Loading...
12-05-2012 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2012 INDEX Area Variance No. 59-2012 Thomas Walton 1. Tax Map No. 301.14-1-12 Area Variance No. 60-2012 Gerald Flynn 4. Tax Map No. 239.18-1-24 Area Variance No. 61-2012 Steve and Jennifer Kitchen 7. Tax Map No. 226.19-1-39 Area Variance No. 62-2012 Paul and Margaret Sheehan 12. Tax Map No. 289.13-1-20 Sign Variance No. 63-2012 Todd R. Jorgensen 14. Tax Map No. 309.11-2-11 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING DECEMBER 5, 2012 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JAMES UNDERWOOD BRIAN CLEMENTS MEMBERS ABSENT RONALD KUHL LAND USE PLANNER-KEITH OBORNE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening. Welcome, everyone. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, on the back table there is an agenda and a brief sheet that explains how the process works here. It's quite simple. I'll call the meeting to order tonight of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals, tonight December 5t", and then we'll call each item up to the table here. Each applicant can join us at the little table. We'll have the application read into the record. We'll ask for some questions. We'll ask for public comment when it's been advertised, and then usually we poll the Board and the move forward from there. We do have no housekeeping to do this evening, but we do have a request from one of the Board members to address the Board. MR. GARRAND-I'd just ask the Chairman to please remind the Town Board that Mr. Underwood's appointment expires at the end of this month, and he has been an exemplary member of this Board for years. We'd really like to keep him. So if you could please talk to the Town Board about that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any other matters to be brought to the Board at this time? Thank you, Rick. Okay. New Business, Thomas Walton. Welcome, sir. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2012 SEQRA TYPE II THOMAS WALTON OWNER(S) THOMAS WALTON ZONING MDR LOCATION 5 GROUSE CIRCLE APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 34 FT. BY 34 FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR A SECOND GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 90-103 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.33 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 301.14-1-12 SECTION 179-5-020 THOMAS WALTON, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 59-2012, Thomas Walton, Meeting Date: December 5, 2012 "Project Location: 5 Grouse Circle Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 34 ft. by 24 ft. (816 square foot) detached garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: • Second garage - Relief request for a second garage where only one garage is permitted per dwelling as per§179-5-020D. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to expand existing garage to 1,100 square feet to accommodate the need for more space. However, lot limitations and the nature of the request may preclude this alternative. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for an additional garage where only one garage is permitted per dwelling as per §179-5-020D may be considered moderate relative 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. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, B.P. 90-103 SFD Approved 1990 Staff comments: The site is heavily wooded with little visibility from Grouse Circle of the dwelling or proposed location of the garage. The only impacted neighbor would be to the east, denoted on Lot 16 of the submitted survey. The applicant states the proposed garage is for the storage of two classic vehicles as well as for the storage and display of family memorabilia. SEAR Status: Type I I" MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Pretty straightforward application. So, welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record and if there's anything you'd like to add at this time, or we could just move forward to discussing it with the Board. MR. WALTON-Sure. My name is Thomas Walton, and I don't have anything to add. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, sir. Thank you. Any Board members have any questions concerning this application? MR. GARRAND-Would you be amenable to any conditions on approval? MR. WALTON-I'm sorry? MR. GARRAND-Would you be amenable to any conditions of an approval? This is for basically 100% relief on a second garage on this parcel. Would you be willing to, say, remove the garage should the property change ownership? MR. WALTON-Sure. I mean, I plan to be there for the rest of my life, but I suppose it could change. You mean, in other words, if I moved would I take the garage down? MR. GARRAN D-Yes. MR. WALTON-Sure. MR. GARRAND-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other comments from Board members at this time? MR. WALTON-Question on that, though. Is that if the new buyer doesn't want it or? MR. GARRAND-One way or the other. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) MR. WALTON-I was going to say, I mean, it just might be desirable to another person, but not having thought that far ahead. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Just for the record, I would not be in favor of that limitation. I think that that's pretty extreme to go through that cost and God forbid they had to sell the house next year. That seems pretty extreme to me. That's just my opinion. MR. WALTON-Yes, I've lived there 22 years. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So any other Board members have any concerns? MR. CLEMENTS-1 have a question. I don't know if any of the other Board members got anything, but do you know where the location will be? MR. WALTON-That's just the full copy. It's drawn on the, probably the. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. Thank you. MR. WALTON-Yes, it sits in the back of the property, behind the house. MR. JACKOSKI-You haven't had any discussions with other neighbors that have objected to it, especially Lot Number 12, 1 think it is? MR. WALTON-No, actually really none of my neighbors would see it, and the one neighbor that would see it has a fence in between, and I'm still pretty heavily wooded. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. CLEMENTS-It's also wooded in the front where you drive in your long driveway there, too. MR. WALTON-Yes. I haven't cut a live tree down in 22 years. MR. CLEMENTS-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-Just really for knock on wood, you're jinxing yourself. MR. WALTON-Well, I like to keep it nice and wooded and sort of private. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one in the audience, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No, sir. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. At this time I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think in the context of what you're proposing here, the site (lost word) appropriate for a second garage, and I think the statutes as they were designed are done so when we have open suburban type arrangements. I think it would be an imposition on the neighbors for them to have to look at the garage, and as far as busying it up, it is 100% relief, but I think in this instance here, I'm less inclined to be, you know, like by the book, and allow you to build this, because I think in this instance here, it's not going to affect anybody, and it is asking for a lot, however, but I wouldn't make you tear it down if you moved. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Jim. Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Thank you. Yes. We've come across this before where we have allowed a second garage on a large piece of property that wasn't visible, and I would be in favor of it, and I would not be in favor of having to take it down if you moved. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. I'd be in favor. It looks like the overall square footage would be about 800 feet, 800 square feet, something like that. MR. WALTON-It's 816. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) MR. CLEMENTS-8161 and if you wanted to you could expand your existing garage to 1100 square feet to accommodate the need for more space. So , you know, there's not a big difference there, so I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. I'd be in favor of it as submitted, with no conditions. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I'm going to fall on the other side, no without conditions. MR. JACKOSKI-I have no issue without conditions. Okay. We do have the public hearing still open. Given the polling of the Board, I'm going to close the public hearing. Could I have a motion? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'll make a motion. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 59-2012 THOMAS WALTON, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 5 Grouse Circle. The applicant is proposing construction of a 34 by 24, 816 square foot detached garage. Under the relief required, it's for a second garage, so that's 100% relief, and that's request for a second garage where only one is permitted per dwelling by the Code. We do not feel, in the instance of this request, that this will impact the neighborhood because of its wooded nature and the fact that no one will really notice that the thing was built in the backyard because you're the only one who's actually going to see it. He has requested it to store his classic cars in, and although it's 100% relief, we don't feel there'll be any physical or environmental conditions affected in the neighborhood. So I'd move for its approval. Duly adopted this 5t" day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations, Mr. Walton. Thank you. MR. WALTON-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I'm going to go a bit out of order this evening, because I do believe we have a tabling request on the Kitchen application. MR. OBORNE-You're also going to have a lot of public hearing with it, or public comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we'll stay along with the agenda. AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2012 SEQRA TYPE II GERALD FLYNN AGENT(S) GERALD FLYNN OWNER(S) JAMES DE NOOYER ZONING WR LOCATION 4 LOCKHART LOOP (3316 STATE ROUTE 9L) APPLICANT PROPOSES A 208 SQ. FT. RESIDENTIAL ADDITION TO MASTER BEDROOM AND THE ADDITION OF A 208 SQ. FT. SCREENED PORCH. REQUEST FOR HEIGHT AND SIDE SETBACK OF THE WR ZONE. FURTHER, RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE EXPANSION OF A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE. CROSS REF SP 79-2012; BP 99-037; BP 94-624; BP 94-164 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.77 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-24 SECTION 179-3-040, 179-13-010 GERALD FLYNN, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 60-2012, Gerald Flynn, Meeting Date: December 5, 2012 "Project Location: 4 Lockhart Loop (3316 State Route 9L) Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a 208 sq. ft. residential addition to master bedroom and the addition of a 208 sq. ft. screened porch. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) Relief Required: Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 1. Height - Request for 8 feet of height relief from the 28 foot maximum for the proposed addition to the Master Bedroom. 2. Side Setback- Request for 4.4 feet of relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement for the screened porch proposed for the west side of the dwelling. 3. Expansion of a non-conforming structure must be approved by the Zoning Board of Appeals. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to existing conditions and lot limitations. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 8 feet or 28% relief for the Master Bedroom addition from the 28 foot maximum height for SFD in the WR zone as per §179-3-040 may be considered moderate relative to the code. Further, the request for 4.4 feet or 17% relief from the 25 foot side setback requirement in the WR zone may be considered minor relative to the code. Finally, the request for the expansion of a non- conforming structure requires ZBA approval. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 79-2012 Expansion of a N/C structure in a CEA Pending BP 99-037 196 sq. ft. roof cap Approved 3-9-99 BP 94-624 3 car stall garage Approved 8-18-95 BP 94-164 Alteration to gazebo Approved 9-24-95 Staff comments: Shoreline buffering appears to be well established. SEAR Status: Type I I" MR. URRICO-The Planning Board met and they introduced, they made a motion and they introduced, the Planning Board, based on its limited review, has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and this was adopted November 27th, and this was a unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Welcome. If you could identify yourself for the record, and if there's anything you'd like to add, please do so. MR. FLYNN-Good evening, Board. My name's Gerald Flynn. I'm representing the Denooyer's on this project, and he has explained it very well. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. CLEMENTS-1 just had one. The addition that's going on, 13 by 16, that's going up over the top of a roof right now, that roof's coming off and it's going to go above that? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) MR. FLYNN-There's an existing bedroom there now that has a vaulted ceiling in it, and if we take that off, the floor level, their master bedroom is on the upper level. It will let them expand out into that area. We'll put a level ceiling in that bedroom, and the new height of the new roof over this expansion will still be lower than the existing house, but it's above the 28 feet, which from the road everything, 9N, this house is down in like a hole. Even from the road you look over the whole house. MR. CLEMENTS-Yes. Actually what I was getting at was when this addition goes in, the footprint of the house isn't going to be expanded for that part, too, right? MR. FLYNN-No. It's on, do you have the map? It's lined on the map that it doesn't extend out anyway, anything else, it's the same footprint. MR. CLEMENTS-But the porch does. MR. FLYNN-The porch does go out, which, if they're able to put the porch out, there isn't any trees that have to be cut or anything like that. In fact, they're planning to plant some newer things. The landscaping of the property is all natural, if you've seen some of the photographs, and that's what they enjoy. That's what they want to keep it. The screened porch will allow them to use another part of the house that they haven't been able to use. It's a smaller room so the expansion to that would give them a screened in area from this deck, from bugs or whatever. MR. OBORNE-Brian, I'm sorry, right up here, this is where it's coming out. MR. FLYNN-Yes. MR. OBORNE-And that's basically the lay of the land right now. MR. FLYNN-There's that little triangular piece, there's a double door there, right where he's pointing. So it would project out towards this. That would come off, and it's, if you look on the map, too, there's a garage, everything. It's not blocking the view from anybody, anything across 9N is way up the mountain on Lockhart Mountain Road. Yes, that's a better picture right there. MR. GARRAND-Do they live there year round? MR. FLYNN-No. They're only here two months a year, and, you know, they've had the house since it was, they built it there new, and they come back. They love it for the nature and that part of it. MR. GARRAND-So it's not going to be heated or anything, the screened porch? MR. FLYNN-No. It's strictly a screened in porch for just the summertime use, that they're getting older and they just would like that. MR. GARRAND-There's going to be like no foundation underneath it, just (lost word)? MR. FLYNN-No, it would be posts that would come down onto piers, to support it, so from underneath it you will see, if you see the bottom of that deck, it would be the same. The floor level will come out there. So it will be open underneath it. No insulation, nothing. There you go. And the lot next to it is part of the conservatory. So it's forever wild. In fact there's trees that fall towards their house that we're trying to get handled that need to get taken care of. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll open it, and is there anyone here who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Given there's no written comment, at this time I'll poll the Board, and I'll start with Rick. MR. GARRAND-It doesn't seem like too wild of an application, as long as the screened porch doesn't get closed in and expanded into another bedroom or something. I think it's not a terribly huge project. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Brian? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) MR. CLEMENTS-1 agree. I'd be in favor also. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think it's a modest project. I would be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't have a problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So since we do have a polling of the Board, and I will close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-Can I have a motion, please. MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 60-2012 GERALD FLYNN FOR JAMES DENOOYER, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: 4 Lockhart Loop. The applicant proposes a 208 square foot residential addition to the master bedroom, and the addition of 208 square foot screened porch. The relief required, height, request for eight feet of height relief from the twenty-eight foot minimum with proposed addition to the master bedroom. Side setback, request for 4.4 feet of relief from the 25 side setback requirement for the screened porch proposed for the west side of the building. Expansion of a nonconforming structure. There'll be minor impacts in the neighborhood. There seem to be limited feasible alternatives, and the request is modest. The height of the building will not be higher than it is now. There will be minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood, and it may be considered self-created. I move we approve Area Variance No. 60-2012. Duly adopted this 5t" day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Congratulations. Good luck. MR. FLYNN-Thank you very much. AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2012 SEQRA TYPE 11 STEVE AND JENNIFER KITCHEN AGENT(S) NACE ENGINEERING OWNER(S) LINDA S. DE LAURA ZONING WR LOCATION END OF FOREST ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO STORY DWELLING WITH ATTACHED GARAGE TOTALING 3,171 SQ. FT.; ASSOCIATED WASTEWATER AND STORMWATER SYSTEMS PLANNED. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM INFILTRATION OF DRIVEWAY STORMWATER WITHIN 100 FT. OF A SHORELINE. CROSS REF SP 48-2012; FWW 3-2012; SP 28-10; BP 10-556 (TEST PIT) WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY YES LOT SIZE 0.34 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-39 SECTION 147-11 STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 61-2012, Steve and Jennifer Kitchen, Meeting Date: December 5, 2012 "Project Location: end of Forest Road Description of Proposed Project: (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) Applicant proposes construction of a two story dwelling with attached garage totaling 3,171 sq. ft.; associated wastewater and stormwater systems planned. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: • Stone storage trench (on-site) - Relief requested from infiltration of driveway stormwater within 100 ft. of a shoreline as per§147-111(3)[4]. • Stormwater basin (off-site) - Relief requested from infiltration of driveway stormwater within 100 ft. of a shoreline as per§147-111(3)[4]. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives appear limited due to parcel constraints, existing conditions off site and nature of the project. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 45 feet or 45% relief from the 100 foot shoreline setback requirement for infiltration of driveway storm-water as per §147-111(3)[4] for the stone storage trench may be considered moderate relative to the code. The request for 80 feet or 80% relief from the 100 foot shoreline setback requirement for infiltration of driveway storm-water as per §147-111(3)[4] for the stormwater basin in the Town R.O.W. may be considered severe relative 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. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 48-2012 & FW 3-2012: Pending SP 28-2010: 3,085 sq. ft. sfd w/attached garage. Disturbance within 100 feet of a wetland requires both SPR & FW by the PB No Action BP 10-556: Test pit 11-23-11 Staff comments: 1. Please see attached TDE (Town Designated Engineer) comments. 2. Planning Board recommendation attached. SEAR Status: Type II" MR. URRICO-There is a Planning Board recommendation, and just so that people are aware that there's a section of the Queensbury Zoning Ordinance that requires the Planning Board to provide a written recommendation to the Zoning Board of Appeals for projects that require both ZBA and Planning Board approval. The Planning Board, based on its limited review, has not identified any significant adverse effects that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and the motion passed unanimously on November 15, 2012. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Just for the audience, we have had a request to table this application, but because we have advertised a public hearing, I am going to open the public hearing for comment. So is there anyone here in the audience at this time who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? I see two individuals. I usually work left to right, so, okay. I see a finger going to the right. So, sir, if you could join the Board. If you could please identify yourself for the record, and generally we have a five minute comment period,just so that you are aware. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED DAVE KLEIN MR. KLEIN-Okay. Thank you. My name's Dave Klein. I'm with North Country Engineering, and I represent numerous property owners in the Assembly Point area. I'll try to limit my speech to five minutes, but since I have technical information, and I'm representing multiple parties, I hope you bear with me. I'll try and keep most of my comments until the next meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Is everyone okay with that? MR. UNDERWOOD-Sure. MR. JACKOSKI-And just so you know, sir, this is just for stormwater, and obviously if there are site plan matters, that'll, of course, be handled by the Planning Board. So, I mean, we're here just for the stormwater variance at this time. MR. KLEIN-Right. I understand that. I did make a color graphical presentation, and I gave Keith a copy of it to put up on the screen, and I've got copies for the Board. MR. JACKOSKI-I can pass them down. MR. KLEIN-We were initially retained in 2010 when this site was proposed to be developed by another applicant. We have other experience developing several other lots in the neighborhood. Shore Colony was developed in 1957. It was approved by the Department of Health as a seasonal association with rather small lots, and they put a seasonal water system in and the subdivision map indicates that all the lots were supposed to be connected to that water system. The lots are too small to be developed with, you know, a septic system, a well. You have to have multiple lots, and you have to have them away from the wetlands to be able to develop them. All the easy lots have been developed, you know, years ago, and all we have is the more difficult lots now. In 2010, we identified the need for numerous variances on this property. The applicant eventually tabled the project because he realized that it was a very difficult lot to develop, and the property went back on the market, and it was advertised almost shovel ready. Another applicant came along, same thing. They applied to the Planning Board. They ignored the need for variances. We've stepped up to the plate and tried to convince them that they needed variances. They made the initial application for a variance, and that's why we're here at this public meeting tonight. Since then they've identified numerous other variances that they're going to require, and I've tried to graphically demonstrate on this drawing the magnitude of the variances that they're requesting and also indicated in blue other variances that we anticipate them requiring. The blue shaded area are the stormwater infiltration devices. The green is the wetlands, and the edge is standing water. There's a determination that that is a shoreline, and it's the shoreline of Lake George. The contours in that area are right around the 320.2 foot mark, which is the mean high water mark of Lake George that the wetlands is contiguous to Lake George and a very important resource. You can see that they're looking for, in the write up on their request for the variance it looks like they're looking for a 90% variance, not an 80% variance on the closeness of the infiltration device to the wetlands. Also, they need separation between the septic system. Now the Town Engineer doesn't review septic systems in the Town of Queensbury. He only reviews stormwater. We've taken a look at the septic system as it's proposed now. It's on a 16.7% slope. It's a fill system as defined in the Town of Queensbury Code. A fill system cannot be built on anything greater than a 10% slope in the Town of Queensbury, and the State you can't have a septic system on anything greater than 15%. There's no diversion device around the infiltration, or the septic system. You also need a buffer on the downhill slope of the thing that is not indicated on the drawings here. If you don't have that buffer, you can have a blow out of your wastewater treatment system, and they're also going to require relief between the septic system and all the infiltration systems. Also in the Town Code they need a 200 foot setback from the shoreline, and those variances have not even been addressed yet. So I've already been to five meetings on this site, and we still haven't gotten all the variances identified. So I would hope that the applicant and the Town would meet with the applicant and identify all the variances that are required. I've got a request in to the Town Zoning Administrator to make a written determination and there's a couple others that I heard of tonight, too. So, I haven't even identified them all. MR. UNDERWOOD-Keith, as far as septic goes, are they required to have a reserve in case the system they're proposing doesn't last or something? We ran into that requirement previously. MR. OBORNE-Usually it's 50% is my understanding, is my understanding, and recommended is 100% reserve. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) MR. KLEIN-I think they're putting in 50% larger than is required. So I think that's where their reserve comes into effect, but the whole system doesn't meet the side yard setbacks. It doesn't meet the, there's another large system on the Maynard property, just uphill, and there's a 27% slope down to their absorption, proposed absorption area. So if you get a heavy rain, all the water from the Maynard property is going to come down and saturate this. You need to put a diversion ditch or diversion device around it. It's required, an integral part of the septic system, and both the buffer and the diversion system have to be set back from the property line 10 feet, and that's going to push their septic system downhill, and it's not going to work. MR. UNDERWOOD-Will we expect that Craig will review this more thoroughly before we see it again, or, the questions he's raising, is that something that's above? MR. OBORNE-1 mean, certainly the general public can ask questions of Craig, absolutely. If he chooses to respond, I guess, is up to him at that point. I believe, having spoken to him today, that he intends to respond. So it would be our hope that, yes, that would be addressed prior the next meeting. MR. UNDERWOOD-And if we table this, it'll be for a month or two? MR. OBORNE-It'll be until January 15t" or 22nd MR. KLEIN-Just so everything's addressed in one meeting here, and then another meeting if it's not withdrawn at the Planning Board. MR. JACKOSKI-Keith, before we act, will we need to get the Health Department approval? MR. OBORNE-That's yet to be determined. I loathe to answer that question. Okay. I'd have to pump that off to Dave Hatin. MR. UNDERWOOD-1 know we've had a lot of Shore Colony ones over the years, and almost every single one of them, a lot of these questions have been raised because of the small nature of the lots and the separation of the wells and, you know, the ones that are on the actual lake water are one thing, but I think that, you know, the question always comes, what if you can't draw out of Lake George, then what are you going to do? Because I think then everybody's in a position where none of them are going to be able to put driven wells in that meet the setbacks from their septics. MR. OBORNE-My understanding is that they're not allowing water to be drained off of Lake George anymore. I may be wrong on that, because I know it is with Glen Lake you can't do that on new construction. MR. KLEIN-One other thing that I'd like to point out, and this is part of our request, too, this yellow area, none of that, none of the stormwater off that newly created impervious surface has any treatment, and the Town Code clearly requires that to be treated. Part of it's on the applicant's property. Part of it's on the Town road. We're not clear if the Town has the right to do that and allow the applicant to actually build a stormwater retention basin on the Town, on public property for the applicant, if it is public property. That's the question right now, but in any case, they need to provide some kind of stormwater treatment, especially being so close to the wetlands. It looks to me like they're trying to segregate the project so they don't have to do anything for the Town. MR. GARRAND-Sir, have you made the Town Board aware of any of these with the septic? MR. KLEIN-I've been in contact with the Planning and Zoning Departments thoroughly. I did, when the first variance, you know, I got frustrated when they would bring, making the applicant go for these variances, and I did contact a couple of Town Board members, and that was the result of the first round of acknowledgments of variances. MR. GARRAND-Because I would bring this up to the Board of Health, your concerns. MR. JACKOSKI-Which is the Town Board. Okay. They act as the Board of Health in the Town of Queensbury. MR. KLEIN-Okay. You know it's a big expense for my clients. It's a big expense for the applicant, and, frankly, I don't think this is a lot that's a developable. I didn't think so in 2010, and we've tried to make that perfectly clear. Thank you. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you. Sir, if you'd like to join the floor, and if you would, just so you're aware, if you can keep your comments, that would be very helpful, but I think I recognize you from other meetings. DAVE WILCOX MR. WILCOX-My name is Dave Wilcox. I reside at 26 Forest Road, three doors up from this proposal. My snowbird neighbors who aren't able to be here earlier in the season expressed support for this project. We're not experts on some of the things that were just discussed, but feel that, given the distance from the lake proper, that this property is, there's a significant amount of wetland, and as an amateur, reading my LGA newsletters, I understand that wetlands filter all sorts of stuff, and so had this property been right on the shore, such as the Denooyer property that was right before you, that would have had a different impact on the lake than the proposed lot. So while the rules are written specifically, I believe one should take into consideration the whole picture and not just the isolated location, and recognized that there's a good half mile or so before one gets to a lake and that wetland area, and that wetland area is very vegetated. So it does have a lot of ability to filter out stuff. In general we do support the project and hope that it would go through. As a 20 year summer resident of Shore Colony and looking forward to being a year round one, we're looking forward to having another neighbor on the street. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, sir, and I would just suggest that if you and your fellow neighbors wish, if you'd send us a written letter so that we could have that public input, that would help. MR. WILCOX-We'll do that. I know some have written at previous public hearing, for public hearings. You're suggesting it helps to have another set of letters? MR. JACKOSKI-I'm just saying that while you say you represent numerous neighbors, we don't know who and how many. MR. WILCOX-I'm just expressing my knowledge of their opinions, yes. Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this? Mr. Water Keeper. CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Good evening. Chris Navitsky, Lake George Water Keeper. In light of the tabling, I just wanted to state that we do have concerns, but we don't want to take up time. The application may be revised, and additional information provided. So we'd just like to reserve our comments to revised plans, but we do have concerns. MR. JACKOSKI-Had you submitted a letter this time or no? MR. NAVITSKY-We did not. We prepared one. We were going to submit it this evening, but in light of possible changes, we'll reserve that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. No problem. MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I am going to leave the public hearing open because I don't believe there's anyone else here in the audience this evening who'd like to address the Board. Okay. We do have a request for a tabling. Is there any recommendation by Staff as to to when? MR. OBORNE-No. It's up to the Board, either the 15th or the 22nd of January 2013. MR. GARRAND-What's the first meeting look like? MR. OBORNE-There's nothing at this point in time submitted for January. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, that's not good. MR. GARRAND-I guess we could do the first meeting. MR. OBORNE-1 would recommend the first meeting. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. The first meeting in January. So could I have a motion to table this matter to the first meeting in January, which is January 15, 2013. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 61-2012 STEVE AND JENNIFER KITCHEN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Brian Clements: Tabled until the first meeting in January, January 15tH Duly adopted this 5th day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Clements, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2012 SEQRA TYPE II PAUL AND MARGARET SHEEHAN AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING PAUL AND MARGARET SHEEHAN ZONING WR LOCATION 31 BIRCH ROAD, GLEN LAKE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH EXISTING 1,352 SQ. FT. RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES AND CONSTRUCT A NEW 3,950 SQ. FT. FOUR BEDROOM RESIDENCE. REQUEST FOR RELIEF FROM ACTUAL PHYSICAL ACCESS FROM ROAD FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS. CROSS REF SP 62-2012 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 289.13-1-20 SECTION 179-4-050A TOM HUTCHINS, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 62-2012, Paul and Margaret Sheehan, Meeting Date: December 5, 2012 "Project Location: 31 Birch Road, Glen Lake Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish existing 1,352 sq. ft. residence with accessory structures and construct a new 2,597 sq. ft. three bedroom residence. Relief Required: Nature of Area Variance: Parcel will require area variances as follows: • Road Access - Request for actual physical access from road frontage requirements as per§179-4-050A. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives would be to access the property from the existing right of way. However, with existing access provided by other means, undo removal of trees and grading may not be prudent. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief request for the requirement that actual physical access from existing road frontage be approved as per §179-4-050A may be considered minor as access through other lands currently exist. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated as a result of the granting of this variance. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, SP 62-2012 SFD Pending (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) BP 89-508: Replace existing dock 4-30-91 Staff comments: The ZBA may wish to consider conditioning any approval upon the execution and recording of access easement language with the Lands of William Chase with the county. SEAR Status: Type I I" MR. URRICO-And this has also been approved by the Planning Board, because it's a project that requires both Planning Board and Zoning Board approval, and based on its limited review, the Planning Board has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and they adopted this motion on November 27th by unanimous vote. MR. JACKOSKI-Thank you, and welcome. Welcome, Tom. MR. JARRETT-Good evening. Tom Hutchins, here on behalf of Paul and Margaret Sheehan. Mr. Sheehan is with me. 31 Birch has been in their family since 1946. They wish to upgrade the shared driveway with the neighbor to the north, has been in existence longer than that, probably since the residents have existed. There is an easement on file in the County Clerk's that has been, that was legalized in 1995, and prior to that it had just been an agreement that people used it. They are in the process of updating that, to make it a little more modern. That is not filed yet, but it will be. Shared access has worked for a long time. It really makes sense in this particular case, and the alternative is a whole lot of earthwork that neither of the neighbors wish to, and so with that, we'd request your support. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you, sir. Any comments from Board members at this time? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. I live on the other side of the lake, and my next door neighbor shares the driveway with me. So, I mean, I think it's, in a Glen Lake situation where the lots are 100 feet or less in width, it doesn't make any sense for this rule to apply. It's better to have a shared drive, and, you know, it's redundant to have driveways every two feet along rights of way out to the main road. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Seeing no one else who's having any comment, I will open the public hearing this evening because it is scheduled. Is there anyone in the audience who'd like to address this Board concerning this application? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Seeing no one, is there any written comment? MR. URRICO-There is a letter to the, actually it's an e-mail to the Zoning Board members. "This is to inform you of two items relating to Paul Sheehan's application. The first is that we our attorney has drawn up a Right of Way document that eliminates the condition in the previous Right of Way document and will provide Right of Way to the owners, present or future, of 31 Birch Road (Glen Lake), Queensbury. The second is that we have agreed with Paul Sheehan that he has our permission to grade a small section of our parcel so as to accommodate a driveway to his proposed garage. Sincerely, William Chase and Peter Chase Owners of 29 Birch Road (Glen Lake)" MR. JACKOSKI-Isn't it nice when neighbors get along? Okay. So we do have the written comment also read into the record. I'm going to poll the Board at this time. I'll start with Brian. MR. CLEMENTS-Since Jim lives on Glen Lake and he thinks it's okay, I'd go along with it, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't see any significant amount of effects on the neighborhood or area with this proposal. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-1 do not see any reason to disapprove this application. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) MR. UNDERWOOD-1 don't have a problem. MR. JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I agree, I'm for it, too. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we do have a polling of the Board. I am going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-I look forward to a motion from Jim. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 62-2012 PAUL AND MARGARET SHEEHAN, Introduced by James Underwood who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garand: 31 Birch Road. The applicant proposes to demolish an existing 1,352 square foot residence with accessory structures and construct new, 2,597 square foot, three bedroom residence. Parcel will require a variance for road access because they share a driveway with their next door neighbor, the Chases. The request for actual physical access from road frontage requirements is a requirement by the Town Code, but due to the fact that the lots are 100 feet or less, and in this instance I think it's 100 feet plus along the shoreline, to require them to put in their own driveway would be redundant, and so, in this request, we don't feel there'll be any impacts because the driveway is already existing. There is a new arrangement being brought together with the two neighbors and the two parties involved, and so even though it's a self-created, I don't really feel it's self-created. I feel it's just conditions as they are and they're just trying to maintain those conditions. So I would move for its approval. Duly adopted this 5t" day of December, 2012, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And just for clarification, we're not conditioning this on the neighbors making another legal, okay. So there is no condition. AYES: Mr. Clements, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. HUTCHINS-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-You're welcome. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 63-2012 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED TODD R. JORGENSEN AGENT(S) ASHLEY DUVAL OWNER(S) RIPS PROPERTY HOLDINGS LLC ZONING MS LOCATION 17 MAIN STREET APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 45 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN FOR ADIRONDACK REHABILITATION MEDICINE, PLLC TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM SIGN SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MS ZONE. CROSS REF BP 2006-658; BP 2006-657 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING YES LOT SIZE ACRES TAX MAP NO. 309.11-2-11 SECTION 140-6 TODD JORGENSEN, PRESENT MR. JACKOSKI-This is an Unlisted SEAR. STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 63-2012, Todd Jorgensen, Meeting Date: December 5, 2012 "Project Location: 17 Main Street Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 45 sq. ft. freestanding sign for Adirondack Rehabilitation Medicine, PLLC to be located within the County Right of Way. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: 1. Relief requested from sign setback requirements for the MS zone. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Moderate impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated as this would be the fifth sign in need of relief for this parcel since 2006. 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. Since the building has received wall sign variances in the past, consideration to not have a freestanding sign should be considered. However, lot limitations and existing conditions appear to preclude any feasible method by which to avoid an area variance for the request submitted. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for 15 feet or 100% relief from setback requirements of §140-6 may be considered severe relative to the ordinance. Please note that the proposed sign will be wholly within the county's right of way. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts to the environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may not be self-created as the applicant had lands taken for the Main Street Road Improvement project thus limiting lands for a sign to be placed. Please note that a Sign Variance would most likely have been required if lands were not taken. Parcel History (construction/site plan/variance, BP 2006-658: Two 20 sq. ft. wall signs to read G F HOSPITAL PHYSICAL THERAPY; sign will face the road & parking lot 12-21-06 BP 2006-657: Two 27 sq. ft. wall signs to read ADIRONDACK REHABILITATION MEDICINE, PLLC; wall sign will face the road & parking lot 12-21-06 NOA 8-2006: Appellant is appealing Zoning Administrator's determination regarding placement of two walls signs for Adirondack Rehab Medicine 12-20-06 BP 05-109: 353 sq. ft. commercial interior alteration Approved 5-23-05 SP 68-2005: 1,075 sq. ft. addition to existing 2,755 sq. ft. medical office building Approved 1- 24-06 AV 91-2005: Relief requested from parking lot requirements, specifically, number of parking spaces, drive aisle width, and parking space dimensions Approved 12-21-05 BP 99-216: 2151 sq. ft. commercial alteration 9-28-99 Staff comments: 1. With five wall signs existing on the building, consideration to remove those along Main Street may be beneficial as the proposed sign will block any view of the existing wall signs. 2. Are there provisions for lighting the sign, please clarify. 3. County Department of Public Works R.O.W. permit attached. SEAR Status: Unlisted -Short Form provided with application." MR. JACKOSKI-If you could identify yourself for the record, please. DR. JORGENSEN-Yes. I'm Todd Jorgensen. I'm the owner of the property. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anything you'd like to add at this time? DR. JORGENSEN-Yes. We were planning on taking down the side sign on the building. We agree that that's not going to be necessary with the freestanding sign. We had originally planned on putting the sign up before the County bought the land, and then with the Main Street project coming through, they recommended, when they were asking to buy the land, that we wait until all the work was done so they didn't have to work around it. One of the concerns we had with the Main Street project was if we sold the land, was this going to make it difficult for us to put up a sign in the future, and they said that shouldn't be an issue. The County won't have a (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) problem with the sign since it's not going to be in the sidewalk, just keep it back as far as you can, but they explained that we would have to go through this process. At the time we discussed, well should we just leave a parcel out of the sign so that we could continue to own part of it, so we didn't have a problem going forward, and they said that would slow down the Main Street progress, and we didn't want to slow that down. So we said we'd come forward and put the permit through at a later date. We serve a number of disabled patients. That's the nature of our business, and we daily have patients that can't find our building because we just have the signs on the building. As you can see, that's, as you're approaching this way, it's very difficult to see that that's actually a medical office, and so we actually think there is some safety problems with this, because after patients get by us, they then see the sign, then they stop in the middle of the road and put on their directional and then they turn around in the Cat Hospital next to us and then come back around and then find our building. So, we're finally getting around to trying to fix that. We did put up, I didn't realize that you could submit photos, but we made a make-shift sign that the actual finished product will be much nicer than this, but this is what, to show that it really won't impact the view of other buildings or other signs along the road. So if this is something I can pass around. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, please. MR. URRICO-The previous signs, were they submitted before the project was completed? DR. JORGENSEN-Yes. MR. URRICO-And you say you would be removing all the wall signs? DR. JORGENSEN-Well, we planned on removing the one facing the driveway. That really wouldn't have a purpose. The one still facing the road, we didn't necessarily want to take that down if we weren't required to. The sign, the person that's making the signage, I guess, had talked to Craig Brown and explained that we are allowed to have one on the building and one freestanding. So we were going to keep the one on the building facing the street, but the one you just see clipped on the side, on the right hand side of the picture, is the one we'd be removing, or both of those, actually, the Adirondack Rehab and the one below it. Yes. MR. GARRAND-Quick question. Do you think the positioning of the sign, being where you propose it to be, you think that's going to inhibit the view of people leaving your parking lot from traffic from the west? DR. JORGENSEN-I probably should have taken another picture from that view. I do not believe, because you're already beyond it by the time your car is out to the sidewalk, where you'd be looking, you'd be well beyond the sign. So you might be able to tell from our pictures, but I should have taken a different picture from that way, but, no, I don't believe that. It's set in. It's fairly close to the building. I can approach that and show you about where it comes out to. MR. GARRAND-Sure. DR. JORGENSEN-So the one edge is right here, and the other edge comes to about here. So as you drive out, you're coming out to. MR. GARRAND-You're going to have to have the nose of your car in the sidewalk just so you can see traffic coming from the west. MR. URRICO-Are you going to have an actual signpost or are you going to have people out there holding up the sign? MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address this Board concerning this matter? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We don't have any public comment from people sitting here in the audience. Is there any written comment to be read into the record? MR. URRICO-Not that I can find. MR. JACKOSKI-None to be read. We do have SEAR scheduled this evening, also. All right. Let's poll the Board. Joyce? Are you in favor or not in favor of the project? MRS. HUNT-Yes. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) MR. JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think Dr. Jorgensen has allayed some of my concerns with respect to the visibility issue with the sign. I'm sure that if it does pose a problem, that you'll probably end up doing something about it for the benefit of your patients. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes. Normally I would not be in favor of something like this, but given the nature of the project there and what it created, and it would not be any further, it would not be any closer to the road than the Cat Hospital sign. We granted that one, so I would be in favor of this at this point. MR. JACKOSKI-Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. I think it was anticipated that we wanted to put in nice signs like these Wheeler signs are, and if everybody's on the corridor's line up with each other as you go down there, it all makes sense, and it looks like there was a reason for doing it that way. So I don't have a problem with it at all. MR. JACKOSKI-Brian? MR. CLEMENTS-1 agree with the rest of the Board. I wouldn't have a problem with it, either. I'd be in favor. MR. JACKOSKI-I'd be in favor, too, provided we're taking the signs off the side of the building. Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. JACKOSKI-And request SEAR. MOTION THAT BASED UPON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION, THIS BOARD DEEMS THAT THIS ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. WE THEREFORE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 63- 2012 TODD JORGENSEN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 5t" day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Now that we have a Negative Dec, do I have a motion to approve? MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 63-2012 TODD JORGENSEN, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: 17 Main Street. The applicant proposes construction of a 45 square foot freestanding sign for Adirondack Rehabilitation Medicine, PLLC, to be located within the County right of way. The relief requested from sign setback requirements for the MS zone. On the balancing test, whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant. This is part of the Main Street redesign project, and I also don't think the applicant can very well move the building backwards. He was kind of put in this position by the Main Street redesign and their taking of the easement along the front. Will this produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood? Quite the contrary. Everybody in the neighborhood is going to this type of sign. Is this request substantial? I do not believe it is substantial. Will this have adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood? I do not believe any whatsoever. Is this difficulty self-created? I don't believe it is self-created since the Main Street re-design project basically precluded this. So I move we approve Sign Variance No. 63-2012. Duly adopted this 5t" day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 12/5/2012) NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl MR. JACKOSKI-Is there any other business to be brought before the Board? Hearing none, I do want to note that this is Mr. Oborne's last Zoning Board of Appeals meeting with us as Staff. So thank you for your service and your time. We look forward to hearing from you in the future and good luck in your future endeavors. MR. OBORNE-Absolutely. I don't think you've seen the last of me. MR. JACKOSKI-Mr. Oborne, I hope not. Okay. So can I have a motion to adjourn? MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF DECEMBER 5, 2012, Introduced by Roy Urrico who moved for its adoption, seconded by Joyce Hunt: Duly adopted this 5t" day of December, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Clements, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Underwood, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 18