are we going to call a bedroom when it comes to calculating septic calculations is does this room have a closet, and if the room has a closet,it might be labeled den or library or office,but the Building Department counts it as a bedroom when it comes to calculating the size of the septic. So my position is that these spaces,there's four spaces,four additional, I'll call them residential spaces. They'll call them commercial spaces. There's four additional residential areas, potentially residential areas, in the building, and all four of them have kitchens, but they don't all have laundry. I think there's one common that may share a laundry,but certainly all kitchens,bathrooms with full shower tubs,office with a closet which I consider a bedroom,and those are the components you need to be considered a residential unit. What I had asked the applicant to do, Mrs. Mowery to do, is provide some certification that these were not going to be used as residential units. Didn't want to do that or hasn't done that to date. So it's still my position that these units could be classified as residential units. Even though they're labeled office,there's a history of the property and I have to consider that when making decisions. There's an application that was before this Board a number of years ago for almost the same floor plan,four new units,residential units. These are now four new units labeled offices. So the concern is that they're labeled as office but with all the components you need for a residence. They're a residential unit. They could potentially be used for residences. So that's my determination is that they could be residences and they're not allowed. MS.BITTER-Could I respond? I'm jumping in,and Craig is obviously corresponding with Ethan and Starr. If we remove the closets, I totally understand that that's always a sticking point, those closets with the septic count. If the closets are removed,the certification to provide it,that they are for tenants. There's a commercial lease in place, the owner recognizes that they're not for dwelling. Would you then be comfortable with allowing kitchen and showers and laundry facilities? MR.BROWN-Yes. I don't think there's any prohibition to have a shower or a bathroom in a commercial space or a kitchenette in a commercial space,but again my review of the plans that have been submitted 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) so far,with all of the components that make up a residential unit,I'm going to call that a residential unit. If one or more of those components is removed and you want to provide a certification that you're not going to use them as residences,it's not an issue. MS. BITTER-All right. That's where the confusion lies,because in your e-mail you said if the bathrooms, tubs and showers are part of the plan, I would consider such units as residential living quarters. Again, that's because I was just looking at that one section of it. MR. BROWN-And that started with the applicant's agent. I asked what we could do. I think that one of the questions was what were the changes in the plan, and he said well I took out the bathrooms. So that's how it got to the bathroom. It wasn't my request to take out the bathrooms or the showers. That was what was provided, and in the next set of plans it was back in. So if you're telling me right now that you're going to remove the closets from the office spaces and give us,the Town, a certification that these units will not be used as residential,then I think they could be considered commercial spaces,which is all I've been looking for from the beginning. MR. MC CABE-So I have a question. So what we normally, the main factor that we consider is that a dwelling is,does it have a kitchen,and so that's what we've used to kind of limit buildings and,you know, bunkhouses being a dwelling. So, you know, we never considered the bathroom as key, nor did we consider a shower. What we consider as key is the kitchen. MR.BROWN-Right,and that's typically because all of those projects or applications that have been before this Board have been in residences. They've been in a house. This is a commercial space. So you've got to look at all of the components that wouldn't customarily be in a commercial space. MR. MC CABE-But the question here is,is it,you know, an office or is it a dwelling. MR. BROWN-Right. I think what you may hear, and I don't want to put words in Stefanie's mouth, is you may hear that that's what they're going to do. They're going to provide the Town the information that I've requested. They want to withdraw their Appeal and go forward with a building permit with the changes,but that's up to you. MS. BITTER-If I just tabled it,because I think we're on the same page, and that way I'd leave it open if for some reason once I give it to them there's still a question. MR. MC CABE-So when you like to table it to? MR. KUHL-Wait a minute. Before you table it. I have a question. I mean I really do. A laundry? I've worked in several commercial buildings in my other life when I was very important. I'm not very important now, and,yes,we had kitchens, and yes we had showers for the gee whiz people. No laundries. I mean if this is going to be a commercial facility,I don't understand what is needed for a laundry,unless you can identify a commercial use that requires a laundry to clean their rags or whatever. MS. BITTER-Absolutely, nail salon,hair salon, acupuncture spa,but,yes, I agree with you that it would have to be in conjunction with the use being proposed. MR.KUHL-In your documentation here you just said you had an applicant and they required,boom,boom, boom. Okay. You didn't put a use to it. I looked into 179-7-050 which was the Exit 1S thing and that's a critical commercial area. I mean there's a lot of description about the outside and not much description about the inside. A lot of people come up here and promise us a whole bunch of stuff and we approve stuff at their words,and yet I could go within a mile of my house and find two that have violated what they said at that table and what we approved here. I do not believe a laundry is the right room to have in a commercial property. MRS. MOWRY-But can I clarify it's not in the three units. It's in a half bath outside the three units because the acupuncturist uses a lot of sheets. MR.KUHL-Are you suggesting you're going to have one laundry for the entire complex? MRS. MOWRY-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Excuse me. You're going to have to identify yourself for the record. MS. BITTER-I'm sorry. She's Starr. MR. KUHL-Okay. I understood by what was written was there was one person that was going to rent one thing,and this is what they required. Okay. MRS. MOWRY-Yes,it was an acupuncturist. