Loading...
09-18-2024 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) QUEENSBURYZONINGBOARD OFAPPEATS FIRSTREGUTAR MEETING SEPTEMBER I81r,2024 INDEX Area Variance No. 4S-2024 Reece Rudolph 1. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-S5 Sign Variance No. S-2024 Reece Rudolph 9. Tax Map No. 303.5-1-S5 Area Variance No. 47-2024 Lauren Walker 13. Tax Map No. 239.E-1-27 Area Variance No. 49-2024 Donald Manaher 17. Tax Map No. 266.1-2-1S Area Variance No.50-2024 Steve Rowe 19. Tax Map No. 2S9.11-1-5 Area Variance No.51-2024 Chris Bartley 23. Tax Map No. 30S.S-2-55 Sign Variance No. 9-2024 AJ Signs for TD Bank 26. Tax Map No. 302.6-1-64&302.6-1-65 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTH'S MINUTES(IF ANY)AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2024) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FIRST REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 18TK,2024 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT MICHAEL MC CABE,CHAIRMAN JAMES UNDERWOOD,VICE CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO,SECRETARY JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL ROBERT KEENAN RICHARD CIPPERLY LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE SENIOR PLANNER-STUART BAKER STENOGRAPHER-KAREN DWYRE MR. MC CABE- Good evening. I'd like to open tonight's meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals,Wednesday,September 18`h, 2024. If you haven't been here before,our procedure is quite simple. There should bean agenda on the back table. We'll call each case up,read the case into our record,allow the applicant to present his case. We'll ask questions of 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 proceed accordingly. We have a couple of administrative items first. John,I wonder if we could have a motion. APPROVAL OF MINUTES August 21",2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 211T, 2024, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this IS'day of September,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE August 28`h,2024 MOTION TO APPROVE THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 28th, 2024, Introduced by John Henkel who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this IS'day of September,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Keenan,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-So our first application is AV 48-2024,Reece Rudolph,366 Quaker Road. NEW BUSINESS: AREA VARIANCE NO.48-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 REECE RUDOLPH AGENT(S) NINA OLDENQUIST,AIA OWNER(S) FALL LINE SKI SHOP INC.(BRUCE LUNGRIN) ZONING CI LOCATION 366 QUAKER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES CONVERTING AN EXISTING 3,000 SQ.FT.BUILDING FOR A COMMERCIAL CANNABIS DISPENSARY. THE PROJECT INCLUDES COSMETIC UPDATES TO THE BUILDING EXTERIOR,REPAVING,AND NEW SIGNAGE. THE BUILDING IS LOCATED LESS THAN 1,000 FT. FROM CERTAIN USES. SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR CANNABIS DISPENSARY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND PARKING. CROSS REF SP 54-2024; SUP 5-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) SEPTEMBER 2024 LOT SIZE 0.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-85 SECTION 179-10- 070(EE)(2) NINA OLDENQUIST,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.45-2024,Reece Rudolph,Meeting Date: September 1S,2024 "Project Location: 366 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes converting an existing 3,000 sq ft building for a commercial cannabis dispensary. The project includes cosmetic updates to the building exterior,repaving,and new signage. The building is located less than 1,000 It from certain uses. Site Plan and Special Use Permit for cannabis dispensary. Relief requested for special use specific criteria setbacks and parking. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the following Code requirements: 1. Separation distances from day care center and health-related facility §179-10-070(EE)(2) prescribes a 1,000 foot separation distance between retail cannabis businesses and day care centers and health-related facilities. The subject property is +335 feet from a day care center on Meadow Lane. The location is also +525 feet from a health-related facility on Ridge Road. Note that the applicant was granted a waiver from the requirement for a survey,so these distances are approximate. 2. On-site parking requirements §179-5-090(F)prescribes 15 on-site parking spaces for retail businesses. The application states that there are 14 parking spaces on-site,with three additional parking spaces on the adjacent County right of way for Quaker Road. The applicant has received a permit from Warren County DPW to continue the use of the parking in the right of way. 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. A. §179-10-070(EE)(2) separation distances. The proposed project will upgrade the existing building exterior and signage. According to the application,access to the interior of the building will be controlled by security and age verification. No on-site consumption of products are permitted by NYS regulations, and the application states that no odors will be produced by the business. B. On-site parking requirements. No changes are proposed to the number of existing on-site parking spaces or the number of parking spaces on the adjacent County right-of-way. Warren County has granted a permit for the continued use and improvement of the existing parking in the Quaker Road right-of-way. 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. A. §179-10-070(EE)(2) separation distances. Feasible alternatives that may be considered include finding a location that complies with the separation distance prescribed by§179-10-070(EE)(2). B. On-site parking requirements. There appears to be ample room on the lot to provide the required parking spaces on-site. The Zoning Board may wish to discuss with the applicant why they feel this"is not a practical solution." 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. A. §179-10-070(EE)(2)separation distances. The variances requested range from 470/o(health-related facility)to 66010(day care center)relief from the separation distance requirement. B. On-site parking requirements. The variance request is for I out of the required 15 on-site parking spaces,or 6.70/o 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. A. §179-10-070(EE)(2) separation distances. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. B. On-site parking requirements. No impact may be anticipated, as the total number of parking spaces proposed is currently existing. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. A. §179-10-070(EE)(2) separation distances. The difficulty may be considered self-created, as the applicant chose the location within the 1,000 foot separation distance from two "sensitive uses." B. On-site parking requirements. The difficulty is pre-existing. Staff comments: The Town zoning regulations regarding retail cannabis businesses originated with the Town Board adoption of Local Law No.:2 of 2023 in January 2023. The changes proposed to the property to accommodate this use may be considered minor and would result in improved stormwater management. The variances requested are required for the proposed occupancy of a existing retail space by the retail cannabis business." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted September 17`h,2024 by a unanimous vote. MS. OLDENQUIST-I'm Nina Oldenquist from Oldenquist Design. COLIN SIGNORE MR. SIGNORE-And I'm Colin Signore,Reece's business partner. MS. OLDENQUIST-So we are,as you know,requesting an Area Variance for the location of the proposed dispensary on Quaker Road, and going into this we absolutely acknowledge and understand that all of these restrictions that the zoning code has put in place. I guess I'd like to start out by describing what we see as the exact nature of the connection between the proposed dispensary and the two uses. One of the uses, which is Number Two up there. That was described as a daycare. It's actually the DSO, Capital District Developmental Disability State Operations Office. So it's sort of a day center for adults with disabilities. That, if you look at the distance,property line to property line, is 335 feet as the crow flies. Speaking in practical terms, though,we feel that the distance by road, in other words traveling from our proposed site in that location is 2,112 feet approximately. Our feeling is that there is no direction connection between those two locations. One must get into a car. It's not really feasible to walk. I've gone over to the site and looked through and you can't see the proposed dispensary from that proposed location. So there's no visual connection, and it isn't necessary to pass by the dispensary to get to that location. So while we absolutely understand and acknowledge the proximity regulations, our feeling is that in practical terms it's not as proximate as it would appear from the sky. With the chiropractor's office on Ridge Road, Number One right there, it's the same situation in that they're not on the same street as each other. There's no visual connection,and the travel distance is 1,554 feet. That would again,probably, most likely be by car. There's no pedestrian connection whatsoever between the two. I guess to address the idea of character of the neighborhood, as a Commercial Intensive zone along Quaker Road there,the intent of the owners is to take a building that has unfortunately succumb to a lot of deferred maintenance and has been for sale for a number of years and really improve it and bring it back to something that is a viable,commercial business. We presented a rendering of the proposed building on Drawing C-102. In addition to that, the site improvements will be taking a parking lot that is in terrible shape,improve the stormwater management,re-pave that lot,and,you know,again,take something that isn't really producing the tax revenue that it may have back in the day,and putting a viable business there that keeps the revenue from cannabis sales within the area. Did you want to add anything? MR. SIGNORE-Colin Signore. Just that like we've looked at plenty of properties and we think it would be pretty difficult to find a location without any. MS. OLDENQUIST-Restrictive uses. MR. SIGNORE-Restrictive uses. That's all I'd like to add. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MS. OLDENQUIST-Yes,this is,in many ways, an ideal commercial location because of the nature of this particular corridor of Quaker Road, and it is true. It's very difficult to find a location that isn't within 1,000 feet from the sky,as the crow flies,of a restrictive use. Do you have any other questions? MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. URRICO-You said it's difficult,but it's not impossible. MS. OLDENQUIST-Well there are locations, but I think the criteria for a business to have off street parking, a standalone building. I believe you guys, they tried to find locations in strip malls, but that wasn't,you know,they had no luck there, short of sort of moving way off the beaten path,I mean I think the idea was to have a business that can be successful,whether it's by drive-by traffic. There's also going to be on-line order capacities as well. If you look at Queensbury,as we look at Queensbury,those uses are everywhere and so I think our point of view is sort of a tempered understanding of no we don't want to negatively impact any neighborhood. We want to be good neighbors. Is this an example where it would negatively impact those particular uses, and our feeling is that the connection is not physically as immediate as it would seem, not on the same road, you can't see. I don't think Ridge Road would be impacted by this for example,or Meadow Lane. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? MR. KUHL-I have a question,if I may,Mr. Chairman. Who's going to run this business? MR. SIGNORE-Me,Colin Signore,and Reece Rudolph- MR. KUHL-You're Colin Signore,you're going to run it. MR. SIGNORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-How much experience have you got in this business? MR. SIGNORE-I know my business partner has a lot of experience. MR. KUHL-Who's your business partner? MR. SIGNORE-Reece Rudolph. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. SIGNORE-He has run, he has managed Golden Corrals, a couple of them when they opened. So I know he has a lot of business experience. We have friends who are in,and own dispensaries in Vermont. So,you know,I think we're both prepared for this journey,and I think we're excited to have a safe spot for people of Queensbury to go to and get their supply. MR. KUHL-What is your,what do you anticipate or what do you see as the flow of customers when they come into your facility? MR. SIGNORE-I know we're still going through. MR.KUHL-I have a picture. I see a picture. I need to see,I need to understand why the proprietors,how they see this operating. Have you ever been in any stores? MR. SIGNORE-Of course. Of course. MR. KUHL-I have also,okay. Well your answer to my question should be,as you see the workflow of it, based on that,young man. Okay. MR.HENKEL-Okay. I see what you're saying. Neither of you have ever worked in a facility. He's worked in a Golden Corral,but neither of you have ever worked in a dispensary. Right? MR. SIGNORE-No. We haven't. MR. HENKEL-Okay. So basically he's saying who are you going to have working there that has worked in a dispensary? MR. KUHL-No. I was looking for workflows,on how they can help. Never mind. MR. HENKEL-No,explain yourself. 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MR. KUHL-There is a certain attitude towards this,and there's a certain responsibility by a proprietor to control the flow of the customer. A,are they of the right age to do this,and then move forward,and control, not have an open thing. This is not Wal-Mart. Okay. MR. SIGNORE-1000/o. MR. KUHL-Yes,well you struck out with a simple question of how you're going to do it. MR. SIGNORE-I guess I misunderstood. MR.KUHL-So I would suggest that maybe you take a better look and explain how that's going to happen. You don't have to do it tonight because as far as I'm concerned,young man,you should have come knowing what you're going to do, how you're going to do it. I like this location. I'm not against the location,but it's your responsibility to be able to control the flow, sell the product, and make sure it's not used on the site, and we only have one chance to make a first impression, and you did not. So I'm finished . Thank you. MS. OLDENQUIST-May I say, the Office of Cannabis Management is very strict, and whether one has extensive experience or going around the first time,there are rules and regulations regarding checking of ID's. No one under 21 allowed on the site,a separate entrance and a separate exit,security lighting,secure storage. The plan for the existing building reflects that workflow. Colin has been part of the financial, silent partner backing for Reece who is actually present here,but has been kind of the front person in terms of putting together this whole application with me, or I've been working for him, and they've invested many, many months and a great deal of resources in negotiating how to get through the licensure from Office of Cannabis Management. If I'm not mistaken you guys are about three-quarters of the way through now. They have their proximity license from the State,been fingerprinted,background checked. So their application to the State is being taken seriously. The wheels move slowly,and anybody who would open a facility would absolutely have to comply with all of the regulations, signage. They're not allowed to attract anybody with their signage that would be young, no bright colors or fancy text. It all has to be very low key, and security is paramount to New York State. So those are very stringent restrictions that they have no choice but to follow. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 address us on this particular application. So if you guys would give up the table. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED REECE RUDOLPH MR. RUDOLPH-Hi. My name is Reece Rudolph. I am proposing the dispensary on Quaker Road also with Colin. So I think kind of what happened here is I've had experience opening Golden Corrals and working in corporate stores. This is a different animal in its own way, but I have experience opening restaurants, doing payroll, doing inventories, working in a corporate manner. When we opened Queensbury on Quaker Road, we did six million dollars in sale, and I was one of the kitchen managers involved in that restaurant. The experiences here managing a company and opening,I own a construction business currently and operate it with six employees. For this,like our architect said,New York State has a lot of requirements in how it's done. So the flow of accessing in will be done with a security area. There will be a flow through for the sales and then ID'd on the way out with a second exit. So New York State really has this regulated and if we follow those guidelines that's going to be a huge help. We do have advisors that have opened up dispensaries in Vermont and in California to guide us through this process. So I do think that we will have the experience to properly run this facility and run it professionally,and do a good job by the State and the Town. MR. MC CABE-Thank you. Is there anybody else out there? BRUCE LUNGRIN MR. LUNGRIN-Good evening,Board. I'm Bruce Lungrin. I'm the current owner of the property at 366 Quaker Road,Fall Line Ski Shop. Just to give you a very,very brief on the Fall Line Ski Shop,we started in the mid-60's over on Upper Glen Street in Glens Falls, the Town of Queensbury. Operated our small business out of a small portion of a converted house. I came with the company in 1963 as an employee and finally a manager and on and on to the point where we are today. In 1970 we moved the Ski Shop to its present location which was a bar and restaurant called the Two Squires. You might remember it some of you,on Quaker Road. Eventually we were able to purchase the property and have been there ever since. I'm getting on a little bit in years and I got into the business because I was a skier and I loved to ski,and I can no longer ski,but at any rate, I decided it's about time to hang up my skis. So about six years ago I contacted Levack Realty, Mark Levack, about selling the property,which I then owned, the corporation 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) ski company owned,but I am now the corporation. Everybody else is gone,and Mark tried his best,along with, after Mark there were three or four or five other local realtors and realty companies as far down as the Albany area to sell the property,and we were not having any luck at all with any of them. As a matter of fact, quite a few people came through the property,looked in the building,looked at the property. It was either too small and expensive for their tastes or it wasn't large enough for the bigger companies to operate anything out of the property. So there we sat. I continued to run the business and I've run it up until, I'm still running it. I've downsized the Ski Shop. We went from four full-time employees and a bunch of part-timers to now days it's just myself running the store,doing the work,doing everything. We went back to the old days on Upper Glen Street. We were a seasonal business, worked solely in the wintertime,of course that was before snowmaking and what not,and when we moved to Quaker Road it was a much bigger building and in order to try to afford to stay there I was forced to try to put in summer lines that might pay,and we tried a million different venues and types of summer merchandise and we did bicycles and tennis and repaired boats, had a boat line, power boat line, a million different things and I found I was really just trading summer money out, but we did keep the store open and kept it viable through the years,and so it has been 50 years on Quaker Road and 10 years before that over on Upper Glen Street in Glens Falls where the Dunkin Donuts was. We just did not have any luck at all with any of the realtor companies or any of the realty people,although we had a lot of lookers,but we just could not until Mr. Rudolph and Mark Levack came back to me and the broker I have now, and it looks like we finally found a fit for the Ski Shop, and Mr. Rudolph wants to put a dispensary in there, which makes a lot of sense I think. I don't see that there's any big problem with parking. The signage we had two or three different companies come into the Ski Shop. I rented it to a pool company for a couple of summers and they had a variance to put his sign where the gondola now hangs on the side of our sign,but that sign was put there back when it was a restaurant, when Quaker Road was not much more than a little two lane road that kind of ended at Ridge Street,and since then,as you know,it's grown considerably. MR. MC CABE-So I've got to shut you down here,Bruce. We've got a whole bunch of cases. MR. LUNGRIN-Yes, sure. Just to bring us up to date to where we are today, and I just think that the cannabis dispensary would be a good fit for the buildings,for the Ski Shop,for the property,and that's it. Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Thankyou. Is there anybody else that would like to address us on this particular application? MARK LEVACK MR. LEVACK-Good evening. My name's Mark Levack, Levack Real Estate and so you've heard this evening the game of selling real estate is like musical chairs. You just want to have a seat that'll be the last person when the music stops,but seriously I think the Town of Queensbury has done an excellent job of getting ahead of the cannabis industry. The Town of Queensbury put a lot of time, a lot of thought, a lot of effort, a lot of planning into amending the zone. I took that to the City of Glens Falls and asked if we could do something similar there. Unfortunately the City of Glens Falls is not there yet,but I commend the Town of Queensbury for amending the zone specifically to address this business. One of the main questions I heard this evening was regarding,you know,operations. That's a very important question. I can say that the process of running this business is very regulated and New York State has a lot to say about how that happens,but more importantly the character of the people that are going to be running this business I can speak to. I don't know Colin that well,but I do know Reece,and I've had the pleasure of working with Reece for over five years now,and as a 33 year old young and very ambitious person,I can say without question that he has impressed me thoroughly as an extremely hard worker,you know,having acquired over,I believe somewhere around SO apartment units,all by hard work,and by his diligence and his professionalism. So really the character of the individual that you have here this evening I can speak to 1000/o,and I think it's really important as you take that into consideration in granting this variance. Also, too,you're here to rule on amendments to the zoning,and I hope that it's a guide and not a cast in granite. I think the case has been made that these are,as the crow flies, within that restricted area,but practically speaking, commonsense would say they're not affecting these other businesses. So I'd ask this Board to consider that,and I think that's pretty much all I have to say. I appreciate your considering this applicant and good luck with your decision. MR. MC CABE-Thankyou. Is there anybody else? Is there anything written,Roy? MR. URRICO-There is nothing written. MR. MC CABE-So at this particular time I'm going to close the public hearing, unless, do you have anything to add? MS. OLDENQUIST-I just wanted to follow up and perhaps Reece can comment on this as well, to what Mr.LUNGRIN,what he spoke about. My understanding was he had a potential purchaser about two and a half years ago actually from Silver Therapeutics who looked at it,who recently was granted a variance for a dispensary up near the Outlets. At the time there was a moratorium on the State granting licenses. 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) So he walked away from that, but he considered it a prime location. Reece proposes to take a building that has fallen into disrepair and really make it look good and really sort of keep the corridor looking great, maintaining the building, improving the building and bringing something back to viability and vibrancy that has sort of unfortunately just because it was it's time has fallen by the wayside. I don't know if you wanted to add anything to that. MR. RUDOLPH-Aesthetically we're trying to go for a clean,modern look for it. We're trying to make it not be a smoke shop. We're trying to have like a snowboard and ski theme. That's why we called it Gondula. You go in, we're hoping to have graphics of mountains, snowboards, and kind of put a little twist on to it that has a nicer aesthetic to it,and also update the outside of the building to give a nice curb appeal,and manage it professionally. 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 Jim. MR. UNDERWOOD-I think when the Town Board adopted the 1,000 foot setback in the Town Board resolution I think they were wise enough to consider the fact that we're going to see a proliferation of requests for these shops all over Town,and I think that it's appropriate that we keep it 1,000 feet away. MR. MC CABE-So you're not in support of this? MR. UNDERWOOD-No. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I think Mr. Levack and the lawyer has done a good job of presenting this project, and I understand what Mr. Underwood's saying about the rules,but I don't see that there's any problem. I see they're far enough away. It's in a high traffic area. You've got a worst case scenario with the Heidelberg there on the corner where they can serve alcohol and people can go out on the road,where this place isn't going to be serving anything like that. They're going to be serving,selling something,and they're not going to use it in the parking lot or at the facility. So I'm definitely on board as is. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm not in favor of this project. As stated,I could agree a little bit with Jim,but it goes back to what I see in this whole thing is the control of the customers within it. You can talk about there are State regulations and everything. This is new. It should be controlled, and I don't think that you have stated that that was going to happen. So I am not in favor. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-If you don't mind,I want to just take a few minutes just to state the problem that we have as a Board here with this project, but this is the second time we're viewing a project for a cannabis dispensary and have been faced with variances,in two months,and in both instances I think we're tasked on every variance with providing minimal variance for anything. In this case we're getting the first taste of this type of variance for this kind of use, and it makes it very difficult for us to, and this goes for the applicants as well,makes it very difficult for us to say yes to something like this,because now we're setting a precedent for future use,and we don't want to be in that position of allowing uses when a variance is in question. That being said, I think we're being asked to do something here we don't do for any other business. As John said earlier,if we were dealing with a restaurant or a convenience store,we wouldn't be asking who's selling the cigarettes,who's selling beer and liquor or if they have a liquor store the same thing. So I think we have to be careful,but we also have to be fair about it. They're legally allowed to sell cannabis. They're being guided by the State laws. Queensbury has set certain limits for it realistically. This health facility we're talking about is a chiropractor,I won't get into the personalities of it,but they're not going to walk over there and use this,and the other thing is,the facility,it's not only a block away,but you can't even see it from the front of the dispensary. You have to walk around the block and most people don't even know where Meadow Lane is. It's hidden behind bushes there. So I would be in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-When you look at this,these numbers on paper,when I first looked at it, I thought this is a big variance,but when you look at the applicant, I agree with Roy that,you know,where this facility, this isn't an issue I don't believe, the 1,000 feet variance, and again, I agree with Roy. We're not here to regulate how this business is run,but to make decisions for the Town. That being said,I'm in favor of this project. S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Thank you. When I look at what the relief requested is,it's separation distance and on- site parking. I don't have any problem with it. I think the 1,000 foot separation as described from the health facility and the daycare is,it's okay to measure,but from a practical standpoint,it's far enough apart. So I'm in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-And so as I look at what we're okaying here,it's 1,000 feet from property line to property line. Other restrictions are door to door,and that's kind of what you guys are relating to,not property line to property line. Property line to property line is what the law is,and when I look at that,we're less than half of that,so that's too much of a break for me,particularly since we don't have any experience with this type of a business. However,I'm only one vote. You already have your four votes. So you have a project. So,let's see,Dick,I'll ask you to make a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reece Rudolph. Applicant proposes to convert an existing 3,000 sq ft building for a commercial cannabis dispensary. The project includes cosmetic updates to the building exterior, repaving, and new signage. The building is located less than 1,000 It from certain uses.Site Plan and Special Use Permit for cannabis dispensary.Relief requested for special use specific criteria,setbacks,and parking. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for the following Code requirements: 1. Separation distances from day care center and health-related facility §179-10-070(EE)(2) prescribes a 1,000 foot separation distance between retail cannabis businesses and day care centers and health-related facilities. The subject property is +335 feet from a day care center on Meadow Lane. The location is also +525 feet from a health-related facility on Ridge Road. Note that the applicant was granted a waiver from the requirement for a survey,so these distances are approximate. 2. On-site parking requirements §179-5-090(F)prescribes 15 on-site parking spaces for retail businesses. The application states that there are 14 parking spaces on-site,with three additional parking spaces on the adjacent County right of way for Quaker Road. The applicant has received a permit from Warren County DPW to continue the use of the parking in the right of way. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 1S,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. They've explained the distance part and it seems like a reasonable re-use of an existing building. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They're reasonable,and really this is the spot. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. The building's already there. They've met the criteria and discussed the distance requirement. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is always 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: 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2024) 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. 