Loading...
07-19-2023 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING JUT Y I91r,2023 INDEX Area Variance No.24-2023 Strecks Inc. (Chip Maranville) 1. Tax Map No.253.3-1-32.12 Sign Variance No.4-2023 Northstar Donut Group 5. Tax Map No. 309.11-1-30 Area Variance No.25-2023 John Dickinson 11. Tax Map No.227.9-1-7 Area Variance No.26-2023 Noreen Potvin 15. Tax Map No.296.9-1-45 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING JULY 19TK,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY RICHARD CIPPERLY RONALD KUHL ROBERT KEENAN JOHN HENKEL LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-MARIA GAGLIARDI MR. MC CABE-Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,Wednesday,July 19`h.2023. If you haven't been here before,our procedure is pretty 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,ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised,we'll open a public hearing and receive input from the public. We'll close the public hearing,poll the Board, and then we'll proceed accordingly. First we have a couple of administrative items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES June 21,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF TUNE 21ST, 2023, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19`h day of July,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our first application is Area Variance 24-2023,Strecks,Inc.,1904 Ridge Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 STRECKS INC. (CHIP DEMARANVILLE) AGENT(S) GO PRO INC. (SEAN STUMVOLL) ZONING RR-5A LOCATION: 1904 RIDGE RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL AN AUTOMATED ENTRY FENCE AT THE DRIVEWAY OF AN EXISTING PROPERTY. THE HIGHEST POINT OF THE FENCE IS ABOUT 11 FT. AND THE POSTS USED FOR INSTALLATION ARE TO BE 14 FT. IN HEIGHT. THE GATE DESIGN APPEARS TO BE A PRIVACY FENCE AT 19 FT. 11 1/2 INCHES WIDE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR HEIGHT OF FENCE AND TYPE OF FENCE LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 17.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 253.3-1-32.12 SECTION 179-5-070 SEAN STUMVOLL, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 24-2023, Strecks Inc. (Chip DeMaranville), Meeting Date: July 19, 2023, "Project Location: 1904 Ridge Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install an automated entry fence at the driveway of an existing property. The highest point of the fence is about 11 ft. and the posts used for the installation are to be 14 ft.in height. The gate design appears to be a privacy fence at 19 ft. 111/z inches wide. Relief is requested for height of fence and type of fence located in the front yard. Relief Required: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) The applicant requests relief for height of fence and type of fence located in the front yard. The project is located on a 17.77 ac parcel in the RR-5A zone. 179-3-040 RRSA&179-5-070 fence The applicant proposes an entry gate to an existing property. The fence is to be 11 ft.in height with posts of 14 ft.in height and to be privacy type fence of 19 ft.It 1/2 inches in length. Where a fence in the front yard is limited to 4 ft.in height and to be open style fencing. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to have an open fence type. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 7 ft.over the allowed and privacy type. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a fence in the front yard as an entry gate to the property of 17.77 ac. The applicant has indicated the gates represent the time period of 1SOOs to match the existing buildings on the site. The plans show the location of the gates and the type of gate." MR. MC CABE-Anything to add? MR. STUMVOLL-I think that pretty much sums it up. MR. MC CABE-Any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-Yes,I do. I can't find anywhere that says exactly where it's going to be from the road. I mean in one part it says something about a target of 40 feet. MR. STUMVOLL-So there's a State setback,and we'll be beyond that. MR.HENKEL-You'll be beyond the 40 feet. MR. STUMVOLL-Correct, and it's shown on the survey. We've actually identified the exact location. MR.HENKEL-Okay on the survey it doesn't show that. It shows the location,but it doesn't say,it doesn't have the dimensions,how many feet it is from,not on the survey we have. MR. STUMVOLL-Okay. MR.HENKEL-So in concrete that's going to be at least 40 feet? MR. STUMVOLL-Correct. So it will be inside the,or outside the State setback from the road. MR.HENKEL-Okay. According to the survey,it looks like it's pretty close. MR. STUMVOLL-There should be. I know that we walked it out with Barton Land Surveying. MR.HENKEL-Okay. MR.KUHL-Why so tall? 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) MR. STUMWLL-Well it was agate the customer had acquired along,longtime ago. It's an early 1500's gate,period correct with the property. So they wanted to kind of resurrect it and put it back into service, if you will. So it's not something that's been built,you know,eons ago. MR.KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR.HENKEL-It's just going to be pretty tall. MR. MC CABE-So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience wo would like to comment on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. STUMWLL-I'm the neighbor directly across the street. I'm okay with it. MR. MC CABE-Are you biased? MR. STUMWLL-I'm totally okay with it. Yes. MR.KUHL-Can I just ask one more question,Mr. Chairman? MR. MC CABE-Yes. MR.KUHL-Is this going to be manually operated or is it going to be powered? MR. STUMWLL-Powered. With a Knox box. I spoke to the Fire Marshal and we kind of sorted that out. MR.KUHL-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-We don't have any letters. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MRS. MOORE-Can I just have your name for the record? MR. STUMWLL-Sean Stumvoll. MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is a big ask, but I also believe that the property and the location will suit it. Normally this would be over the top,but I'll go along with it as presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. KUHL-Yes. I agree with Ron. I think the size of the property and the location and the reason given for using it I think are valid reasons, and I would be in favor of it this one time. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I think I'd agree with my other Board members. I think it is a big ask, but I think the location and the setback helps alleviate some of that. I would be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I think it's over the top. It just seems like 14 foot posts and 11 foot almost solid fence is kind of excessive. I'm not in favor. MR. UNDERWOOD Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a unique request. It's a large lot. I don't have a problem with it. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) MR. MC CABS John? MR.HENKEL-I agree with Dick. It's quite large,but because of the location being that far from the road I would be on board with it. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,questioned the size of this gate,but when you brought in the historical content here it kind of changed my mind, and normally I wouldn't even consider something this great, but you caught me with the historical significance. So I'll approve it. So at this particular time, Ron,I wonder if you could give us a motion here. MR.KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Strecks Inc. (Chip DeMaranville). Applicant proposes to install an automated entry fence at the driveway of an existing property. The highest point of the fence is about 11 ft.and the posts used for the installation are to be 14 ft.in height.The gate design appears to be a privacy fence at 19 ft.111/z inches wide. Relief is requested for height of fence and type of fence located in the front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for height of fence and type of fence located in the front yard. The project is located on a 17.77 ac parcel in the RR-5A zone. 179-3-040 RRSA&179-5-070 fence The applicant proposes an entry gate to an existing property. The fence is to be 11 ft.in height with posts of 14 ft.in height and to be privacy type fence of 19 ft.111/z inches in length. Where a fence in the front yard is limited to 4 ft.in height and to be open style fencing. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on July 19,2023. 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: I'ER I 11 E DRAFT PRO VI D ED BY S f AFF 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties as the size of this property and its location supports the size of the fence. 