Loading...
03-27-2024 REVISED (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH27TH 2O24 INDEX Area Variance No.16-2024 Redbud Development,Inc. 1. FURTHER TABLED Tax Map No.226.19-1-S2 Sign Variance No.2-2024 Saxton Sign/Hannoush Jewelers 6. Tax Map No.296.9-1-10.2 Area Variance No.12-2024 Reece Rudolph 9. Tax Map No.2S9.6-1-34 Area Variance No.13-2024 Durante Enterprises Inc. 12. Tax Map No.239.1E-1-44&239.1S-1-47 Sign Variance No. 3-2024 Saratoga Eagle Beverage 15. Tax Map No. 302.E-1-41 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 03/27/2024) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MARCH 27,2024 7.00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL ROBERT KEENAN MARY PALACINO,ALTERNATE MEMBERS ABSENT RICHARD CIPPERLY RONALD KUHL 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 March 27`h, 2024. If you haven't been here before, our procedure's simple. There should bean agenda on the back table. We'll call each application up,read the application into our record, allow the applicant to present his case. We'll question the applicant. If a public hearing has been advertised we'll open the public hearing, take input from the public, close the public hearing, poll the Board, and then we'll proceed accordingly. So our first case is Redbud Development,AV 16-2024. TABLED ITEM: AREA VARIANCE NO. 16-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT INC. AGENT(S) GEFF REDICK OWNER(S) LAKE PARKWAY RETREAT LLC ZONING WR LOCATION 226 LAKE PARKWAY APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A 565 SQ. FT. PAVILION ADDITION TO AN EXISTING HOME AND ALTER TWO DORMERS OF THE HOME. THE PROJECT WORK INCLUDES IMPROVING PERMEABILITY ON THE SITE, A NEW PLANTING PLAN,UPDATED PATIO WALKWAY AREAS,RETAINING WALL NEAR HOT TUB AREA AND NEW BOULDER WALLS ON THE SITE. PROJECT INCLUDES EXISTING AND NEW STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. THE SHORELINE AREA IS TO BE IMPROVED WITH PLANTINGS NAD RETAINING WALL. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN THE CEA AND HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT. OF THE SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS,FLOOR AREA,AND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SETBACKS. CROSS REF SP 13-2024; AV 72-2005; SP 53-2005 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2O24 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.62 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 226.19-1-82 SECTION 179-3-040;147 MATT DENNIS,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 16-2024,Redbud Development,Inc., Meeting Date: March 20,2024 "Project Location: 226 Lake Parkway Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to construct a 565 sq. ft. pavilion addition to an existing home and alter two dormers of the home. The project work includes improving permeability on the site, a new planting plan,updated patio walkway areas,retaining wall near hot tub area and new boulder walls on the site. Project includes existing and new stormwater management. The shoreline area is to be improved with plantings and retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft. of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks,floor area, and stormwater management setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,floor area, and stormwater management setbacks. The project is located on a 0.62 ac site in the Waterfront residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-6-065 new floor area, The applicant proposes a new open side pavilion addition to the existing home to be 13 ft. S inches from the south side of the home where a 20 ft.setback is required,a covered walkway is to be 13 ft.5 inches from 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) the south side setback. The shoreline setback is to be 36 ft.7 inches where a 50 ft. setback is required. The new stormwater management along the retaining wall area is less than 35 ft. The new floor area is to be 9,292 sq. ft. where the maximum allowed is 5,929 sq. ft. and existing is 5,740 sq. ft. (house built in 2005 may not have included basement area in original floor area). 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 minor relevant to the code. Relief for side setback of the pavilion is 6 ft.4 inches,the covered exterior access for basement is 13 ft. 5 inches, the shoreline setback is 13 feet 5 inches. Floor area relief 3,363 sf remainder new floor area is for an outdoor pavilion of 565 sf(house built in 2005 may not have included basement area in original floor area). Relief is requested for stormwater device less than 35 ft. to the shoreline. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project maybe considered to have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is for an open side pavilion of 565 sf addition, a covered access entry for basement and site alterations to improve the shoreline planting and stormwater management for the site. The plans show the location of the addition and walkway including elevation renditions. The plans also show the extensive planting and site work to improve the shoreline buffer and stormwater management." MR. URRICO-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 five zero on March 19`h,2024. MR.DENNIS-Good evening. My name's Matt Dennis. I'm from Redbud Development,representing Dave Prescott at 226 Lake Parkway. As was just stated,the house was built about 20 years ago. There hadn't been a ton of improvements made upon the house since it was built. The Prescotts purchased the house approximately three years ago and got ready to make the improvements. The current use is a private residential that will remain unchanged. We're proposing construction of several things. First, as previously mentioned, a covered outdoor living space,which you can see on the front here, on the top left portion of the house, and there are several goals for this particular space. First is to provide some shade for the Prescotts and their family and friends to gather during the hot summer months. Right now the space is fully exposed. So giving them a space to go outside and actually enjoy the outdoors on the hotter days and get some shade is the primary focus here. Next is to create a covered basement access,which is actually just below in that plan,again,the front left portion of the house. Currently there's only one point of access in the basement. You have to go through the house. So adding this additional access makes it easier for potential facilities in the future and any kind of changes to the basement. It just gives them a better point of access or secondary point of access. Also cover this space as well, make sure that, considering this would be lower, we want to make sure we try to keep as much rainwater out of it. We are going to have a drain at the bottom of the stairs,but covering it will again help us prevent water from getting towards the house. Next on the list is some new dormers on the house, which can be seen in a separate packet, which