48-2024 REECE RUDOLPH,Introduced by Richard Cipperly,who moved for its adoption,seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th Day of September 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Keenan NOES: Mr. Underwood,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. McCabe MR. MC CABE-Congratulations. MR. RUDOLPH-Thank you. MRS. MOORE-You're going to have to do the Sign Variance as well. SIGN VARIANCE NO. SV 8-2024 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED REECE RUDOLPH AGENT(S) NINA OLDENQUIST OWNER(S) FALL LINE SKI SHOP INC. ZONING Cl LOCATION 366 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONVERT AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL RETAIL SHOP TO OPEN A CANNABIS DISPENSARY, KEEPING THE EXISTING SIGN LOCATION WHICH IS IN THE WARREN COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY AND DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE 15 FT. SETBACK (THE EXISTING SIGNPOST IS 29 FT. SETBACK FROM QUAKER RD.). APPLICANT HAS A WARREN COUNTY SIGN PERMIT TO HAVE A SIGN IN THE RIGHT- OF-WAY. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF AV 48-202;SP 54-2024;SUP 5- 2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2024 LOT SIZE 0.55 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.5-1-85 SECTION 140 NINA OLDENQUIST,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 8-2024, Reece Rudolph, Meeting Date: September IS,2024 "Project Location: 366 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to convert an existing commercial retail shop to open a commercial cannabis dispensary, keeping the existing sign location which is in the Warren County right of way and does not comply with the 15 ft setback (the existing signpost is 29 ft setback from Quaker Rd).Applicant has a Warren County sign permit to have a sign in the right-of-way. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the 15 foot setbacks requirements of§140-6(B)(1). 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. The sign is proposed for the non-conforming location where the sign pole and gondola cab currently exists. The sign could be relocated to a conforming location on the east side of the property. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The existing sign is within the County right of way for Quaker Road and located +10 feet N/NE outside of the subject property. Warren County DPW has issued a permit to the applicant to maintain the existing sign location. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Since the existing and proposed non- conforming sign location is well established,the proposed variance may not have an adverse effect on the property,neighborhood or district. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The application states that the existing and proposed sign location existed prior to the establishment of the Quaker Road right of way. 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) Staff comments: Please note that Zoning Administrator determined on 9/11/24 that the proposed total sign area (sign plus the gondola car)exceeds the 45 square foot area allowed by Chapter 140 of Town Code. The applicant is expected to propose at the meeting that the gondola car will be removed from the sign post for now to conform, and that they will reserve the right to apply for a sign size variance at a future date should they desire to return the gondola car to the sign post. Any approval considered should be conditioned upon the gondola car being removed from the sign post." MS.OLDENQUIST-You did abetter job than I would have explaining this. We're asking for relief because the existing sign is within the right of way. It's been there since before the right of way was established. So we aren't 15 feet off the property line,and Department of Public Works has given us permission to leave the sign there, and as was pointed out,we learned,I think it was Friday,that the gondola itself would be considered part of the whole sign. So without enough time to put together a variance application for that, we will return. We'd like to put it back. It's sort of an icon,and right now we're simply asking for relief to leave the sign where it is. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-So you're saying that you'd keep the gondola or? MS. OLDENQUIST-No. We're going to remove the gondola because we learned Friday that that puts us over the size threshold for a sign. The sign complies in every other way,but it's not in the right place,since it's in the right of way. MR. HENKEL-Why don't you do away with the sign and keep the gondola,put the sign on the gondola? MR. KUHL-Because the young people today don't know the gondola. You know it because you're old. MS. OLDENQUIST-I think that's a great idea,but we would then need to propose that. MR. MC CABE-So,could we condition leaving the sign there? MS. OLDENQUIST-Conditioned upon what? MR. URRICO-Didn't Mr. Rudolph say just a few minutes ago that you were keeping the gondola there? MS. OLDENQUIST-We want to keep the gondola. He's naming it Gondula after the gondola. It's an icon on Quaker Road,but it doesn't comply with the size. MR. URRICO-Are you doing away with it or not,for the time being? MS. OLDENQUIST-For the time being I think we have to because we don't have enough time. MRS. MOORE-Unless you table the application and have them come back. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MS. OLDENQUIST-We don't want to do that. We don't want to table the application. MR. URRICO-If we allow it,they still have to come back? What if we allowed the gondola now? MR. MC CABE-We can't condition that? MR. BAKER-You cannot allow it without a specific variance application for exceeding the size standard. MR. MC CABE-Okay. MS. OLDENQUIST-It's 45 square feet. MR. BAKER-Correct MR. HENKEL-And that gondola's already that size. MRS. MOORE-So there's the gondola and the sign itself. MR. MC CABE-So we couldn't condition that. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MRS. MOORE-Right,because it has not been advertised for size. MS.OLDENQUIST-Stu,may I ask you a question? When we applied,because it's three dimensional,does that have to be part of the area? MR. BAKER-We can discuss that with the Zoning Administrator. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-So we're approving this as is. MR. MC CABE-Yes,without the gondola. So a public hearing has been advertised. 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 on this particular application. Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. MC CABE-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 approve,yes. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I'm wondering how we can get around the gondola thing. MR. MC CABE-We can't. MR.CIPPERLY-I don't take can't easily. I'm wondering if we condition our approval on the gondola being left in place until such time as an application is provided? Can we do that? MS. OLDENQUIST-Well,Reece doesn't own the property yet. Bruce LUNGRIN still owns the property. So he's not taking it down any time soon. MR. MC CABE-See,I understand what they're saying is that it hasn't been advertised, and so,you know, we'd be overstepping our bounds by granting a variance when it hasn't been requested. MR. CIPPERLY-I'm not saying grant a variance. I'm just saying we condition our approval on the thing sitting there until such time as a variance is requested. MR. MC CABE-Which is basically granting the variance,is the problem. MR. CIPPERLY-Anyway,I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-Okay. Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-We've approved plenty of similar requests. So I have no problem. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-I'm going to say no because I want the gondola there. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I have no issue with this. MR. MC CABE-And Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2024) The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Reece Rudolph. Applicant proposes to convert an existing commercial retail shop to open a commercial cannabis dispensary, keeping the existing sign location which is in the Warren County right of way and does not comply with the 15 ft setback (the existing signpost is 29 ft setback from Quaker Rd). Applicant has a Warren County sign permit to have a sign in the right-of-way. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief from the 15 foot setback requirements of§140-6(B)(1). SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 8-2024. Applicant Name: Reece Rudolph 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 Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th Day of September 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Keenan,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Kuhl,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September IS,2024. Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(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? None is noted. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue,other than a sign variance? The sign is not compliant,but it's in line with all the other signs in the corridor,so we're going to keep it the way it is. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? No,it's not. It's in line with the adjacent. 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? No,it's an existing sign that would be put on the same signpost. 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) As presented by the applicant with no gondola. b) Adherence to the items outlined in the follow-up letter sent with this resolution. (ZBA Board Member does Dot Deed to read the following A 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; 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) 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 8-2024, REECE RUDOLPH,Introduced by James Underwood,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th Day of September 2024,by the following vote: MRS. MOORE-Before you call the vote,you'll also have to put a condition in there that the gondola is not part of the sign application. You have to put. MR. MC CABE-I thought they said that that was part of their application? MRS. MOORE-To remove it. Tonight you have in front of you,you can say as presented with no gondola. MR. MC CABE-So we'll amend our motion to say as provided, or as presented by the applicant with no gondola. AYES: Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr.Henkel MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 47-2024,Lauren Walker,14 Seneca Drive. AREA VARIANCE NO. 47-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE 11 LAUREN WALKER AGENT(S) STEFANIE BITTER OWNER(S) LAUREN WALKER ZONING WR LOCATION 14 SENECA DR. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO DEMOLISH AN 802 SQ. FT. (FOOTPRINT) HOME TO CONSTRUCT AN 809 SQ. FT. HOME. THE NEW HOME WILL BE 2-STORY WITH A BASEMENT AND HAVE A FLOOR AREA OF 2,234 SQ.FT. THE HOME WILL ALSO INCLUDE A 21 SQ. FT. PORCH,A 26 SQ. FT.WALKWAY FROM THE COVERED ENTRY PORCH,AND A 470 SQ. FT. PATIO AREA OF PERMEABLE PAVERS. THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN THE TAKUNDEWIDE DEVELOPMENT AND IS CONNECTED TO AN ON-SITE SEPTIC AND WATER SUPPLY FROM THE LAKE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS, PERMEABILITY,AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 53-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE .05 ACRES TAX MAP NO.239.8-1-27 SECTION 179-3-040 STEFANIE BITTER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No.47-2024,Lauren Walker,Meeting Date: September 1S,2024 "Project Location: 14 Seneca Dr. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to demolish an S02 sq ft (footprint)home to construct an S09 sq ft footprint home.The new home will be 2-story with a basement and have a floor area of 2,324 sq ft.The home will also include a 21 sq ft porch,a 26 sq ft walkway from the covered entry porch, and a 470 sq ft patio area of permeable pavers. The project is located in the Takundewide development and is connected to an on-site septic and water supply from the lake. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks,permeability,and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,permeability,and floor area for the construction of a new home. The site is located on a 0.05 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The setbacks for the home from the North property line to the porch is 6 ft where 15 ft is required. The remaining property setbacks are proposed to be 10 ft where a 15 ft setback is required. The permeability is to be 54.40/o where 750/o is required. The floor area is proposed to be 1020/o or 1,521 sq ft greater based on the lot size where 220/o is the maximum allowed — the applicant has explained the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the IS.7 acres is common area for the association members. In addition, the master plan indicates the IS.7 ac is to be considered during the request for a house expansion of no greater than 6,037 sf for the existing parcel with the HOA lands. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) 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 appear limited due to the existing lot size. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate to substantial relevant to the code. The relief for the north side is 9 ft and the remaining property lines are 5 ft. The permeability is 20.60/o and the floor area is 1020/o greater. In regard to the Floor area,the applicant has explained that the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the IS.7 acres are common area for the association members. In addition,the master plan indicates the IS.7 acres are to be considered during the request for a house expansion with the HOA. 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 removal of the home for construction of a two-story home with a basement—the footprint would be S09 sq ft with a 470 sq ft permeable paver patio area. The project occurs in the Takundewide cottage development off of Cleverdale Rd. In 2003 the Planning Board adopted an MOU with Takundewide HOA outlining activities for future development. The project is similar to other cottages on the site where the increased floor area is the proposed 2 a floor mirroring the style of the other housing. The submission includes renditions of the proposed home with the existing roofline shown on the plans. The floor plans of the existing interior arrangement are provided." MR. URRICO-And then the Planning Board based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted September 17`h,2024 by a unanimous vote. MS.BITTER-Good evening. Stefanie Bitter for the record. I'm herewith George Walker,Lauren Walker's father. This property has been in the family for sometime. Ms.Walker has just conveyed the property as part of estate planning. It is the family's legacy and that's why they're taking it to the next chapter. Takundewide is a gem in the Town of Queensbury. As was mentioned in the Staff comments,this is part of a Homeowners Association. MR. MC CABE-We'll save you some,this is about the S'one of these. MS. BITTER-Well I wasn't there yet. I was going to say that this is not new information. We're just following the lead of others. This is actually the 1S1h out of the 32, and we really have just followed suit. We've made it exactly what was asked of us,and what wasn't mentioned in the Staff Notes is that this also had architectural review with the Homeowners Association. So this project has gone through several layers, and one last note is that it is 266 feet from the lake. We do understand that we are not a small property,but there's IS.7 acres of community land. MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? MR. HENKEL-I've just got one question. On our sheet here they've got down allowable floor space is 6,104 feet. That would not be right. MRS. MOORE-That's calculated with one eighth. MR.HENKEL-I understand that,but is that allowable to break that? Shouldn't it be allowable at the 503 feet? MRS. MOORE-So what's going on is that the MOU includes it as part of the agreement, but it's still considered a variance because that wasn't granted overall. So that's still something that this Board needs to weigh. 15 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MR. HENKEL-So the real information should be the 503 feet,not the 6,104. MRS. MOORE-Yes,but. MR. HENKEL-So it's a big allowance of variance. MR. MC CABE-Well it is and it isn't. MR. KUHL-Ms. Bitter,do you have a letter from the HOA letting you build this 2,324 square foot house? In your submittal here, the August 1S`h, 2003, the Takundewide Master Plan, Item Number Three, any cottage expansion will be limited to a maximum of 1536 square feet. Have you presented this to the HOA and do you have written verification that they approve of this? MS. BITTER-I do,and Mr.Walker can attest to that. GEORGE WALKER MS. BITTER-George Walker. MR.WALKER-Yes,we have approval in the minutes of the HOA. MR. KUHL-And where are those minutes? MS. BITTER-I can provide those minutes. MR. KUHL-But they're not here. So based on this,I can't go along with this. MS. BITTER-You can condition it on. MR. KUHL-Not me. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 there who would like to address us on this particular project. Do we have anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. 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 Ron. MR. KUHL-This appears at face value to be something similar to other applications, but without verification in the application, I cannot approve it. I'm talking about the verification of the 1536 square feet that the HOA will allow them to build a 2,324 square foot house. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I don't have an issue with the project. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-Neither do I. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm all for it. MR. MC CABE- MR. HENKEL-I agree with Ron,but I think that it's a good idea,and I approve it based on that condition. If you can approve that condition,then I think that would be great. It's a good project. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MR. MC CABE-And,again,having sat through eight of these,I don't have a problem with it. So,I wonder if,Dick,you could configure us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lauren Walker. Applicant proposes to demolish an S02 sq ft (footprint) home to construct an S09 sq ft footprint home. The new home will be 2-story with a basement and have a floor area of 2,324 sq ft. The home will also include a 21 sq ft porch, a 26 sq ft walkway from the covered entry porch, and a 470 sq ft patio area of permeable pavers. The project is located in the Takundewide development and is connected to an on-site septic and water supply from the lake. Site Plan for new floor area in a CEA. Relief requested for setbacks, permeability,and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks,permeability,and floor area for the construction of a new home. The site is located on a 0.05 ac parcel in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 The setbacks for the home from the North property line to the porch is 6 ft where 15 ft is required. The remaining property setbacks are proposed to be 10 ft where a 15 ft setback is required. The permeability is to be 54.40/o where 750/o is required. The floor area is proposed to be 1020/o or 1,521 sq ft greater based on the lot size where 220/o is the maximum allowed — the applicant has explained the parcel is part of an existing HOA where a majority of the IS.7 acres is common area for the association members. In addition, the master plan indicates the IS.7 ac is to be considered during the request for a house expansion of no greater than 6,037 sf for the existing parcel with the HOA lands. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 1S,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. This is one more of one more. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They're reasonable and really this is a mirror of everything that's gone before. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty is,by nature,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) That proof be provided that the Homeowners Association has approved the size of the structure. b) 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. 47-2024 LAUREN WALKER, Introduced by Richard Cipperly,who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 18th Day of September 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr.Kuhl 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MS. BITTER-Thank you very much. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is AV 49-2024,Don Manaher,26S Pickle Hill Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 49-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II DONALD MANAHAR OWNER(S) DONALD &z BARBARA MANAHAR ZONING RR-5A LOCATION 268 PICKLE HILL RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES TO INSTALL A 240 SQ. FT. SHED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE REAR. THE EXISTING HOME OF 1,708 SQ.FT.WITH 1,225 SQ.FT.PORCH AREAS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF 2024-024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2024 ADIRONDACK PARK AGENCY ALD LOT SIZE 1.58 ACRES TAX MAP NO.266.1-2-18 SECTION 179-5-020 DONALD MANAHER,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 49-2024, Donald Manahar, Meeting Date: September 1S, 2024 "Project Location: 26S Pickle Hill Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to install a 240 sq ft shed on the west side of the property to the rear. The existing home of 1,70E sq ft with 1,225 sq ft porch areas to remain with no changes. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for placement of a 240 sq ft shed. The project is to be on a 1.55 ac parcel. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures,179-3-040 dimensional The shed is to be placed in a corner of the parcel where it is to be 15 ft from the rear property line where a 30 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 possible however the applicant has indicated the neighbor has agreed to this location. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The request for relief may be considered moderate relevant to the code. The relief requested is 15 ft. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to install a new 240 sq ft shed on the property. There are no other changes to the site. The house and garage are to remain. The plans show the location of the shed and existing building on the site. " MR. MANAHER-This is Don Manaher. Thank you for hearing my request of a 15 foot relief where it's proposed and the existing requirement is 30 feet. Any other questions I can answer? MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions of the applicant? Seeing none,a public hearing has been advertised. At this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing, see if there's anybody out there that would like to address us on this particular project. Is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. 1S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MR. MC CABE-So I'll close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'll poll the Board,and I'll start with Dick. MR. CIPPERLY-I have no issue with it. The neighbors agree. It's fine with me. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-It's a logical place to put it. MR. MC CABEJohn? MR. HENKEL-I think you should put a bigger one in. You've got enough property there. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-I'm in favor of this as presented. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes,I'm in favor. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-I have no issue with this project. MR. MC CABE-And I,too,support the project. So,Ron,I wonder if you could give us a motion here. MR. KUHL-Yes,sir. Thank you,Mr. Chairman. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Donald Manaher. Applicant proposes to install a 240 sq It shed on the west side of the property to the rear. The existing home of 1,70E sq It with 1,225 sq ft porch areas to remain with no changes. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for placement of a 240 sq It shed. The project is to be on a 1.55 ac parcel. Section 179-5-020 accessory structures,179-3-040 dimensional The shed is to be placed in a corner of the parcel where it is to be 15 It from the rear property line where a 30 It setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 1S,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 as this property is large enough to afford this shed and the placement in the rear is the right place to place it. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board. They're reasonable and have been included to-minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial. Again, 15 feet from the rear property line when our regulations say 30 feet,but again the property is large enough to afford this. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Again,the property has plenty of room and it's the right location to put it. 5. The alleged difficulty is really not self-created. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) 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. 49-2024 DONALD MANAHER,Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th Day of September 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr.Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations you have a project. MR. MANAHER-Thank you for your time. MR. MC CABE-So,our next application is AV 50-2024 Steve Rowe,59 Barber Road. AREA VARIANCE NO. 50-2024 SEQRA TYPE TYPE II STEVE ROWE AGENT(S) AJA ARCHITECTURE &z PLANNING OWNER(S) STEVE &z KATHY ROWE ZONING WR LOCATION 59 BARBER RD. APPLICANT PROPOSES ALTERATIONS TO AN EXISTING HOME TO INCLUDE A NEW 72 SQ. FT. COVERED ENTRYWAY ON THE LOWER LEVEL, ENCLOSE EXISTING PORCH ON MAIN LEVEL FOR PANTRY AND DOG DOOR ACCESS AT THE FRONT OF THE HOME. THE ALTERATIONS TO THE LAKESIDE OF THE HOME INCLUDE ENCLOSING THE LAKESIDE PORCH AND A PET DOOR ACCESS. A NEW 120 SQ. FT. SHED IS TO BE INSTALLED ON THE NORTH SIDE, ALONG WITH A NEW 320 SQ. FT. DOCK. SITE WORK INCLUDES TREE REMOVAL, NEW SHORELINE PLANTING, STONE TRENCH AND GUTTERS ON THE HOME,&z REMOVAL OF EXISTING STONE WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE TO BE RE-GRADED. PROJECT ALSO INCLUDES ANEW 267 SQ.FT.PERMEABLE PAVER PATIO FROM THE PORCH FACING THE SHORELINE. SITE PLAN FOR NEW FLOOR AREA IN A CEA&z HARD SURFACING WITHIN 50 FT.OF SHORELINE. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS AND FLOOR AREA. CROSS REF SP 55-2024 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.15 ACRES TAX MAP NO.289.11-1-5 SECTION 179-3-040;179-5-060 JON ZAPPER&r SARA HAYNES,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 50-2024, Steve Rowe, Meeting Date: September 1S, 2024 "Project Location: 59 Barber Rd. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home to include a new 72 sq ft covered entryway on the lower level,enclose existing porch on main level for pantry and dog door access at the front of the home.The alterations to the lakeside of the home include enclosing the lakeside porch and a pet door access.A new 120 sq ft shed is to be installed on the north side, along with a new 320 sq ft dock.Site work includes tree removal,new shoreline planting,stone trench and gutters on the home,&r removal of existing stone wall on the north side to be regraded.Project also includes a new 267 sq ft permeable paver patio from the porch facing the shoreline. Site plan for new floor area in a CEA&hard surfacing within 50 ft of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for alterations to an existing home. The project site is 0.15 ac in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-5-060 dock The applicant proposes alterations to the existing home. The new roof area (new pantry)of the porch at the front is to be 5.21 ft where a 12 ft setback is required and the roof for the porch at the shoreline is 7.3 ft where a 12 ft setback is required. The enclosed lower porch area is to be 29.2 ft where a 50 ft setback is required. The proposed dock is to be 12 ft from the west property line where a 20 ft setback is required. The existing floor area is 2,765.55 sq ft and proposed is 2,S35.S5 sq ft and maximum allowed is 2,557.42 sq ft. Privacy fence location within 50 ft of the shoreline. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) 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 house location on the parcel. The dock location is also limited due to the property configuration. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered moderate relevant to the code. Relief for the shoreline setback 20.5 ft, the porch(pantry) 3.79 ft, the porch shore 4.7 ft, the dock S ft, the floor area 315.43 sf over the allowed of which 70 sf is new floor area. A portion of the privacy fence section is located within 50 ft of the shoreline where no privacy fencing is 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 may be considered to have minimal impact on the physical or the environmental conditions of the area. The project includes adding stormwater management to the site. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff comments: The applicant proposes project work to alter the existing home with a new porch entry, new windows, new roofing, and enclosing the lower level porch. The project includes site work for stormwater management,new shoreline plantings,fencing and a new dock. The plans show floor plan and elevations." MR. URRICO-And the Planning Board based on its limited review has not identified any significant adverse impacts that cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal, and that was adopted on September 17`h,2024 by a unanimous vote. MR. ZAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record,Jon Lapper with the applicants, Steven Rowe behind me and the architect Sara Haynes and Andy Allison behind me as well. So we were at the Planning Board last night for their review and they were all very much in favor of this,and we hope you will be,too. This is a bunch of very minor variances,but what's going on here is that this is an old house. I assume if any of you have been to the house,it's covered with mildew. There's no lawn area. It needs a lot of TLC, but what's proposed is to make this their permanent,year round retirement home. They're in Delmar now. They bought this recently,a completely new skin,which we'll show you. Most of the variances are just to maintain the existing, do a new front entry,because now you have to go up these horrible steps to get to the second floor. So that second floor entry will just be a porch which gets a new roof. So that new roof requires a setback variance from the southside, but it's the same as where the existing roof is. It's just getting re-done. The bottom area where there's this horrible wooden garage door when you look at it from the front, Laura, could you put up the existing picture,please,is going to be the new entrance, and that continues to the back on the lakeside where what's exterior will be enclosed for that bottom level and new glass doors added. The neighborhood, this house, before they bought it was kind of a terrible Air BNB house with lots of people in a very crowded area where the homes are on small lots. So everyone's been very pleased that the Rowe's bought it and are planning to clean it up and I think the architects have done a great job with what they have here. So the picture on the top right is the front with that porch that's up there and the stairs. So now that's going to be replaced by the entrance on the front on the bottom right, and the lakeside doesn't look much better. That will be enclosed as living space. The interesting story with the dock is that they have plenty of room on their deeded lot for 20 feet on each side of a single dock, but the neighbors on the north built a deck on the property line,and I don't know how this happened,but they changed the projection of it. I don't know if that was approved or not. So when they applied,Craig Brown looked at this and said,you know,if we measure it,because they've changed the property line by building this deck that really goes over the property line into the water. So when you do the extension of the property line from that neighbor's deck,it comes to 12 feet,just the very outside of this new dock,but it's 20 feet from what the real property line should be. So none of the neighbors have any issues with this. The fence on the north side is to cover, the neighbor, if you've been here, has three unattractive propane tanks just sitting thereon the property line. So if you could just switch up to the proposed,so completely new skin,but essentially the same home that the Planning Board last night was very complimentary on the design,but also that they weren't doing the typical knock it down and do something new,that this is using this and saving it. So it's the same house that's there now, just a lot more practical for them and a lot more attractive for the neighborhood. We can get into any detail that you'd like specifically and answer any questions,but that's the story. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MR. MC CABE-Do we have questions? John? MR.HENKEL-I think it's a great project. The only problem I have is probably with the dock. That's kind of a wide dock for that amount of footage that you have on the lake. You're talking an eight foot dock. Very few people have an eight foot dock. Most of them are six or four feet wide,and you're talking 40 feet out. So I think that could be adjusted a little bit somewhere. That's my own opinion. I think it should be around the six,six feet wide or four feet even. Forty feet out,that's a pretty good dock. MR. KEENAN-I'd agree with you,John. That's a big dock. MR. ZAPPER-So the applicant's reason for the eight feet is they're not going to have any shorefront at all. That this is the only access to the lake. Right now because of these kind of horrible,old trees that are just trunks,it's hardpan. If you were out there,nothing can be planted. It's just pine needles, and as part of this project they're going to completely landscape the whole shorefront. Sothis is really their only area to recreate. I mean there will be a little bit of grass,but that's the reason for the dock is to hangout on. MR. HENKEL-I totally agree with you,but going around Glen Lake, there's a lot of houses that are even closer than that that have a smaller dock. So that's how I feel. I don't know how the rest of the Board feels. I'm just telling you how I feel. MR. KUHL-How many trees are you going to cut down? MR. ZAPPER-Three trees,and that's not a variance issue. That's the Planning Board. MR. KUHL-I understand that,but you're going to re-plant? MR. ZAPPER-Yes. MR. URRICO Jon,are you going to answer John's question? MR. ZAPPER-The applicant said let's hear how the other Board members feel. They'd really like to have eight just because that's their shore access. MR.KUHL-Kind of overkill. You can get 40 foot. I don't think you need it. I live on the lake,by the way, and I know right where you are. I've been in the house,prior owners. It's a good project. It's a nice house. You might re-think,you know,why would you need 40 feet? You're probably going to get a 21 or 24 foot pontoon boat. Are you still pulling lake water,or are you going to drop a well? You're still pulling lake water? Yes. Forty feet,that might be,you might be sorry if you do it. You can get a 40 foot dock by our regulations without a variance, but I think you should re-think that. Look around the lake, but if you want,I'll take you around and I'll show you a 30 foot dock. Okay. MR. MC CABE-Questions? MR.KEENAN-My comment would be you could do the last 24 feet of your dock could be a four foot dock and you wouldn't have quite the square footage if you had eight foot out,a certain amount,and then extend it with a smaller dock. So more of an L shaped I guess. MR. MC CABE-Questions? A public hearing has been advertised. At this particular time I'm going to open the public hearing and see if there's anybody who would like to address us on this particular project. Is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-And I'm going to poll the Board,and I'm going to start with Ron. MR. KUHL-Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think you're asking for a lot, but I think it's also a good improvement to the property. I think you're upgrading the property. I know you have a small lot and again, I'm not going to say no,but if I was you I'd go to 30 foot, and I don't think you need 40 foot. The other thing you might consider instead of doing a straight dock,do an L shape,and that way you can sit at the end,if you want to sit there and look at the lake,okay. There are L shaped docks you could put in,but the way it's presented I would approve it. MR. MC CABEJohn? 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MR. HENKEL-Like I said,it's a great project,but it's a stickler for me. With the dock that they're asking for,I'd say no. MR. MC CABS Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-Nobody seems to be concerned in the neighborhood, and,you know, I live on the lake,too. I paddle by all the time past your property. I don't see that the wider dock is a big detriment either. So I'd be in favor of it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I'm listening to my fellow Board members. So I would be in favor of the project. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-As it stands,I like this project. I'd like to see the dock smaller,but I'd approve it as it is. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-I'm in favor of the project as presented. MR. MC CABE-And I, too, think it's a no brainer. Great improvement to the property, and what we're giving up is really very little considering what we're gaining here. So, I wonder if,Bob, I wonder if you'd do a motion for us here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Steve Rowe. Applicant proposes alterations to an existing home to include a new 72 sq ft covered entryway on the lower level, enclose existing porch on main level for pantry and dog door access at the front of the home. The alterations to the lakeside of the home include enclosing the lakeside porch and a pet door access. A new 120 sq ft shed is to be installed on the north side,along with a new 320 sq ft dock Site work includes tree removal,new shoreline planting, stone trench and gutters on the home, &removal of existing stone wall on the north side to be regraded.Project also includes a new 267 sq ft permeable paver patio from the porch facing the shoreline.Site plan for new floor area in a CEA&hard surfacing within 50 ft of shoreline. Relief requested for setbacks and floor area. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks and floor area for alterations to an existing home. The project site is 0.15 ac in the Waterfront Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 dimensional,179-5-060 dock The applicant proposes alterations to the existing home. The new roof area (new pantry)of the porch at the front is to be 5.21 ft where a 12 ft setback is required and the roof for the porch at the shoreline is 7.3 ft where a 12 ft setback is required. The enclosed lower porch area is to be 29.2 ft where a 50 ft setback is required. The proposed dock is to be 12 ft from the west property line where a 20 ft setback is required. The existing floor area is 2,765.55 sq ft and proposed is 2,S35.S5 sq ft and maximum allowed is 2,557.42 sq ft. Privacy fence location within 50 ft of the shoreline. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 1S,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 of the improvements they are bringing to the property for the neighborhood. 2. Feasible alternatives have been considered by the Board,are reasonable and have been included to minimize the request. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because it's an improvement to the property anyway. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2024) 5. The alleged difficulty may be considered self-created just due to the nature of the project and it's location. 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. 50-2024 STEVE ROWE,Introduced by Robert Keenan,who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 18th Day of September 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Keenan,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. McCabe NOES: Mr.Henkel MR. MC CABE-Congratulations.. MR. ZAPPER-Thanks,everybody MR. MC CABE-Our next application is AV 51-2024,Chris Bartley,29 Howard Street.. AREA VARIANCE NO.51-2024 SEQRA TYPE: TYPE II. CHRIS BARTLEY OWNER(S) CHRIS BARTLEY ZONING MDR LOCATION 29 HOWARD ST. APPLICANT REQUESTS TO MAINTAIN A 220 SQ., FT. SHED IN THE REAR OF THE YARD THAT HAD BEEN REBUILT AS THERE WAS AN EXISTING SHED ON THE PROPERTY THAT WAS DILAPIDATED. THE EXISTING 984 SF HOME IS TO REMAIN WITH NO CHANGES. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR SETBACKS. CROSS REF N/A WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 0.17 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 308.8-2-55 SECTION 179-5-020 CHRIS BARTLEY,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 51-2024, Chris Bartley, Meeting Date: September IS, 2024 "Project Location: 29 Howard St. Description of Proposed Project: Applicant requests to maintain a 220 sq It shed in the rear of the yard that had been rebuilt as there was an existing shed on the property that was dilapidated. The existing 984 sq It home is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for an existing shed to remain in its current location. The site is located on a 0.17 ac parcel in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 WR,179-5-020 sheds The shed is to remain at 0.5 ft from the rear property line where a 30 ft setback is required,then on side the shed is 6 ft from the property line where 25 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 29.5 feet to the rear and 19 ft to the side. 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) 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 220 sq It shed on the property in the existing location. The plans show the pictures of the shed and the shed in the current location." MR. BARTLEY-Chris Bartley,29 Howard Street. I had this shed on the property. I bought the property two years ago. It was on there. Ire-built it. I guess the square footage needed a variance for the setbacks. MR. MC CABE-It's not the square footage. It's just the setbacks. MR. BARTLEY-Yes,right. MR. MC CABE-It's pretty straightforward. MR. BARTLEY-Pretty straightforward. That's why I'm here today in front of you folks. MR. MC CABE-Okay. So do we have any questions of the applicant? MR. KUHL-Did you say that when you purchased the property the shed was already there? MR. BARTLEY-Yes. MR. KUHL-So of course all the people you paid when you bought this property,you paid them to make sure everything was right and straight,they didn't do their job. Right? MR. BARTLEY-Correct. MR. KUHL-And here you are,costing you money to do this. That's my rub. MR. HENKEL-You said you re-built it though,right? MR. BARTLEY-Yes. MR. HENKEL-So it's not the exact same shed as when you moved there. MR. BARTLEY-Yes,it is. MR. MC CABE-It's the same location. MR.BARTLEY-It's the same location. When I say re-built,I repaired what was broke on it and then vinyl siding,metal roof. MR. HENKEL-Okay. MR. KUHL-Are you going to put any water or electric in there? MR. BARTLEY-No. MR. MC CABE-Other questions? 