2. Feasible alternatives are limited being as how they want to keep it in the older architecture, and have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial, again,as the size of the property supports it. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest that the alleged difficulty is self-created because of them wanting to have this older looking fence in the front yard. 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. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 24-2023 STRECKS, INC. (CHIP DE MARANVILLE), Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of July 2023 by the following vote: 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. STUMVOLL-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 4-2023,Northstar Donut Group,22 Main Street. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2023 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NORTHSTAR DONUT GROUP AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER, ESQ. ZONING MS LOCATION 22 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES TO ALTER THE EXISTING SIGNAGE AND THE BUILDING FACADE FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING AND SITE. THE EXISTING BUILDING OF 2,003 SQ. FT. IS TO REMAIN UNCHANGED. THE EXISTING WALL SIGN IS TO BE REPLACED WITH A 22 SQ.FT. WALL SIGN WITH THE WORD "DUNKIN" AND A NEW 15 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN IS TO BE INSTALLED WITH THE WORDING "QUEENSBURY DUNKIN (WITH LOGO)". THE FREESTANDING SIGN IS TO BE REFURBISHED TO 32 SQ. FT. SIGN WITH WORDING "DUNKIN'DRIVE THRU". DIRECTIONAL SIGNAGE OF 3.14 SQ.FT.AT EACH ACCESS POINT FOR ENTERING AND EXITING (4 SIGNS TOTAL).ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE TO BE INCLUDED ABOVE THE HEIGHT CHECK ARM INDICATING"DRIVE THRU". THE MENU BOARD TO BE REPLACED WITH A 1998 SQ. FT. DIGITAL BOARD AS AN ADDITIONAL FREESTANDING SIGN. THE PROJECT INCLUDES REPLACEMENT OF THE SLOPED CANOPIES TO FLAT CANOPIES OVER THE ENTRANCE AND DRIVE THROUGH WINDOW AS WELL AND A NEW CANOPY OVER THE DIGITAL BOARD MENU. SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR NEW SIGNS AND NEW CANOPIES IN THE MAIN STREET ZONE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF SIGNS,LIGHTING OF SIGNS,AND MATERIAL OF SIGNS. CROSS REF SP 47-2023;AV 23-1998; AV 76-1997,SP 12-98 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2023 LOT SIZE 05 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-1-30 SECTION 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; TOM BURKE,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Sign Variance No.4-2023,Northstar Donut Group,Meeting Date: July 19,2023,"Project Location: 22 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to alter the existing signage and the building facade for the existing building and site. The existing building of 2,003 sq.ft.is to remain. The existing wall sign is to be replaced with a 22 sq. ft. wall sign with the word"Dunkin"', and a new 15 sq.ft.wall sign is to be installed with wording"Queensbury Dunkin'(with logo)".The freestanding sign is to be refurbished to 32 sq. ft. sign with wording"Dunkin' Drive Thru". Directional signage of 3.14 sq.ft. at each access point for entering and exiting(4 signs total).Additional signage to be included above the height check arm indicating "Drive thru". The menu board to be replaced with a 19.9E sq. ft. digital board as an additional freestanding sign. The project includes the replacement of the sloped canopies to flat canopies over the entrance and drive thru window and a new canopy over the digital board menu. Site plan review for new signs and new canopies in the Main Street zone. Relief is requested for number of signs,lighting of signs,and material of signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of signs, lighting of signs, and material of signs. The project is located on a 0.5 ac parcel in the Main Street zone. Section 140-signs • Dunkin — one sign of 22.75 sq. ft., described to be face-lit channel letters Acrylic Face. Relief is for internal lighting and material type • Queensbury Dunkin with logo—one sign of 14.95 sq.ft.,described as PVC material,does not appear to have lighting. Relief is for material type • Directional signs—four signs of 3.14 sq. ft. each located at access areas of the curb cuts, described as poly carbonate units and to have internal lighting. Relief for internal lighting and material type • Free Standing sign Dunkin Drive Thru — one sign of 32 sq. ft., described to be polycarbonate and internally lit. Relief is for internal lighting and relief for more than one free standing sign • Free standing sign Drive-thru —no size provided. Sign to be aluminum and painted. Relief for more than one free standing sign and materials of sign. • Free standing sign digital menu board — two digital panel's total size of 19.98 sq. ft. Relief for more than one free standing sign and materials of sign Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) 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. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. The information submitted indicates the sign replacement and the new digital menu are materials and type that are typical for Dunkin,but they are not the intent of the Main Street zone. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to have a compliant signage with materials to meet the intent of the Main Street zoning. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 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 is not consistent with the Main Street sign requirements. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes multiple signs for the facade upgrade to Dunkin. The plans include two wall signs, three freestanding signs, and directional signage. The project is located in Main Street zone where there are requirements for sign materials and lighting type. The materials proposed are not consistent with the requirements. o Excerpt of the Sign code--140-7 Standards for specified zoning districts—Main Street ■ Lighting-it must utilize exterior downcast cutoff illumination ■ Prohibited • translucent or backlit signs • paper displays • Changeable copy signs • Individual letters not installed flush-mounted • Signs above the principle roolline ■ Materials • All signs shall be made of durable materials. • Wood, metal, stone, brick or similar traditional sign materials are recommended. • Resin or composite materials that give the appearance of traditional materials may also be used." MR. URRICO-There was a Planning Board based on its limited review identified the following areas of concern: A couple of Board members were for and a couple of Board members were against the number and type of updated signs, and then number two the digital signs were of no concern. And that was approved on July 1S`h,2023 by a unanimous vote. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Tom Burke on behalf of the applicant. So what's going on here is a few things. It's an update and an upgrade of a 25 year old store. Dunkin Donuts has changed their logo from Dunkin Donuts to Dunkin. So a lot of it is just switching out the sign panel on the existing signs. This store was put in before the Main Street zone. So in terms of the internally lighted,what we're asking for is just to switch sign panels that's a pre-existing approved,both the building and facade sign,the main sign,and the pylon sign are all approved as internally lighted because that's what was permitted at the time and all the applicant is proposing is just to change out the panel so it says Dunkin and not Dunkin Donuts. Similarly on the directional signs in and out, which,you know, the Board knows is, in that zone, a lot of traffic to be able to show cars where to go. Those are just the same small directional signs in the Town that don't count as advertising signs, and that's the same thing, just the panels will change so it'll say Dunkin,excuse me,it'll say in and out,but with the new logo. What's most interesting here is the menu board. So in the Main Street zone it really talks about digital signs that are visible from the road, and this is not visible at all. I'm sure that most of you have driven in there lately, but the application shows that the menu board is 300/o towards,angled towards Main Street. It's not visible from Main Street. It's not visible from the neighbor to the west. There's a fence and vegetation on this property,but just the way it works now, you don't send an employee out to change the menu manually. It's done electronically,and