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) MR. MC CABE-You had a question? MR.MC DEVITT-I just,it's more of an observation,and I think the point's being made,I've been in several office spaces throughout my illustrious careers, and I've seen, obviously bathrooms and I've seen showers which is nice and you identified having that at your law firm,but I don't think you probably have washers and dryers. So maybe they're in Jon's office,but you don't. So that's standing out to me,too. I certainly get it with bathrooms and I get it with having a shower,too. That's kind of nice,but laundry facility in an office space or an office dwelling to me just stands out as being an oddity,but it's just an observation. MS.BITTER-And that's why I put the schedule. You saw all the other permitted uses in CI that included actually have the need for a laundry. Like I said, it mentioned all the spa services, food, food services, funeral home,golf course,motel, all of those things may have a laundry facility. MR.MOWRY-And just to clarify. The laundry is just one washer and dryer. She does a lot of sheets. It's not in any one of the three downstairs units. It's off to the side where a half bath is, where the foyer is where you enter. It's there and it would be locked. It would only be for them to. Also you think about all the towels that they use. It's nice without having to come home and wash these public use sheets and stuff in your own personal laundry. So it was a lady at Nirvana. She's interested in Unit 2 as an acupuncturist. MR. MC DEVITT-I appreciate the clarification. That helps me a lot. MR. MC CABE-So you're still looking to table? MS. BITTER-Yes. MR. MC CABE-All right. So first I've got to ask,because a public hearing was advertised. So I've got to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would care to address this on this particular area. Anybody out there? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MARY LEE GOSLINE MRS. GOSLINE-Mary Lee Gosline. I own property adjacent to Starr on Lafayette Street and I have a barbershop there and there's also a deli in the building and we do have a washer in our building because I have to wash towels and things like that,but what I was trying to say is that Starr, since she's moved in and her father and they have a funeral home and she's done a lot of work on Glendale Drive there. I remember when the building that she's working on now was George's Flowerland. It was just a mess,and she's come in and she's almost re-built the whole outside of it,made it very clean. The house next to it she's purchased. It's a cape. She's re-sided it. She's done the lawns. It's beautiful. The house on the corner which is now an insurance company,that was a house owned by Jesse Russell. So the whole street was really residential at one time but I just wanted to say that anything that I've seen Starr do she does a very good job and she maintains all her properties and what she says she's going to do I think she'll do. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thank you. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular matter? And so the next question is when do you want to table to? MS. BITTER-October if possible. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.HENKEL-19`h or 26`h? MS. BITTER-The 26`h MR. HENKEL-Okay. We're going to have to have information by, the only problem is are you going to have enough time to get us the new information? MS. BITTER-Yes. I can meet with Craig. MR.HENKEL-Okay. So the 26`h RESOLUTION TO: TABLE Notice of Appeal No.1-2022,Appellant Name Starr Mowery,regarding property owned by CKT Enterprises,LLC at 2 Glendale Drive,Tax Map No. 302.7-1-24; The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Starr Mowery from Section(s): 179-16-090 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in order to appeal the 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/28/2022) Zoning Administrator's determination decision regarding residential elements in the Commercial Intensive zone. MOTION TO TABLE NOTICE OF APPEAL NO. 1-2022 STARR MOWERY, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brent McDevitt: Tabled to October 26`h,2022 with any new information by the 5rh of October. Duly adopted this 28`h day of September,2022,by the following vote: MR.HENKEL-With any new information by? MR. MC CABE-The 5rh MR.HENKEL-Usually it's by the 15`h of the month. MR. MC CABE-We'll give her a little bit of time. MR.HENKEL-Okay. The 5rh of October. AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico MS. BITTER-Excellent. Thank you. MRS. MOWRY-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 44-2022,Vision Planning Consultants,25 Garrison Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 VISION PLANNING CONSULTANTS AGENT(S) TED DELUCIA OWNER(S) PETER MITELMAN ZONING MDR LOCATION 25 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES A 2,244 SQ. FT. POOL AREA TO BE PLACED ON THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF RESIDENTIAL LANDSCAPING ON THE SITE AND PAVERS FOR THE POOL AREA. THE HOUSE OF 4,032 SQ. FT.TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR POOL LOCATION. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2022 LOT SIZE 0.68 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.11-1-42.11 SECTION 179-5-020 TED DELUCIA, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.44-2022,Vision Planning Consultants,Meeting Date: September 28, 2022 "Project Location: 25 Garrison Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 2,244 sq.ft.pool area to be placed in the side yard of the property. The project includes installation of residential landscaping on the site and pavers for the pool area. The house of 4,032 sq. ft. to remain with no changes. Relief requested for pool location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for pool location. The property of 0.34 acres is located in the MDR zone. Section 179-5-020 swimming pool The applicant proposes installing a pool to the side yard of the home 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 to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) 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 on a parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for a pool in a 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 pool in the side yard of an existing lot with a single family home. The information submitted shows the lot configuration, the existing home with the proposed pool. The applicant has also provided plans showing the landscaping to be installed on the site." MR. DELUCIA-Good evening. My name's Ted Delucia. I'm with Vision Planning Consultants. I'm here on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Peter Mitelman who could not be here, and you basically covered some of the points that we're trying to propose for a variance. Based on the site plan,the brand new home that they just recently moved into and there are going to be other amenities on the property as depicted with the landscaping plan. We have a small basketball court on the right hand side. Obviously we have the pavers for the driveway in front that wraps around to the garage which is kind of like on a 45 degree angle to the front left side there. In the rear there is a porch on the home,and beyond