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 on this particular project? So is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-Yes, there's one letter. "My neighbor that lives at 29 Howard Street, Queensbury, NY wants to get a variance for his oversized shed. The shed is also very close to my property line. His property is only 50 ft.wide. I would like for him to follow the rules that I have had to follow for 47 years. I would like him to have the correct size shed,and have the shed the correct distance from the property line,as well as the correct amount of sheds allowed. So please do not give him the variance. Thank you,Janice Chadwick 16 Leo Street,Queensbury,NY" MR. URRICO-Is this the only shed you have there? 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MR. BARTLEY-Yes. MR. MC CABE-I think he was just reading the rule,or the law. MR. KUHL-It looks like there's a light fixture to the right of the door. MR. BARTLEY-Yes,solar. MR. KUHL-So you do have electric in there. MR. BARTLEY=No,it's solar. MR. KUHL-Solar. Okay. Thank you. MR. MC CABE-So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR. MC CABE-I'm going to poll the Board,and I'm going to start with Bob> MR. KEENAN-I think this is reasonable for the size of the lot and it's an existing shed. So I'm okay with it. MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I'm okay with it. MR. MC CABE Jim? MR. UNDERWOOD-I'm okay. MR. MC CABEJohn? MR. HENKEL-Yes,I'm all good. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes,I agree. I think it's a good project. MR. MC CABE-Roy? MR. URRICO-=Yes,I'm in favor,too. MR. MC CABE-And I have no problem with it. Obviously you repaired a dwelling that was in disrepair and so that's always good. So,Dick,I wonder if you'd give us a motion here. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Chris Bartley. Applicant requests to maintain a 220 sq ft shed in the rear of the yard that had been rebuilt as there was an existing shed on the property that was dilapidated. The existing 9S4 sq It home is to remain with no changes. Relief requested for setbacks. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for setbacks for an existing shed to remain in its current location. The site is located on a 0.17 ac parcel in the Moderate Density Residential zone. Section 179-3-040 MDR,179-5-020 sheds The shed is to remain at 0.5 ft from the rear property line where a 30 ft setback is required,then on side the shed is 6 ft from the property line where 25 ft setback is required. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on September 1S,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: 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) 1. There is not an undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood nor a detriment to nearby properties. This is really replacing a dilapidated shed in the same location. 2. Feasible alternatives are not possible. 3. The requested variance is not substantial because the shed's already there. It's just approving an existing condition. 4. There is not an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. 5. The alleged difficulty,just by nature,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. 51-2024 CHRIS BARTLEY, Introduced by Richard Cipperly,who moved for its adoption, seconded by James Underwood: Duly adopted this 18th Day of September 2024 by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. MR. BARTLEY-Thankyou. MRS.MOORE-So we'll talk tomorrow,if you want to give me a call,Mr.Bartley,and then I'll explain what final plans are and what you may also need. Okay? MR. BARTLEY-Yes. MR. MC CABE-So our next application is SV 9-2024,AJ Signs. SIGN VARIANCE NO.9-2024 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED AJ SIGNS FOR TD BANK AGENT(S) AJ SIGNS OWNER(S) BANKNORTH FACILITIES MGT.SERVS. ZONING Cl LOCATION 54 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES ONE WALL SIGN OF 25.07 SQ. FT. TD SQUARE WITH BANK LETTERS ILLUMINATED (SO4). THE SITE HAS EXISTING SIGNAGE OF 19.16 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON SOUTH SIDE OF BUILDING (SOI), A 17.04 SQ. FT. WALL SIGN ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING (S03), A MONUMENT SIGN OF 17.8 SQ. FT. ALONG QUAKER ROAD (S-05), AND FIVE DIRECTIONAL SIGNS OF 3.42 SQ. FT. BETWEEN QUAKER ROAD AND BANK STREET. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS. CROSS REF 2024- 0142;2024-0145;2024-0146;SP 40-96 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING SEPTEMBER 2024 LOT SIZE 2.43 AC(64);0.25 AC(65) TAX MAP NO. 302.6-1-64&z 302.6-1-65 SECTION 140 CARL WHEELER,REPRESENTING APPLICANT,PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 9-2024, AJ Signs for TD Bank, Meeting Date: September 1S, 2024 "Project Location: 54 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes one wall sign of 25.07 sq It TD square with Bank letters illuminated(SO4).The site has existing signage of 19.16 sq It wall sign on south side of building (SOI), a 17.94 sq It wall sign on north side of building (S03), a monument sign of ITS sq It along Quaker Road (S05), and five directional signs of 3.42 sq ft between Quaker Road and Bank Street. Relief requested for number of wall signs. Relief Required: 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/IS/2024) The applicant requests relief for number of wall signs on an existing bank building. The building is located on a 2.273 ac parcel and.252 ac parcel. Section 140-signs The new sign is to be located on the west wall of the building and is 25.07 sf and the site has two existing wall signs. Relief is requested to have more than one wall sign. 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. 3. Whether the requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project as proposed 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 existing building of 9,062 sq It is to remain and no site changes are proposed. The project is for new signs upgrading the TD Bank lettering and coloring. The plans show the signs existing and proposed." MR.WHEELER-Carl Wheeler with AJ Signs. We're simply just trying to get the third wall sign approved. So they have grading on that elevation so that when you're heading down Quaker Road you can see that. MR.MC CABE-We have questions of the applicant? Pretty straightforward. So 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 there that would like to address us on this particular project. Is there anything written,Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-No written comment. MR. MC CABE-So 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 Roy. MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of the project. Is TD Bank changing their name? I thought there was a brand change in the works. MR.WHEELER-No. They're simply updating colors and I think their logo changed slightly. MR. URRICO-Okay. I'm okay. MR. MC CABE-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes,I have no problem with the project as presented. MR. MC CABE John? MR. HENKEL-Sounds good. MR. MC CABEJim? MR. UNDERWOOD-No problen-L 2S (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/1S/2024) MR. MC CABE-Dick? MR. CIPPERLY-I'm okay with it. MR. MC CABE-Bob? MR. KEENAN-No issue. MR. MC CABE-And I,too,approve the project. It's pretty minimal. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from AJ Signs (for TD Bank). Applicant proposes one wall sign of 25.07 sq It TD square with Bank letters illuminated(SO4). The site has existing signage of 19.16 sq ft wall sign on south side of building (SOI), a 17.94 sq It wall sign on north side of building(S03),a monument sign of ITS sq It along Quaker Road(S05),and five directional signs of 3.42 sq It between Quaker Road and Bank Street. Relief requested for number of wall signs. Relief Required: The applicant requests relief for number of wall signs on an existing bank building. The building is located on a 2.273 ac parcel and.252 ac parcel. Section 140-signs The new sign is to be located on the west wall of the building and is 25.07 sf and the site has two existing wall signs. Relief is requested to have more than one wall sign. SEQR Type:Unlisted [Resolution/Action Required for SEQR] Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 9-2024. Applicant Name: AJ Signs (for TD Bank) 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 Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 18th Day of September 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Underwood,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday,September 1S,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. As the applicant has said,they're just upgrading their signage. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? No, they can't. As we've said, they're updating their signage. Changing the colors. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? Not really. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? No,it won't. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Yes,you can say it's self-created because they wanted more signs than the regulations allow. 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. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 09/18/2024) (ZBA Board Member does Dot Deed to read the following A 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; 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 9-2024, Al SIGNS FOR TD BANK , Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Robert Keenan: Duly adopted this 18th Day of September 2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Keenan,Mr.Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Urrico,Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Underwood,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE MR. MC CABE-Congratulations,you have a project. I make a motion that we close tonight's meeting. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2024, Introduced by Robert Keenan who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this IS'day of September,2024,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico,Mr. Henkel,Mr. Cipperly,Mr. Underwood, Mr. Kuhl,Mr. Keenan,Mr. McCabe NOES: NONE On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Michael McCabe,Chairman 30