it changes all the time,and that's important that it's not like a flashing gasoline sign for how much per gallon. It's just not visible but it's just abetter sign because it's digital. So I don't see that there's any impact on that just because of where it's located,the exact same location of where the menu is now, and not something that you can see from off site. So beyond that,what isn't directly part of 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) the Sign Variance, but the upgrades to the site are, right now, the canopies are vinyl, canopy's not very attractive. The new canopies are cantilevered,metal,much more subtle,much better architecturally,both over the front door,over the drive thru,and also over the pick-up,and because of that,we need a sign that says drive thru and a sign that has the height so you don't drive your truck through it without knowing how high it is,and those are basically directional, although they're not Queensbury directions only 1S feet above the ground,but they're directional in purpose, and then lastly is the Queensbury Dunkin. They're trying to make everything as a company thing more and more localized,so when you get off the Northway at the Glens Falls exit and pull up,it says Queensbury instead of Glens Falls. You're here in Queensbury. So that's it. That's the whole package. It's mostly going from Dunkin Donuts to Dunkin and clean up some of the architecture with the new cantilevered,replacing the vinyl on the canopies. MR. MC CABE-Does anyone have questions of the applicant? MR.KEENAN-Yes. One of the freestanding signs,it says no size provided? MR. ZAPPER-I think that's just over the drive thru. So that's on the canopy. MR.HENKEL-We've never dealt with one with relief for materials used. That's kind of different. MRS.MOORE-So we've only dealt with this with one other application,in regards to Main Street zoning, when Dollar General went in, and so in that case the wall sign, the applicant took it as not internally lit, but added the goosenecks to it. I don't remember what the material type was there, and then I will say there was another one in that,where the Subway is. So that was a monument sign, and those got,those are not of material. Some of the sign materials are acrylic in there. So it's not of a material, but the Adirondack Trust came in and that's the material that was accepted. So they didn't need a variance for the type of material. MR.HENKEL-It's kind of just weird,review for materials. MRS.MOORE-So that was put in the Sign Code. I mean that's when Main Street went in,the Town Board wanted a certain look,or the Town wanted a certain look in the Main Street zoning area,and that's where that came from. MR.HENKEL-That makes sense. MR.ZAPPER Jon,if this was anew store,it would comply. It's just that these are existing approved signs that are grandfathered so they don't have to take the whole pylon sign down. That's a big deal. MR. HENKEL-Like I was saying before, I think we need to change our Codes on these signs with these different restaurants and drive thrus. You need to have more signs,you know, menu boards and things like that. So right now our Code doesn't permit for a lot of that stuff that should be permitted. So it should be looked at. MR. URRICO-Why do you need the new wall sign that says Queensbury Dunkin? MR. BURKE-Thank you. Thomas J. Burke. So Dunkin Donuts national, or the brand, if you will, has taken each individual store in the network with the franchisee and made it localized and trying to appeal to the community. So highlighting the Town or local municipality in which you're in,so making it a home town store, home town feel. Most of the customers live, work, and play within that area in which the store is located. So identifying that store within that town and being able to advertise it almost has home town pride if you will. MR. URRICO-It's been there for 25 years. Don't you think the people will know where it is? MR.BURKE-And I agree with you. MR. URRICO-Plus there are other stores in Queensbury. So does that mean every store in the Town of Queensbury is going to get the same treatment at some point? MR. BURKE-So what the brand is doing as a whole is, any store that's located within that town would have that town located and then Runs on Dunkin. So there's other stores in Malta or Saratoga Springs that are in that same zone if you will,but all of them wear that same branding of Malta Runs on Dunkin, Saratoga Runs on Dunkin. So it's that image displayed within the town the store is located there. I guess regardless of how long it's been there. MR.KUHL-Now could I ask you a question? Did you open this store originally? MR.BURKE-No,sir. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) MR. KUHL-No? Okay. Well,if we wouldn't allow the Queensbury Dunkin,would you put Queensbury on top of the Dunkin,the big sign up on top? If your strategy, or if we've got to localize our facilities to show,you know, local ownership, and if you couldn't get that Queensbury Dunkin there, we said, okay, that wall sign's out, would you put Queensbury up on top of the Dunkin? Could you, I guess is my question. See the other thing that I realize, I recognize here that probably when this store was built they probably were talking about 20 or 300/o drive thru,where today your business is in the 70's,no doubt. MR.BURKE-Correct. MR.KUHL-Okay. So therefore the directional signs are better,and the wall sign with the menu is needed, and there are certain things that are needed because there's so many on the drive thru. MR.BURKE-Yes. MR. KUHL-But as far as that Queensbury Dunkin,you know, I don't understand it. I personally don't think it's necessary because people see Dunkin and they go to it because that's just Dunkin and everybody knows that it's the same whether you're in Washington state or Florida or New York State. Dunkin has a national prominence. People know it and people know that the donuts are stale. So they all go,but you know your conversation about Queensbury and personalizing it, I get that. I understand that,but there are certain things that you should ask for,even on a corporate level,I could suggest to you that my children live down in Clifton Park and when Wal-Mart came in that made them paint it green instead of blue,you know, and the people came and said well Wal-Mart is always blue. I understand that there's always things,but that local identification of Queensbury,I don't think you need it. I don't think it's warranted. I think it's asking for a little bit too much,but that's just my opinion. MR.HENKEL-Did you say that the corporation is requiring that,or no? MR.BURKE-Yes,it's consistent branding. MR.HENKEL-They'll take the store away from you if you don't do that? MR.BURKE-No. I wouldn't be disenfranchised for not having the verbiage on the wall,but it is across all Dunkins. MR. MC CABE-Other questions of the applicant? So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there in the audience who would like to address us on this particular project? Do you have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-There is nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm fine with most of the signs because it's just basically replacing what you already have on the same sites. The only one I would not approve would be the Queensbury Dunkin. I think it's redundant and I think it sets a bad precedent for the other store in Town that has multiple stores with the same services. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I don't have any problem with any of it. If you want to put Queensbury on the sign, so what. It's the same size sign. It's not a problem. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I think the traffic signs are fine, and I guess I don't have a problem with the Queensbury sign. You guys are basically replacing the same size sign. I guess I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-I think I'm okay with all the signs except the Queensbury Dunkin Donuts sign,which is an extra sign, not replacing anything, and it does not, we're trying to keep these under control in the Main Street corridor and we're sort of bending the rules a little bit to allow this one to get approved because we recognize the clientele has changed over the years and you need some more directional signs to help people, 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) but this sign seems excessive and given where it's located on the Main Street I would say no to that part of the variance. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of everything except the Queensbury sign. I think it's just an unnecessary ask at this point. MR. MC CABE-So you're a no? MR.KUHL-I'm a no. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I've got to say, definitely commend you on keeping your store updated, re-doing it, it's definitely a good job,but I'd have to agree with my Board members also. I think the Queensbury sign needs to come off. I'm okay with everything else. MR. MC CABE-And so again we've approved signs that were beyond what we normally do because of corporate requirements. So I support the application. However,you don't have enough friends at this point. MRS. MOORE-I have four noes. MR. MC CABE-Four noes,yes. MRS. MOORE-And three yeses. I have the same that you have. MR. MC CABE-Yes. So you've got a couple of choices here. We can do the vote, but it's not going to come out well. MR. ZAPPER-We'll take it without the Queensbury sign. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.HENKEL-We've got to do SEQR. MR. MC CABE-So does everybody that said no, are they, or at least one of them willing to change their vote if the Queensbury? MR. URRICO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So now we have to do SEQR. John? MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 4-2023. APPLICANT NAME: NORTHSTAR DONUT GROUP 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of July 2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-And so now,let's see,I wonder if,Dick,can you do a motion for us? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Northstar Donut Group. Applicant proposes to alter the existing signage and the building facade for the existing building and site. The existing building of 2,003 sq.ft.is to remain. The existing wall sign is to be replaced with a 22 sq. ft. wall sign with the word"Dunkin"', and a new 15 sq. ft. wall sign is to be installed with wording "Queensbury Dunkin' (with logo)". The freestanding sign is to be refurbished to 32 sq. ft. sign with wording"Dunkin'Drive Thru". Directional signage of 3.14 sq.ft. at each access point for entering and exiting (4 signs total). Additional signage to be included above the height check arm indicating "Drive thru". The menu board to be replaced with a 19.9E sq. ft. digital board as an additional freestanding sign. The project includes the replacement of the sloped canopies to flat canopies over the entrance and drive thru window and a new canopy over the digital board menu. Site plan review for new signs and new 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) canopies in the Main Street zone. Relief is requested for number of signs,lighting of signs, and material of signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of signs, lighting of signs, and material of signs. The project is located on a 0.5 ac parcel in the Main Street zone. Section 140-signs • Dunkin - one sign of 22.75 sq. ft., described to be face-lit channel letters Acrylic Face. Relief is for internal lighting and material type bo one b have lighting. Relief is fef mater-i&l" • Directional signs-four signs of 3.14 sq. ft. each located at access areas of the curb cuts, described as poly carbonate units and to have internal lighting. Relief for internal lighting and material type • Free Standing sign Dunkin Drive Thru - one sign of 32 sq. ft., described to be polycarbonate and internally lit. Relief is for internal lighting and relief for more than one free standing sign • Free standing sign Drive-thru -no size provided. Sign to be aluminum and painted. Relief for more than one free standing sign and materials of sign. • Free standing sign digital menu board - two digital panel's total size of 19.95 sq. ft. Relief for more than one free standing sign and materials of sign SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 4-2023. Applicant Name: Northstar Donut Group 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 Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of July 2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,July 19,2023. 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: PER THE DRAFT PROVIDED BY STAFF: 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. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance? This is it. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No. It's just basically replacing the signs that are already there with one modification. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. There's basically no change to the neighborhood. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes,it is self-created. 6. In addition, the Board finds that the benefit to the applicant from granting the requested variance would outweigh (approval) the resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community, 7. The Board also finds that the variance request under consideration is the minimum necessary,- S. The Board also proposes the following conditions: a) The elimination of the sign that says Queensbury Runs on Dunkin(Queensbury Dunkin with logo). b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) 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 4-2023, NORTHSTAR DONUT GROUP.Introduced by Richard Cipperly,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of July 2023,by the following vote: MR. CIPPERLY-The Board proposes the following condition. One is the elimination of the word Queensbury on the Dunkin sign. MR. URRICO-The sign itself has to be removed,not just the word"Queensbury",but the sign. There's an extra sign,a 15 ft. sign that has the word Queensbury on it we want out. MR. MC CABE-Is that what we intended here? MR.KUHL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MR.KUHL-Is that okay? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MRS. MOORE-So do you want to amend that? MR. MC CABE-Dick,do you want to amend that condition? MR. CIPPERLY-Yes. The condition is to eliminate the sign that says Queensbury Loves Dunkin. AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. ZAPPER-Thank you,everybody. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 25-2023,John Dickinson,113 Rockhurst Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 JOHN DICKINSON AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PLLC OWNER(S) LORRAINE W.DICKINSON TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 113 ROCKHURST RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES A 57 SQ. FT.SINGLE STORY ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME WHERE A 20 FT. CONCRETE PAD IS TO BE REMOVED IN THE AREA OF THE ADDITION. THE HOME HAS A FOOTPRINT OF 2,277 SQ. FT. AND FLOOR AREA OF 2,622 SQ.FT. THE ADDITION HAS A FLOOR A REA OF 57 SQ.FT.,AND THE NEW TOTAL FLOOR AREA IS TO BE 2,679 SQ. FT. THE PROJECT INCLUDES A SLIGHT INCREASE IN PERMEABILITY AND EXISTING SHORELINE VEGETATION IS TO REMAIN. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 49-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING JULY 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.3 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 2279-1-7 SECTION 179-3-040 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT;JOHN DICKINSON,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 25-2023, John Dickinson, Meeting Date: July 19, 2023 "Project Location: 113 Rockhurst Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 57 sq. ft. single story addition to an existing home where a 20 ft.concrete pad is to be removed in the area of the addition. The home has a footprint of 2,277 sq.ft. and floor area of 2,622 sq.ft. The addition has a floor area of 57 sq. ft., and the new total floor area is to be 2,679 sq. ft. The project includes a slight increase in permeability and existing shoreline vegetation is to remain. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of a residential addition. The project is located on a 0.34 ac parcel in the WR zone. 179-3-040 WR The addition is proposed to be located 17.6 ft. from the front yard setback where 30 ft. is required. The north side location is to be 9.9 ft. where 25 ft. is required. The shoreline setback is to be 47.5 ft.where 50 ft.is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home and the parcel dimensions. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief requested for 12.4 ft.to the front,15.1 ft.from the north side and 2.2 ft.from the shoreline. 