that there is another patio,paved area for a seating area. So typically,you know,I guess you would say most of your pools are in the rear yard if you will,but the kind of unique situation I would say I guess with this property is it's wider than it is deeper. Soto comply with the law to build the dwelling we had certain setbacks from the back which we maintained for the house which left very little room in the rear for a pool. Keep in mind,I guess,that the zoning says we have to have the 20 foot rear yard setback so that doesn't provide any area in typically the definition of the rear yard on this site. It's my understanding, maybe I'm incorrect. I understood that the rear yard would go parallel with the rear yard lot line if you will. So if you came close towards the house 20 foot and went parallel with the rear yard lot line,then that would be the rear yard. Obviously the pool cannot fit in that space. So the most optimum location is as we've shown on the site plan. Concord Pools will be the company that will be installing it. They were out on the site and that was the best viewable area to fit the pool where it needed to be. So the pool is basically, I understand it to be bisected in a rear yard and a side yard. I might be not accurate on that, and I'm sure the Board or the Department can tell me that, but we are obviously complying with the setback to the rear. We're exceeding the side yard setback. We're showing it at 30 feet. We do have an extensive landscaping to obviously buffer the pool around the whole circumference as I've shown on the site plan. It's going to be obviously enclosed with the required fence to comply with the pool requirement as the enclosure. The area of the pool,I know it was stated that's 2,000 some odd feet,but I just wanted to clarify that the surface of the pool of water,the pool area,because it's kidney shaped,is 560 square feet of area. MR. MC CABE-Well,I think what they meant was the pool plus the surrounding. MR. DELUCIA-So when I read it and when it went into the official document it was like well that's a tremendous area, but the pool in itself is 16 by 35 which is generally typical for an in ground pool. So I guess in summary that's basically the only viable area it could be placed to comply with this zoning law, which would have been in the rear yard. So therefore we had no other choice but to put it where it's shown on that. In addition,if we were to squeeze it in,which I think we'd have to remove the whole patio area, it would then put the pool,first of all it wouldn't fit with the 20 foot rear yard setback because of the way the lot is shaped and the house is positioned,but we would be so much closer to the neighbor in the rear, which,I forgot the name of that street,but in any event it would be so much closer to where they live,close to the neighbor to the left, which is also a new house. I do have a photograph of Google Earth that I wanted to get blown up but I didn't get to that, which kind of shows the separation between the two homes as they're built today,if anyone would like to see. MR. MC CABE-You can give that to me and I'll enter it into the record. MR. DELUCIA-Thank you. I provided a few copies if you wanted to pass it out. Thank you. We also complied with the permeable area and the percentage of cars. MR. MC CABE-The only variance you're looking for is the location of the pool. MR. DELUCIA-Thank you. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) MR. MC CABE-So do we have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing, and that looks like Harrison back there. If you want to speak. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED HARRISON FREER MR. FREER-Hi. My name is Harrison Freer. I live at 2S Garrison Road, directly across the street. My wife and I, Tricia, oppose this variance because we believe that it will have a detrimental effect on the character of the neighborhood. There are no pools in the side yards or front yards on our street or towards Fort Amherst which is the adjacent. Sothis is a precedent that we don't believe is prudent at this time. The second objection is that this house has,they had a chance to design a pool and the lot differently and it's sort of incremental to come after,they decided all along they were going to put a pool and they're not following the Code. It's certainly self-created because this is anew property. The other issue with regard to the character of the neighborhood is that the owner is a Canadian citizen and lives in Canada for six months and one day. He also has property in Florida. So he's not at his address on Garrison more than a few months out of the year and the worry is that it's going to turn into a short term rental and that will certainly change the character of the neighbored. The Staff said that it was modest,but it's sort of binary, is it substantial or not and the question is can you have a pool on the side yard or the front yard, and the answer is no. So I consider it a substantial variance. There's also options to,when I saw,the way it read as the gentleman pointed out 2200 square foot pool, I was like holy cow. So it was not clear that,you could always try to get a smaller pool if that would be part of a legitimate change,and then I guess we also have a high water table in our neighborhood and there's issues with worrying about whether this construction and/or additional pool area will create environmental problems,i.e. water, and that's been a problem on Garrison Road forever and the development of these three lots,this is on a two lot section and the folks who built a smaller compact house I believe are going to also raise objections,but high water table is certainly an issue with regard to environment. So thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else out there who would like to comment on this? KEITH JABLONSKI MR.JABLONSKI-My name is Keith Jablonski and my wife Kathy's in the back. We just moved to 27 Garrison Road and been in there a couple of weeks. So we are right next door to this property, which would be to the left of the pool. It is a new home, as it was recently discussed, and it's 1500 square feet. So you can imagine that this pool area that we're talking about, which is the pavers and the cement and the concrete is bigger than my house. So also we're happy to be back in Queensbury. We've lived in Queensbury for the last 40 plus years. I personally built four houses in Queensbury and this is the fourth house, and in all cases I've worked hard to meet the setbacks and requirements of the building and the Town and everything else. So when I look at this property and the way the house was positioned on two pieces of two lots,it's kind of like a design build for me,and I've been in the business for a long time. We're designing it as we go. We fully agree with Mr. Freer on all points that he has raised and as an adjacent house it's undesirable for us as well and the neighborhood. We moved here. We lived on Webster Avenue for five years,44 years ago. We know what