Loading...
05-29-2013 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 29, 2013 INDEX Area Variance No. 13-2013 Michael Greenstein 1. Tax Map No. 315.6-1-31 Sign Variance No. 12-2013 Brittany&Megan Alexander 8. d/b/a Country House Bed&Breakfast Tax Map No. 297.10-1-52 Area Variance No. 17-2013 Richard&Sherry Straub 13. Tax Map No. 302.12-1-23 Sign Variance No. 16-2013 Larissa Boychuk 22. Tax Map No. 296.18-1-5 Sign Variance No. 14-2013 Saxton Sign Corp. 27. Tax Map No. 303.15-1-10 THESE ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED MINUTES AND ARE SUBJECT TO BOARD AND STAFF REVISIONS. REVISIONS WILL APPEAR ON THE FOLLOWING MONTHS MINUTES (IF ANY) AND WILL STATE SUCH APPROVAL OF SAID MINUTES. 0 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING MAY 29, 2013 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT STEVEN JACKOSKI, CHAIRMAN ROY URRICO, SECRETARY JOYCE HUNT RICHARD GARRAND JOHN HENKEL RONALD KUHL KYLE NOONAN LAND USE PLANNER-LAURA MOORE STENOGRAPHER-SUE HEMINGWAY MR. JACKOSKI-Good evening, everyone. Welcome today, May 29th, our Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting. For those of you who haven't been here in the past,there is a sheet in the back that kind of explains our process. It's quite simple. We'll call each application up to the table here. Roy will read the application into the record. We'll ask the applicant some questions. They can certainly add to their project record if they wish. When a public hearing is scheduled, we'll open the public hearing, and then we'll, of course, determine whether we're going to close the public hearing or move on for some other actions. We don't have any other Old Business this evening. So we're going to start right away with New Business. AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2013 SEQRA TYPE II MICHAEL GREENSTEIN OWNER(S) MICHAEL GREENSTEIN ZONING SR-1A EFFECTIVE DATE 9/19/1988 ZONING ORDINANCE FOR SECTION 6 CURRENT: MDR LOCATION 10 FOUNDERS WAY; LOT 150 IN BEDFORD CLOSE, SEC. 8 APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 7,200 SQ. FT. TENNIS COURT ACCESSORY STRUCTURE WITH EACH END HAVING A 10 FT. HIGH FENCE SECTION. RELIEF REQUESTED FOR CONSTRUCTING AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE GREATER THAN 120 SQ. FT. COURT LOCATION REQUIRES RELIEF FOR THE SIDE AND REAR SETBACK. THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE TENNIS FENCE SECTIONS GREATER THAN 6 FT. ALSO REQUIRES RELIEF. CROSS REF BP 2012-071 SFD WARREN COUNTY PLANNING N/A LOT SIZE 1.09 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 315.6-1-31 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-5-070 MICHAEL GREENSTEIN, PRESENT STAFFINPUT Notes from Staff, Area Variance No. 13-2013, Michael Greenstein, Meeting Date: May 29, 2013 "Project Location: 10 Founders Way, Lot 150 in Bedford Close, Sec. 6 Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 7,200 sq. ft. tennis court with each end having a 10 ft.high fence section. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: Accessory Structure: Maximum allowed accessory structure 120 sq. ft.; Proposed 7,200 sq.ft.; Relief requested 7080 sq.ft. Side setback: Required 10 ft.; Proposed 5 ft.; Relief requested 5 ft. Rear setback: Required 20 ft.; Proposed 5 ft.; Relief requested 15 ft. Height relief for fence: Maximum allowed in rear yard 6 ft.; Proposed 10 ft.; Relief 4 ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Lots in this area of Founders Way are a 1 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) little over an acre, the applicant's rear yard has stockade fence there is some trees on neighboring properties that may screen the view of the fencing. 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 are limited due to the location of the house on the lot and the size of the court. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The applicant has requested one accessory structure that is numerical substantial to the code allowance. The fence height requested is only for 10 ft. areas of the fence which are located at either end of the court. The fence height is considered moderate. The setbacks relief requested is minimal due to the house location. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor impacts on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2012-071: Single family dwelling Staff comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 7, 200 sq. ft. tennis court in the rear yard of the property. The court will have fence sections at 10 ft. in height on the ends of the court. The court is to be located at the rear property at the northwest corner. The applicant has indicated the neighboring houses are at a distance from the project site and the court will be hidden behind the fence. The applicant proposes the court location so it is not so close to the rear of the house. The applicant proposes the grading of the project area will be constructed so stormwater will be maintained on site. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review needed" MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. MR. GREENSTEIN-Good evening. MR.JACKOSKI-Do you have anything you'd like to add to the record? MR. GREENSTEIN-That's pretty much it, and it's actually, you know, if I were to do the setbacks that's required, the actual tennis court would literally be two feet on the actual house itself. So, yes,that's basically it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Are there any questions,at this time,from Board members? MR. KUHL-Yes, I have one. The trees that I see back there, are they on your property or are they on your neighbor's property? MR. GREENSTEIN-A combination of the two, and that's another thing. I don't want to have to remove more trees if I were to go further back towards the back property line. MR. KUHL-Well, I was thinking something different, that if your neighbor clear cuts his trees, your tennis court is going to be stark there. I was wondering why you didn't move it and give yourself 10 feet. That way you could plant a buffer if you had to. MR. GREENSTEIN-I mean, I could do that, but like I say, I would have to remove 10 feet worth of trees. MR. KUHL-No, no. I'm saying bring it closer your house. I'm not saying push it back further. I almost think you should have more separation between the rear of your tennis court and your property line, so that if you had to put up a buffer, you'd have enough land to do it. What can you 2 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) plant on five feet? Because you're using your neighbor's trees as your buffer, effectively. Would you say that? MR. GREENSTEIN-Yes. MR. KUHL-I mean,for me, everybody expects the other property owner to maintain a buffer. MR. GREENSTEIN-Correct,absolutely. MR. KUHL-And I was just wondering why you haven't left yourself more of a buffer, so that if you had to plant trees,you could. MR. GREENSTEIN-Well, I plan to plant the trees. Right now the trees aren't there,unfortunately. I can show you another picture. Can I come across to show it to you? Unfortunately, as you can tell, a lot of the trees were taken down. So that's what we're looking at. MR.KUHL-Right. MR. GREENSTEIN-And I do plan, for privacy, to put a buffer of trees there in any case, but the trees are gone. MR. NOONAN-Now,you said that if you bring the court closer to the house,it would be on the house foundation. Is that what you're saying? It looks like you've got plenty of land there. MR. GREENSTEIN-This porch here is actually a (lost word), and if I were to move 20, an extra 15 feet towards the house, this (lost words) at least distance between the two here, the drainage, and at least to walk by. MR. NOONAN-Okay. So how far is the house from the road here? Is that 53 feet? MR. GREENSTEIN-53.7,yes. MR. GARRAND-Okay. So basically when you were planning this house, you didn't plan this court. You planned this court after the house was built? MR. GREENSTEIN-You know what,we did plan the court,but for some reason it(lost words). MR. GARRAND-Because it's something you could have worked with there. MR. GREENSTEIN-I know, believe me, we did plan it, and if you were to look at the original one, it didn't show that far (lost word). The architect made an error with the setbacks. Believe me, I would have gladly moved the house to avoid all of this, but the original plan shows a much larger, you know,setback. MR. HENKEL-You're saying from this distance to here is how many feet,from that slab to the court? MR. GREENSTEIN-Well,if you look at this,you have 82.6 between the slab. MR. HENKEL-And you've got 60 feet wide. MR. GREENSTEIN-That leaves me 20. If I had five from the back, it would give me 15 between the house and the, which is enough for drainage as well as a fence, and, you know, not to be that intrusive that it's right there. MR.JACKOSKI-Are there any other questions tonight? MRS. HUNT-I have a question. How do your neighbors feel,the ones to the west? Have you spoken to them? MR. GREENSTEIN-You know what, I haven't really spoken to the ones behind me, but my neighbor to the side of me,he's fine,but if you, I could show you. MR.URRICO-Is that Dave Moynehan? MR. GREENSTEIN-Yes. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR.URRICO-Okay,because I have a letter here that says just differently,but I'll read that in. MR. GREENSTEIN-If you have a look here, you can see where this property is, obviously. It's the neighbor in the back that's quite a distance away. I don't know if you got anything from the guy behind me,but I actually haven't met the gentleman yet who actually lives there. MR.URRICO-Well,what I was going to ask is along those lines. I'll read this in in a few minutes,but Dave Moynehan, Dave and Mary Moynehan suggest that, their understanding was that your intention was to withdraw the side setback request because otherwise they would object to that. MR. GREENSTEIN-Yes, well, if it came down to it, if it came down to, you know, let's say the Board decided which was more important, it's more important for me to get the rear setback, the side setback, because of the way the property lies. If I don't get the setback on the side, that's fine, because you (lost words). It's pretty wide already from him. So it's not a big deal, the side, and if he has an objection against it,that's fine. MR.URRICO-So you could actually move this part back. MR. GREENSTEIN-Well,yes,yes,I don't mind moving this way. MR.URRICO-You can move that way to get away from that line. MR. GREENSTEIN-Yes,yes. It's this that's important. MR.URRICO-So you're talking about the width close? MR. GREENSTEIN-Exactly. That's what's important. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. GREENSTEIN-I mean,that's why it's not a big deal. A lot of room. MR.URRICO-So you have two ways to move this, I mean,two ways to alleviate the setback. You can shorten the baseline,couldn't you,somewhat? I mean, I know your regulations are 2800,right? MR. GREENSTEIN-Right. MR. URRICO-And then you have a 12 foot perimeter on each side, and then 21 feet in the baseline on each side. So you could actually shorten that. MR. GREENSTEIN-Well, I really want to try to stay with the proper size of court. MR.URRICO-I've got you. MR. GREENSTEIN-But like I say, I could definitely move it there and avoid that side, variance request for that. It's the rear one which is more important,because,like I say,that's the one where I'm sitting on the house. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. GREENSTEIN-Dave's side I don't have any problem. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. GREENSTEIN-Because quite candidly, it already is 10 feet, because extends another five feet with his fence and I have five. MR. URRICO-Well, hopefully your play is better than mine and 10 feet is enough to keep the ball in the yard. It's sort of funny,but if the ball gets hit into the other yard, and he objects to the five foot setback,then it becomes a problem to retrieve the ball all the time. MR. GREENSTEIN-Well, you know, like I say, obviously, he's not happy about it, so I can take that one away and stay within the setbacks for that. MR.URRICO-Okay. 4 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. NOONAN-Mr. Greenstein,do you plan on lighting this tennis court? MR. GREENSTEIN-No. I mentioned that to the neighbors as well. We're not, quite frankly, we're not big tennis players. It's just that we have all this land that they've taken all the trees, and my wife used to play in high school. So we thought it was something good for the kids., but, yes, no night lights. No evening playing. We don't want to disturb the neighborhood or the neighbors for that matter. MR. NOONAN-I assume it's going to be asphalt,right? MR. GREENSTEIN-Yes. MR. NOONAN-Okay. MR. KUHL-A question for Staff. If the applicant proposes the grading of the project to be constructed so stormwater will be maintained on site,are we concerned with how that stormwater is maintained here? Because we don't care,or that's going somewhere else? MRS. MOORE-That's just an awareness point that I had a discussion with the applicant about, so that,because it's so close to that property line, I just wanted to make sure that there wasn't just like a fence being on a property line. You want to make sure that the neighbor's not obstructed in any sort. It does not matter to the Zoning Board. It was a comment that was, it's just a comment in general from Staff to the Board. It's not something that the Board will make a decision upon. MR. KUHL-Who will? MRS.MOORE-Nobody will. It's not relevant, I guess. MR. KUHL-Okay. MRS.MOORE-Okay. MR. KUHL-I rest my case. MR. HENKEL-There is all sand up there,but still. MR. KUHL-I know,but we make people put rain gardens in. MR. HENKEL-You're right. MR. KUHL-I mean,we go to great lengths,right,in different areas. MR. JACKOSKI-Any other questions at this time? Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll ask Roy to read the written comment into the record, and then I will ask anyone here in the audience this evening if they would like to make additional comment. Roy? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR. URRICO-"Ladies and Gentlemen: We are the owners of 8 Founders Way, Queensbury, a property directly adjacent to the 10 Founders Way property that is the subject of a variance application in the name of Michael Greenstein. Mr. Greenstein wishes to construct a tennis court; the application seeks setback variances on the rear and north-side property lines,as well as a fence height variance. We have no objection to the variance request regarding the height of the proposed fencing. The applicant requests a setback variance to place the new structure closer to the two (2) property lines than allowed by the Code. We would object to that variance for the side property line since granting it would not have no effect at all on the applicant's stated reason that the variance is needed because otherwise the tennis court would be too close to his house. We have been advised by Mr. Greenstein that it is his intent to withdraw his request for a setback variance along the side property line,which abuts our own property. That being the case,we have no objections to the remaining portions of his variance application. Please feel free to contact us with any questions. Respectfully, David & Mary Moynehan 8 Founders Way Queensbury, NY 12804" MR. JACKOSKI-No other written comment? Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, at this time I'll poll the Board before we close the public hearing,and I'll start with Rick? 5 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. GARRAND-I've got a problem with the side setback variance. I agree with the neighbors. If it's going to be used as a tennis court,you should have at least a 10 foot side setback on the side so that people aren't going over the fence all the time to retrieve balls, and I also would like to see some sort of buffer, as stated by Mr. Kuhl, between the west side of the tennis, on the west side of the tennis court. What we don't want is the neighbors to be disturbed by tennis balls bouncing around their yards all the time. I mean,that's just kind of disruptive to the neighbors. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-With consideration to moving the side setback, or changing the side setback, I think I would be in favor of the project. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR.KUHL-Yes, I mean,they're asking you to move it five feet so you don't need a side setback. MR. GREENSTEIN-Yes,that's no problem. MR. KUHL-If that's not a problem, I would like to see, after it's in, I think you should have some plants behind it,some plantings. MR. GREENSTEIN-Absolutely,I plan to,for privacy also. MR.KUHL-Okay. I have no problem. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-I have to agree with my fellow Board members. If the side setback is removed, I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes, same here. As long as they go to a required 10 feet setback on the side, I'd go along with it,too. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I would agree. I'd be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have the comments from the Board. At this time, before we close the public hearing, I guess we're looking for some guidance from the applicant as to how you might, I mean, are you thinking you'd like to modify your requests or are you wanting to table the matter until further or how would you like to proceed? MR. GREENSTEIN-I don't know what the procedure is. MR. URRICO-He suggested earlier that he would be amenable to sliding the entire court back five feet. MR.JACKOSKI-From the side setback. MR.URRICO-From the side setback. MR. GREENSTEIN-So in other words,yes,just, I'm requesting the setback from the rear lot,but then the side,we'll just omit the side setback request. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So the applicant has withdrawn the side setback variance request and has asked that we just consider the rear yard setback variance request of five feet. MR. GREENSTEIN-And the fence. MR.JACKOSKI-And the fence,yes. Correct,thank you. 6 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MRS. MOORE-Just for clarification, if you're looking for plantings, are you going to require that as part of your condition, and if so, then do you want to give him a numerical value of plantings or do you have an idea of the plantings that you intend to put back there? MR. GREENSTEIN-I do. I'm going to be planting privacy evergreen, I'm not sure of the exact names, but I've been looking into, you know, like I say, it's important for us also to have privacy, and that's why we built so close,so that we didn't have to see our neighbors quite frankly. MR. GARRAND-He's basically going to put up some privacy bushes,then. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay, but we always get into this hurdle of, you know, are they one foot tall or are they six feet tall? Are they every 10 feet, 30 feet? I mean, it's all subjective when we just say, I think Staff is looking for more guidance as to how to. MRS. MOORE-It is something that we can do in the field, if the applicant, as part of your conditioning, and if you feel it's necessary to put it as part of your condition,that the applicant will work with Staff to develop a plan for submission that indicates privacy bushes. MR.JACKOSKI-Is that okay with the applicants? MR. GREENSTEIN-Yes,and they can tell me what sizes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay, and I heard the other condition would be that the courts would not be lighted. Correct? MR. GREENSTEIN-Correct,absolutely. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And can I have a motion,please? MRS. HUNT-I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thanks,Joyce. MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 13-2013 MICHAEL GREENSTEIN, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Garrand: 10 Founders Way, Lot 150 in Bedford Close, Sec. 6. The applicant proposes construction of a 7200 square foot tennis court with each end having a 10 foot high fence section. The relief required. The maximum allowed accessory structure is 120 square feet, proposed 7200 square feet, relief requested 7,080 square feet. The rear setback, required 20 feet, proposed 5 feet, relief requested 15 feet. Height relief for the fence maximum allowed in the rear is 6 feet, proposed is 10 feet and relief is 4 feet, and the applicant will work with Staff on privacy plantings in the rear of the court, and to determine spacing quantity and heights. There will be minor impacts on the neighborhood. The lot is over an acre. Feasible alternatives seem to be limited because of the location of the house and the size of the court. Minor impacts on the environmental conditions of the neighborhood, and the difficulty may be considered self-created. So I move that we approve Area Variance No. 13- 2013. With the condition that the courts not be lighted. Duly adopted this 29th day of May, 2013, by the following vote: MR. JACKOSKI-And before get a second, just to clarify. Joyce had mentioned privacy fencing, but I think what we want to refer to that as is privacy plantings. MRS. HUNT-Privacy plantings,sorry. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. No,that's fine,Joyce,no problem. MR. KUHL-And that he would work with Staff on spacing quantity. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So, and to clarify that it will note that the applicant has agreed to work with Staff to determine spacing quantity and heights. Can I have a second,please? 7 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. GARRAND-Second. MR. JACKOSKI-Any further discussion? And are we going to make mention, did we not, about no lighting of the courts? I'd like to condition it on not having the courts be lighted. Everybody okay with that? MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. GREENSTEIN-Thank you very much. Thank you,everyone. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 12-2013 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED BRITTANY AND MEGAN ALEXANDER d/b/a COUNTRY HOUSE BED & BREAKFAST. OWNER(S) BRITTANY AND MEGAN ALEXANDER ZONING MDR LOCATION 667 RIDGE ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES PLACEMENT OF A 3 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN TO BE AFFIXED TO THE EXISTING LANTERN-POST SITUATED IN THE FRONT YARD. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM THE MINIMUM 15 FT. FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR SIGNAGE. CROSS REF BP 2013-103; SP 7- 2013 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2013 LOT SIZE 3.19 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 297.10- 1-52 SECTION 140-6 BRITTANY&MEGAN ALEXANDER, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 12-2013, Brittany and Megan Alexander, Meeting Date: May 29, 2013 "Project Location: 667 Ridge Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes placement of a 3 sq. ft. freestanding sign to be affixed to the existing lantern post situated on the front yard. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Sign Setback: Required 15 ft setback; Proposed 7.5 ft; Relief 7.5 ft Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. A feasible alternative is possible by relocating the sign to a compliant location but is limited potentially due to visibility. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The applicant requests relief for 7.5 ft. would be considered minimal to moderate based on the code requirements. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. Minor 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 Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, i3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) BP 2013-103: Sign Pending SP 7-2013: Bed&Breakfast Staff comments: The applicant proposes placing an 18 in by 24 in double faced sign on an existing lamp post that is 7.5 ft. from the front property line. The plans submitted show the location of the sign and size this includes photos, and a sign rendition. The applicant has indicated the sign will allow for the advertisement of the Bed and Breakfast in a visible part of the property adjacent to the driveway. The sign is to be lighted by the existing lamp post. SEQR Status: Unlisted" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. It's a pretty straightforward application. Three whole square feet of signage. Do you have anything you want to,or would you like us just to ask some questions? MS.ALEXANDER-Go ahead and ask questions. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from the Board members on this one? We all know where this house is. It's quite historic. MRS. HUNT-I'd like to make a statement. MR.JACKOSKI-Go ahead. MRS. HUNT-I'd like to congratulate you on making good use of this beautiful home. MS.ALEXANDER-Thank you. MRS. HUNT-I think it's a wonderful addition to Queensbury. Thank you. MS.ALEXANDER-Thank you so much. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. I don't think there are any other comments or questions from Board members. I am going to open up the public hearing. Roy,is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this matter? Please, sir, if you could come to the table, and if you could give up the table just for a moment. Thank you. Familiar faces. Welcome. CHRISTOPHER LYNCH MR. LYNCH-Good to be back,well,sort of. I'm Christopher Lynch. This is my wife Maureen Lynch. We're adjacent property owners that border with the Alexanders. We talked a little while ago with the planning commission, and we and about a dozen neighbors were pretty much against the idea, but, se la vi, it's going to be there. I thought the idea of putting a bed and breakfast on Dead Man's curve was the silliest idea I've heard in a long time. I was wrong. Putting a sign there is even sillier. The idea of a sign is to attract attention. I think we can all agree on that. I think anybody who's watched television lately or listened to the radio knows that distracted driving is just like drunk driving, pretty much the safety on both sides is about equal. The idea of having 24/7 drunk drivers driving around Dead Man's curve just exacerbates what's, you know, over the history, you know, there've been fatals there. There've been some pretty nasty accidents. I've seen a whole bunch of them. MR. GARRAND-Dead Man's curve is notorious for drunks. MR. LYNCH-I've seen so many of them collected it's been absolutely ridiculous. I've owned that land since the 70's. I've lived there since the 80's. We've seen our share, but again, the idea of exacerbating the situation. The idea is to,you know, just one foot is the difference between living 9 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) on the curve and dying on the curve. The locals know about it, but the tourists,you know,the bed and breakfast aficionados. Look, a bed and breakfast, you know, and they're dead, just like that. That's how it happens, in a second, half a second. So I,you know, that is basically, I just think that it's just showing a gross and reckless disregard for safety and ultimately human life. The son of the last B&B owner died on that stretch of road. It's serious, and he lived there. It would be real serious if anybody had a small car and tried to pull out on that on a summer day with all the tourists coming around there, 50, 60, 70 miles an hour. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Speaking to the specific Ordinance, will an undesirable change be made, well, yes, you up the number of accidents on a dangerous curve. I think any advertising sign is going to detract from that area, and, you know, the more, it's almost a joke right now, since I was quoted in the newspaper as opposing this wonderful, a little while ago. I was just up in Minerva yesterday and I was getting joked at Sporty's Bar, I hear you don't like,honestly, for a three foot sign, I could care less,but I think you're going to kill some people if you let this one go through,literally. That's just,you know,what is it, a three foot sign. We've got a bed and breakfast coming in, so, again, I believe it will change the neighborhood to negative, in a negative way. The neighborhood on dead man's curve already depresses property values, a few more headlines and we'll be just wonderful. Can the benefit by sought by other means? Yes,just put the sign on the building. When you have a potential client coming in, tell them, give them a (lost words) with the directions going there, maybe get a fancy signpost or something (lost word) or something like that, but something that won't distract people driving by. I can think of a dozen,put it in your advertising,you know,here's exactly where we are, right on the curve. It's like across the street, you know, there used to be that little boy with the black child fishing, everybody knows that, and they still do. It hasn't been there for 10 years, everybody knows that. So there are 100 ways. MR.JACKOSKI-So,I mean,sir,we do have a time limit. MR. LYNCH-Is the variance sought substantial? They say it's moderate, you know, yes, I think it does, it decreases safety and it's just, it's a gross difference in the Ordinance. Is there an adverse impact on physical or environmental conditions? Yes, we start getting more accidents at will. Is the situation self-created? Yes. Again, for a three foot sign, personally I could care less. One, I do think there's going to be a safety aspect going here, but, two, and more importantly, once the variance is located, what's next? A three foot, a six foot sign, so what's the lighting on this sign, I don't know, I haven't seen anything about it. What will the lighting be? What's the next variance going to be,you know,am I going to see a 10 foot neon donut? MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Is there anything else,sir? MR. LYNCH-No, I just don't like the precedent. I think we should stay where we are. I think it's, you know,there are numerous ways around it,and I think everybody would benefit. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MAUREEN LYNCH MRS. LYNCH-If I could just. MR.JACKOSKI-If you could state your name for the record,please. MRS. LYNCH-I'm Maureen Lynch. If I could just make a couple of points. As far as the five criteria that they're looking at, my biggest concern is safety as well. I also think this is going to set a bad precedent. It says that the change would be moderate or minor. I think it is substantial. There is no business sign that I know of on or immediately near Dead Man's curve, and no matter what you call the house, it's known for the location, and there's a reason for the name, and the idea of putting a sign,big or small,if it's smaller, people have to squint and look for it. If it's only a few feet off the road, but higher up, the majority of out of town people are coming from the south direction. They're going to have to be looking across the road trying to find a house and a sign. You tend to move towards what you're looking at. What happens,there's a greater likelihood you're going into the other lane, which is a blind curve. If it is back towards the house,they can take a photo of the house and send that out to people who are making bookings,but I don't want to see a sign out there because it establishes precedent, and frankly I think it'll have an adverse impact on the rest of the neighborhood, and it is marked as a historic neighborhood by the Town, not us. This is not going to enhance that at all,but I would like that looked at. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. HENKEL-What is the speed limit there,is it 45? 10 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR.LYNCH-60, 70. MR.JACKOSKI-No,it's not. MR. LYNCH-It's a State road,so Queensbury is like,they wash their hands of it completely. I believe it's 45 or 50 miles an hour, but you're welcome to sit in my driveway some morning, see what it really is. MRS. LYNCH-Drunk driving is not necessarily going to be the problem. Distracted driving is,which has as great an impact on the driver. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Thankyou. MRS. LYNCH-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? MRS. LYNCH-I don't know if there will be any other neighbors here because these things were mailed out right before the weekend. Most people are out of town or cannot be contacted. The same thing happened with the site plan review in February. We didn't have adequate time to even get up to take a full look at the application on file,and I don't know anyone else who did. MR.JACKOSKI-Staff,do you know if these notices were mailed out just last Friday or Thursday? MRS.MOORE-They were mailed out according to our regularly scheduled mailings. MRS. LYNCH-We received ours late Saturday. I believe some people got them yesterday. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay, and there was a public notice in the newspaper, correct? The application was on the Internet site? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone else here this evening who'd like to address the Board? Okay. Having no one else,we are leaving the public hearing open for the moment, if you wouldn't mind coming back to the table. I'd like to have a little bit more discussion,based on public comment, and then we do have SEQR, too, to do on this application. I guess one of my concerns is, if you don't have a sign,how many people are going to really go quite slowly trying to find the place or find the address,where at least if it's identified we're not going to have people slowing right up to search that little neighborhood there. So I personally feel that with no additional up lighting or anything on the sign, I feel we're okay, but I'd like to hear other comments from other Board members. MR. HENKEL-What kind of light is going to be on it at night? MR.JACKOSKI-Is it just going to be the lantern that's there? MS.ALEXANDER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-There'd be no light shining on the sign,just the lantern that's there? MS.ALEXANDER-No. MR. GARRAND-If they put a sign 7.5 feet back from the property line, how big of a sign could they have? MRS.MOORE-At 15 feet I believe it's 30 square feet. MR. GARRAND-They can have a 30 square foot sign if they move it back seven and a half feet? MRS.MOORE-At 15 feet. MR. GARRAND-How would you like that? That would bean eye catcher. 11 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR.URRICO-I have a question. How many rooms are you going to be renting? MS.ALEXANDER-Five. MR.URRICO-Five? MS.ALEXANDER-Yes. MR.URRICO-So the most you're going to have there is five cars at one time? MS.ALEXANDER-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-If that many. MR.URRICO-Right. Mostly on weekends probably. MS.ALEXANDER-Right. MRS. HUNT-Yes. I think the sign, what is it, three square feet, is no more than a name sign, you know, somebody could put out,their name out there. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start,this time,with Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-1 have no problem also. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-I'm in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I made it a point to have Staff. MRS.MOORE-Clarify size. MR. GARRAND-Yes, quote on how big a sign they could have, should they have chosen. Now if you've got a sign 30 square feet, 15 feet back,people are going to look at it and they're going to have to,you know,turn their heads to look at it,and that's the essence of distracted driving. I think what you're putting up is just marginally bigger than the mailboxes that are out on Ridge Road. So I'd be in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I don't really have a big issue with it. I guess the only concern that I would have is if you're going to direct your people to come to 667, shouldn't you have that on your sign? However you have the people coming to your establishment, if they're going to look for Country House, that's one thing, but if they're going to look for 667, then maybe you should have 667 on here, okay. So, no, I have no problem with the sign as it is,but I realize the curve, and,yes, people drive the way they drive. Ultimately, it's way off the road. It's seven and a half feet off the property line,but however you advertise this, I would have that on that sign,okay,but,no,I have no problem with the way you present it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I have no problem with the sign. I feel like the picture the sign presented is in character of the house and neighborhood, and I think if it were 15 feet off,it would be harder to see. So I'm in favor of this. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we have a very favorable response so far. So I am going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED 12 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-I'm going to ask Rick to go through the SEQR process for us. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 12-2013 BRITTANY AND MEGAN ALEXANDER d/b/a COUNTRY HOUSE BED & BREAKFAST 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 DEC, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 29th day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-And now could I please get a motion concerning the variance? MR. KUHL-Yes, I'll give you that motion. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Ron. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 12-2013 BRITTANY AND MEGAN ALEXANDER d/b/a COUNTRY HOUSE BED & BREAKFAST, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: 667 Ridge Road. The applicant proposes placement of a three square foot sign freestanding sign to be affixed to the existing lantern posts situated on their front yard. The relief requested is seven and a half feet from the fifteen foot setback requirement. In making this determination, the Board considered whether an undesirable change would be produced in the character of the neighborhood. We suggest that little or none. Whether a benefit could be sought by another method. Well,they could move it back 15 feet and put a larger sign. So it's really not. Whether it's substantial. We don't believe it's substantial, and basically whether the alleged difficulty is self- created, it could be considered self-created, but for those reasons we recommend approval of Sign Variance No. 12-2013. Duly adopted this 29th day of May, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And I am sure that your mom would just be thrilled that you're doing what you're doing with that house. That's just great. MS.ALEXANDER-Thank you. AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2013 SEQRA TYPE II RICHARD & SHERRY STRAUB OWNER(S) RICHARD & SHERRY STRAUB ZONING MDR LOCATION 46 GARRISON ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,000 SQ. FT. GARAGE ADDITION ONTO EXISTING 480 SQ. FT. DETACHED GARAGE. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS AND FROM THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SIZE FOR A GARAGE. CROSS REF BP 89-345 POOL WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2013 LOT SIZE 0.70 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 302.12-1-23 SECTION 179-5-020; 179-3-040 RICHARD&SHERRY STRAUB, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff,Area Variance No. 17-2013, Richard & Sherry Straub, Meeting Date: May 29, 2013 "Project Location: 46 Garrison Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes construction of a 1,000 sq.ft.garage addition to existing 480 sq.ft.detached garage. Relief Required: Parcel will require area variances as follows: 13 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) Side Setback-west: Required 25 ft.; Proposed 1.5 feet; Relief 23.5 ft. Maximum allowable size for garage: Maximum allowed 1,110 sq.ft.; Proposed 1,480 sq.ft.; Relief 370 sq.ft. Criteria for considering an Area Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor 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 are limited due to the lot size and arrangement of the existing house on the parcel. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The west side setback of the existing garage is 2.4 ft. and the addition will be 1.5 ft. from the property line is considered significant under the code requirements. The size of the building exceeds the allowed garage size by 370 sq. ft. which would be considered minor to moderate due to the proximity to the sideline setback. 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. The new length of the garage on the west side of the property will be 75 ft. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self created. Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 1989-345: Pool Staff comments: The applicant proposes construction of a 1,100 sq. ft. garage addition to an existing 480 sq. ft. detached garage. The applicant has indicated the location of the garage will not be seen from the street and the neighbor on the west side has an existing fence that runs along the west side property line. The applicant explains in the submitted materials that there is no other location on the property to place the structure due to the lot size and placement of the existing home. The applicant intends to use the garage for storage as there is no basement on the existing 1960's built home. The plans include a survey and elevation drawings -also showing the garage to be guttered to handle stormwater from the addition and the existing garage. No other changes to the site are proposed-no tree removal only lawn area is to be removed. SEQR Status: Type II -no further review needed" MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Welcome. Pretty straightforward application, but if you'd like to add some more,you can,or we can just start asking questions. MR. STRAUB-I took some pictures today from the backyards, and if you wanted to look so you can kind of see the fence and the trees that are all around,how it would kind of block everything. MR.JACKOSKI-You can start with Roy, I think. Is that okay, Roy? MR. URRICO-See the add on that we're proposing? From the street view, the old garage, it would be behind that, so all you would see would be the roofline and the old garage, and our main reason for doing this is for storage because, you know, we have a slab house with no basement, and the way the structure of the roof is,there's really no room to put any kind of storage in the attic section of the house either. So we're looking for storage for vehicles. We have a vehicle that we don't drive in the wintertime, that we store in the wintertime, and we have a couple of motorcycles that we're looking to be able to spread out so we're not all so jammed up. That's about it. 14 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. At this time, would any Board members like to ask any questions? MR. HENKEL-Yes, it's kind of vague, the measurements you've got here. What's the height of it? You don't have any height here. MR. STRAUB-I think it's 13 feet. I measured the roof of the garage right now,the peak that's facing towards the neighbor's house. So the highest it would be is like 18 feet. MR. HENKEL-The other thing is the soffits here of the overhang and the new roof, what's the dimensions? What's that? MR. STRAUB-Well,actually,I haven't had anybody draw anything up yet. MR. HENKEL-Because wouldn't that be a concern,you might be overlapping on the other side of the property? MR.STRAUB-Well, I would make sure that it would be,that the new roofline would be no farther off than the roofline that's on the garage right now,the front. MR. HENKEL-Right,but that's not the concern. If you've got,because you're asking for a foot and a half,you're looking to be a foot and a half off the property line,right? MR.STRAUB-Yes,the roof would be right at that point. MR. HENKEL-Right, but if you've got, now you're going to be shedding water into someone else's property? You may have gutters,but. MR. STRAUB-Well, I'm going to have gutters on that side, and I'm going to look into collecting the rain from that side into a barrel. MR. HENKEL-That's what I was wondering, how far are they going to be extended, the roofline there, I mean the soffit or? MR. STRAUB-Well, I would,when I have it drawn up, I'll make sure that it's no more than a foot and a half off that property line, you know, the edge line and everything. Plus, their yard is a little bit higher than our yard, the way the (lost word) is. So the water kind of comes this way towards our lot anyhow. MRS. STRAUB-The garage would be a direct extension of what's already existing there. It's just making it in tandem. It would be the same. MR. STRAUB-I would make sure it's not hanging over(lost word) property. MR. HENKEL-And that would be hard to do if you only have a foot and a half there. MR. STRAUB-Well, if I don't make it 20 foot wide, if I make it 19 feet wide instead of 20, that's what I've proposed. I mean,I can shorten the width a little bit to get that onto,inside that foot and a half. MR.URRICO-So you have not selected a contractor or size yet? MR.STRAUB-A contractor,no, I haven't. MR. URRICO-Then why can't you make it compliant? Why do you need the relief? Why can't it be a smaller garage,garage addition? MR. STRAUB-Well, I'm looking for as much space as I can get, because by the time I put a car in there and a couple of motorcycles and we want to put some exercise equipment out there and then you start storing it, storage. I know all that footage sounds kind of big, but it gets eaten up really quick when you start trying to spread some things out. MR. HENKEL-Did you consider,like attic type trusses in there to put storage in the second? MR. STRAUB-Well, I don't want to go much higher, wouldn't I need to be a higher roof, then, to be able to do that. (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. GARRAND-Yes,it's a very flat roof. It's got a little pitch. MR. STRAUB-I don't want it to be flat and hold water and snow up there all the time. MRS. STRAUB-We wanted it to be, I guess, as seamless and unobtrusive to the rest of the neighborhood,but still provide us with the space we need. MR. KUHL-So this is for a car and two motorcycles? MR. STRAUB-And some tools and some exercise equipment, and then a bunch of storage stuff like Christmas stuff, holiday, and right now we have all that stuff in the bedroom, the holiday stuff and exercise. MR. KUHL-Well,the more room you make,the more stuff you've got to set in there. MR. STRAUB-And that seems to be the problem, I think, too, yes. We did get rid of a lot of stuff when we moved. I was surprised how much stuff we accumulated. MR. KUHL-How long have you been there? MR. STRAUB-We moved here, Sherry's been here a couple of years. I came last year. We bought this house in October. MR. KUHL-Okay, and you're going to sign in blood and say you're not going to run a business out of there? MR. STRAUB-I'm not going to run any business out of there. I will sign it in blood. I'll give you my first born. MR. KUHL-No,no. I don't need anymore. I've got enough now. MR. STRAUB-No, it's all for me. I've got a table saw and a drill press and some other tools that I would like to spread out and be able not to spend an hour moving things around to get set up to do some simple little task. MRS. STRAUB-He has his tools and my father's tools that passed away and his father's tools, and any time he tries to do any kind of project, he spends hours moving things around just to get (lost words). MR. KUHL-I have a question for Staff. Going back to the gutters and the rain collection and all of that stuff. I mean, the question from one of our Board members was it's going to go over on the neighbor's yard. So the applicant says, well, I'll make it 19, you know, where are we going? I'm asking her. I don't want to put you on the spot. I need clarification. MRS. MOORE-The applicant has indicated that the structure will be guttered, and so that alleviates your concern, if it's that there's no obstruction on to the neighbor's property, and that your only concern about the setback distance and the applicant has indicated it's guttered. So that is not a concern of the Board,and distance. MR. KUHL-For Staff,that's enough stormwater control? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. I mean,you said you were going 19,but I'm not going to. MR. STRAUB-Again,if that's. MR. KUHL-No,no. You're presenting 20 by 50, and Staff is saying that's fine,so stay where you are. MR. STRAUB-Okay. MR. KUHL-Stay where you are. MR. STRAUB-This is all new to me. MR. KUHL-That's okay. 16 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-How do you get vehicles into the backyard? MR. STRAUB-I would do a cut out inside the garage that we have right now to be able to drive into the back section. MR. KUHL-You're going to open the whole back of your garage? MR. STRAUB-Just like a garage door width, not the whole back,just enough to get,because I plan on putting two new garage doors on the front, and using the old garage door as a cut out to be able to drive into the back. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. JACKOSKI-And what will you do to get equipment in the back to repair the pool and stuff like that? I mean,you have no access back there now,even with the current garage. Right? MR. STRAUB-Right,well,there's a small breezeway, because the garage is detached from the house, and there's a small breezeway that a bobcat could fit through there. It would be (lost words) they could go through there really slow. MR. KUHL-You could get in on the other side of the house,too. MR. JACKOSKI-Yes, but they'd just make it. So, Staff, to clarify, if this were attached to a heated wall, and they were to designate some of this space as living space, such as I heard exercise equipment and (lost word) and all that other stuff, that really wouldn't be designated as garage extension. Correct? Because that would then be considered more living space? MRS.MOORE-He's storing equipment. MR. JACKOSKI-No, he said they were going to be using it for exercise equipment and his workshop. So would that be considered garage usage or would that be living space usage? MRS.MOORE-Habitable space. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,if it were attached to a heated wall in the house. MRS. MOORE-But it's detached. I know what you're asking. I don't know the answer. That I'd have to ask. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. MR. KUHL-But it's not attached. MR. STRAUB-It's not attached, correct. MR. KUHL-And he's not proposing to put heat in. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct. I was just trying to see if you could actually build this if it was connected, and they re-structured the application to say that it was more (lost words). MR. KUHL-That wouldn't be a garage. It would be living space. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. KUHL-But it's not because it's not heated. MR.JACKOSKI-Correct. MR. KUHL-And that's what he's stating. MR. JACKOSKI-Correct, yes. Okay. Any other questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? Okay. I'm going to open the public hearing. I am opening the public hearing, and I'm going to ask Roy to read anything into the record that he's received in writing. PUBLIC HEARING OPENED 17 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. URRICO-"Thank you for your correctness and your courtesy in providing me with a formal notice of a Public Hearing regarding the application of Richard and Sherry Straub for a zoning variance to construct a 1,000 square foot addition to their existing (480 s.f.), two-car garage. Without your notice I would not have been aware of this proposal. Please know that this is a difficult letter for me, along with my wife, to write. Like most people, we want to be companionable neighbors who are considerate and generous regarding the needs or wishes of those living nearby. Some time ago, we were pleased to support the request of the family directly across Garrison from us for a zoning variance, also for an expansion of their garage. Unfortunately, this time is different. As the Zoning Board well knows, existing requirements are in place to protect local residents from untoward and unexpected changes in the character of their neighborhood, ones that would be detrimental to their own home and living environment. And, as you can imagine, we moved to 44 Garrison to be part of a mature and gracious neighborhood, one that allows both a measure of privacy and a natural setting while affording quick access to Glens Hospital and my professional responsibilities there. My wife and I understand a family's desire for an oversize, industrial-scale garage, but this is not the place. We further understand that the Straubs have indicated to Laura Moore that the proposed structure would face our own garage. This is correct. It is also correct that the new garage would face our kitchen, our dining room, and two bedrooms. Currently we look out on trees and foliage along with the corner of our neighbor's existing garage. If the new garage were to be built, we would look out at a wall. We believe that the Zoning Code and indeed the Zoning Board exist to rule on precisely this kind of difficult case— an unwelcome and intrusive proposal out of keeping with reasonable expectations based on the character of a neighborhood that has been established over many decades. My wife and I respectfully request that you deny this variance. I regret that I am unable to attend your upcoming meeting on May 29, but I would make every effort to present my perspective at a future meeting if such a presentation would be helpful to you. Thank you for your consideration of this-our own, deeply felt, "appeal" to you. Sincerely, John Rugge, M.D." And there's another public comment. It's from Anthony Malinconico of 24 Fort Amherst Road, and he states he has no objection to the proposed project. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, this is a Type II SEQR. So,I'm going to open it up for a polling of the Board,and I'll start with John. MR. HENKEL-I have to say right now,the way, I don't support it right now. No. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I would say, based on what we're seeing so far, I would like to see the garage scaled back to where it's not being, not requesting 370 square feet of relief, and I would also like to see the width moved back to at least the 2.4 feet of the existing garage side setback. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think we're tasked with the five criterion, and one of them is whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible to the applicant, and a smaller addition is definitely feasible. So,that's my position. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. If you made this 20 by 32,you'd be in the 1110 feet allowable. Fifty foot of depth is an awful lot. I think you're asking for too much for what you're looking for. I think it can be achieved. I know it would help the side setback if it was shorter you wouldn't be able to overlap on your neighbor's property. I think you should shorten it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I'm concerned about the neighbors to the west, Dr. Rugge and his wife. I certainly wouldn't want to look out my kitchen window and see a blank wall. So, I'd be against it. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-My thoughts mirror some others on the Board. I think we need to grant the minimum relief requested. I think this is a lot. With no (lost word) plans,would it follow with the character of the house and that neighborhood, it's a beautiful, classic neighborhood, and I would 18 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) hate to say okay to a project when it didn't see any plans that, yet, so at this point I would not be in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So at this time I, too, have some concerns, and why I was getting to asking questions before about the attached garage or heated wall or not heated wall. I'm wondering if there's an option here, because we have, in the past, granted separate buildings, I guess, a second garage. I just wonder if we could allow more, another building or shed, larger garage, whatever you want to call it, centered on the property, more back, since there is so much property there, if this truly is just for storage, so that the neighbors don't look at a wall and a roof to the west. So, I mean, I think there are feasible alternatives that might be possible. That's what I'm getting at. There is a lot of depth of property there. So at this point, you've heard some of the polling of the Board. We have left the public hearing open. We can certainly go and try to get a motion, but I think you know what that motion might be, and some of the alternatives that you could request of us as the applicant is for us to simply table the project and re-think and reconsider, or simply withdraw it if you wish. MR. STRAUB-Well, if I lowered it to 32 feet,like you said,is that something I've got to re-file and re- submit it at that length,or is that something? MR. JACKOSKI-No, because we would be granting less relief, and that would be okay, so you wouldn't have to re-file, but I've got to tell you, I think a lot of folks here on this Board suggested that it was just too close to the line, but we can certainly go back and re-poll the Board if you were to reduce it. MR. STRAUB-The people that wrote the letter next door at 44, there is a six foot tall fence that would be between the garage and their house,which they would not see the wall. They would see the roofline of the garage,which they see the roofline of the house right now. So they wouldn't see a blank wall, because of the fence, and along their side of the fence, there are some 10 foot tall pine trees and some burning bushes that are eight foot tall that are over the top of the fence. So, the only thing they might see is a little bit of the roof in the wintertime when the burning bushes drop all their leaves. MR. HENKEL-But the only problem is, any time you have to work on that, you're going to be standing on their property. When you're talking about only a foot and a half. MR. GARRAND-That's part of the reason for setbacks is so you can work on like painting fences and painting garages and things like that without being on somebody else's property. That's close. MR.KUHL-Do you own the fence? MR.STRAUB-The fence is theirs. MR. KUHL-That fence is theirs? MR. STRAUB-Yes. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR.STRAUB-Because it's probably five feet in to their lot from the property line. MRS. STRAUB-And I can just note,we spoke to everyone in the vicinity except for them, and it's not because we haven't tried. It's just any time we go over there, they're never home. So, and we haven't lived there for very long. So we weren't trying to hide anything from them. We just never had the opportunity to discuss it, and we didn't really think, because their house is quite a ways off and driveway comes in and their garages are over there. I realize there's windows on that other part,but it seemed pretty harmless. I really didn't think they'd have a problem. MR. GARRAND-Their thinking, also part of their thinking is the detriment, the potential property value of their house. It might not be something that, you know, they want to look at, knowing it's there. Should they have to do something with the fence, if the fence ever comes down, they'd be looking right at it. MRS. STRAUB-Well, I know he made a comment of an industrial sized garage, and when someone says that to me, I'm thinking like a metal, you know, industrial, and basically, and all we're talking about is extending our garage, and in the same fashion, we want our house to look nice, too. We moved to the neighborhood for a reason. It's a beautiful neighborhood. 19 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. GARRAND-It's a nice neighborhood. It's like the best in Glens Falls. MRS. STRAUB-So we wouldn't do anything to,not intentionally,for our house or the neighborhood. MR.JACKOSKI-But we are in Queensbury. I know, I was just going to say. I looked at Mr. Lapper. I noticed. Okay. So I'll certainly entertain whatever you would like us to try to accomplish,but. MR.STRAUB-Thirty-two feet instead of fifty. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. So I'm going to re-poll the Board here this evening, concerning whether or not there would be interest in a revised application by the applicant to reduce the overall length of the addition from the 50 feet down to 32 feet as suggested by Ron. So I'm going to go back in the same order. MR.URRICO-Would that change the side setback? MR. HENKEL-It's going to decrease it a little bit. You're going to gain a little bit,but not much. MR.JACKOSKI-You're right,Roy,it will change it just slightly. MR. HENKEL-But it won't get close to the 2.4. It'll be probably afoot and. MR.JACKOSKI-Probably a foot,ten. MRS. MOORE-You could potentially reduce it to the maximum allowed is 1100 and ensure that this approximately 620 square foot addition would bring it to the maximum size allowable for a garage, and then,as suggested,is that 2.4 feet be the length of the back.,if that's feasible. I don't know if 2.4 feet is feasible all the way back. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, I mean, is it feasible that the garage could actually be kicked so that it remains 2.4 feet? I mean,it's so slight. MR. STRAUB-I'm sure it could be. I mean, to maintain at least two and a half feet all the way to the back side. MR. KUHL-The same distance as the back of your garage,2.4. MR.JACKOSKI-That certainly maybe something feasible,but, again,that's serious relief anyway. So let's see if we even have a reasonable amount of support for that application. So I'm going to start in the same order again,if you don't mind. John? MR. HENKEL-Yes. I guess if you decrease it to the allowable amount of square footage,plus kicked it out to an angle there to maintain the 2.4 at least, I would probably be more favorably for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Yes, I think that would be a feasible alternative that I would support. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-1 would agree with my fellow Board members. I think it's a good compromise. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-It'll work,yes, 32 is good. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-No. I'm against that positioning of the garage,not the length,the width. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,the width. Kyle? MR. NOONAN-Yes. I actually have to consider the relief required, it has nothing to do with (lost words). I'd still be against the distance. I know the original garage is certainly close, but I think it would certainly change a lot of the character. I would still be against it. 20 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR.JACKOSKI-Okay,and I'm against it as well. MRS. HUNT-I'm wondering why they couldn't make it 15 by 50. Then you'd be seven feet off the property line. MR. HENKEL-You could shift it over. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, again, the applicant requested that we look at this one first. So we do have four yeses on this, and three no's. It's up to the Board, I guess. If we want to move forward with motions, I'll close the public hearing. MR. KUHL-All right. I'll make a motion. MR.JACKOSKI-I'm closing the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 17-2013 RICHARD & SHERRY STRAUB, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Garrand: 46 Garrison Road. The applicant proposes construction of a 640 square foot garage addition to an existing 480 square foot detached garage. The relief required, the side,the west setback is 25 feet, we're going to maintain the 2.4 feet of the existing, which would be the northwest corner of the garage,they're going to maintain that 2.4 feet,so the relief is 22.6 feet. and the maximum allowable size of the garage is 1100 square feet. We're going to have an 1120 square foot, so we're going to give you 20 square feet of relief. In making this determination, we considered whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood. We believe minor impacts to the neighborhood, and whether the benefit could be sought by methods feasible other than an area variance. Well, the side setback is what it is. It would be very difficult to do that. Whether the area variance is substantial. The size of the building is not. The side setback could be considered substantial, but in keeping with the line of the garage, that's our intent here, and whether it's self-created,yes,it could be considered self-created,but I recommend we approve Area Variance No. 17-2013. Duly adopted this 29th day of May, 2013, by the following vote: MR.JACKOSKI-And,just, Staff,could we clarify the square footage,please? MRS. MOORE-That's, what Mr. Kuhl has said is that the applicant would receive 20 square feet of relief. That's accurate. It is 20 square feet. So the applicant is requesting, the total square feet would be 1120 square feet. MR. KUHL-1120. MRS.MOORE-Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. So we're granting 20 feet of relief. MR. KUHL-Ten feet. MRS. MOORE-It's 20 square feet of relief, and then off the side setback would be 7.6 feet. The relief on the side setback is 7.6 feet of relief. MR. KUHL-Well,the way that this was presented,it said the side setback,west side required 25 feet, proposed one and a half. Now, if the side setback is 25, and we're going to build it at 2.4, then the relief is going to be. MRS.MOORE-22.6. MR. KUHL-22.6,right? MRS.MOORE-Yes. 21 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. KUHL-Okay. So 22.6 feet of relief is what he's requesting, and that's what I'm recommending, okay, and we're also recommending maximum allowable, where he's going to build an 1120 square foot garage,we're going to give him 10 square feet of relief. MR. GARRAND-Actually that's 20 square feet,because 1100 is allowed. MR. KUHL-1110. According to this document, maximum allowable is 1110 square feet, and they're building an 1120. So it's 10 square feet. MR. GARRAND-Is 1110 allowed? MRS.MOORE-Yes. MR.JACKOSKI-It's not 1100 allowed? MRS.MOORE-It's the construction of 1100. MR. JACKOSKI-Staff Notes say 1110. So I understood Code was 1100. I think it's a typo by Staff Notes. MR. GARRAND-Just like 48 Garrison Road is a typo here also. MR. STRAUB-It's 46. MRS.MOORE-The maximum is 1110. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. If it's 1110, then it's 10 feet of relief. Okay. We do have a motion. Did I get a second on that motion? MR. GARRAND-I second it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Rick,and you're not going to side it with metal,right? MR. STRAUB-No. AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand NOES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski MR.JACKOSKI-Congratulations. MR. STRAUB-Thank you for your time. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-2013 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED LARISSA BOYCHUK AGENT(S) MIKE BAIRD OWNER(S) AL BOYCHUK/OMALL FAMILY LTD PARTNERSHIP ZONING Cl LOCATION 63 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING 100 SQ. FT. SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF A FREESTANDING SIGN AND FROM THE MINIMUM ALLOWABLE PROPERTY LINE SETBACKS FOR SIGNAGE. CROSS REF SV 1272 YR 1987; BP 3301 YR 1974 SIGN; BP 3735 YR 1976 SIGN, BP 87-235 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2013 LOT SIZE 3.18 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 296.18-1-5 SECTION CHAPTER 140 JON LAPPER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 16-2013, Larissa Boychuk, Meeting Date: May 29, 2013 "Project Location: 63 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove an existing 100 sq. ft. sign and install a new 100 sq. ft. sign at 2 ft. from the front property line where a 15 ft.setback is required and a 45 sq.ft. sign is the maximum allowed. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Maximum allowable square footage for freestanding sign. Maximum allowed 45 sq ft; Proposed 100 sq ft; Relief 55 sq ft. 22 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) Sign setback: Required 15 ft setback; Proposed 2 ft.; Relief 13 ft Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to lot configuration, existing building location on the site and distance of front property line from Quaker Road. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested for size and setback 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. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, SV 1272: Sign 1987-for a 96 sq. ft.sign at 78 ft.from the property line BP 3301: Sign 1974 BP 3735: Sign 1976 BP 87-235: Applicant has included a detailed permit history from 1980 -2006 attachment 3 in application. Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove an existing free standing sign of 100 sq. ft. and to install a new free standing sign 2 ft. from the front property line. Relief is requested for the size where 45 sq. ft. is the maximum allowed and a 15 ft. required setback. The information submitted shows the existing sign in the drive area of the parking lot at a setback of 44.86 ft.from the front property line. The applicant has indicated if the sign is 15 ft. setback than it would obstruct traffic maneuvering, entering and exiting the site. The plans show the location of the existing and proposed sign along with sign details of the businesses within the complex. The aerial photo indicates it is in line with the neighboring sign and shows the access area from the front property line onto Quaker Road. SEQR Status: Unlisted" MR.JACKOSKI-Welcome. Pretty straightforward,but if you'd like to add,please feel free to do so. MR. LAPPER-Good evening, everyone. For the record, Jon Lapper with Larissa Boychuk and Al Boychuk is here as well. Mark Plaza has been before this Board and the Planning Board many times over the years as they've sought to improve the property. There are a couple of unique things about this sign and this application. Where it is now, sitting in the middle of the parking lot, is not a very attractive location, not a very practical location, and the goal here is to construct a brick foundation, a brand new sign, to keep the same square footage that they have received relief for, but to move it into a location that just makes better sense for visibility and also just to make it more attractive. As the application stated, it's in line with where the two neighbors are,the funeral home and The Golden Corral, in terms of the location and proximity to the road. What isn't pointed out in the application,but I think is really important here, is that originally the property line was on the outside of the planted island that they've landscaped, and over the course of time, as DOT has widened Quaker Road, they've taken the property. So when, to say that it's two feet from the property line,that's, of course, exactly correct,based upon the current property line,but it's 15 feet from the edge of pavement, because that land which used to be part of the Plaza is now part of the State right of way, and you already have a five lane road there, so it's unlikely that that would ever get widened,but in terms of the visibility, it's not like you're going to drive by and see a sign at two 23 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) feet from the road,which you never want to see. That whole planting area that they've constructed there is going to stay. Again,in terms of the location, and this was pointed out in the application, if that were to be moved to 15 feet,that wouldn't make any sense because it would be in the middle of a drive aisle in front of the store. So that, it can't be, and then it would push it back to where it is now, and the location just isn't, it doesn't work with the traffic and it doesn't work when you're coming from the east. This site also has the constraint that all of the stores,the five tenants that are proposed to be on this sign, that are the ones that are not directly facing Quaker Road in the front, you can't see when you're coming from the east. So that's why the sign is so important. One hundred square feet, yes, but these are not big signs. They have five tenants on those spaces, including their businesses. If it was a single tenant, it wouldn't have to be 100 square feet, but because you have five tenants, it's really important so that it could be visible from the road, but in terms of what's being proposed, the impact, where it is, it's really similar to what's there with the two neighbors. This will take up one parking spot and be in an appropriate location for visibility, but also for just how the site works with the drive aisles,to get it out of the middle of the parking lot where it is now, and the brick, what they're doing is just going to be much more attractive than what's here,and also a brand new sign will be much more attractive. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Thank you. Are there any current questions from Board members before I open the public hearing? MR.URRICO-How long ago was that property taken over by the Town? MR. LAPPER-What I can say on that is that the original, if you look at the application, it's stated that the sign that's existing was 58 feet from the property line, because that's where it was when it was approved, 58 feet, and now it's 44.86. MR.URRICO-So 14 feet? MR. LAPPER-So the 14 feet was the difference. So, I was discussing that with Al, and I don't know, I think it was the last time that Quaker was widened, which was maybe 10 years ago, that's my recollection,but that's the difference right there,from where it used to be to where it is now. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. Roy,is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-Is there anyone here this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I will remind everyone that this is an Unlisted SEQR. I'm going to poll the Board. I'll start with Ron. MR.KUHL-I have no problem with this. MR.JACKOSKI-Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I think the sign needs to be replaced, certainly. I mean,you go by the Plaza and the sign is not in a good spot there, and the existing, compared to the funeral home, the funeral home has a grass buffer zone where their sign is. Is that white mark where the proposed sign would be? MR. LAPPER-Pretty much. MR. NOONAN-I guess it is scary when you see the two feet off the property line. That's also 15 feet from the road, like you say. When I drove by it, I was thinking two feet off the property line, two feet off the road (lost words) looking all the way down Quaker Road, you would just see this sign, because you can (lost words) farther back,but you need a new sign. MR. LAPPER-And it's right where those parking spaces are. MR. NOONAN-Right. I'm uncertain at this time. Is there alternatives, I guess, you know, you've thought about it, if you were to not get it, alternatives to the location two feet off the property line. Again,I know you need the sign. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? 24 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. GARRAND-I looked at The Golden Corral sign. The Golden Corral sign appears to be quite a bit farther back. The funeral home sign seems to be like about in the same spot where this proposed sign is. I think there's some room to play here. The current, existing sign, I know the base looks like it's, those wooden ties look like they're all falling apart. I think they're four by fours. They're all falling apart. I know something has to be done with this sign, but I don't think it has to be two feet from the property line. MR.JACKOSKI-John? MR. HENKEL-Yes,there's no doubt you need a new sign. There's no problem with the relief of the square footage for the sign, but I would have to say also you've got to work with something with that setback a little bit and bring it back a few more feet. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes, I have no problem with the application. In fact, I think it would be a safety factor. I mean, I've gone in this, I've gone right past it sometimes, even though I've been to different stores there, because you don't know what's back there. So I think it would be an improvement, and a safety factor. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR.URRICO-Do you have any wiggle room on this? MR. LAPPER-The problem is because of where the drive aisle is, that it's going back, so it just takes up a parking spot, so that behind the parking spot, you can't have cars coming around the sign. What's unfortunate here is that there really isn't a compromise, and I know it sounds terrible with the two feet because it's from the property line, but again, if you look at it from the road, it's really, you know, much less of a big deal, but there's not anywhere to put it unless it's all the way back where it is now, just because of how it's configured, with the parking on either side of the drive aisle. So I don't,usually I have an alternative. I don't see an alternative here. MRS. HUNT-We had something like this on a previous application where they, to move it in, they would have to have,cars would be going around,and it would be dangerous. MR. URRICO-I know we've gone a few rounds on signs before, you and I. For some reason, this makes sense to me,and I would be in favor of it. MR. HENKEL-Is there any way of getting a few feet? MR. JACKOSKI-Just so you know, I'm in favor of it, too, as written, so we can certainly talk about giving up more feet,but I think you do have four folks in favor. MR. LAPPER-And the issue is just that we have a 20 foot parking stall, and that,you know,that's the problem. It's just the configuration of the drive aisle. MR. KUHL-Can I say something,Mr. Chairman? MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,of course. MR. KUHL-I am in favor of it the way it was written,but if you had to, could you move it to the west side of that driveway, towards the funeral home? It wouldn't take up any parking spots, or is that a construction installation consideration because you already have your electric lines there and everything? MR. LAPPER-Yes, I think that's the issue,the electric box. MR. KUHL-I mean, if you're going to re-do, if you're going to have to re-do and cut your asphalt, theoretically you could move it west and you wouldn't even be using a parking spot. MR. LAPPER-I think it's because of the electric power. MR. KUHL-Okay,but like I said, I'm in favor of it. MR. JACKOSKI-And I wonder, too, Ron, if you look at that, if you were driving down Quaker, that sign would be right in front of the, so to speak, in front of the funeral home. I understand what 25 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) you're saying. But at least it's over in front of their building, versus on the line with the funeral home, especially when you're coming in. So, Mr. Lapper,one of the Board members mentioned that it seemed like The Golden Corral sign was much further in. So is that just because of where the road is versus, I can see that yellow line on there where the property line is,which is kind of way to the right of that photograph. Is that what we're experiencing here? MR. LAPPER-I don't recall, and obviously this picture was taken before, but at that point, the brook comes out of here. It's underground. So there is that constraint there,because you've got Halfway Brook. So it may be farther back because of that. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. Well, anyway, at this time we did have four members in support. So I'm going to close the public hearing and look for a motion. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-Wait,we have to do SEQR first,sorry. Rick? MR. GARRAND-I don't see how this is going to affect the environment at all,but. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-2013 LARISSA BOYCHUK 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 DEC, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption,seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 29th day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Now that we have SEQR out of the way, could I get a motion, please, for the approval of this Sign Variance? MR. NOONAN-I'll do it. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you, Kyle. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 16-2013 LARISSA BOYCHUK, Introduced by Kyle Noonan who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: 63 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes to remove an existing 100 square foot sign and install a new 100 square foot sign two feet from the front property line where a 15 foot setback is required, and a 45 square foot sign is the maximum allowed. Relief required. The applicant requests the following relief: maximum allowable square footage for a freestanding sign, the maximum allowed is 45 square feet, and they're proposing 100 square feet,the relief requested is 55 square feet. Sign setback, required 15 foot setback and they propose a two foot setback, requesting relief of 13 square feet. In making the determination,the Board shall consider 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. It is considered that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Number Two, whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some means feasible to the applicant other than a sign variance. Feasible alternatives are limited due to lot configuration, existing building location on the site and distance of front property line from Quaker Road. Number Three, whether requested sign variance is substantial. The relief requested for size and setback may be considered substantial relevant to the code. Number Four, 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, and, Number Five, whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty may be considered self-created. I recommend we approve Sign Variance No. 16-2013. Duly adopted this 29th day of May, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Urrico, Mrs. Hunt, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Jackoski NOES: Mr. Garrand 26 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. LAPPER-Thanks,everyone. MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. SIGN VARIANCE NO. 14-2013 SEQRA TYPE UNLISTED SAXTON SIGN CORP. AGENT(S) SAXTON SIGN CORP. OWNER(S) R&P REALTY ZONING Cl LOCATION 728 QUAKER ROAD APPLICANT PROPOSES TO REMOVE EXISTING SIGNAGE AND INSTALL 6 NEW WALL SIGNS TOTALING 117.95 SQ. FT. AND RETROFIT EXISTING 50 SQ. FT. FREESTANDING SIGN. RELIEF REQUESTED FROM NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE SIGNS. CROSS REF BP 2013-062 THRU BP 2013-067; BP 2013-061 WARREN COUNTY PLANNING MAY 2013 LOT SIZE 3.10 ACRES TAX MAP NO. 303.15-1-10 SECTION CHAPTER 140 TERRY MEISNER, REPRESENTING APPLICANT, PRESENT STAFF INPUT Notes from Staff, Sign Variance No. 14-2013, Saxton Sign Corp., Meeting Date: May 29, 2013 "Project Location: 728 Quaker Road Description of Proposed Project: Applicant proposes to remove existing signage, install 6 new wall signs totaling 117.95 sq. ft. and retrofit existing 50 sq. ft. freestanding sign. Relief Required: The applicant requests the following relief: Number of allowable signs: Permitted 1 wall sign and 1 free standing sign; Proposed 6 wall signs and retro fit of an existing 50 sq ft free standing sign; Relief 5 wall signs Criteria for considering a Sign Variance according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination,the board shall consider: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby properties will be created by the granting of this area variance. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Whether the benefit sought by the applicant can be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance. Feasible alternatives are available to reduce the signage to the maximum allowed size of 30 sq. ft.all on one wall sign however this may be limited due to visibility from the road where the building is located 90 ft. to the front property line. 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested to allow six versus one wall sign 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. Minor to no impact to the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood may be anticipated. S. Whether the alleged difficulty was self created. The difficulty may be considered self- created Parcel History(construction/site plan/variance, BP 2013-062 thru 2013-067: BP 2013-061: pending zoning board review of sign variance P95-1871 10-17-95 Sign; P95-1870 11-13-95 Sign; P95-1823 07-17-95 Sign; P95-1822 07-21-95 Sign; P20060593 09-20-06 Sign (Dodge); P200605920 9-20-06 Sign (Chrysler); P200605910 9-20- 06 Sign (Chrysler Dodge Five Star) Staff comments: The applicant proposes to remove existing wall signs and to place six new wall signs on an auto business facility -Nemer. The plan is also to retrofit an existing 50 sq. ft. sign. The submitted information details the existing and replacement signage where the applicant is not including the 27 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) logo for some of the brands carried on the site. Four of the signs are between 28 sq. ft. to 30 +/- sq. ft. and the largest wall sign at 50 +/- sq. ft. is the Service sign. The applicant is requesting a waiver from a stamp survey at the time of application but has indicated a survey is to be completed. The applicant has indicated the signage is necessary to make public aware that more than one brand of vehicle is available on the site and that dealerships required more than one wall sign. SEQR Status: Unlisted" MR. JACKOSKI-Welcome. Is there anything you'd like to add at this time at this time, or just entertain questions from the Board? MR. MEISNER-I have a copy of the survey. MR. JACKOSKI-Great. If you could give it to Roy and he'll pass it down. Would you just like questions? MR. MEISNER-Yes, I'm ready. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Any questions from Board members at this time? MR. GARRAND-Yes. What's his name? MR. MEISNER-I'm sorry. My name is Terry Meisner from Saxton Sign Corporation. MR. GARRAND-Terry,how many signs are currently there now? MR. MEISNER-Three,three and a road sign,four total. MR. GARRAND-Four total. What sign's being added in addition to the four currently there, or in place of the four that are currently there? MR. MEISNER-(Lost words) Nemer, Chrysler and Dodge, plus the road sign. We're going to be adding Ram sign, the service sign, and that's it, so Jeep, Ram and the service, over the top of the right hand side. MR. GARRAND-A total of six signs? MR. MEISNER-A total of six signs across the front. MR. HENKEL-Are they going to be lit up,neon or are they going to have lights shining on them? MR. MEISNER-They'll be like Chrysler will be halo lit on the logo only, the letters don't light up. Dodge will be lit internal. Jeep will be internally illuminated with LEDs as well, and the same as Ram and Nemer. The service sign will not be lit at all. It's not illuminated, and then the pylon is routed out with (lost words),so all you see is the letters when they light up on the pylon. MR. GARRAND-What's on the awning,on the front awning? MR. MEISNER-That's going to say Nemer on that,with channel letters. They're all channel letters. MR. GARRAND-Your guys are working on the awning,or just the signage? MR. MEISNER-Just the signage. MR. GARRAND-Okay. I was wondering,because it looks like it's under construction. MR. MEISNER-Yes,we're not doing that. We're just putting up the signs. MR. URRICO-Do you know if any of these are required by the manufacturers of the various brands? All of them? MR. MEISNER-All the dealers have to. MR.URRICO-Yes,but I mean,all the signs are required by them? 28 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. GARRAND-I talked to one of the salesmen today, and he was saying that all the suppliers want their marquee on the building. That was from one of the salesmen in the office. MR. KUHL-Is this what's there now? MR.MEISNER-That's what's going on now,yes. MR. KUHL-So how can we say the number of allowable permitted one, and the proposed six? I mean,there's already three there. Right? MRS.MOORE-There are already sign variances in the past for signs permitted in the past. MR. KUHL-Right. So we're not giving him a relief for five. We're giving him a relief for three. MR. GARRAND-We're giving him five. One's allowed. MR. KUHL-Right, but he's already got three now. Are you going to be changing the Nemer, or is it going to stay Nemer? Are you going to be changing the Dodge,or is it going to stay Dodge? MR. MEISNER-There's going to be anew sign that says Dodge, I believe. It will look and appear the same. MR. KUHL-But,bottom line of it now is they already have three wall signs. Right? MR. MEISNER-Correct,and Nemer will go up on the green section,which will be (lost words). MR. KUHL-Okay. So Nemer is going to move? MR. MEISNER-Yes. MR. KUHL-So Nemer is going to change. We already gave him three. Right. The relief is only three,not five,right? MR. GARRAND-It's five,because they're going to have a total of six. MRS.MOORE-Right,because they're being removed. MR.JACKOSKI-But doesn't that ability run with the land? MRS.MOORE-But he's removing them. MR. MEISNER-We're removing,everything's coming off the building and all new signage is going up. MR. KUHL-Okay. Thank you. MR.URRICO-Explain to me what retro-fit means. MR. MEISNER-It means that the faces come out, like right now the faces all light up, the whole face lights up. What they're doing is, they've got aluminum faces that go on it, and then push through letters that go through it. So it's basically like a skin that goes over the top of each letter. MR.URRICO-And it's underneath? MR. MEISNER-Yes,it's basically two faces. MR.URRICO-Okay. MR. MEISNER-And the pole cover itself, they have a new pole cover, a new look. The pole cover won't be black. It'll be (lost words). MR.URRICO-So you're de-illuminating it almost? MR. MEISNER-Yes. It's actually a nicer looking sign. MR.URRICO-Okay. 29 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. KUHL-If you could only get three signs,what would they be,four signs? MR. MEISNER-One would be Nemer. MR. KUHL-Okay. I'm not going to make you go through that, but what you're saying is the signage for these type of dealerships are all the same. Is that what you're trying to say? MR. MEISNER-Yes. MR. KUHL-You're trying to mirror what other locations have? MR. MEISNER-Yes,other locations. MR. KUHL-Okay. MR. HENKEL-They're being forced into it,too,kind of,aren't they? MR. MEISNER-Yes. MR. HENKEL-Being required to. MR. JACKOSKI-Well, it's kind of nice, too, that all these dealerships are under one property, (lost word) spread them all out through the Town. MR. GARRAND-I remember when we had Della in here and they said they couldn't carry this brand of car if they don't have signs and all that kind of stuff,it would be a lot of pressure on them. MR.URRI C 0-Volkswagen has to paint their showrooms a certain color. MR. GARRAND-Yes. MR.URRICO-And also separate it from the other brand. The bathrooms even have to be different. MR. GARRAND-It's a lot of hoops. MR. JACKOSKI-There must be a lot of money to be made in cars. All right. We do have a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm going to open the public hearing. Is there any written comment? PUBLIC HEARING OPENED MR.URRICO-No written comment. MR. JACKOSKI-No written comment. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who'd like to address this Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one, I'm going to leave the public hearing open, and I'm going to poll the Board, before we get into doing SEQR and any other stuff. So the first one is going to be Kyle? MR. NOONAN-I'm in favor. MR.JACKOSKI-Ron? MR. KUHL-Yes. I'm in favor. It's fine. MR.JACKOSKI-Roy? MR. URRICO-Yes, I'm in favor of it. We go through this a lot of times with the auto dealers, and they're almost handcuffed. I'm in favor of it. MR.JACKOSKI-Joyce? MRS. HUNT-Yes. I have no problem with it. MR.JACKOSKI-John? 30 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. HENKEL-No problem also. Go for it. MR.JACKOSKI-Rick? MR. GARRAND-I think Roy's assessment was right on the money. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. I'm going to close the public hearing. PUBLIC HEARING CLOSED MR.JACKOSKI-And look for a SEQR motion,please. MOTION REGARDING SIGN VARIANCE NO. 14-2013 SAXTON SIGN CORP. BASED UPON THE INFORMATION AND THE ANALYSIS OF THE ABOVE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS BOARD FINDS THAT THIS PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT RESULT IN ANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT. SO WE GIVE IT A NEGATIVE DEC, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 29th day of May, 2013,by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Urrico, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR. JACKOSKI-And now I'd like a motion for the Sign Variance, please. Okay. Not having one, I guess we want to adjourn. Does anybody want to volunteer to do a motion? MR. KUHL-I'll volunteer. MR.JACKOSKI-Another one. Ron,you're racking them up the last two times. Thank you. MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 14-2013 SAXTON SIGN CORP., Introduced by Ronald Kuhl who moved for its adoption,seconded by Joyce Hunt: 728 Quaker Road. The applicant proposes to remove existing signage and install six new wall signs totaling 117.95 square feet, and retrofit existing 50 square foot freestanding sign. The relief requested, we permit one wall sign and one freestanding sign. Proposed are six wall signs and a retrofit existing 50 square foot freestanding sign. Therefore the relief is for five wall signs. In making this determination,whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the property, the answer to that is minor to none, and whether the benefit can be sought by any other means feasible to the applicant other than a sign variance? No, not the way our regulations are written. They only allow one wall sign. He's looking for six, and whether the requested sign variance is substantial. No, it's not really substantial when you're trying to keep up with standard signage on all dealerships, and, yes, it could be self-created. I recommend we approve Sign Variance No. 14-2013. Duly adopted this 29th day of May, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you. Congratulations. MR. MEISNER-Thank you. MR. JACKOSKI-I have one further item for the Board members here. I do want to try to talk just briefly as a Board. Certainly last week was an interesting week with an incredible amount of public comment that sometimes went off the beaten path, in my opinion. So I guess what I want to do at this point is kind of get some feedback from you, as to how much leniency or leeway we should give to our standing rules of, I believe it's three minutes, Roy,is that correct? MR.URRICO-Five minutes. 31 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. JACKOSKI-Five minutes for each person to speak, and then is it 15 minutes in total for the application,or don't we have a cap on the? MR.URRICO-We don't have a cap on it. MR.JACKOSKI-Should we have a cap? That's some of the conversation I want to have. If we could just real quickly as a Board,because I agree,last week was a tough week for us. MICHAEL MC CABE MR. MC CABE-Could I make a comment? MR.JACKOSKI-Sure. Go ahead. MR. MC CABE-Well, I thought as long as it was pertinent(lost words) then you could continue it,but several of the people last week kept hitting the same item over and over and over, and that's what caused a long period, so,you know, it's a hard call to make. You don't want to suppress important information, but on the other hand,you don't want somebody to just,you know, reiterate the same thing over and over. MR. GARRAND-Exactly, and that's what took up a lot of time last week was people saying the same thing over and over and over again. MR. JACKOSKI-But then there was always one that little bit of information that as they were going through that process some little thing got brought up, and I would sit there thinking, okay, well that's new,so I better,let's see where they're going with this. So, I mean,you know, it's a tough call, because we don't want to be rude. We certainly want everybody to,you know,to get their opinions out. MRS. HUNT-I don't know that we're being rude if we tell them they have a five minute limit and they can come back for three minutes,that's it,and we had someone who was repeating himself. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes, no, I know. So is it fair for this Board,it's okay that when that little buzzer goes off,that I kind of cut them off,right? MR. GARRAND-Time's up. MR.JACKOSKI-I mean,tonight was a good example where we,you know,it was starting to go. MR.URRICO-You reeled him back in. MR.JACKOSKI-And reeled him back in. Okay, and that's okay,but,I mean,when do you feel that it's reasonable that I kind of say,okay,thank you very much, and we move to the next applicant? MR. URRICO-Well, I think last week was not unprecedented. We've had cases before where we've had a lot of public feedback, and you sort of have to let it play out. I mean,we know it's going to be a long night. MR. GARRAND-But a lot of it was irrelevant. The one guy was talking about his childhood. MR. URRICO-That would be the only thing I would suggest is that, in reeling them back in, remind them that we are dealing just with what's on the case here. I mean,we weren't dealing with traffic tonight. There's nothing we can do about Dead Man's curve there,you know, and he kept going on and on about that. We're not dealing with the traffic. We can't, we have nothing to do with the traffic. We're dealing with the sign. Last week the same thing, you know, I don't know what we can do about the sewer line going up and down Bay Road. MR. KUHL-But that's not our responsibility. MR.URRICO-No,it's not. MR. MC CABE-It kind of is if it's going to have an environmental impact. MR. KUHL-No, that gentleman was at the Town Board, Board of Health, and he said the same thing, and that's for the Town Board, Board of Health to decide yes or no. What we're here for is what's presented,or just the variances for us. 3 (Queensbury ZBA Meeting 05/29/2013) MR. URRICO-That would be the only thing I would suggest, is that once it starts getting off the point of what we're dealing with,then maybe reeling them back. MR.JACKOSKI-Okay. Very good. MR. KUHL-Once you stop the buzzer,once we stopped keeping time,it just got out of control. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,no, I know. MR. MC CABE-Then when you have two people there. MR.JACKOSKI-Yes,no,you give both five minutes. All right. Can I have a motion to adjourn? MRS.MOORE-Just a clarification. I did go back and look at the Code, and for that Straub application, it is 1,100 square feet maximum. So that was a typo. Correct. MR.JACKOSKI-All right. So it's 20 feet of relief. MRS.MOORE-And so it's still 20 square feet of relief. MR. JACKOSKI-Okay. That's fine, and I think we all understand what the intent of the motion was. So we now have that clarified. Thank you, Staff. Motion to adjourn. MOTION TO ADJOURN THE QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING OF MAY 29, 2013, Introduced by Joyce Hunt who moved for its adoption,seconded by Richard Garrand: Duly adopted this 29th day of May, 2013, by the following vote: AYES: Mr.Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mrs. Hunt, Mr.Jackoski NOES: NONE MR.JACKOSKI-Thank you,everyone,very much. On motion meeting was adjourned. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Steven Jackoski, Chairman 33