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 maybe considered to have minimal to no impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a 57 sq.ft. addition to an existing home to expand the bathroom/laundry area. The plans show the location of the addition and elevation. The addition is over an existing gravel area. The applicant has indicated there are no other changes to the site." MR.URRICO-And the Planning Board,based on its limited review,did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal,and that motion was adopted July 1S`h 2023 by a unanimous vote. MR.HUTCHINS-Good evening,Board,I'm Tom Hutchins,Hutchins Engineers here,on behalf of Lorraine Dickinson Trust, with John Dickinson, applicant, and Lorraine's also with us tonight. This is 113 Rockhurst Road. It's the last house on the west side of Rockhurst Road before you get to the point. What they're looking to do, as this is an older, single story home,it's used by family only. It has one bathroom. It's a very, very small bathroom. It's 60 square feet, the current bathroom. They're looking to add a 57 square foot addition to double the size of that bathroom and make it a reasonable bathroom with a small laundry area. In November, last Fall, the Dickinsons, at considerable investment, they installed an enhanced treatment, wastewater treatment system. So they are current. They are current with their wastewater treatment system,and it's enhanced. So it's doing a much better job. One of the last three on the point of Rockhurst that were done last year. Relatively simple addition. I think we put some photos in thereto show that we're asking for a front setback. However,you won't see this addition from the front of the property because it's going behind the existing house. So the only place this addition could be seen from is basically the property to the north, and that's one property. So from the north side we're asking for a 9.9 foot setback where the existing is 10 and a half. From the shoreline we are asking for 47.9 feet 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) where of course the setback is 50,but another portion of the house is at 40, and again the front setback, although we're asking for 17.6 feet, again,you won't see that because there's another portion of the house between the road and this addition. So there's the little addition. House sits here, and again there's a house, a portion of the house is here. So you won't see this addition. It's a wonderful property. The property is very well buffered. The shoreline is well protected and with that we'll turn it over for questions,comments. John,do you have anything to add? MR. DICKINSON John Dickinson. The whole purpose really is for the laundry. We've over the years, been there since'65 and we have to take linens and towels and everything in the home to be washed, and with the new enhanced septic system we felt maybe it was an opportunity to have that convenience. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-I assume,Tom,that you're going to re-do the roof line? MR.HUTCHINS-Yes. It'll follow the same shed roof line,sloping north. MR.KUHL-Got it. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'll open the public hearing and see if there's anybody in the audience who would like to address us on this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Bob. MR. KEENAN-I have no issues with this. It's a nice little addition to your property. It really won't be seen. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I have no issues either. I think this is a good project. I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-I'm in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-You're still way below the FAR variance. It's a very small addition. I'd be in favor of it as is. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. URRICO-It's a minor alteration. I'd be in favor. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I,too, support the project. I think what's being asked of us is very minimal and if it suits the applicant,then I'm happy. Bob,I wonder if you could give us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John Dickinson. Applicant proposes a 57 sq.ft.single story addition to an existing home where a 20 ft.concrete pad is to be removed in the area of the addition. The home has a footprint of 2,277 sq. ft. and floor area of 2,622 sq.ft. The addition has a floor area of 57 sq. ft., and the new total floor area is to be 2,679 sq. ft. The project includes a slight increase in permeability and existing shoreline vegetation is to remain. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline.Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) The applicant requests relief for setbacks of a residential addition. The project is located on a 0.34 ac parcel in the WR zone. 179-3-040 WR The addition is proposed to be located 17.6 ft. from the front yard setback where 30 ft. is required. The north side location is to be 9.9 ft. where 25 ft. is required. The shoreline setback is to be 47.5 ft.where 50 ft.is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on July 19,2023. 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 because it is a minor project. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and there are no feasible alternatives that we've found. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. It's such a minor change to the existing property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficult may be self-created because the applicant wants to improve the property,but I don't think that's a detriment. 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. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2023 JOHN DICKINSON,Introduced by Robert Keenan, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Cipperly: Duly adopted this 19`h Day of July 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. DICKINSON-Thank you very much. MR.KUHL-Why the Fuji system,because of the size of the lot? MR.HUTCHINS-The Fuji Clean? MR.KUHL-Yes. MR. HUTCHINS-Yes,because the absorption field couldn't be 100 feet from the lake. So we got a septic variance. MR.KUHL-I've been seeing that around a lot more,that Fuji system. MR. MC CABE-So the next application is AV 26-2023,Noreen Potvin,21 Twicwood Lane. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) AREA VARIANCE NO. 25-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II NOREEN POTVIN AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN AND STEVES OWNER(S) NOREEN POTVIN ZONING MDR LOCATION 21 TWICWOOD LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A POOL ON THEIR PROPERTY THAT IS A CORNER LOT. THE POOL LOCATION WOULD BE CONSIDERED A FRONT YARD. THE EXISTING HOME OF 2,801 SQ. FT. WOULD REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. THE POOL IS TO BE LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE AND IS ABOUT 512 SQ. FT. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR POOL LOCATION. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 2969-1-45 SECTION 179-5-020 MATTHEW WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 26-2023, Noreen Potvin, Meeting Date: July 19, 2023 "Project Location: 21 Twicwood Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a pool on their property that is a corner lot. The pool location would be considered a front yard. The existing home of 2,501 sq. ft. would remain with no changes. The pool is to be located on the northeast side and is about 512 sq.ft. Relief is requested for pool location. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the location of a proposed pool in the front yard and rear setback relief. The project is located on a 0.52 ac parcel in a MDR zone. Section 179-5-020—pool Applicant proposes a pool to be located in the front yard on their property that is a corner lot where relief is for placement of a pool in the front yard. In addition,relief is requested for rear setback where the pool is to be 15.5 ft. from the rear property line where a 20 ft. setback for pools to the rear property line 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 and arrangement of the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested for a pool in the front yard and 4.5 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 applicant proposes to place a pool in the front yard of an existing lot with a single-family home. The lot shape and location on Twicwood Lane is a corner parcel. Noting corner parcels do not have side yard setbacks. The information submitted shows the lot configuration with the proposed pool and the existing fence. The applicant has indicated additional plantings or fencing would be installed to meet any requirements of the Town." MR. WEBSTER-Hi. My name is Matthew Webster, here with Van Dusen& Steves Land Surveyors, on behalf of Noreen Potvin who is here with me, and her wife Denise is in the audience as well. As you can see,the physical constraints of this lot are why