it's like to have a sump pump running,flooded basements and the water table being high. When we built this house on Garrison we were very,very concerned about it and we did everything we could do to protect the neighbors and manage the water on our property which is only one lot. We also cut a foot out of our property. The building that we built was supposed to be 50 feet wide,and working with the Town we decided it was kind of crazy to set a 50 foot piece of property or a house on 100 feet. So we cut a foot out,we paid extra for a surveyor and we plan to be within the setback requirements of 25 feet so we wouldn't have to be here. The other concern I have with the physical environment is the drainage and it's been mentioned a few times. There's a high water table. There's groundwater. There's sump pumps that are running. Our neighbors are running sump pumps. I ran one for five years on Webster Avenue. Permeable areas and runoffs and neighbors and all that is going to be a concern. I don't want to have a flooded basement. I've done everything I can do to prevent that. I'm also concerned that you can change the elevation with the pool. As soon as these guys hit groundwater they're going to want to raise the elevation. I'm not an expert. There's ways they can do it, but it requires underground drainage to set a pool,to fill a pool,and to maintain a pool And maybe things have changed. I'm a little bit old school.. Regardless of where the location is there's going to be runoff and there's going to be concerns about the side lot and the landscaping and so I've been in the area for a long time and I've driven down Garrison Road for the last three years and this project has been going on for along time. How long is it going to take to put a pool in and all this landscaping and how long will it be under construction? So that's my position right now. I agree wholeheartedly it's going to change things. It's going to change the whole area. I'm a little bit disappointed in seeing this,in being here,but I'll get over it and I think it's time for them to get back to the drawing board. They started it. They put the angle on two properties and now they've got to put a pool in. Get back to the drawing board. That's all. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Is there anybody else that would like to speak on this particular project? We do have some public comment here. So we have a letter from Jason Henderson and Christina Kaidas. "Dear S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) Members of the Zoning Board of Appeals, We are writing this letter to express our opposition to the proposed side yard pool area at 25 Garrison Road. We reside at 24 Fort Amherst Road. The proposed side pool is not in keeping with the neighborhood aesthetic. This is a neighborhood of charming houses and well landscaped yards. Placing a large pool area in a side yard does not seem fitting with the traditional lot layouts of the Garrison and Fort Amherst neighborhood. We worry that allowing projects such as this, that transition away from traditional layouts, detract from the neighborhood's charm. It is our opinion that, at the very least, more information should be provided regarding the details of the "residential landscaping"to be installed in the pool area. Would this landscaping conceal in its entirety the pool area? The home at 25 Garrison Road is newly constructed and the pools placement and size should have been a factor in the original lot plan and design. Given the proposed information,we strongly oppose the variance to allow placement of a pool area in the side yard at 25 Garrison Road." This one is from Jane and Michael Morrissey "Dear Board Members: We reside at 22 Fort Amherst Rd. Both Fort Amherst Rd.and Garrison Rd. are lovely streets that are lined with traditional homes and well-maintained yards. The proposed side yard pool at 25 Garrison Rd is not in keeping with the overall character of the neighborhood. We believe the proposed size of the pool,particularly in the side yard,will degrade the character of our neighborhood. There were alternatives both in terms of size and location that should have been considered as the house was being designed and built. Therefore, we strongly oppose the variance that would allow the building of a large pool in the side yard of a home in this neighborhood. Thank you for your service. Sincerely, Jane and Michael Morrissey 22 Fort Amherst Rd Queensbury,NY 12SO4" This one is from Sera Oliver. "I am unable to attend tonight's public hearing,but I did want to reach out to express my concerns with the proposed project on the table for 25 Garrison. I border the property(21 Garrison) and feel the impacts of the development of this property probably more than most. The biggest area of concern for me is the drainage. I have lived at 21 Garrison for 11+years and this spring was unprecedented in terms of the amount of water my property and basement took on. Even when we experienced the impacts of hurricane Irene, the water levels were not as high. This is something I directly attribute to the construction next door. The water was running into my basement this spring at a rate I've never seen before-several gallons per minute, and my sump pump was turning on every few minutes to try to keep up. Unfortunately,my pump(which was fairly new) was unable to keep up with the water intake and my basement flooded. The cleanup was monumental, as the water just continued coming. There are other areas of concern, including noise and aesthetics,but the impact on drainage is the most harmful. The length of time that this construction project has taken overall is perplexing-I've been dealing with the comings and goings of contractors and the ongoing noises of construction for years.. It would be nice to try to limit the damage at this point. Thanks for accepting my comments and I look forward to understanding the outcome. Sincerely, Sera Oliver" And this one is from Mary Baugh 25 North Road. "I vote no on the project to put in a pool at 25 Garrison Rd. Peter Mitelman(owner). Sincerely,Mary Baugh" So I think that's about it. Do you have any comment? MR. DELUCIA-Yes. I would just like to comment on a couple of the issues that were brought up. Just so I can give you a little bit of my background real quick. I've been in building and design construction, zoning enforcement for 3S years I sat on Zoning Boards. I am a consultant now for design work and soon, and drainage is always an issue no matter what you do. So obviously that's the responsibility of Concord Pools and I guess the Building Department what they need to provide for that. I mean we're talking about 560 square feet of pool area. I do agree that the patio area is significant. Obviously that's something that could be discussed if they want that to be permeable or reduce the size of that. MR. MC CABE-Permeability is not an issue here. Floor area ratio is not an issue here. It's simply the location of the pool. MR. DELUCIA-Thank you. I mean I just wanted