would be the architectural drawings. So currently the bedrooms are very dark, and the current size of the dormers doesn't necessarily allow for the proper, out toward the lake. So changing dormers makes them a little bit bigger,and the window size actually allows a little bit more light in. It allows us to create the right furniture layout that we're looking for, and also makes the A frame in front of the house more prominent. Next on the list was (lost words) also reducing the impervious surfaces,reducing runoff on the site. We're also looking to do some shoreline mitigation as well. If you go to the existing conditions photos,you can see what the current condition of the shoreline is. As of right now it's in a very busy part of the lake in terms of boat traffic. Unfortunately it's not going to get any better as the years go by. So creating a better shoreline buffer to limit the amount of erosion from boat waves is definitely a focus here. There's currently no wall or any kind of shoreline or anything along the shoreline to really help with knocking down wave action. The Code suggests a short wall. We believe 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) this is too short. The Code suggests IS inches. We're looking to go up to 4S inches with this wall, and we're also looking to have a batter to the wall for the passage of marine life, ducks, turtles, anything like that to actually be able to move up over the wall. So it's not just going to be a straight barrier wall to prevent the movement of marine wildlife. Next is the stormwater management systems. There are currently,there is current stormwater management on site,but we don't have information as to what it is. So we want to make sure that this is brought up to Code. Considering how the weather has been over the last several years, again, it doesn't seem to be getting any better, there's lots more frequent, intense rain events. So we want to make sure that the proposed system is going to go above and beyond to capture all the stormwater from the house and all the impervious surfaces and then a significant amount more, and then lastly we want to introduce a significant portion of native plantings as well to,Number One,help the shoreline buffer mitigation, as well as to stabilize that steep slope going down to the proposed sea wall that we have, and then I guess in closing again this is, but the Town Engineer provided comments that generally approves of the stormwater design with some very minor revisions and I believe on that point we'll open it up for questions from you guys. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing was advertised. I don't think I opened it up last week. So I'll do that formally right now and see if there's anybody out there who would like to address us on this particular project. Chris? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED CHRIS NAVITSKY MR. NAVITSKY-Thank you. Good evening,Board. Chris Navitsky,Lake George Waterkeeper. It's my opinion that the project does not provide the balance, although there is the,you know, discussion of the shoreline planting and stormwater which would be required anyway. We have concerns regarding this application,as it requests two of the three variances that can have the greatest impact to the lake,the floor area ratio and shoreline setbacks, and the property is already, and will remain, non-compliant for permeability. All this within the Critical Environmental Area surrounding Lake George and in an area experiencing harmful algae blooms,we really want to provide more protection for the lake, and this also raises a greater concern regarding a third variance for requests on reducing the setback for adequate stormwater treatment,which was determined by the Lake George Park Commission. This is an instance of the property owner walking development towards the lake and really not paying attention,fully,to the measures implemented for the protection of natural resources. The variances are substantial, especially within the Critical Environmental Area,such as 300/o for the shoreline setback for a seasonal covered patio that is not really necessary for the enjoyment of the lake. The variances will result in adverse impact to the environment through replacement of a vegetative cover with hard scape within the shoreline setback and reducing the required setback to provide adequate stormwater treatment, especially on a property that fails to meet the required permeability. So we feel that this application should at least be tabled for improvements or denied as is right now due to a lack of balance, the substantiality of the variances, and increased impact. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-Sure. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular project? Do we have anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-There's one letter. This is, "Permeable surfaces are extremely important on lakefront properties. Soil and roots filter the excess nutrients and pollutants from going into the lake,contributing to the algae growth. I am asking the Board to reject these proposals. Thankyou." That's Carol Hunt and I don't have an address here. So I'm not sure where,it came through the website,right? MS. DWWR-Correct. MR. URRICO-That's it. MR.MC CABE-So do you guys have any rebuttal,or anything to say? So,just real quick,you said you were going to reduce permeability,but there wasn't much specific about that. MR. DENNIS-Yes. So I appreciate your concerns. We certainly thought about the impacts to the lake. I mean obviously there's these rules and regulations that are in place for a reason. So the first thing that I will mention as far as the permeable,or the impermeable surfaces of this property,as of right now we have taken into consideration that the road is actually part of the property. So either the road or the property lines are mislabeled. So there's an additional I would say four or five hundred square feet of impermeable surfaces that we had to take into account. MR. URRICO-Mislabeled by who? DAVID PRESCOTT, OWNER 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) MR.PRESCO TT-The Town mismarked it when they put the road in. They put the road in based on where they needed to,based on rocks and trees and it doesn't match this. I went back to the Town as well as the attorney who did the closing and they're basically,they're not going to change it,but that's not where the road's actually at. MR. DENNIS-So we did certainly have to adjust to that, but in our discussions I believe with Laura knowing that,the existing property that we had to work with was already over the allotted amount. We just had to show that we were reducing the amount of impermeable surfaces in order for this to be considered. Additionally,touching on stormwater and stormwater management,we do understand that we are proposing stormwater within 35 feet of the lake,but the vast majority if not,I mean 950/o plus of the actual hard surface where you would be capturing