this would technically be considered,of course,a front yard pool variance. As noted there is no side yard,if you will, although the intent of our client is,of course,to put the pool on the side of their house. The constraints of the existing utilities and systems, as you can see,are the septic in the rear of the house as well as the dry well in the back. As far as feasible alternatives, without changing the lot, of course, there's not much you can do. I did have a conversation with the gentlemen who drew this original subdivision,Leon Steves, and I admonished him for not leaving us room 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) to put a pool in. Unfortunately you can't change it,but as you can see,you know,our client seeks to create a private space for they and their kids to enjoy in their pool. They certainly don't want this to be some type of front yard extravaganza or anything like that,which is why it's on the side of the house. They will do everything possible to make it a private area so that it does not change the character of the neighborhood. It does not disturb any of the neighbors, and of course they want privacy as much as everyone else doesn't want to see their pool. With that said,does anyone have any questions? MR. MC CABE-Does anybody have any questions? Pretty straightforward. We've certainly dealt with this before. So a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody out there who has comments on this particular project. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED JIM CONWAY MR.CONWAY-So I thank you for this opportunity. I'm new to this,obviously. My name is Jim Conway. I live at 34 Twicwood Lane, which is directly across the street from this location. My driveway is right here. That's the front of my home. So I've lived in Twicwood for almost 30 years. It's been a wonderful family neighborhood. People follow the codes and the covenants of our Homeowner's Association and it's been a great place to raise our children. The request to put a pool in the front yard is in direct violation of the Town Code which states pools may be erected only in the rear yard of such structure which shall be at a distance and it continues on,which you're aware of. So I believe it couldn't be any clearer. The location is not permissible for a pool. Pools are in rear yards for the privacy of all neighbors,as opposed to the front and there is no other precedent for this in our neighborhood, in Twicwood. Nobody has done that. Putting a pool in the front yard would definitely change the character of the neighborhood, as it would be adjacent to the street and the front of the property. Current and future owners of homes that border, including 23, 32, and 34 Twicwood,would be looking directly at the pool. In fact,it would be directly in between all of those homes. This pool location would be in between those homes. So I do think it would negatively impact the property values of homeowners in the future. I can't imagine a potential buyer would want a pool in front of their yard. As I shared, my house is directly, my wife's house is directly across from the location and I do feel the sights and sounds from pumps from a pool,the noise of the pool and just the general character,and we certainly know that trees come down very often in this Town,shrubs come down very often in this Town. It sounds great that we're going to have a buffer, but nothing guarantees that. What I do know is that the Town does require fencing to go around, which in our neighborhood we do have covenants, and I'm sure the Town supersedes those covenants,but it would be out of line with those covenants that we've had in Twicwood for the past 5 years I believe where we would have four foot fences in the front of a home. So again I think the homeowner needs to look at different options on the property,comply with the Town Code, the neighborhood covenants,because as the Town Code states the rear yard is where the swimming pool should be located. So thank you for that opportunity to share my thinking. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to address us? CHRIS WETTERSTEN MRS. WETTERSTEN-My name is Chris. My last name is Wettersten. I reside at 23 Twicwood Lane. The pool would be adjacent,directly,to our front yard. I know that the Potvins have put in a fence,which is a beautiful fence. It looks good. However,I've spoken to two realtors. I've submitted a letter. I have another one with me,that when it comes time to sell our home,that is going to be a deterrent,because who wants to buy a home with a pool adjacent to their front yard? I know that they plan on putting in more shrubs in order to create a buffer,but like Jim said,trees come down, and that is a concern. I don't want to have to look out the front of my house or look at the front of my house and see a pool directly adjacent to that. There was a letter that was submitted with signatures. There is one name for 4 Cedarwood that needs to be removed. She's reconsidered her position on the project. So I respectfully ask you to remove her name. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else that would like to speak to us on this particular project? THOMAS J. MC DONOUGH MR.MC DONOUGH-My name is Thomas J.McDonough. I live at 2S Twicwood Lane. We've lived there 53 years and I would like to make a statement that with respect to a pool in a front yard, really it is, in regards to Twicwood Lane alone,okay,and then you take Cedarwood Lane,there's not one of the 6S homes in the Twicwood subdivision that has a swimming pool directly on the road. That's it. You drive up Twicwood for 100 feet, you've got a pool right in your face. It's not consistent with the street or the neighborhood. A pool facing the street detracts from the visual approaches to Twicwood Lane and the area. It has a negative impact,visually, no matter what you do,it's basically right on the street. It's the only place you can put it anyway,but the truth of the matter is it flies in the face of the Codes to permit it to occur. Obviously it's a self-created difficulty. I have no control over that. These lots were laid out back 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) in the 1960's and the houses were built consistent not only with the covenants but also with the Code as it exists then and continues to exist and I don't want to be a person to say I'm being unneighborly,but to permit this and fly in the face of the Code with respect to this particular neighborhood only would invite more problems and you would set a precedent by doing so. Basically that's my comment. It's no benefit to the neighborhood and quite frankly visually it's a detriment. That's my statement to the Board. Do you have any questions at all? MR. URRICO-Mr. McDonough,you're an attorney. Right? MR. MC DONOUGH-I am,for 60 some odd years. MR. URRICO-Does the covenant supersede the Town Code? MR. MC DONOUGH-Of course not. MR.KUHL-Thank you. MR. MC DONOUGH-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular project? PETER WETTERSTEN MR. WETTERSTEN-My name's Peter Wettersten. I'm at 23 Twicwood Lane. I'd like to address the noise component that Jim touched on lightly. If I may,this is a two story home with an attic, and this is just a flat wall all the way up. My house is here. The same thing,flat wall all the way up. This will make an echo chamber, broadcasting right out to Jim's house, and that would entail a lot of noise on our side, too. They're not noisy people, but a party,you know,you'd probably hear every Marco Polo. Anyway, thank you. MR. MC CABE-Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular project? DIDI ROHNE MS. RHONE-May I just say one thing? Didi Rohne. I live at 4 Cedarwood Drive and I've lived there since 1977. This is the only property that's on a curvature. So for Tom to say that there aren't any other properties like this,he's right. I drove by their house so many times,they thought I was a stalker. Who's that lady? And the more I drove by it the more I realized, they're going to have shrubs. They've already got shrubs up there, and there is a trampoline. You can't see it,and with more shrubs,it's not going to be visible from the road, and to hear pumps and things like that, well I've got pools all around my house. I don't hear their pumps. They're my next door neighbors and I don't see where that's a problem either. So I hope you'll consider the application for them to put in a pool where they would like to. That's it. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Anybody else that would like to address us? LINDA MC NULTY MRS. MC NULTY-Hi. I'm Linda McNulty. I live at 14 Twicwood Lane. I also own 16 Twicwood Lane, a vacant lot. I'm totally against a pool where they're proposing to put it. If the realtor did not give them the protective covenants for our area, they should go back and talk with the realtor they can get them. They can get them at the Warren County center. There's no excuse. I respectfully ask that the Board turn this project down. MR. MC CABE-Anybody else who'd like to address the Board on this particular matter? Roy, we have written? MR.URRICO-Yes,we have some correspondence. One of them was Mr. Conway who already spoke. So I won't read that letter. "We,the undersigned(attached sheet)are residents and owners in the Twicwood Subdivision of approximately S6 lots established in 1964 and currently contain approximately S6 homes and are affected adversely by this variance and request Denial. The variance does place a swimming pool with pool accessories on the front lawn and directly facing a dedicated road in Queensbury and Twicwood subdivision. This structure with its attendant activities willfully face the road in violation of code setback and location mandates. The structure is inconsistent with the existing homes in this community. Many of the homes in this community do have swimming pools,none of which required variances and none face a road or are constructed on a portion of their lot or the various roads in the community. It is also inconsistent with the Town Ordinances and Subdivision Covenants. When you look at the S6 +/-homes in this community, many of which do have swimming pools, all are constructed within the Town ordinances and did not require a variance. One variation request out of a subdivision of this many homes 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) does speak to: ONE that this is a very unusual,unsubstantiated request and TWO a very unusual request that should not be approved especially because of covenant and code and there should not be one exception. It does adversely affect the close residents as well as the other S6 residents in our community who did comply to code. We do request denial of this Application in all respects. Signed by each of the attached residents' signatures." And this is signed by,my count is 36, and we had 37 and one was taken off. So I counted 36. "To Whom It May Concern: This letter is in regards to a potential by Town of Queensbury Board approval and variance for the installation of a pool located at 21 Twicwood Lane. The proposed location of this pool could hinder resale timelines and potential valuation of the surrounding parcels and their current and future owners. Each homeowner in the Town of Queensbury should preserve the right to a quiet and unobtrusive use of their home and parcels. Allowing a pool to be installed on a side yard or front yard would clearly void those rights given to each owner through their purchase. Each owner has a given right to both visual and noise barriers. Being in business for over 1S years in our area,it is of my professional opinion as a Real Estate Broker that the variance and approval for installing a pool at 21 Twicwood Lane would be detrimental to the economic values for the surrounding neighbors in the Twicwood area. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact me via cell or email. Brian Donohue NYS Licensed Real Estate Broker Lake George Area Realty LLC" "Please accept this correspondence as a reply to the Public Hearing Notice for the area variance of Noreen Potvin at 21 Twicwood Lane. We are the owners of 32 Twicwood Lane, which is directly across the street from the location at which the variance is sought. The applicant seeks a variance because a pool is to be placed in a corner lot,which,by way of the curvature of Twicwood Lane, ostensibly results in the pool being placed in a "front yard." We submit to the Board that no undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood, nor will any nearby properties (including our own) suffer any detriment by granting the variance. Many homes in the neighborhood have pools, and the requested variance maintains the feel of the neighborhood. The area of the yard where the pool will be placed is largely blocked by landscaping and maintained shrubbery. Because of the orientation of the home at 21 Twicwood Lane,no other feasible alternative exists for the applicant to place a pool in the yard. The applicant is a casualty of the direction of the road,and the residence is a"corner lot" only in the technical sense. The home sits on one continuous road. No substantial variance is required. The pool would be placed toward the posterior section of the home,which is only incidentally forward-facing because of the angle of the lot.No adverse impacts will be suffered by the neighborhood.We are aware of at least one other corner lot home within the neighborhood that has a pool similarly placed. The difficulty suffered by the applicant is not self-created,but is rather a function of the sweeping, circular nature of Twicwood Lane itself. SEQRA considerations are all but entirely non-existent insofar as the variance is only a result of the house's direction toward the street. Absent that underlying problem, no variance would even be required. In short, we are in support of the application and wish our neighbors many happy summer days in their pool. Thank you to the Board for its time and consideration. Phillip M.Perry Marci E.Perry" "We live at 44 Twicwood Lane. We are 1000/0 behind our neighbors,Noreen Potvin and Family,to install a pool on their property, at location described to us in the letter from the Town. Thank you,Patty and Mark Lewis" That's it. MR. MC CABE-Would you like to come back and make any comments? MR. WEBSTER-So again my Matthew Webster from Van Dusen & Steves Land Surveyors. So we certainly appreciate all the feedback from the neighborhood. There's a few things that I'd like to address. Of course I don't want to tell you members of the Board what your purview is here,but to our knowledge, there is no functioning charter for an HOA or anything like that which is a restriction,but of course that would not be a consideration for this Board regardless. At the same time I would just like to point out that most of the,well several of the adjoining parcels have existing pools. Our client is simply seeking to enjoy the same use of their property as others. Regarding noise,I don't know how many of you have driven by the property currently,but there is a trampoline approximately where they would like to put the pool. So if you drove by you would see that trampoline if you could see it from the road because right now there's just a simple picket fence there,which mostly obscures that area to begin with, and I would imagine, and this is not scientific in nature of course, that children on a trampoline may produce just as much joyful noise as they would in a pool,if that were to be any part of the consideration. So that being said,any other questions? MR. UNDERWOOD-Would it be possible to slide the pool back like 32 feet further back towards the playground area in the back? MR. WEBSTER-So that would just get a little tight as far as getting around the pool itself, and it would actually be closer to the neighbor's property line. We tried to place it in such a way that it would have the least impact on the neighbor and again so that it could be as private as possible. Because I can't stress enough that our client wants a private pool which hopefully any perspective home buyers in the neighborhood or anyone driving through the neighborhood wouldn't even know it's there. That's the goal of this project. MR.HENKEL-And you can't put it behind the house? MR.WEBSTER-No. The septic system and the dry well are behind the house. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Would you like to see pictures of the actual house and where it's going to go and where it's going to be located? I have some on my phone. MR.HENKEL-I think most of us have been out there. MR. MC CABE-We've all been there. MR. HENKEL-Should have. When you said a septic system, I mean the way you've got it mapped out here,where you've got it shown,I mean there's plenty of room to put a pool there. MR. WEBSTER-That's just approximate. We haven't brought in ground penetrating radar or anything like that, and of course the septic system has been there for so long that the record mapping may not be available. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. AUDIENCE MEMBER-Can we comment again? MR. MC CABE-I've given you guys a chance to talk. Just a second. It's not our job to answer questions, but I will give way to, are you guys both going to say the same thing or not? AUDIENCE MEMBER Just another short input from a realtor. MR. MC CABE-Sure,sit down. MR.WETTERSTEN-This is from a Miss Lynn Wadley. MR. MC CABE-So first of all you have to identify yourself. MR. WETTERSTEN-My name's Peter Wettersten. I live at 23 Twicwood Lane. It goes as follows. My understanding is that a pool is proposed in the side yard where the red X is located on this map. In my experience a pool that is not in the backyard would be a deterrent to many perspective buyers of your property in the future. In my opinion even with the privacy fence,the proximity to the road and to your home would negatively impact the future resale of your home. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. CONWAY Jim Conway, 34 Twicwood Lane. My question was,if the question that you asked was answered. You asked a specific question and I wasn't sure that I heard the answer. You said can the pool moved back and you gave, 35 feet I think is what you said, and the answer was? MR. WEBSTER-It was simply that that would create a lot of constriction between the house and the property line. MR.CONWAY-So the answer is,yes,it can be moved back away from where it's impacting the proximity to the road which is what you've heard from the Twicwood community and was stated here. So I just wanted to make sure that we're not under the impression that there are not other locations on the property for the placement of the pool. Is that accurate? Am I able to ask my question? MR. MC CABE-You can make your statement. He'll have a chance to reply. MR. CONWAY-Okay. I just wanted to make sure that the Board was considering. MR. MC CABE-And a public hearing is not ask questions and answer. You provide information to us. MR. CONWAY-My understanding of what was shared is that there are other locations where the pool could be placed. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Now you can come back. MR.WEBSTER-So again we're not here to try and be contentious or anything like that,but just to respond to some things that were said. With regard to that statement from the realtor,it sounded as though the spirit would be that the re-sale value of the applicant's house would be most impacted,just to clarify that, and again,with regard to sliding the pool back, our client would love to be back to slide the pool back as far as possible because again the spirit of this is that they want a private pool, but of course as you get closer to where the existing septic is,you get closer to the boundary line, we would still need relief from 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) the boundary line and as you approach the septic you can run into all kinds of complications that are client seeks to minimize because of course they do not want to upset the septic and the neighborhood either. MR.HENKEL-But you just said,stated that you don't know exactly where it is. So shouldn't that be one of the things you should check out where it is before you decide? MR. WEBSTER-And again, we will certainly have the pool as far back as possible, but as you see, that would require variances regardless. MR.HENKEL-The Town doesn't have any records because it's too old? MRS. MOORE-It wasn't part of the investigation of the septic system information. So this is where the applicant is proposing to locate it at this time. MR. URRICO-What about the size of the pool? Is that locked in as well? MR.WEBSTER-This is a fairly generic size that was proposed by the pool company. MR. URRICO-Is there a smaller size? MR. WEBSTER-I'm sure there could be. I don't know that that would have an impact on the nature of the variance. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. MC CABE-Are we all done? So at this particular time I'm closing the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board and I'm going to start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think there's clearly feasible alternatives from what's been proposed here this evening and I think my suggestion of sliding the pool back or replacing where the septic field is alleged to be with the pool in the back of the house would work for me and I think would probably work for the neighbors,too. If you could put the new septic out where you propose the pool in the front there you've got plenty of property in order to do that. You're going to have to be creative,I think,if you want to achieve your goal. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-Yes,I also agree with Jim. I think you have to do a little better to check on where that septic is and where the tank is. I think there's room to put a pool back there. So I would not be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Matthew,you stated your case,but you also were inflexible. I grew up where the neighbors did not talk to my parents for various reasons. Asa Board member here,I have to go with what the majority of the people think about this project, and based on that I'm against it, and the other thing is you might have to realize that because of this property you don't have a backyard and maybe,you know,you're never going to find the right location for that pool because of the property. For me,I love swimming pools, and that's not the point,but the majority of the neighborhood is against it as it's presented and for that reason I'm against it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm in agreement with the rest of the Board at this time,but I also want to mention that the Town,when we come across issues like this,there is no Town law that says you can't let a pool go in. The Zoning Board exists to allow variances. That means we don't iron clad everything and say you're not allowed to use your property for any reason whatsoever. There is some leeway in that. That's what the Zoning Board is here for. At the same time, we're supposed to give you the least amount of leeway as possible, and Mr. Kuhl just mentioned that you seem inflexible in terms of wanting to compromise with us, and I think you might want to re-consider some compromises because as it stands right now I would be against it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,this is a tough situation because of the layout of the property. The fact that you don't really have a backyard,but I also agree with my other Board members. You'd probably have to come back 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 07/19/2023) for variances to place the pool somewhere else,but I don't think it'll be the same situation that we currently have. So I would not be in favor of the project at this point. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I agree. I would not be in favor of placing the pool where it is and I agree with other members that there may be some alternatives on the lot that you can explore. MR.MC CABE-So you're not doing so well. So you've got a couple of choices here. You can call for a vote, but that's not going to go well. Or you can ask for a delay while you re-plan the project. So that's what you want to do? MR. WEBSTER-Yes. We'd like to table and come back with more and potentially different information as well. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So,John? MR.HENKEL-What have we got for a date? MRS. MOORE-So you're going to look at September. MR.HENKEL-September. Okay. We're going to look at the first meeting or the second? The 20`h? MRS. MOORE-It could be the first meeting. That's fine. MR.HENKEL-Okay. With new information by. MRS. MOORE-The 15`h of August. MR.HENKEL-The 15`h of August. Okay. MR. MC CABE-Is that enough time for you? MR.WEBSTER-Yes. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Noreen Potvin. Applicant proposes to install a pool on their property that is a corner lot. The pool location would be considered a front yard. The existing home of 2,501 sq.ft.would remain with no changes. The pool is to be located on the northeast side and is about 512 sq.ft. Relief is requested for pool location. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.26-2023 NOREEN POTVIN,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Tabled to September 20th,2023 with any new information due by August 15th,2023. Duly adopted this 19th day of July,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe: NOES: NONE MR.WEBSTER-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So that's it. Now I'd like to adjourn the meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF JULY 19TI 2023,Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 19`h day of July,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe 22