to comment a little bit on that, because mostly the complaints are about the water and so on and so forth. So we're locating the pool,obviously as I mentioned placement of the house is where it is,based on the setbacks which are very limited. The gentleman across the street,I know that he felt it would be obtrusive,but if you look at the garage,the garage projects about 40 feet from that side yard and it's a straight on look. I don't know if he's directly across the street or not, but at least half the pool is covered in view by the garage if you're standing in the road,and again,you know you're maybe afoot off the ground. The pool will eventually beat the grade height. So it's not like a structure which there could be a structure there to my understanding. We'd be allowed to build a garage there or a house 25 feet off that side line. MR. MC CABE-Not a garage. MR. DELUCIA-A house,though,could be 25 feet. MR.MC CABE-An auxiliary building could be built,but that's about it. Yes,but am I right by saying that the setbacks on the property are 25 feet to the side line for a structure? MR. MC CABE-I don't know. It sounds right. MR. DELUCIA-So a home could be built 25 feet off the side property line, which is a bigger undertaking with runoff of the roof in a storm. So a pool is significantly less. Thank you. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Ron. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr.Chairman. Normally I would see this as almost anon-effort if this house was there 25 years. I think what you did here is if you laid this out and built this house you could have done it with the pool where it could have been in the backyard. I don't know if some of the people that are opposed to this are opposed,I mean,if that letter went out saying the applicant was building a 2200,you know, 44 square foot pool when really it's only 560 square feet, we have to grant, one of the charges we have is to grant the minimum relief necessary, and that's one thing. The other thing is public opinion and I think,for me,I am opposed to this because of the public opinion around there and you always want to be a good neighbor, and I, as a Board member,can only do the right thing when it's right,and I'm opposed to this because when you were building this,you could have built it with the pool in the backyard and you didn't,and I mean there are other above-ground lap pools that could take the place of this,but at this point, Mr. Chairman,I'm against it. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-What Ron said I agree with. There's six neighbors that said no. There were no neighbors that came in here saying it would be okay, and since I've been on the Board,the only time we've allowed a pool to be put in a side yard is when it's a corner lot. This is not a corner lot,and like Ron said,the house is definitely not designed to have a pool because they didn't take that into consideration when they were building it. So there's a lot going on on that small piece of property. I mean obviously if you could put the pool in the rear, I'd be for it,but this is definitely a concern in that neighborhood. I grew up not too far from there. There are a lot of water problems in the cellars. We had two sump pumps in our cellar. So it is a concern,but the biggest concern is it should be in the backyard not in the side. So I'm not for it either. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR.UNDERWOOD-Yes,I would have to agree with the other Board members. It would be inappropriate to put it in the side yard as you proposed with the amount of area that you're going to have impermeable there, too. I think that's going to exacerbate the water runoff problems in the neighborhood and the infiltration into the cellars. I think we have feasible alternatives to put the pool in the backyard, put a smaller pool or a hot tub. That would probably be acceptable to most people. I would not approve this as proposed. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I think it was poor planning. I think the construction's been going on for,I don't even know how long, at this site. The amount of time that's been going on with construction,if that amount of time was in a planning mode, I think that this could have all worked itself out. So I'm not in favor. The bottom line is pools are not allowed in side yards and basically I believe it's substantial and I believe it's self-created and I would go back to the drawing board and try to see what you might be able to do with, to Jim's point,something smaller in the backyard,maybe not a pool,but I'm not in favor of this project. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, am opposed. I'm very familiar with the neighborhood and it just doesn't look right, in my opinion. Now the case here is that we're short two members,but even if they vote in favor, you don't have enough votes. So you have a couple of options here. You can withdraw. You can ask for a vote,but I think you pretty much have an idea how the vote is going to go, or you can table it and have, you know,provide a different option. So the choice is yours. MR. DELUCIA- I think on behalf of the property owner I would have to request to table it and bring this information back to the owners and from what I'm hearing maybe propose something a little different or at least get feedback from the Department. MR. MC CABE-So when would you guys have an opening? MR.BROWN-I would go with November. MR. MC CABE-Well,we only have one meeting in November. MR.HENKEL-Well we've got the 16`h or the 30`h MR. DELUCIA-We wouldn't be in a rush because I mean it's probably a lot of though. MR. MC CABE-Sure. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) MR.HENKEL-So we have 16`h or the 30`h in our. MR. MC CABE-Well normally we just have a single meeting in November because of Thanksgiving. MR.BROWN-That first one,the 16`h is fine. MR.HENKEL-The 16`h MR. MC CABE-So with information by November I". Is that all right with you guys? MRS. DWYRE-I'd say October. MR.BROWN-It's usually October 15`h MR. MC CABE-Okay. So what we do is we're going to table this until our first meeting in November, which is the 16`h. You have to have the new information to us by October 15`h MR. DELUCIA-So we have to have our decision or revision by October 15`h MR. MC CABE-The information. MR. DELUCIA-For a November 16`h meeting. MR. MC CABE-Right. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Vision Planning Consultants. Applicant proposes a 2,244 sq.ft.pool area to be placed in the side yard of the property. The project includes installation of residential landscaping on the site and pavers for the pool area. The house of 4,032 sq.ft.to remain with no changes. Relief requested for pool location. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 44-2022 VISION PLANNING CONSULTANTS, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Tabled to November 16`h,2022 with any new information by October 17`h,2022. Duly adopted this 28'day of September,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico MR. DELUCIA-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Our next application is SV 5-2022,the Immunotek Bio Centers,176 Quaker Road. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2022 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED IMMUNOTEK BIO CENTERS AGENT(S) SRA ENGINEERS OWNER(S) ALDI,INC. ZONING Cl LOCATION 176 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REUSE A 15,500 SQ. FT. BUILDING FOR PLASMA DONATION FACILITY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES UPDATING THE BUILDING SIGNAGE. THE PROPOSAL IS FOR TWO 109.75 SQ. FT. WALL SIGNS (ONE ON NORTH FACE AND ONE ON WEST FACE) AND A FREESTANDING SIGN OF 47.25 SQ. FT. (REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING SIGN). RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS AND SIZE OF SIGNS. CROSS REF SP 63-2022; SV 21-2000; SV 66-1996; UV 112-1992; UV 88-1992; SP 44-1996; SP 48-92 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2022 LOT SIZE 2.32 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-42 SECTION 140 ERIK SANDBLOM, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 5-2022,Immunotek Bio Centers, Meeting Date: September 2S, 2022 "Project Location: 176 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to reuse a 15,500 sq.ft.building for plasma donation facility.The project includes updating the building signage. The proposal is for two 109.75 sq.ft.wall signs(one on north face and one on west face) and a freestanding sign of 47.25 sq.ft. (replacement of the existing sign). Relief requested for number of signs and size of signs. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of signs and size of signs for an existing building. The project site is located in the Commercial Intensive zone on a 2.234 ac parcel. Section 140-signs The applicant proposes two wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. In addition relief is requested for the size of sign where each wall sign is to be 109.75 sq.ft.where only one wall sign of 30 sq.ft.is allowed. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal 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 a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of signs and the size of sign requested. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested to have 1 additional wall sign where only one is allowed. The size proposed for each wall sign exceeds the 30 sq.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 to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project site has an existing 15,500 sq.ft.building being repurposed for a blood plasma donation facility. The building facade colors are proposed to be a neutral gray color. The applicant proposes to install 2 wall signs of 109.75 sq. ft. The plans show signage on each side of the building feature. The free standing sign structure is to remain and the panel to be replaced with the Immunotek sign." MR. SANDBLOM-Good evening. Erik Sandblom from SRA Engineers. I'm here representing the applicant on their behalf. They were notable to send a representative to the meeting here tonight. What's going on is it's a plasma donation facility and they are in the process of re-occupying the former Aldi building on Quaker Road. They received their Planning Board approvals last week to put a change of use, and what they're doing is trying to re-purpose the site,you know,not just re-doing the entire site. Try to utilize what's there to its greatest extent. They've got a fair amount of renovations to do inside the building, but the exterior modifications are pretty minimal. They're going to spruce it up,clean it up because it's been vacant for a little while, and so part of that is to utilize the site as best for its assigned purposes and so there's an existing monument sign that they'll re-use by the road, and then also on the building, and I hope that you all got color renderings. I thought that we had e-mailed Laura. MR. MC CABE-I believe so,yes. MR. SANDBLOM-So I apologize for the black and white on that if that was something we had done. MR. MC CABE-It's our tech. She thinks that that's more dramatic looking. MR. SANDBLOM-Okay. That's fine. That works, too. I mean it's still a little, I mean we all have the information in front of us. As you can see, you know, there are these two, and I'm sorry, I'm not an architect. I'm an engineer, but whatever those protrusions are on the building, not a mansard, but their idea was to use those two faces of the building, and they have developed a sign design that they believe is ideal for them,and that sign size and,you know, also the number of signs. The reason it's more than one sign is really the architecture on the building. They'd like to have that symmetry on that corner, and the size is what is considered optimal, given how far away it is from the building and their need for their customers to be able to find them, and I think that happens to exceed the sign limits on here, but the building's about,the closest part of the building is about 75 feet from the property line. So then that would be the left sign on that lower drawing and the one on the right, about the center of that sign,is about 100 feet from the property line,if that gives you some perspective. So it is set back from the property a ways and they want to make sure that their logo is seen and the sign is seen. So they're requesting this variance. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Would there be any way of downsizing? You're 1S9 square feet over the variance for the sign. I think it's great you're re-using the building. That's great. The Sign Variance,the freestanding sign is great. You re-utilize what you've got there,kind of too,but 1S9 feet is quite a bit over what's allowed. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, actually I've had the opportunity to explore this a little bit with them since they weren't able to come here, and let me offer this. One of the signs that is perpendicular to the property boundary,the center of that sign is 100 feet from the property,and there are provisions in the rules to allow for a sign up to 100 square feet,you know, at 100 feet away, and then an additional 10 square feet for every 10 feet beyond that. In keeping with that standard, I think that they would be willing to reduce it to a rounded 100 square feet,and then also,but also to keep the signs both the same size,so you don't have one at a different size than the other. I'm certain that they would agree to reducing the signs to 100 square feet. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.HENKEL-One hundred each you're saying? MR. SANDBLOM-Yes. MR.KUHL-So what would it be,20 by 5? Would it be 19 by 6 and at/2? You don't know. MR. SANDBLOM-I would guess that it would just be proportional on both the length and the width. So that it maintains the same aspect ratio if you will,but reduce it down to 100 square feet. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? So a public hearing has been advertised, and so at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular matter. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. MC CABE-So there are no public comments. So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Brent? MR. MC DEVITT Just so I'm clear,there would be an agreed reduction on this? MR. SANDBLOM-If you were inclined to vote on a conditioned approval that the sign be reduced to 100 square feet. MR. MC CABE-Each sign be 100 square feet instead of 109 and three quarters. MR.SANDBLOM-We could then re-submit that to the Planning and Zoning Departments and they could confirm that our new submittal is consistent with you. MR. MC DEVITT-So based upon what we just said there, and under that context, I would be in favor of this. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, 1 , too, would be in favor with those conditions on it. I think the monument sign could stay where it is. I think the side wall signs, it's more important to the business that's going in there instead of sitting there empty. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-I agree with Jim. I would be in favor if they reduce it by roughly nine feet per sign. So,yes. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes,I think normally one sign, one wall sign,is what we allow,but I think this building can handle both of them and I think it's a good use of the building. So with that I'd be in favor of it, Mr. Chairman. 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) MR. MC CABE-And I,too,would support this. I think the two signs are warranted because the building is likely askew. The other thing is the property line is back further from the road than would be normal because they did that when they re-built Quaker Road years ago. Then 10 square feet doesn't seem like a big deal,but if that makes everybody happy,I'll agree with that. So I think we can condition our response here that the sign,the two wall signs be no greater than 100 square feet each. Would that be okay? MR. SANDBLOM-Yes,my client would agree with that. MR. MC CABE-All right. MR. BROWN-Mr. Chairman, could I interject one quick thing to get it on the record. It doesn't have anything to do with the wall signs, and I apologize for this not coming up sooner. I'm just looking at the location of the freestanding sign that says brick sign. Is that the existing sign on the site? It looks like it's at a 10 foot setback. That's not a sign they would be able to use without a variance. So any time a sign is replaced,we look for it to comply. If the existing sign had a variance previously they could re-use it. If it didn't get an original variance they would need a variance to replace that sign. MR. SANDBLOM-I thought that was part of our application. MR.BROWN-Not the freestanding sign. MR. SANDBLOM-The freestanding sign is not meeting the 15 foot setback? MR.BROWN-I don't think that was in the definition. It said relief requested. MR. SANDBLOM-We're very much aware that it doesn't meet the 15 foot setback, and I thought that we had included that in the application materials. MR. UNDERWOOD-It says freestanding sign,replacement of the existing sign. MR. SANDBLOM-I did not see it in the Staff Notes. MR. MC CABE-So it's not really replacing the sign. It's just replacing the panel. MR. BROWN-Right,but it's a non-compliant sign. It doesn't meet the front setback. So the reason I brought that up,I didn't see that relief in the relief requested. So that's not relief that the Board is getting ready to grant you,but I don't know the history of the site,if this freestanding sign had a setback variance. MR. SANDBLOM-Well Laura and I discussed this quite a bit, and I know she was looking into that to determine if a previous variance had been granted for that sign. So my experience in working with her, she really knows what she's doing. I'm going to presume that she found a pre-existing variance. So I guess. MR. MC CABE-Well,it could be that you might have to come back. MR. SANDBLOM-Okay. MR. BROWN-And that could be. In the cross reference for this site there's two previous sign variances, one from 2000 and one from 1996. So they may be this very issue,but if not I just wanted to put that out there. MR. SANDBLOM-Is there any possibility to write that into the decision tonight? MR.BROWN-Well,I just don't see it. MR. MC CABE-No, we can tweak your sign, but we can't conditionally grant a variance that we don't know is a variance. MR. SANDBLOM-Understood. MR. MC DEVITT-We just want to make sure we get this right. I men for longevity. MR. SANDBLOM-Yes, I thought we did, or Laura researched it, found it existed, and didn't include it in the part of the variance for the Staff Notes. MR. BROWN-In the agenda description,the way the public hearing was noticed,it talks about proposal for two wall signs and a freestanding sign,which,in parenthesis,replacement of existing sign,and then it says the relief is requested for the number of signs and the size. So that's indicated the wall signs. I'm hoping that there's a variance for that freestanding sign,but I just wanted to let you know that because of 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) it's current non-conforming status that you can't replace the panel. You need to come into compliance or get a variance for it. Maybe one of those other two takes care of it. MR. SANDBLOM-We hope so. I would request that the Board move forward with the wall panel signs, if that's okay. MR. MC CABE-Sure. So,John,first we need to do SEQRA here. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2022. APPLICANT NAME: IMMUNOTEK BIO CENTERS 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 John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 28th Day of September 2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico MR.MC CABE-And so,Ron,I wonder if you could make a motion for the Sign Variance,with the condition that the two wall signs be no larger than 100 square feet. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Immunotek Bio Centers. Applicant proposes to reuse a 15,500 sq.ft.building for plasma donation facility. The project includes updating the building signage. The proposal is for two 109.75 sq.ft.wall signs(one on north face and one on west face) and a freestanding sign of 47.25 sq. ft. (replacement of the existing sign). Relief requested for number of signs and size of signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of signs and size of signs for an existing building. The project site is located in the Commercial Intensive zone on a 2.234 ac parcel. Section 140-signs The applicant proposes two wall signs where only one wall sign is allowed. In addition relief is requested for the size of sign where each wall sign is to be 109.75 sq.ft.where only one wall sign of 30 sq.ft.is allowed. SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 5-2022. Applicant Name: Immunotek Bio Centers 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 John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Brent McDevitt: Duly adopted this 28th Day of September 2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 2S,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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? No,not really as the property is on a main road,Quaker Road, and the size of the property is 2.3 acres. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/28/2022) 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,they can't. They want to put signs on the front,and it would be the west side. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We could suggest it is,but the size of the building supports these signs. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No,not really it blends in on that commercial corridor. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes,we could say it is self-created because of the signs they want. 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,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) That both of the wall signs are no greater than 100 square feet. Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. (ZBA Board Member does Dot Deed to read the followingA through F): 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. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE 5-2022, IMMUNOTEK BIO CENTERS, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 28th Day of September 2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Henkel,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. SANDBLOM-Thank you very much. Have a good evening. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 45-2022,Ethan and Jody Burgess,2 Hidden Hills Drive. AREA VARIANCE NO.45-2022 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 ETHAN&z JODY BURGESS OWNER(S) ETHAN&z JODY BURGESS ZONING MDR LOCATION 2 HIDDEN HILLS DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 648 SQ.FT.POOL WITH NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,648 SQ.FT.IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR POOL SETBACKS. WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2022 LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.13-1-12 SECTION 179-5-020 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) ETHAN&JODY BURGESS,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 45-2022,Ethan&Jody Burgess, Meeting Date: September 2S,2022 "Project Location: 2 Hidden Hills Dr. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 64S sq. ft. pool with no other changes to the site. The existing home of 1,64E sq. ft. is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for pool setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for pool setbacks. The parcel of 0.63 acres is located in the MDR zone Section 179-5-020—swimming pool The applicant proposes installing a pool in the rear yard 10 ft.from the rear yard where a 20 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance.Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the home on the parcel and the lot shape. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for 10 ft.to the rear 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 existing home is to remain with no changes. The applicant proposes to place a pool in the rear yard of an existing lot. The survey provided shows the location of the pool and setback information." MR. MC CABE-So we need your name for the record. MRS.BURGESS Jody Burgess. MR.BURGESS-Ethan Burgess. MR. MC CABE-And would you like to comment further or I mean it's pretty self-explanatory. So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-Any reason why you just didn't move it forward? MRS.BURGESS-I didn't want to push it into the side yard and I didn't want my fence to go past the house. MR.KUHL-I mean even if you would have turned the pool,but that's okay. I understand. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none,a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and invite anybody in the audience who has comment on this project to come forward. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.MC CABE-Seeing nobody and we have no letters from your neighbors or friends,so I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/2S/2022) MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with John. MR.HENKEL-Since you've got a lot of neighbors that are on board with it,I'd definitely keep it as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I have no issue with this application as presented. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Brent? MR. MC DEVITT-I'm in favor of this application,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR.UNDERWOOD-It's an odd shaped left over piece of the pie. It's the only thing you could do. So I'm in favor. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. It's really a minimal request. So with that in mind,Brent, we haven't heard from you in a while. Would you like to make a motion? MR. MC DEVITT-I would love to do it,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Ethan&z Jody Burgess. Applicant proposes to install a 64S sq. ft. pool with no other changes to the site. The existing home of 1,64E sq.ft.is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for pool setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for pool setbacks. The parcel of 0.63 acres is located in the MDR zone Section 179-5-020—swimming pool The applicant proposes installing a pool in the rear yard 10 ft.from the rear yard where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 2S,2022. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(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. It's kind of an odd shaped piece of property and this is not creating, again, an undesirable change. 2. Feasible alternatives were considered by the Board but they are limited due to the location of the home parcel as well as the lot shape. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. I think it fits in with the overall area quite well. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could certainly be suggested to be self-created, but again due to the odd shaped piece the Board seems to be fine with it. 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,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/28/2022) BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 45-2022 ETHAN &z JODY BURGESS, Introduced by Brent McDevitt, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 28th Day of September 2022 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McDevitt,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MRS.BURGESS-Thank you. MR.MC CABE-So we got through the evening here. So I make a motion that we adjourn tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 28TH,2022,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 2S"day of September,2022,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mr. McDevitt,Mr.Henkel, Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico MR. MC CABE-See you next month. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 19