runoff from would be further away,I guess beyond the 35 foot setback, and if we were to go to the detail sheets,that would be Page Eight,there's a chart at the bottom of that sheet which does show the existing impervious surfaces versus what we are proposing. We're proposing to reduce, or to knock off,more than 400 square feet of impervious surfaces, and then if you go down to, which also shows the total volume of stormwater that we're going to capture, which is the 1,652 cubic feet, and then going down to the blue area you can see what we are proposing to capture which is over 3,000 feet of, which is well beyond what is required for us to capture, and showing that as far as algae blooms that are any kind of pollution in the lake,again,considering the majority of hard surfaces are beyond the 35 foot setback and considering how much additional stormwater facilities or systems that we are proposing. We feel that this is an adequate,actually well beyond adequate showing of our support for stormwater systems and preventing any kind of runoff from going into the lake. MR. PRESCOTT-I'd like to add another piece, David Prescott. Totally respect the comments that have been made about protecting the lake. I'm a Navy veteran which is what brought me to this area. I'm originally a farmer from Minnesota and Iowa. So definitely know erosion and know what it does, which is why we're trying to improve the property. I think that the piece that's missing from the comments that have been brought to the Board is I can leave the property just the way it is,but that's a worse situation for the lake and the environment. So the whole point behind this project and the whole point I'm looking to spend the money I'm looking to spend on doing this project is to improve the lake. I drink my water from this lake, and that's where my drinking water comes from. So it's very important to me to make sure that I'm protecting and not doing any harm. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. HENKEL-I have a question for Laura. Obviously from what I read,2005,when this was built,they screwed up on the floor area ratio,right? MRS. MOORE-No,what happened in 2005,it wasn't accounted for. The Code didn't trigger any of that sort of calculation at that point,and so when we updated our Code,that's when that calculation came into play. So at that point in 2005 it was compliant for whatever that time period was and now that he's adding additional floor area we have to account for that in our calculations for today's standards. MR.HENKEL-There are over 3,300 square feet roughly over allowable,and now they're asking for another 500 some odd square feet. MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Roy. MR. URRICO-To be honest with you, whether it was okay in 2005 but with the new calculations, that triggers a whole new review. So now we're working with the new calculations in terms of the floor area. We can't discount what's there. So we're still looking at well over 3,000 square feet in terms of new floor area and I dare say that this is very scary for me to look at and not ask for it to be cut back in some way. So I would not be in favor of this project. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS. PALACINO-I agree while the project looks good on paper,but should we get into the nitty gritty,I think something needs to be done to protect the lake. I would not be in favor. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I kind of agree with my Board members also. For one thing it's so close to the lake. If it was back 200 feet I might not have a problem with it as much,but I would have a problem with the square footage definitely. So I'm not in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE Jim? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) MR. UNDERWOOD-I think the project starkly contrasts with the neighboring properties nearby. This thing is almost completely cleared with no trees on the property whatsoever. I think continuing suburbanization of the waterfront is a negative, and I would not be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I have an issue with the square footage as well and I think it should be scaled down. While I think there might be some improvements to the stormwater management,I think this issue makes it a no for me. MR.MC CABE-And so my first impression is the property's way too big for the lot. So I could not approve the additional square footage, floor area ratio. The other requests I don't have a problem with. I think you're doing a pretty good job with the stormwater management,but the additional floor area is too much for me. So the situation is,we are down a member,but that one member is not going to help you at this point. So you can call the vote,but that's probably not going to go well. You can table and take another look at,you know,what you can do here,or you can withdraw. MR. DENNIS-So I guess I'd have a question for you guys. Is this mostly just based on the fact that the Code changed? MR. MC CABE-So we can't do anything about what was done in 2005. That's existing. So my problem is any additional floor area at this time. MR.HENKEL-It's so close to the lake,too. MR. PRESCOTT-here's nothing I can do about it. It was approved when it was built. All I'm trying to do is improve it. MR. HENKEL-The improvements are all good that you're talking about. That's great,but unfortunately the coverage. MR. PRESCOTT-Well it's just actually a roof is all it is for me. It's not interior. MR. MC CABE-Yes,but the roof's pretty substantial. MR. PRESCOTT-Well it's a west facing house. So the sun blasts right in. MR.HENKEL-I understand your concerns. MR. MC CABE-So I guess to proceed I need some guidance from you. MRS. MOORE-So if they were to table,it would not be heard until a May application at this point. MR. DENNIS-Do you guys have any suggestions as to what we can do? MR. MC CABE-For me,get rid of the patio,or the outdoor coverage. MR. PRESCOTT-How do you knock down the sun? You brought up the fact that there's no trees there. Again,that's the way the property was bought. So somebody here approved all the trees being removed. It's not my problem or fault that that occurred. I bought it like that. I'm looking to plant more and improve on it and I don't know about you guys,but the rest of that neighborhood this house is in line with and looks like a lot of the rest of the houses in the neighborhood and are currently in construction there. So it's definitely in line with the look of the neighborhood. MR. HENKEL-And you're right because I've been around the neighborhood. The problem is,like Chris brings out,we need to try and protect the lake more now than we used to so that things are being a little bit more strict. MR.PRESCOTT-No,these are projects that you guys just approved recently. MR. MC CABE-We don't approve too many floor area ratios like this. MR.PRESCO TT-There's a lot of tree removal that's occurred. MRS. MOORE-I'll just jump in. Sorry. In reference to doing site work and things like that,that's more of a Planning Board item. What this Board was in charge of to administer is information about setbacks that they're looking at and the numerical information. So you would be,when you went to visit the Planning Board, they are the ones that would have talked about additional trees and things like that. This Board does get involved when it's a stormwater and a setback issue. So what,you know,the opportunity here is 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) that you could re-group, table it until May, have additional discussions with me in the office and see if there's an alternative route. MR. DENNIS-I think that's our best option,then. MR. MC CABE-Do you want to table it until May,John? MR.HENKEL-Which meeting,the 15`h or the 22��d? MRS. MOORE-The first one. MR.HENKEL-The 15`h,and new information by. MRS. MOORE-April 15`h MR.HENKEL-The April;15`h deadline. Okay. RESOLUTION TABLING AV#16-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT,INC. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Redbud Development Inc. Applicant proposes to construct a 565 sq.ft.pavilion addition to an existing home and alter two dormers of the home. The project work includes improving permeability on the site, a new planting plan,updated patio walkway areas,retaining wall near hot tub area and new boulder walls on the site.Project includes existing and new stormwater management. The shoreline area is to be improved with plantings and retaining wall. Site plan for new floor area in the CEA and hard surfacing within 50 ft.of the shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks,floor area, and stormwater management setbacks. MOTION TO TABLE AREA VARIANCE NO.16-2024 REDBUD DEVELOPMENT INC.,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Mary Palacino: Tabled to May 15,2024 with any new information due by April 15,2024. Duly adopted this 27`h day of March,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel, Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly, Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-So we'll see you in May. MR. DENNIS-Great. MR. MC CABE-I'll re-open the public hearing until the next meeting. PUBLIC HEARING RE-OPENED MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 2-2024,Saxton Sign,for 1054 State Route 9. NEW BUSINESS: SIGN VARIANCE NO. 2-2024 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SAXTON SIGN/HANNOUSH JEWELERS AGENT(S) SAXTON SIGN COMPANY OWNER(S) ELIDAN HOLDINGS LLC ZONING CM LOCATION 1054 STATE ROUTE 9 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REPLACE THE EXISTING 32 SQ. FT. SIGN WITH A NEW 32 SQ. FT. PANEL FOR THE NEW JEWELRY BUSINESS. THE EXISTING 3,240 SQ. FT.BUILDING IS TO REMAIN. THE CURRENT WALL SIGN IS CONSIDERED NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE SIGN CODE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF SIGN. CROSS REF SIGN 761-2023 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2O24 LOT SIZE 1 ACRE TAX MAP NO. 2969-1-10.2 SECTION 140 DARREN KATZ, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 2-2024, Saxton Sign/Hannoush Jewelers, Meeting Date: March 20, 2024 "Project Location: 1054 State Route 9 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to replace the existing 32 sq. ft. sign with a new 32 sq. ft. panel for the new jewelry business. The existing 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 3,240 sq. ft.building is to remain. The current wall sign is considered non-compliant with the sign code. Relief requested for size of sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of sign. The project site is 1.00 ac located in the Commercial Moderate Density zone. Section 140-signs The proposed sign is to be 32 sf where a wall sign maximum size is 30 sf. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1.Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance.Minimal impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2.Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the size of the sign to a compliant size. 3.Whether the requested sign variance is substantial.The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is for 2 sf. 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 a minimal impact within the district. The applicant proposes a replacement of an existing sign that was 32 sf. 5.Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to replace an existing wall sign on Route 9 that was 32 sf. The plans show the wall sign to be installed." MR.KATZ-Darren Katz with Saxton Signs. MR. MC CABE-So it's pretty straightforward. You're replacing one 32 square foot sign with another 32 square foot sign in the same spot. MR.KATZ-On the wall. MR. MC CABE-Do we have any questions of the applicant? Seeing none, a public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing,poll the audience,see if there's anybody out there who'd like to address us on this particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy, is there anything written? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with. MR. URRICO-Do you want to do the SEQR first? MR. MC CABE-Okay. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. SV 2-2024. APPLICANT NAME: SAXTON SIGN/HANNOUSH JEWELERS 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 S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) IMPACT. So we give it a Negative Declaration,Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 27h Day of March 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-And so now we're going to start with John. What do you think of the Sign Variance? MR.HENKEL-I have no comment. It's a great project. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I have no problem with this one at all. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,good project. I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-Yes,I have no issues with this. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No problem. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, see that we don't give up much if we grant the variance. So I need a motion, here. How'd you like to help me out here,Bob. MR.KEENAN-Sure. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Saxton Sign (for Hannoush Jewelers). Applicant proposes to replace the existing 32 sq. ft. sign with a new 32 sq. ft. panel for the new jewelry business. The existing 3,240 sq.ft.building is to remain. The current wall sign is considered non-compliant with the sign code. Relief requested for size of sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of sign. The project site is 1.00 ac located in the Commercial Moderate Density zone. Section 140-signs The proposed sign is to be 32 sf where a wall sign maximum size is 30 sf. SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. SV 2-2024. Applicant Name: Saxton Sign/Hannoush Jewelers based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant,this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 27h Day of March 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,March 27,2024. 