Loading...
10-18-2023 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING OCTOBER I81r,2023 INDEX Area Variance No.4-2023 Geraldine Eberlein 1. FURTHER TABLING Tax Map No.227.17-1-25; 227.17-1-24 (SEPTIC) Area Variance No.53-2022 Renee&Tom West 2. REQUEST FOR EXTENSION Tax Map No.239.7-1-16 Area Variance No. 32-2023 Richard&Stefanie Mechanick 2. Tax Map No. 30S.S-2-25 Sign Variance No.5-2023 New Potato Creek Holding,LLC 6. Tax Map No.296.17-1-47 Area Variance No.41-2023 Gary Higley 13. Tax Map No.2S9.10-1-14 Area Variance No.42-2023 John Graziano 16. Tax Map No.226.19-2-1 Area Variance No.43-2023 Kris D. Roglieri 19. Tax Map No. 302.7-1-37 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 10/1S/2023) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 18TK,2023 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY RONALD KUHL ROBERT KEENAN JOHN HENKEL MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RICHARD CIPPERLY LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE-So good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,Wednesday, October 1S`h,2023. If you haven't been here before, our procedure is fairly simple. There should be a schedule on the back table. So we'll call each case up,read the case into our records, then we allow the applicant to present his case. We ask questions of the applicant. If a public hearing has been announced,then we'll open the public hearing,take input from the public,we'll close the public hearing, we'll poll the Board and we'll proceed accordingly. Tonight, though, we have a couple of Administrative Items first. So,John,I wonder if you could. APPROVAL OF MINUTES September 20,2023 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 20TH, 2023, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 1S`h day of October,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Keenan,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico NOES: NONE ABSTAINED: Mr. McCabe ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS: REQUEST TO TABLE AV 4-2023(EBERLEIN)TO NOVEMBER 15,2023 The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Geraldine Eberlein. (Revised)Applicant proposes demolition of an existing home and guest cottage to construct a new home with a footprint of 2,411 sq.ft.,-an outdoor kitchen of 234 sq.ft.,-and a new floor area of 3,343 sq. ft. The project includes associated site work for anew permeable driveway,stormwater management,and shoreline landscaping; the project also includes installation of a new septic system on the adjoining property to east property line. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief is requested for setbacks,floor area, and permeability. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO. 4-2023 GERALDINE EBERLEIN, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mary Palacino: Tabled to December 20,2023 with no new information needed. Duly adopted this 18th Day of October 2023,by the following vote: 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) AYES: Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Keenan,Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly AV 53-2022(WEST) REQUEST FOR ONE YEAR EXTENSION Applicant proposes to demolish an existing home to construct a new home of 3,315 sq.ft.footprint with a detached garage of 1,100 sq.ft.and a total floor area of 6,500 sq.ft.The home is to be 27 ft. S inches in height and the garage is to be 27 ft. 11 1/2 inches on a 1.22 acre parcel. The project includes new septic system, stormwater controls, permeable driveway areas, and landscaping. Site plan for floor area, hard surfacing within 50 ft. of shoreline, and freshwater wetlands for work within 100 ft. Relief is requested for setbacks and garage height. The Zoning Board of Appeals approved Area Variance 53-2022 on October 19, 2022. Applicant is requesting a one year extension . With this resolution the Zoning Board of Appeals grants a one year extension to October 19,2024. MOTION TO APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION FOR AREA VARIANCE 53-2022, TOM &z RENEE WEST. Introduced by John Henkel,who moved for its adoption;seconded by Robert Keenan. Extended to October 19`h,2024. Duly adopted this 18th Day of October 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Urrico,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Okay. The first case is AV 32-2023, Richard&Stefanie Mechanick,13 Dawn Road. TABLED ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO.32-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II RICHARD&z STEFANIE MECHANICK AGENT(S) STEFANIE BITTER, ESQ. OWNER(S) RICHARD &z STEFANIE MECHANICK ZONING: MDR LOCATION 13 DAWN RD. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A DETACHED GARAGE OF 1,064 SQ.FT. WITH A 576 SQ.FT.APARTMENT WITHIN. THE SITE HAS AN EXISTING SEPARATE SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THE SAME LOT AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES TO REMAIN. THE EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE WAS APPROVED WITH A GARAGE AND HOME OFFICE IN 1992. THE EXISTING BUILDING WITH DETACHED GARAGE AND APARTMENT IS 1,640 SQ. FT. AND THE EXISTING HOME IS 1,588 SQ. FT. WHERE THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE FOOTPRINTS OF EITHER BUILDING. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR DWELLING SIZE AND DENSITY. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.83 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-2-25 SECTION 179-3-040 STEFANIE BITTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANTS,PRESENT; RICHARD MECHANICK,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 32-2023, Richard&Stefanie Mechanick, Meeting Date: October 1S, 2023 "Project Location: 13 Dawn Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain a detached garage of 1,064 sq.ft.with a 576 sq.ft. dwelling within. The site has an existing separate single family home on the same lot and accessory structures to remain. The existing detached garage was approved with a garage and home office in 1992. The existing building with detached garage and dwelling is 1,640 sq. ft. and the existing home is 1,5SS sq. ft. where there are no changes to the footprints of either building. Relief is requested for dwelling size and density. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief to maintain two separate dwellings—density relief is needed for two dwellings on lot and the apartment is less than S00 sq.ft.-dwelling size relief is needed. The project is located on a O.S6 ac parcel in the Moderate Density zone. Section 179-3-040 dwellings&r 179-5-090 floor area size 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) The applicant proposes to maintain two dwellings where there is a main house and then an existing detached garage with a 576 sq. ft. dwelling unit where SOO sq. ft. is required for a single-family dwelling unit. The site would allow for one single family dwelling. 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 possible to remove the elements of the second dwelling. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered significant relevant to the code. Relief requested for 224 sf less than allowed for a single-family dwelling. Relief for two dwellings on one parcel of O.S6 ac where 4 ac is required for two dwellings. 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. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: Applicant proposes to maintain the existing home and a dwelling unit in a garage. The applicant has indicated upon purchasing the property the dwelling unit in the garage had been used as such. Staff has reviewed the documents for the building permits for this site;the space in the garage was granted approval for a home office. The applicant has indicated there are no changes to the site or buildings. The plans show the location of the home and the floor plan of the garage and second dwelling." MS.BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter. I'm here with the applicants. We're hoping tonight to make this property compliant and to bring it up to Code. As was mentioned in our application materials,they purchased this in 2010 with the structures as they are today, a detached garage with a small apartment, living quarters,as mentioned,less than 600 square feet,a single family raised ranch that does not maintain a garage and a pool. This is unfortunately an acquired problem that the applicant just recently were becoming aware of. I believe it was'22 it was brought to their attention that there were permits that were required during the construction of the detached garage due to the density being an issue. As we understand the history of this parcel,Mr.Clute was the prior owner. He's here tonight. When he acquired the property in 19S9, a double wide had existed on the property. He submitted I believe in 1992 to construct this detached garage. At that time during construction he did advise that his home office would be located in there. At a certain point the double wide was removed from the property,making this the only structure, and then in 1995 the single family home was constructed. So he was using it for living quarters, which is why it's continued on to have living quarters as part of the improvements of that structure. The Assessor understands this to have an apartment in it. If you look at the property information section of the Town of Queensbury Code,it does recognize garage with apartment in 1992 as being something that was at least apparent on research that other people from the public can access. The applicants purchased this property for that in-law apartment and which their mother-in-law actually utilizes. I think that's the kind of thing that's occurring that our in-laws are residing with us because they're snowbirds and they go down south for so many months, they come here for so many months. It was an important part of the purchase of this property to have those living quarters as part of the improvements. When you look at the balancing test,we believe that the balance weighs in favor of the applicants being granted this relief. No undesirable change would be attributed to the granting of this relief. The property is very well maintained. The structures look exactly alike. The architecture is similar. It's aesthetically pleasing. In fact a lot of the homes on the street look very similar to this architecture because Larry constructed them. We believe no reasonable alternative should be deemed to exist because removing the living quarters, or the features that make it a living quarters, would be a punishment. This was something that they purchased in this way and they believed existed and was permitted to exist in that fashion that it did. We do not believe the Area Variance to be substantial. Not when you examine the surrounding lands. If you took a visit on this neighborhood,the density of the other properties is very similar to the density that we're proposing on this property. So it wouldn't stand out as being too dense, not to mention the structures existed since the 90's. So for 30 years it has existed in the fashion that we're trying to maintain. No adverse effects,physical or environmental conditions, should be deemed to exist. There is a letter in the file that was signed by all the neighbors that they all support the Area Variance that's being sought, even though they're not even sure what's being sought because there's no physical changes that's going to be occurring,and we don't believe it should be self-created. This was unfortunately 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) a problem that was acquired due to the documentation that the Town maintained. So we would ask that the Board consider the relief that's being requested,due to the facts and circumstances that surrounded us getting here today. Larry Clute is here is you'd like for him to attest to how we got here today. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR.HENKEL-So you're saying that Mr.Clute didn't use this as an office,he used it as a living space at one time,but it was permitted as an office space? Is that how this all came about? Originally it was an office space not a living space? Or was it supposed to be both? MRS. MOORE-It was my understanding it was supposed to be an office. MR.KUHL-Well was it an office? MRS. MOORE-Yes, at one point he did,he operated an office out of there. MR.HENKEL-And you're saying you'd like to keep this as a living space for family only,not to rent? MR. MECHANICK-My in-laws come back and forth from the Carolinas. They're here for three, four months. They go back and forth. That's what we have it for. MS. BITTER-Yes, accessory structure.not renting. MR. HENKEL-We've done others like this where we have allowed it,but there's always a period of time where it's checked to make sure it's not a rental. MRS. MOORE-Sunset clause. MR.KUHL-We're not going to see this as Air B N B are we? MR. MECHANICK-No. MR.HENKEL-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 would like to provide input on this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. There's a letter from the neighbors in support of the project. There's five neighbors and they're at 16,15,17,24,and 12 Dawn Road. So they're right around the property. 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 have no problem with the request. I think it's been in existence for over 30 years. So,I mean,I don't see any reason at this point to intervene and change the course of history. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-It seems like the neighbors are on board,and as they said that they're going to use it as like an in-law apartment. I think it's great idea. So I'm all for it as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I visited the site. It blends into the neighborhood. I'm not too great on in-laws moving in, but that's your thing. And I would hope really very honestly that I asked the question about an Air B N B, and I hope that you stand to what your word is, that it's not going to be used for something like that. I think it blends in and I'd be in favor of the way it's presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-Mary? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) MRS. PALACINO-I would be in favor as well. I saw the property and while it distresses me that there was some misunderstanding with regard to what it was initially used for and what it was like when it was acquired by Mr. Mechanick,I would be in favor of the variance. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I'm also in favor. MR. MC CABE-And so I think the house is a tribute to the neighborhood. It's done very nicely, and I see no reason to make any changes to it. So I wonder, Ron,if you could fashion us up a motion. MR.KUHL-Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Richard &z Stefanie Mechanick. Applicants request to maintain a detached garage of 1,064 sq. ft. with a 576 sq. ft. dwelling within. The site has an existing separate single family home on the same lot and accessory structures to remain. The existing detached garage was approved with a garage and home office in 1992. The existing building with detached garage and dwelling unit is 1,640 sq.ft.and the existing home is 1,55 S sq. ft. where there are no changes to the footprints of either building. Relief is requested for dwelling size and density. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief to maintain two separate dwellings—density relief is needed for two dwellings on lot and the apartment is less than S00 sq.ft.-dwelling size relief is needed. The project is located on a O.S6 ac parcel in the Moderate Density zone. Section 179-3-040 dwellings&r 179-5-090 floor area size The applicant proposes to maintain two dwellings where there is a main house and then an existing detached garage with a 576 sq. ft. dwelling unit where S00 sq. ft. is required for a single-family dwelling unit. The site would allow for one single family dwelling. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on October 1S,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 as this dwelling has been used as an office and/or another dwelling by a previous owner. 2. Feasible alternatives are really limited. We've considered them as a Board and we find that they are-reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial as it just seems to blend into the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest the alleged difficulty 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) 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. 32-2023 RICHARD &z STEFANIE MECHANICK, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th Day of October 2023 by the following vote: 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mrs.Palacino,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. MECHANICK-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 5-2023,New Potato Creek Holding,900 State Route 9. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2023 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED NEW POTATO CREEK HOLDING, LLC AGENT(S) BOHLER ENGINEERING &z LANDSCAPE OWNER(S) EVEREST ENTERPRISES LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 900 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 3,910 SQ. FT. CARWASH FACILITY AND A 2,730 SQ. FT. VACUUM CANOPY. THE INTERNALLY LIT MONUMENT SIGN OF 41 SQ.FT.;A WALL SIGN OF 19.01 SQ. FT. WITH ILLUMINATED LETTERS; A TUNNEL ENTRANCE WALL SIGN OF 19.01 SQ. FT. WITH ILLUMINATED LETTERS; 3 DIRECTIONAL SIGN POLES PROPOSED AT 6 FT. IN HEIGHT AND 4.5 SQ. FT. EACH; DUMPSTER WALL SIGN GATE PANELS (ONE 21.7 SQ. FT. PANEL AND ONE 18.3 SQ. FT. PANEL);TWO MENU BOARDS OF 26.5 SQ. FT. EACH;AND A 6 SQ. FT. ENTRANCE SIGN THAT IS 3 FT. IN HEIGHT. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS AND FREESTANDING SIGNS. CROSS REF SP 56-2023;AV 35-2018; SP 37-2018; SP 60-2007 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2023 LOT SIZE 1.72 ACRES TAX MAP NO.296.17-1-47 SECTION 140 CARYN MLODZIANOWSKI,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No.5-2023, New Potato Creek Holding, LLC, Meeting Date: October 1S, 2023 "Project Location: 900 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 3,910 sq. ft. carwash facility and a 2,730 sq. ft. vacuum canopy. The project includes accessory buildings for the mechanicals and associated equipment for the facility. The plans show a freestanding internally lit monument sign of 41 sq. ft.; a wall sign of 19.01 sq. ft. with illuminated letters; a tunnel entrance wall sign of 19.01 sq. ft. with illuminated letters; 3 directional sign poles proposed at 6 ft. in height and 4.5 sq.ft.each;dumpster wall sign gate panels(one 21.7 sq.ft.panel and one IS.3 sq.ft.panel),- two menu boards of 26.5 sq.ft. each; and a 6 sq.ft. entrance sign that is 3 ft.in height. Relief requested for number of wall signs and freestanding signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of wall signs and freestanding signs. The project site is on a 1.64 ac parcel in the Commercial Intensive zone. Section 140 Signs Signage-The plans show a free standing internally lit monument sign of 41 sq. ft. The plans show a wall sign of 19.01 sq.ft.with illuminated letters.Directional sign poles—proposed is 7 at 6 ft.in height and 3 sq. ft. each o The following signs are subject to variance —more than one wall sign: 3 additional wall signs proposed (4 proposed total); more than one freestanding sign: 3 additional freestanding (5 proposed total) ■ Tunnel entrance wall sign 19.01 sq. ft. with illuminated letters —variance more than one wall sign ■ Dumpster wall sign gate panels—one panel 21.7 sq.ft.,one panel IS.3 sq.ft.—variance more than one wall sign ■ 2- Menu board-vinyl applied to acrylic face — each 26.5 sq. ft. —variance more than one free standing sign ■ Entrance sign —proposed at 3 ft. in height at 6 sq. ft. Variance more than one free standing sign and size greater than 4 sq.ft. ■ Gate arm signs —free standing sign only one proposed at a time (drawing does not show location) Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/IS/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. Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be possible to reduce the number of signs and reduce the size of the entrance sign. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The following signs are subject to variance—more than one wall sign: 3 additional wall signs proposed (4 proposed total), more than one freestanding sign: 4 additional freestanding(5 proposed total),entrance direction signs 2 sq.ft.greater than allowed. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal impact on the environmental conditions of the district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant has received an approval for the construction of a new car wash building, a vacuum canopy structure and mechanical structures. The project includes installation of multiple signs for the site. The plans show the location of the signage on the building,freestanding, and the refuse area." MS. MLODZ IANOWSKI-Thank you. Good evening. Caryn Mlodzianowski with Bohler Engineering on behalf of New Potato Creek Holding LLC. As mentioned, we have received Planning Board approval for this project which is re-development of 900 Route 9,the existing Pizzeria Uno for a new Tidal Wave car wash. I will use this to walk through this site and kind of point to where these signs are and what their purposes are. I know it sounds like, quantity wise,there's a lot of signage here,but they're all very small in size and all serve an important purpose. So starting up here,this is the proposed monument sign whose size is in compliance,and we are allowed to have that one. So anything freestanding that would be on that we are seeking an Area Variance for. There is one way finding entry sign. That is the six square foot sign that is hear. Since the monument sign is moved away from that entrance, we do have that way finding sign that is there. This right here is our dumpster enclosure. So each of those doors contain one sign. This falls into the wall sign bucket. So there's two that are there, and then the other two wall signs, one has the name of the business facing Route 9 here, and the other is located at the entrance into the car wash tunnel in the back of the property. So that would face the wooded area that's behind. Moving through the site,so this is where cars are going to come around to the back where they enter and pay. So there are two pay booths in this area,just to allow for more stacking of cars and divide that up,keep things moving along. So each of those will have a menu board so that you know what you're going to be selecting and buying, and then I did want to clarify one thing that may have been a little confusing on the paperwork, but because there are two pay booths with two menu boards, each of these has a gate. So the gate will open, once you pay to proceed, and those gate arms are wrapped in what is I believe to be considered signage. It's very small. So there are two gates that are there, and that is depicted on the last page of the sign package. So, overall,the majority of this signage really won't be within view as it's minimal and it's very far back from the road and any other properties that are there. You're really only going to see the wall sign and this monument sign and the obviously this directional sign out here. The monument sign itself will be smaller,less obtrusive than the sign that's out there today that's taller, and as mentioned much of this signage will be LED internally illuminated as well, but really shouldn't change the character of the neighborhood. It's a commercial area, a Commercial Intensive zone, and basically all of the signage is strictly for way finding and informational purposes. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-What is the D sign on the dumpster? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-So those are to promote their carwash club,their monthly membership. MR.KUHL-That's got nothing to do with the dumpster? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-Nothing to do with the dumpster. It's just a place to have this. MR.KUHL-Okay. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/IS/2023) MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-You can all it hiding the dumpsters.. MR.KUHL-Okay. MR.HENKEL-Is there really a need to have a sign when you're entering the tunnel that says Tidal Wave? I mean once you're in that car wash,you're already paying to go through a car wash which is Tidal Wave. Do you really need to have that sign,too? There's a lot of signage here. That one,to me,what do you need that one for? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-It is a small sign. I understand there's a lot. If that was. MRS. MOORE-Are you talking about the signs that are on the arm? MR.HENKEL-No. I'm talking the ones overhead,going into the tunnel,that says Tidal Wave. I think you know that you're there at that point. I mean I understand there's a lot of need. There's an entry,there's an entry one and there's an exit one. The exit one would be in view of the road,which I have no problem with,even though there's a sign,freestanding sign there already that says it's Tidal Wave. So I have a little problem with that. I also have a little problem with actually the dumpster sign. So that's a lot of signage. God bless you. MR.KEENAN-You also show some freestanding signs,besides the arm signs. MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-G? MR.KEENAN-Yes,G. It shows four freestanding double-sided signs it looks like. MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-So those are portable signs, and it's my understanding those would be not allowed by Code. So they typically have those,but in Queensbury we do not. That's just for the gate. MR.HENKEL-How many signs do you have inside,when you get inside the car wash? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-I don't know. MR. MC CABE-So is this going to be essentially the same as the one in South Glens Falls? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-So operationally essentially yes. As far as the building itself,that look,I mean I don't have their exact signage so I can't say for sure. MR. MC CABE-So you didn't do the signage in South Glens Falls? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-We didn't do the signage in South Glens Falls. Other questions? MR.URRICO-I have a question. Essentially the entrances are going to be the same that they are now,the site entrance? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-The site entrance? Yes. MR. URRICO-What about the entrance to the Spectrum lot next door? There's an entrance from that property onto the next one. Is there signage there? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-So there's,so to the south there's no signage that's there because you're close to the entrance sign, and then as you head in to the north there is a directional sign. So that's the hotel property. MRS. MOORE-Are you asking about? MR.URRICO-I don't know if this is the right venue for it,but my concern is that there's a backup in traffic leading into the car wash preventing people from getting into the Spectrum lot heading south. MRS. MOORE-Right. So I think the Planning Board discussed those elements of Site Plan Review, and I'll let her speak,that the way it's designed is that stacking is internal to the site,and so it's just,they're all on stop lines and stop signs. MR. URRICO-Okay. MR. HENKEL-And look what happens to the car wash on Quaker Road during the winter? I mean obviously we're going to have more car washes now so it should alleviate that,but there's been numerous accidents in front of Della because of people running into the back of somebody because they're in the road waiting to go. The good thing is there's going to be more car washes now. So that should alleviate it. 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-And there is about a 25 car stack. MR. KUHL-Let me ask you a question about your F-4 sign. I mean that's the entrance that Roy was just concerned about,because that's a row of four stores. You're looking to really get your customers off of Route 9 where your E-1 sign is. Correct? I mean that's your main entrance into your car wash. MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-Yes. MR.KUHL-Correct? That F-4 sign is just a directional from four stores. They come into those four stores through your entrance, all right? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-Okay. MR.KUHL-Now John's concern is that you have too many signs. I believe that F-4 should go away and I believe the B-2,because you've got people in. They've gone into the story board. They've put their money in. They're going through it. They're going to go. You don't need the B-2,and as far as I'm concerned you don't need that F-4,because the traffic that's coming that way is minimal. Your main drive is off of Route 9 which is your E-1 sign. That's where 900/o or 99%or whatever percent you want to call it,is going to be coming into your facility. To satisfy my co-worker here,I don't think you need the F-4,and you also don't need the B-2. MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-We can discuss the B-2. I think that's probably one they're willing to give up. So if that's the majority here tonight, we can discuss that. That F-4 is a small directional sign, and I understand it,it's allowed right now. MR. KUHL-It's a directional sign coming from storefronts with four stores. It's not a directional sign off Route 9. Correct? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-Yes,but it's allowed as a directional sign. MR.KUHL-I'm sorry? MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-It's allowed as a directional sign MR.KUHL-Many things are allowed,but you're asking for too many signs. MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-But I believe the directional signs don't need a variance. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Other questions? 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 would like to comment on this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No,there's no written comments. 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 Roy. MRS.MOO RE-Before you start that,can I read the directional signage? So there's clarification about what directional signage is? MR. MC CABE-Sure. MRS. MOORE-Okay. So"on premise,directional and/or instructional signage for the convenience of the general public,identifying public parking areas,loading zones, entrances and exits, self-service areas and similar signs,internally illuminated or non-illuminated,not to exceed four square feet.Where a portion of a sign is text required by law or regulation,the total area may be increased to a maximum of six square feet per face. Business names or personal names shall be allowed, not to include advertising messages. A maximum height of six feet shall be allowed, except that, where required for public safety and/or by permission of enforcement officers, a maximum height of 10 feet may be allowed." So as long as it's four square feet or less and less than six feet, it's allowed without, that's not part of this variance. You can suggest that they not have that,but,okay. Thanks. MR. MC CABE-Roy? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) MR. URRICO-I think we have too many signs and I'd like to see some of them eliminated altogether because you're talking about the menu sign board,we don't need two. We can do one,and you want more than one freestanding sign. That's something that we could look at,too. If we can't look at the directional signs,then I think we have to look at the others. MRS. MOORE-So I guess there is one directional signage that you can look at, and that's the one that's closest to the road because that exceeds the four square feet. MR. URRICO-Well like I said,I want to see some elimination of signs. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I agree that it seems very much an overkill with signage. I would hope that those two, the door signs for the storage area,the dumpster area,hopefully the wait is not that long that the customers are going to have to sit there and read signs,that they're going to be able to get in and get through and get out. Sometimes I think less is more, and in this case I think less is called for,particularly those two,but also the wraps on the gates. At that point,and I've been through car washes,I'm not looking to see what's there. I just want that gate to move so I can get in and get my car washed. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I think at a minimum lose B.2 and the dumpster panel graphics aren't necessary. That's the only ones that I'd want to see gone. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-The tunnel entrance wall sign has to go and the dumpster wall signs have to go,and then I would approve it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I think I've said my piece on it., Definitely the entrance Tidal Wave should go and also a have a little problem with the dumpster signs. Other than that, I understand there needs to be a lot of signage because of the menu board and all that,but those are definitely critical to me. MR.KUHL-Yes,I can't see F-5 and F-7 and B-2. I think that they're overkill. MR. MC CABE-So you don't have a lot of friends here. You've got a couple of choices. We can postpone to another time,give you a chance to take a look at things and try to reduce the signs. You can call for a vote,but that's not going to go well. I guess you could make an attempt to reduce the signs right now,but I think it'll be better if you take a more comprehensive look at it and approach it in that manner. MS.MLODZIANOWSKI-I think we're ready to make a proposal to reduce some of this. I hear the majority feel that it's just too much signage. What they would be willing to do is lose the signs on their dumpster enclosure. I understand they're up closer to the front of the site. So we would be amenable to that. I don't know if is a majority or not. I heard one comment about the wraps on the gates themselves in the back. So I would be interested in where everyone else stands on that, just because I only heard that mentioned once, and we would be willing to lose the Tidal Wave Auto Spa B-2 sign on the back of the building as well. MR. MC CABE-So that's three signs plus the wraps? MS.MLODZIANOWSKI-I'd be curious to knowthe others'opinions on the wraps,but the two dumpsters and the back wall sign. MR.HENKEL-That would satisfy me. MR.KEENAN-Yes,I'd be okay with that. MR.HENKEL-The wrap's okay. MRS. MOORE-You're okay with the wraps? MR.HENKEL-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So we'll try it one more time. So, Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I would be all right with it. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-Yes. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes. MR. MC CABE-And I'll go for it,also. So,Jim,I wonder if you'd craft us up a motion here. MRS. MOORE-I just want to clarify that you said it's okay to keep the wrap. MR.HENKEL-Yes. MRS. MOORE-Okay. All right. MR. UNDERWOOD-Okay. I guess we'll do SEQRA first. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 5-2023. APPLICANT NAME: NEW POTATO CREEK HOLDING LLC 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, AND THE AMENDMENTS DISCUSSED AMONGST THE BOARD THIS EVENING, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th Day of October 2023,by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-So before you make your motion, I would add to that motion, and the amendment discussed this evening. You can just say and the amendments discussed this evening because right now that whole. MR. MC CABE-So there's a lawsuit pending. So that's the safe way to do this. AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE Jim? The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from New Potato Creek Holding LLC. Applicant proposes construction of a 3,910 sq.ft. carwash facility and a 2,730 sq.ft. vacuum canopy. The project includes accessory buildings for the mechanicals and associated equipment for the facility. The plans show a freestanding internally lit monument sign of 41 sq.ft.,- a wall sign of 19.01 sq. ft. with illuminated letters; a tunnel entrance wall sign of 19.01 sq. ft. with illuminated letters; 3 directional sign poles proposed at 6 ft. in height and 4.5 sq. ft. each; dumpster wall sign gate panels (one 21.7 sq.ft.panel and one IS.3 sq.ft.panel);two menu boards of 26.5 sq.ft.each;and a 6 sq.ft.entrance sign that is 3 ft.in height. Relief requested for number of wall signs and freestanding signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of wall signs and freestanding signs. The project site is on a 1.64 ac parcel in the Commercial Intensive zone. Section 140 Signs Signage-The plans show a freestanding internally lit monument sign of 41 sq. ft. The plans show a wall sign of 19.01 sq.ft.with illuminated letters.Directional sign poles—proposed is 7 at 6 ft.in height and 3 sq. ft. each. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) o The following signs are subject to variance -more than one wall sign: 3 additional wall signs proposed (4 proposed total); more than one freestanding sign: 3 additional freestanding (5 proposed total). b 01 ' one 11 sig t Pumpstef wall sign gate panels one panel 21.�sq.4.,one panel 18.i sq.4. — mofo than v, o r.,11 ■ 2- Menu board-vinyl applied to acrylic face - each 26.5 sq. ft. -variance more than one freestanding sign ■ Entrance sign - proposed at 3 ft. in height at 6 sq. ft. Variance more than one freestanding sign and size greater than 4 sq.ft. ■ Gate arm signs -free standing sign only one proposed at a time (drawing does not show location) SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No.5-2023.Applicant Name:New Potato Creek Holding LLC 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, and the amendments discussed amongst the Board this evening, a Negative Declaration„Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th Day of October 2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,October 1S,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. 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? With alterations to the original request we find there will not be any negative effects as a result of the Sign Variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We've removed two of the wall signs, removed the signs on the dumpsters,and the wall sign identified as B2. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Yes, it would be considered substantial, but most of the signage is internal so it's not going to have an effect on the neighborhood or nearby traffic. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes, it is because of the amount of signage necessary to direct traffic into this facility. 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: Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. (ZBA Board Member does Dot Deed to read the followingA through F): A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one(1)year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park,the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency(APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/2023) C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits,including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency,Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE 5-2023, NEW POTATO CREEK HOLDING LLC,Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan: Duly adopted this 18th Day of October 2023,by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Before you call your vote,I would just clarify that the wall sign that you're removing is the one that's identified as B2. MR. UNDERWOOD-On the back side. MR.HENKEL-The entrance. MRS. MOORE-Identified as B2. AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mr. Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr. Urrico ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MS. MLODZIANOWSKI-Thankyou. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 41-2023,Gary Higley,23 Jay Road. AREA VARIANCE NO.41-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 GARY HIGLEY AGENT(S) HUTCHINS ENGINEERING OWNER(S) HIGLEY LAKE PROPERTIES LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 23 JAY ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 137 SQ. FT. SCREENED PORCH ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME. THE EXISTING HOME IS 2,448 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT AND THE EXISTING DECK IS 1,218 SQ.FT. A PORTION OF THE DECK IS TO BE REPLACED WITH THE SCREEN PORCH. THE EXISTING FLOOR AREA IS 4,306 SQ.FT.WHERE THE NEW FLOR AREA IS TO BE 4,443 SQ.FT. THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS ARE TO REMAIN AS IS. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 64-2- 2023; AV 23-2020; SP 30-2020; AV 57-2019; SP 77-2019; AV 1422-21421 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.23 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.10-1-14 SECTION 179-4-080;179- 3-040 GARY HIGLEY,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area 41-2023, Gary Higley, Meeting Date: October IS, 2023 "Project Location: 23 Jay Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 137 sq. ft. screened porch addition to an existing home. The existing home is 2,448 sq.ft.footprint and the existing deck is 1,218 sq. ft. A portion of the deck is to be replaced with the screen porch. The existing floor area is 4,306 sq. ft. where the new floor area is to be 4,443 sq. ft. The existing site conditions are to remain as is. Site plan for new floor area. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of an enclosed porch. The project is located on a 0.23 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential Zone. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-OSO porches The enclosed porch is to be 35.6 ft.from the shoreline of Glen Lake where a 50 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the location of the existing home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The relief requested from the shoreline is 11.4 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have minimal to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct an enclosed porch addition on top of a portion of the existing deck. The plans show the location of the addition and existing site conditions. The plans indicate there are existing plantings to remain." MR. URRICO-And the Queensbury 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 passed seven,zero on October 17,2023. MR.HIGLEY-Good evening. My name is Gary Higley and I'm asking to screen in a section of my deck. I live on a non-conforming lot. So anything I do I have to come in front of you as a Board for your approval. I'm not making any changes. I'm just enclosing one section. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? It seems pretty straightforward. 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 that would like to comment on this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comments. MR. MC CABE-So at this time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Mary. MRS. PALACINO-I would have no difficulty with this. It seems very straightforward. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I don't have any issues with the project. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No issues. MR. MC CABE John? MR.HENKEL-It's not over the floor area ratio and it's a simple request. I'm on board. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-Are we going to see you next year,too? MR.HIGLEY-Probably. MR.KUHL-I have no issues. MR.HIGLEY-I've already had three surveys done on my property in the last five years. MR.KUHL-I can understand how you want to put a screened in porch. I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the application. MR. MC CABE-And there's nothing being done here that hasn't already been done, other than put some screening up. So in favor of the project. So,Bob,I wonder if you could fashion us up a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Gary Higley. Applicant proposes to construct a 137 sq. ft. screened porch addition to an existing home. The existing home is 2,44E sq. ft. footprint and the existing deck is 1,21E sq. ft. A portion of the deck is to be replaced with the screen porch. The existing floor area is 4,306 sq. ft. where the new floor area is to be 4,443 sq.ft. The existing site conditions are to remain as is. Site plan for new floor area. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for the construction of an enclosed porch. The project is located on a 0.23 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential Zone. 179-3-040 dimensional,179-4-OSO porches... The enclosed porch is to be 35.6 ft.from the shoreline of Glen Lake where a 50 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on October 1S,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 we're simply screening in an existing porch. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board and we find this reasonable and a minimal request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's screening in an existing porch. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created, but it's simply in line with what the applicant wants to do. 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. 41-2023 GARY HIGLEY,Introduced by Robert Keenan,who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 18th Day of October 2023 by the following vote: 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/2023) AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR.MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. The next application is AV 42-2023,John Graziano, 195 Assembly Point Road. AREA VARIANCE NO.42-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II JOHN GRAZIANO OWNER(S) JOHN A. GRAZIANO REVOCABLE TRUST ZONING WR LOCATION 195 ASSEMBLY POINT RD. APPLICANT HAS AN EXISTING 125 SQ.FT.SHED TO BE MAINTAINED IN A CURRENT NON- COMPLAINT LOCATION. THE APPLICANT HAD A SITE PLAN AND AN AREA VARIANCE APPROVED IN 2021 FOR AN ADDITION TO THE EXISTING HOME WITH THE SHED TO BE RELOCATED TO A COMPLIANT LOCATION. THE HOME OF 3,108 SQ.FT.FOOTPRINT WITH PORCH/DECK AREA OF 585 SQ. FT. ARE TO REMAIN. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 31-2021; SP 30-2021 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2023 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.48 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-2-1 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-020 JOHN GRAZIANO,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 42-2023,John Graziano, Meeting Date: October IS, 2023 "Project Location 195 Assembly Point Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has an existing 125 sq. ft. shed to be maintained in a current non-compliant location. The applicant had a site plan and an area variance approved in 2021 for an addition to the existing home with the shed to be relocated to a compliant location. The home of 3,108 sq. ft. footprint with porch/deck area of 585 sq. ft. are to remain. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for an existing shed to remain in its current location. The project is located on a OAS ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 WR,179-5-020 sheds The shed is to remain at 1.4 ft.from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the location of the existing shed and home. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The relief is for I8.6 feet to the side. 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 to no impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to maintain an existing 125 sq. ft. shed on the property in the existing location. The applicant received a variance in 2021 for additions to an existing home where the additions required setback relief. The original proposal was moving the shed to a compliant location. The applicant has 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) indicated this would place the shed in the middle of the property. The plans show the pictures of the shed and the shed in the current location." MR. GRAZIANO-My name is John Graziano. Obviously I'm here looking for relief to keep an existing shed where it's been for the last 15 years. In that picture that's up there,you can see the shed where it is currently down at the bottom in the middle, and the site plan,when it was approved,has the shed being moved on the other side of the driveway right next to the house,and because of the placement of the septic system and everything it really doesn't fit right next to the house. This shed is 15 years old,been there for 15 years,and the neighbor has supplied a letter that he doesn't have an issue with the shed being there. It's compliant,or it's not compliant,but it's common in the whole neighborhood that there's sheds within two feet of the property line throughout the entire Assembly Point. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? MRS. PALACINO-I have a question. When you applied for the variance a year ago to put the addition onto your structure,the understanding that that shed would be moved.. MR. GRAZIANO-That's correct. Yes, at the last, when I applied for that variance I needed a setback variance because I built the house out toward the back and stayed in the same,but we did everything when we did the site plan when we designed the house so that we didn't need any additional variances. So we took the density,in terms of square footage,every other thing we did was to make sure that we protected the lake first off and did not request any other variances. At the time,it was suggested,when the staff met with the engineers and the architects at the time that the shed be moved,and we didn't think it was going to be an issue at the time. When you look at that picture it doesn't appear that it's going to be an issue, but if you look at the site,it's a couple of feet from the house. So it really can't go there long-term. So it was either a matter of I remove it and throw it away or it stays where it is. MRS. PALACINO-Was the shed there when you purchased the property or did you put it on once you? MR. GRAZIANO-No. I've only owned the property for three years. That shed has been there over 15 years. MRS.PALACINO-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 that would like to comment on this particular project? Roy,we have some written communication? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes. "I am writing in support of the variance application for 195 Assembly Point Rd. to keep an existing shed in place. As the abutting southern property owner and only neighbor impacted by the present location of the storage shed, I have no issue with it remaining in place. The shed has been in place for approximately 20 years and has little to no impact on our property. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely,Frank Perrotta" 60 Knox Road. 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 John. MR.HENKEL-Since you don't really have any problem with your neighbor next door,if he had a problem then it would be a little bit of a problem,but since there's no problem with him,it's no problem with me. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's fine where it is. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,I don't have an issue with it. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I don't have an issue with it. I understand where it's placed. MR. MC CABE-Roy? 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm okay with it. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-Yes,I have no issues,Mr. Chairman. MR. MC CABE-And it's been there a long time. I don't see any reason to move it at this particular time. So with that in mind I'm going to ask Mary to craft a motion for us. MRS.PALACINO-Sure. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from John Graziano. Applicant has an existing 125 sq. ft. shed to be maintained in a current non-compliant location. The applicant had a site plan and an area variance approved in 2021 for an addition to the existing home with the shed to be relocated to a compliant location. The home of 3,10S sq. ft. footprint with porch/deck area of 5S5 sq.ft. are to remain. Relief is requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for an existing shed to remain in its current location. The project is located on a 0AS ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 WR,179-5-020 sheds The shed is to remain at 1.4 ft.from the side property line where a 20 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on October 1S,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. The shed has been in its location for many years and the neighbors do not have any objection to it. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered and are reasonable. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because of the long-standing nature of the shed where it is. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created because it was there when the present owner purchased the property. 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. 42-2023 JOHN GRAZIANO, Introduced by Mary Palacino, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th Day of October 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr.Keenan,Mrs.Palacino,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/18/2023) MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. GRAZIANO-Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 43-2023,Chris Roglieri,40 North Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 43-2023 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II KRIS D. ROGLIERI AGENT(S) JONATHAN C. LAPPER OWNER(S) KRIS D. ROGLIERI ZONING MDR LOCATION 40 NORTH RD APPLICANT PROPOSES AN 8,276 SQ. FT. TWO-STORY DETACHED 11 BAY GARAGE BUILDING FOR THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES, INCLUDING A WORKSHOP AREA AND WASH AREA. THE PROJECT INCLUDES RETROFITTING AN EXISTING 3,000 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE TO AN ACCESSORY INDOOR GYM. THE EXISTING HOME IS 6,148.6 SQ. FT. FOOTPRINT, THERE ARE FOUR EXISTING ACCESSORY STRUCTURES (INCLUDING A WOODSHED, TWO SHEDS WITH DOOR WIDTH OF 8 FT., AND AN EXISTING DETACHED GARAGE). THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE SHED#1 AND REDUCE DOOR WIDTH OF SHED #2 TO LESS THAN 6 FT. AS BOTH ARE CONSIDERED GARAGES DUE TO THE WIDTH. THE SITE HAS AN OUTDOOR POOL AREA,POND,AND GAZEBO TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF IS REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF GARAGES, NUMBER OF BAY DOORS,SIZE OF GARAGE,AND NUMBER OF ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. CROSS REF AV 49-2018;AV 17-2018;AV 79-2017 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING OCTOBER 2023 LOT SIZE 14.11 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.7-1-37 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-020 JON LAPPER&ANTHONY CARUSO, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.43-2023,Kris D. Roglieri,Meeting Date: October IS,h,2023 "Project Location: 40 North Rd.,Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes an 8,276 sq.ft.two-story detached 11 bay garage building for the storage of vehicles,including a workshop area and wash area. The project includes retrofitting an existing 3,000 sq. ft. detached garage to an accessory indoor gym. The existing home is 6,148.6 sq. ft. footprint, there are four existing accessory structures (including a woodshed,two sheds with door width of 8 ft., and an existing detached garage). The applicant proposes to remove Shed#1 and reduce door width of Shed#2 to less than 6 ft. as both are considered garages due to door width. The site has an outdoor pool area,pond, and gazebo to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for number of garages, number of bay doors, size of garage, and number and size of accessory structures. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of garages, number of bay doors, size of garage, and number of accessory structures. The project is located on a 14.11 ac in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures The applicant proposes to construct a two-story 8,276 sq. ft. detached garage with 11 bays; relief is for a garage greater than 2,200 sq. ft. and a garage with more than three bays. Relief is also requested for more than one garage as the home has an existing garage and detached garage. Relief is requested for three accessory structures where maximum of three is allowed with a total square foot of 750 sq. ft. —the site has woodshed of 482 sq. ft., a shed of 283 sq. ft., a gazebo of 95 sq. ft., and a gym of 3038.1 sq. ft. —total of 3898.1 sq.ft.. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of garages and accessory buildings. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief may be substantial relevant to the code. Relief requested for three garages, a garage within excess of 8 bays, 6076 sq. ft. for oversized garage,relief for four accessory structures,relief for 3148.1 sq.ft.in excess of accessory structure size. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may be considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the site or area. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a two-story 5,276 sq.ft.garage to house the applicant's car collection. The plans show the location of the new garage,the home and other structures on the site." MR.ZAPPER-Good evening,everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper. The applicant,Kris Roglieri,is behind me,and the builder,Anthony Caruso,next tome. Clearly this is a unique application,not something you see or present in Queensbury at all times,but there's a unique set of facts and circumstances here because we have a 14 acre lot that is very well shielded. So in terms of the balancing test, granted this isn't something that everybody wants,but the Code provision for the 2200 square foot garage certainly didn't contemplate a 14 acre site, and in the MDR zone,not that anyone would do it on this beautiful site in this beautiful chateau, but you could have 14 homes or 10 homes and a cul de sac. This could have been developed very differently,but the way it is,it is buffered on all sides. A number of the neighbors are here to support the application. It's just not something that's going to be seen off site. The land to the north is County property and it's designed architecturally to be compatible with that beautiful home that's been on the site since the 60's. The purpose is for Kris's very unique car collection and very expensive cars that he'd like to have on his site where they're secure but it's a hobby. It's certainly not a business. Laura asked me that question. It's a hobby and he's built a structure that holds this collection just for his personal use and nothing that's going to impact the neighborhood because of where it is in the center of this large site. MR. MC CABE-Does anyone have questions of the applicant? MR.KUHL-I have a question. Are you going to hard surface around? Is it going to be asphalt? MR. ZAPPER-Pavers. MR. CARUSO-Anthony Caruso,Caruso Home Builders. We plan on doing pavers. MR.KUHL-Pavers> MR. CARUSO-Yes. MR. KUHL-Mr. Lapper,you said only expensive cars are going in there. A Vega won't go in there or a Volkswagen won't go in there? MR. ZAPPER-I didn't hear a Vega on the list when I asked about all the cars. MR. KUHL-Expensive is not the thing. What you're saying is the gentleman has got a car collection. Right? MR. ZAPPER-He's involved with the Saratoga Auto Museum. MR.KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MRS. PALACINO-Would you consider reducing the number of out buildings that are there? I'm looking at a wood shed, a garage. You're looking to convert one into a gym. It just seems, and I've been on the property. I know how gorgeous that area is. If I can repeat myself from earlier this evening, sometimes less is more, and it just seems like you seem to be adding to the number of out buildings on that beautiful piece of property. MR.ZAPPER-So anticipating that question,when we started this,there is one out building,one shed that is going to be eliminated, but I certainly agree with you with the car wash that less is more. What's different in this application is that if you think about this,it's a country estate, that having a woodshed, having a separate gym,I mean on a 14 acre site where, again,you could have 14 homes,and this one is very private and the neighbors don't see it,it's just different than another situation if we had a two acre lot,you know,with a subdivision,I'd absolutely agree with you,but a 14 acre buffered site,if you have an estate,if you will, you want to have these out buildings, and since nobody can see them, it really doesn't impact anybody. It's kind of grand,but appropriate. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) MR. KEENAN Just more of a comment. We denied the next door neighbors a second house on their property. This is even bigger. It essentially is more than a house with a kitchen and two baths, and I know there's no bedroom,but it's more a comment than anything. It's a lot,and I understand it's a 14 acre lot. MR. MC CABE-It doesn't fit the criteria,I'm asking Staff,it doesn't fit the criteria of a second residence? MRS. MOO RE-It doesn't have any elements of a residential facility, and just as a comment. That project, that was withdrawn. So you didn't deny it. It was withdrawn. MR.KEENAN-That's true. MR. ZAPPER-Perhaps it would be helpful if I put Kris on to just tell you about the collection. MR. MC CABE-Not really. It's not really pertinent. Other questions? 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 that would like to speak on this particular project? Sure. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED STEPHEN REDMOND MR. REDMOND-Good evening. My name is Stephen Redmond. I live at 19 North Road. So I'm a neighbor, and I have no reservations about this project. You can't see his home from the road,from any of the neighborhood there. There's plenty of space on that property. It's wooded. I mean the detached garage that was mentioned,you can't even see it from the house. I mean it's a very large piece of property. So I'm just here to support it. MR. MC CABE-Sure. MR. REDMOND-Thank you. DAVID ABODEELY MR.ABODEELY-Good evening. I'm David Abodeely. I live right next door to the property. As long as, I discussed with the builder, there's a full foundation. There are water issues in the area. So the only request we make sure all the perc tests are done so the water issue can be addressed. Other than that,full support of this. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So,Roy,do we have anything written? MR. URRICO-Yes. There is one letter. "As the owners of neighboring property to the above variance application, Neil and Sandra Rypkema have no opposition to the above proposed project. The subject property is completely hidden from view of the neighborhood. Plus there is plenty of land available for the project. As such we feel there will be no negative impact to the area. Sincerely, Neil Rypkema" They didn't give an address. 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 John. MR. HENKEL-Yes,like we've said,this is a large piece of property. It's just nice to see he's coming for a variance before he builds it. It's a great idea. So I'd be on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR.KUHL-This is a unique application, a unique property. It really is. We try not to put round pegs in square holes,but this is a round peg in a round hole,and I'd be in favor of the way it's presented,as long as the gentleman puts in a Volkswagen or two. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-At first examination this looked like a lot,but when you look closer at the project,the size of the property and the way it's being constructed,hidden from view,I think it's a nice project. MR. MC CABE-Mary? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/1S/2023) MRS. PALACINO-I would have no difficulty approving it,but I would like to see an Edsel in there. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,I would approve the project. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's not as many cars as Jim Taylor's collection, but it's approaching that number. So I hope it's big enough that you're not going to have to ask for another addition. MR. MC CABE-So when I first considered this,I thought,wow,I don't think the Mazda dealer,not that far away, has that many bays, but the Mazda's dealer's a lot more viewable than this property. This certainly is a unique property, and perhaps with the large buildings on it,it'll prevent it from every being 10,one acre lots. So I'll approve this also. So I wonder,Ron,if I could get you to fashion 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 Kris D.Roglieri. Applicant proposes an 5,276 sq. ft. two-story detached 11 bay garage building for the storage of vehicles, including a workshop area and wash area. The project includes retrofitting an existing 3,000 sq. ft. detached garage to an accessory indoor gym. The existing home is 6,145.6 sq. ft. footprint, there are four existing accessory structures (including a woodshed,two sheds with door width of S ft., and an existing detached garage).The applicant proposes to remove Shed#1 and reduce door width of Shed#2 to less than 6 ft.as both are considered garages due to door width.The site has an outdoor pool area,pond,and gazebo to remain with no changes. Relief is requested for number of garages,number of bay doors, size of garage, and number of accessory structures. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of garages, number of bay doors, size of garage, and number of accessory structures. The project is located on a 14.11 ac in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures The applicant proposes to construct a two-story 5,276 sq. ft. detached garage with 11 bays; relief is for a garage greater than 2,200 sq. ft. and a garage with more than three bays. Relief is also requested for more than one garage as the home has an existing garage and detached garage. Relief is requested for three accessory structures where maximum of three is allowed with a total square feet of 750 sq.ft.—the site has woodshed of 4S2 sq.ft.,a shed of 2S3 sq.ft.,a gazebo of 95 sq.ft.,and a gym of 3035.1 sq.ft.—total of 3S9S.1 sq.ft. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on October 1S,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 as the property size of 14 plus acres really supports this project. 2. Feasible alternatives are really, you might say they're limited and have been considered by the Board. We consider them reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial based on the size of the property. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. We could suggest the alleged difficulty is self-created but again the size of the property supports the project. 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; 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 10/I8/2023) 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. 43-2023 KRIS D.ROGLIERI,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th Day of October 2023 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mrs.Palacino,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood, Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody. MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. So I'll make a motion that we close tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF OCTOBER 18`h, 2023, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this IS"day of October,2023,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly MRS. MOORE-So just make sure that you do check your emails. There's training that has been issued via email and you're all supposed to comply with it. It's mostly a PowerPoint. Some of it might be a video, and then you need to sign a worksheet that we have as well as provide the answer sheet and copies to us. Check it out. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 24