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: 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No, it's not. It's a replacement of the current sign. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance? No,it cannot be. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No. It would be replacing the current sign. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No,it will not. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It could be considered,but it's needed for the change in ownership of 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: Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. (ZBA Board Member does Dot Deed to read the followingA through F): A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one(1)year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park,the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency(APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building&codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits,including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency,Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. BASED ON THE ABOVE FINDINGS I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE 2-2024, SAXTON SIGN/HANNOUSH JEWELERS,Introduced by Robert Keenan,who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 27h Day of March 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations, you have a project. So our next application is AV 12-2024, Reece Rudolph,24 Nacy Road. AREA VARIANCE NO.12-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 REECE RUDOLPH OWNER(S) REECE RUDOLPH ZONING WR LOCATION 24 NACY RD. APPLICANT HAS STARTED A DECK PROJECT DUE TO THE COLLAPSE OF THE ORIGINAL DECK. THE PREVIOUS DECK WAS 334 SQ. FT. AND THE NEW DECK IS TO BE THE SAME SIZE;THE DECK IS A DETACHED DECK. PROJECT INCLUDES INSTALLATION OF THE DECK RAILING,WITH NO OTHER CHANGES TO THE SITE OR HOME. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 20-2019;SP 29-2019 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.21 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.6-1- 34 SECTION 179-3-040;179-4-080 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) DAVID HUTCHINSON,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT; REECE RUDOLPH,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 12-2024, Reece Rudolph, Meeting Date: March 20, 2024 "Project Location: 24 Nacy Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant has started a deck project due to the collapse of the original deck. The previous deck was 334 sq.ft. and the new deck is to be the same size; the deck is a detached deck. Project includes installation of the deck railing,with no other changes to the site or home. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of an already constructed deck. Section 179-3-040 The deck is currently under construction is 11 ft.6 inches from the south property line where a 15 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 existing deck location. The decking was being repaired when it collapsed and the replacement deck was started not knowing additional review and permitting was required. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. Relief is requested for 3 ft. 6 inches. 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. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to complete a 334 sf deck that was started without review and permits. The applicant has explained the deck was to be repaired when it collapsed. The applicant has indicated the deck is in the same location with no changes to the size. The deck boards were replaced and the supporting elements were completed so it would not collapse." MR. HUTCHINSON-My name's David Hutchinson. I'm here representing Reece Rudolph. I ask that you look at the photographs in the back of your application. They tell a good story that Reece was using that a company named Techno Posts because he felt that the footings were,the existing piers or posts on the deck, they were getting washed out. Having Techno Posts is a good underground system that can come in and approve the structure,the footings. During that work the structure of the deck actually bent and so Reece went to work to start to re-build the structure of the deck after the posts were successfully put in and Charlie from the Building Department was going by in his kayak and alerted Reece to the fact that you might want to check with zoning and the Building Department because you are re-building it at that point. So Reece stopped construction,contacted me. We met with Laura and zoning and stuff,and indeed from an existing survey we found out that the corner, would be the northeast corner of the deck, does go over the setback line three foot six inches. So we did fill out the application, provide you with some photos here, and some drawings of what the final deck will look like. You can see it had gotten to the point that the structure we placed the decking on is going to include railings that are in the drawings that you see there. So we're asking for sort of an after the fact variance of three foot six inches. One last thing,in the application there's a couple of letters from the neighbor on each side in support of the project and the work that Reece has done. MR. MC CABE-So you can either read them yourself or you can give them to Roy,he'll read them in. So do we have questions of the applicant? So we have a public hearing advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing, see if there's anybody would like to provide input on this particular project. Seeing nobody, Roy,do your thing. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-The letters. This letter is in response to the patio deck at 24 Nacy Rd. I am the owner of 2S Nacy Rd (which is located on the lot immediately north of 24 Nacy Rd). The patio installed by the owner(Reece Rudolph)looks to be no larger than the original structure yet is a substantial improvement over the same. Additionally,the craftsmanship of new deck is of the highest quality and acts as a perfect complement to the landscaping across the property. The work Mr. Rudolph has put into his own home has done nothing but add value to our property. Put simply,we have no objections whatsoever to the size, shape,or design of the patio,and are very pleased with the direction Mr. Rudolph has been taking with his upgrades. Sincerely, Garth H. Miles 2S Nacy Rd Queensbury, NY 12SO4" "Our neighbor, Mr. Reece Rudolph at 24 Nacy Road is seeking a variance related to a deck that is not within the allotted distance from our shared property line. We support approval of this variance and have no objection to the Board approving the variance. Sincerely,Frank and Kathi Miller 22 Nacy Road Lake George,NY 12545" That's it. 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 Bob. MR. KEENAN-I don't have any issues with this. The neighbors seem fine with it. It's just replacing a deck. I'm good. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Yes, I live on the lake. I paddle by all the time. I'm not the one that turned you in or anything,but I commend you for all your improvements. It looks great. Go for it. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-There's no doubt in the Town of Queensbury that goes on without building permits and they don't build it as nice is this. This is just a replacement of a bad deck. So it definitely makes total sense and I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I would approve it as well. I think looking at what the deck looked like before,I can't imagine even wanting to stand on it much less use it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project. MR.MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. It improves the property and it's the right thing to do. So I wonder if,Jim,you could make a motion for us here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reece Rudolph. Applicant has started a deck project due to the collapse of the original deck. The previous deck was 334 sq.ft. and the new deck is to be the same size;the deck is a detached deck. Project includes installation of the deck railing,with no other changes to the site or home. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks of an already constructed deck. Section 179-3-040 The deck currently under construction is 11 ft. 6 inches from the south property line where a 15 ft. setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,March 27,2024. 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: 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. It's a simple replacement with a much nicer-looking antique deck. 2. Feasible alternatives were to build smaller but it's deemed to be reasonable because it's a replacement in kind from what was previously there. 3. The requested variance is not substantial.It's similar to other properties located nearby. The other neighbors have no problem with the project. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is not self-created because it's a simple replacement of a decrepit deck. 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. 12-2024 REECE RUDOLPH , Introduced by James Underwood, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 27h Day of March 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. RUDOLPH-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 13-2024,Durante Enterprises,Inc.,28 Dark Bay Lane&r 32 Dark Bay Lane. AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2024 SEQRA TYPE 11 DURANTE ENTERPRISE INC. AGENT(S) VAN DUSEN &z STEVES (MATT WEBSTER) OWNER(S) DURANTE ENTERPRISES INC. ZONING WR LOCATION 28 DARK BAY LANE &z 32 DARK BAY LANE APPLICANT PROPOSES A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT BETWEEN TWO PARCELS WHERE PARCEL 239.18-1- 47(28 DARK BAY LANE) WILL BE DECREASED FROM 0.34 AC TO 0.25 AC. WHERE 2 AC IS THE MINIMUM REQUIRED;PARCEL 239.18-1-44(32 DARK BAY LANE) WILL BE INCREASED FROM 0.38 AC TO 0.47 AC. THE U-SHAPED DOCK AND THE GAZEBO WILL BE ASSOCIATED WITH 239.18-1-44 (32 DARK BAY LANE). THE EXISTING HOMES ON EACH LOT ARE TO REMAIN; THERE ARE NO SITE CHANGES, JUST AN UPDATED LOT LINE TO ADDRESS PROPERTY SALE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR LOT SIZE, SETBACKS, AND SHORELINE FRONTAGE. CROSS REF AV 39-2009;SP 46-09;SP 14-2009;AV 11-2008;AV 12-1992;AV 1442- 21080;SP 32-89-21081 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 0.38 AC (44) &z 0.34 AC (47) TAX MAP NO. 239.18-1-44&z 239.18-1- 47 SECTION 179-3-040 MATT WEBSTER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2024, Durante Enterprises Inc., Meeting Date: March 20, 2024 "Project Location: 28 Dark Bay Lane&r 32 Dark Bay Lane Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels where parcel 239.18-1-47 (28 Dark Bay Lane) will be decreased from 0.34 ac to 0.25 ac where 2 ac is the minimum required; parcel 239.18-1-44 (32 Dark Bay Lane)will be increased from 0.38 ac to 0.47 ac. The u-shaped dock and the gazebo will be associated with 239.18-1-44 (32 Dark Bay Lane). The existing homes on each lot are to remain; there are no site changes, 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) just an updated lot line to address property sale. Relief requested for lot size, setbacks and shoreline frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size, setbacks, and shoreline frontage for a lot line adjustment. The property is located at 2S Dark Bay Lane of 0.34 ac and 32 Dark Bay Lane of 0.35 ac in the Waterfront residential zone. 179-3-040 The parcel 239.1E-1-47 (2S Dark Bay Lane) will be decreased from 0.34 ac to 0.25 ac where 2 ac is the minimum required. The existing shed is to be 2 ft. from the property line where 5 ft. setback is required. The existing house is to be 43.5 ft. shoreline setback where 50 ft. is required. The shoreline frontage is to be 75 ft.where 150 ft.is required. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered limited due to the applicants need to have the dock associated with the adjoining parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code due to the amount of variances requested. Relief requested for reduction of lot currently less than 2 ac to be further reduced in size,creating a setback issue with an existing shed and existing home,reducing the shoreline frontage. 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 physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes a lot line adjustment of two parcels for a lot current less than 2 ac to be further reduced in size. The existing home,out buildings,docks and site amenities are to remain with no changes. The applicant has explained the lot line adjustment will assist with the usage of the docks on the site so each parcel has a dock." MR. WEBSTER-I'm Matt Webster with VanDusen and Sreves Land Surveyors on behalf of our client, Durante Enterprises. In attendance tonight is Deb Scheibel of Durante Enterprises as well. So the project is relatively straightforward as Roy explained. One thing that I'd like to point out as well is that this usage, it has been historic as well. So there isn't really any change in usage either. You can seethe way the steps go from the property at 32 Dark Bay Lane down to the dock which has technically been on 2S Dark Bay Lane,but given the lay of the land along the shoreline at 32 Dark Bay,as you guys well know,the shoreline of Lake George is not going to be flat. That was the best place to build a dock,however long ago the dock was actually constructed. So our client is currently in the process of selling 2S Dark Bay and retaining 32 Dark Bay which has been her historic family home, and just would like to keep the historic family dock with the historic family home. MR. MC CABE-Pretty straightforward. Do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I mean you do have one dock that's got a problem here. You've got a dock that's under construction, and then you have another dock there. If you continue that lot line, you're going through the dock. MR. WEBSTER-Yes, so that dock has also been historically pre-existing, non-conforming. The Park Commission is well aware of it. There's actually another one next to it even that was taken out because it was even further over the property line extension,but that's always been there. No changes are proposed on that side. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) MR. HENKEL-I've been in the Dark Bay area. There's no way of putting another dock somewhere along that shoreline? I know the area a little bit. MR. MC CABE-We don't have anything to do with docks. MR. HENKEL-I realize that, but if that's the main reason for this to be changed because they want to maintain their dock. MR.WEBSTER-Along the shoreline at 32 Dark Bay Lane? MR.HENKEL-Yes. MR.WEBSTER-I mean you could,but you'd have to disturb a lot of area. MR.HENKEL-Because that is a concern,to downsize a piece of property,where are you going,you're going down to a quarter acre. That's a little bit of a concern. MR. MC CABE-A third to a quarter. MR. HENKEL-Yes, I know it's not a whole lot, but still. It can create problems later. Okay. Good explanation. 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 address us. Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. 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-It's a little unorthodox but it's understandable what you're trying to do here with the project. So even though it may trigger future variances on the smaller parcel, we'll just have to deal with it at the time. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR.KEENAN-I kind of agree. I hate to see the lot get that small because it's going to be a problem in the future when they want to make changes,but I understand why they're doing it and I don't see any other way,really,to do it. So I will approve this. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes,I think it's an odd request,but it sounds worse than it really is. So I would be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Mary. MRS.PALACINO-Yes,I would be in favor of it. It does create a very unusual lot line,but I can understand why. MR. MC CABS John. MR.HENKEL-I'm not big on this,but I will say yes. MR. MC CABE-And I don't see that there's any other logical thing to do. Even if they combined the two lots,it won't meet the requirements and you certainly,maintain the two houses. So I'm in favor also. So, Mary,I wonder if you could craft us up a motion. MRS.PALACINO-Sure. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Durante Enterprises Inc. Applicant proposes a lot line adjustment between two parcels where parcel 239.IS-1-47 (2S Dark Bay Lane) will be decreased from 0.34 ac to 0.25 ac where 2 ac is the minimum required;parcel 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) 239.1E-1-44(32 Dark Bay Lane)will be increased from 0.35 ac to 0.47 ac. The u-shaped dock and the gazebo will be associated with 239.1E-1-44(32 Dark Bay Lane).The existing homes on each lot are to remain;there are no site changes,just an updated lot line to address property sale. Relief requested for lot size,setbacks, and shoreline frontage. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for lot size, setbacks, and shoreline frontage for a lot line adjustment. The property is located at 2S Dark Bay Lane of 0.34 ac and 32 Dark Bay Lane of 0.35 ac in the Waterfront residential zone. 179-3-040 The parcel 239.1E-1-47 (2S Dark Bay Lane) will be decreased from 0.34 ac to 0.25 ac where 2 ac is the minimum required. The existing shed is to be 2 ft. from the property line where 5 ft. setback is required. The existing house is to be 43.5 ft. shoreline setback where 50 ft. is required. The shoreline frontage is to be 75 ft.where 150 ft.is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required, A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,March 27,2024. 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 the only thing that's being changed is the legal property lines. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered, there really is no other way to achieve what the property owner is looking to do. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because other than on paper changing the property lines. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty could be considered self-created because they're looking to physically re- align the property lines. 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. 13-2024 DURANTE ENTERPRISES INC., Introduced by Mary Palacino, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan: Duly adopted this 27h Day of March 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-You've got a project. MR.WEBSTER-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 3-2024,Saratoga Eagle Beverage,266 Quaker Rd. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 3-2024 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SARATOGA EAGLE BEVERAGE AGENT(S) ADIRONDACK SIGN CO. (ADAM WAKULENKO) OWNER(S): FRONTIER INC. EAGLE ASSOCIATES OF NIAGARA ZONING Cl LOCATION 266 QUAKER RD. APPLICANT 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) TO BE REPLACING AN EXISTING 72.89 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN AND 22.5 SQ. FT. CHANGEABLE PANEL SIGN. THE SIGN IS CURRENTLY LOCATED IN THE COUNTY RIGHT- OF-WAY AND IS TO REMAIN. A VARIANCE FOR THE PLACEMENT OF A SIGN WAS RECEIVED IN 1986. A COUNTY PERMIT HAS ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED FOR THE PROJECT TO MAINTAIN THE SIGN IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY. PROJECT INCLUDES MAINTAINING A CHANGEABLE COPY BOARD AS PART OF THE FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SIZE OF SIGN AND MAINTAINING EXISTING CHANGE OF COPY BOARD. CROSS REF SP 46-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MARCH 2O24 LOT SIZE 1.04 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.8-1-41 SECTION 140 ADAM WAKULENKO,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 3-2024, Saratoga Eagle Beverage, Meeting Date: March 20, 2024 "Project Location: 266 Quaker Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant to be replacing an existing 72.89 sq. ft. freestanding sign and 22.5 sq. ft. changeable panel sign. The sign is currently located in the county Right-of-Way and is to remain.A variance for the placement of a sign was received in 1986. A county permit has already been received for the project to maintain the sign in the right-of-way. Project includes maintaining a changeable copy board as part of the freestanding sign. Relief requested for size of sign and maintaining existing change of copy board. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of sign and maintaining existing change of copy board. The project site is located at 266 Quaker Road in the Commercial Intensive zone. Section 140-Signs Applicant proposes to replace an existing free-standing sign with a 72.89 sf sign and a 22.5 sf changeable panel sign,where only one free-standing sign of 45 sf is allowed. The sign has a previous variance for the location of the sign and a permit from Warren County DPW for the sign in the ROW. Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 140 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this sign variance. Minimal to no impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method,feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives may be considered to reduce the number of signs requested and the size of the sign. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief is requested to have 2 free standing. Relief of the 72.89 sf sign is 27.89 sf. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed may have minimal to no impact on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The project is for the existing beverage center where a name change from Minogue's to Bev's is proposed. The photos provided indicate the sign is essential the same. The applicant has received a permit from Warren County to maintain the location of the sign." MR. WAKULENKO-Good evening. I'm Adam Wakulenko from Adirondack Sign Company. In simple terms all we're doing is a graphic change. We're not changing the sign. We're not doing anything different. All we're doing is just changing the face. Nothing about it's going to change. We'll probably paint it,clean it up a little bit,but other than that,new name,that's all. MR. MC CABE-So do we have questions of the applicant? A public hearing has been advertised. So at this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing, see if there's anybody out in the audience that would like to address us on this particular project. Seeing nobody,Roy,do we have anything written? 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No,no public comment. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-Go ahead. MRS. MOORE-So when I drove by the site recently,have you already started taking stuff down? MR.WAKULENKO-We actually did. We took down the Minogue's off the building. MRS. MOORE-Was the changed panel sign removed,too? MR.WAKULENKO-No,it was damaged by the landscaper. MRS.MOORE-Thankyou. So I was just curious. Okay. So the imaging and that panel,they'll be updated then. MR. WAKULENKO-Yes, everything is going to be updated and nothing is going to change as the structure. We're just going to put a new face on it. We're going to freshen up the paint and clean it up. That's all. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board, and I'm going to start with Bob. MR. KEENAN-It looks like they did their homework and it's going to be a replacement. I don't have any problems with it. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-If everything is staying the same except for the facing,I have no problem with it. MR. MC CABE-Mary? MRS.PALACINO-I have no difficulty with it at all. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-It's definitely a little larger than I'd like to see for just the one business,but I'm not going to argue with it. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's an upgrade. I don't have any problems with it. MR. MC CABE-And,yes,the Minogue's sign was looking kind of tired. So this is much flashier. I kind of like it,so I'll approve the project also. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. SV 3-2024. APPLICANT NAME: SARATOGA EAGLE BEVERAGE BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT, THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption,seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 27h Day of March 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mrs.Palacino,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Saratoga Eagle Beverage. Applicant to be replacing an existing 72.59 sq. ft. freestanding sign and 22.5 sq. ft. changeable panel sign. The sign is currently located in the county Right-of-Way and is to remain. A variance for the 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) placement of a sign was received in 1956. A county permit has already been received for the project to maintain the sign in the right-of-way. Project includes maintaining a changeable copy board as part of the freestanding sign. Relief requested for size of sign and maintaining existing change of copy board. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for size of sign and maintaining existing change of copy board. The project site is located at 266 Quaker Road in the Commercial Intensive zone. Section 140-Signs Applicant proposes to replace an existing free-standing sign with a 72.59 sf sign and a 22.5 sf changeable panel sign,where only one free-standing sign of 45 sf is allowed. The sign has a previous variance for the location of the sign and a permit from Warren County DPW for the sign in the ROW. SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. SV 3-2024. Applicant Name: Saratoga Eagle Beverage based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant,this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Roy Urrico: Duly adopted this 27h Day of March 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mrs.Palacino,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,March 27,2024. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-OSO(A)of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation,we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No, we find that there'd be no detriment. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance? No,he's simply replacing the existing sign. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No,it is not. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No,we find it will not. It would be replacing the current sign. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? It could be self-created, but with the change of business it's a necessity. 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. (ZBA Board Member does Dot Deed to read the followingA through F): F. 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; G. 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; 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 03/27/2024) H. 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' I. Subsequent issuance of further permits,including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; J. 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 3-2024, SARATOGA EAGLE BEVERAGE,Introduced by Robert Keenan,who moved for its adoption,seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 27h Day of March 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico, Mrs.Palacino,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR.WAKULENKO-Thank you. I appreciate it. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MARCH 27", 2024, Introduced by Michael McCabe who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 27`h day of March,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel,Mrs.Palacino, Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE ABSENT: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 20