Loading...
12-03-2014 QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SECOND REGULAR MEETING December 3, 2014 INDEX Area Variance 34-2014 Diane & Craig Goodman Page 2 Area Variance 78-2014 Clute Enterprises Page 5 Area Variance 71-2014 Doug Coon Page 8 Sign Variance 79-2014 Lake George Northway LLC The Outlets at Lake George East Page 16 Sign Variance 80-2014 Northway Outlets, LLC Page 16 The Outlets at Lake George West Area Variance 82-2014 Mike La Frank Page 22 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. s QUEENSBURY ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS Second Regular Meeting December 3, 2014 7:00 P.M. MEMBERS PRESENT Steven Jackoski, Chairman Richard Garrand, Vice-Chairman Roy Urrico, Secretary Ronald Kuhl Michael McCabe John Henkel Kyle Noonan LAND USE PLANNER-Laura Moore OFFICE SPECIALIST-Sue Hemingway MR. JACKOSKI —Hello everyone. Welcome. Today is December 3, 2014 at 7:00 here in the Queensbury Activities Center. I'd like to call to order the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals meeting for this evening. For those of you who haven't been here in the past, there are some sheets in the back that explain the process as well as the agenda. It's quite simple process. We'll read each application into the record. We'll ask the applicant's to join us here at the small table. We'll ask questions, they will present more information if they wish. We'll poll the board, we'll have public comment when there was a public comment period was advertised and then we'll move forward with the application as appropriate at that time. We do have some old business to take of this evening first so I'd like to begin right away with the Diane & Craig Goodman project, Area Variance 34-2014. We have heard this application on three different occasions in the past. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening which we will open, it has been left open from previous meetings and I'll turn it over to Roy to read anything additional into the record. Mr. Urrico: I'm going to read in the staff comments — on file. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you sir. Welcome Mr. Lapper: Good evening everyone. For the record Jon Lapper with Diane & Craig Goodman. I think we had a very good meeting last time and you sent us away to come back with some alternatives for screening so what Roy just read what I heard was that it was an alternative and that's not what's proposed, it actually both. It's the synthetic material which is really nice which Laura has there which will go on the fence and then based upon what we heard from the board last time we've replaced the spruce trees with a privet hedge which is a new quote from Gould which was submitted which is 10,000 for the plantings and the mulch. The privet hedge will grow two to three feet a year and it'll be located in front of the synthetic privacy that'll be on the actual fence on the road side and then some apple trees as well on the north side. So we did both to cover the fence and to do a much more dense sort of an English privet hedge which would be maintained with hedge clippers and we hope that addresses what you were looking for at the last meeting. Mr. Jackoski: Okay thank you. Are there any questions from board members at this time? Well we do have a public hearing scheduled for this evening, is there anyone here in the audience as we reopen that public hearing s that would like to address this board concerning this application? Seeing no one I'll leave the public hearing open. Roy do you have any public comments since the last time? Mr. Urrico: I do not see any that were here since the last time. Mr. Jackoski: Okay thank you. I'll guess I'll poll the board and ask the board what they're thinking they'd like to do to move forward on this. Is that fair? I'll start with Rick. Mr. Garrand: Thank you Mr. Chairman. Consistent with my last the last meeting I still feel that it does produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. Although I do applaud them on the screening that they're trying to do. It is substantial, its six feet over the allowed code so I'd still not be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Ron? Mr. Kuhl: My question is this it's going be this hedge row plus the 22 Norway spruce trees correct. Mr. Lapper: We were taking the Norway spruce trees out and putting the hedge in place Mr. Kuhl: Well I was in favor from the beginning because I thought it blended with the recreational area that we have. I was not against it then and I'm not against it now. What you're saying now is you're going to put kind of hedgerow. It's going to be a growing hedge, it's not synthetic. Mr. Lapper: There is both, there is synthetic on the actual fence and then a growing hedge in front of that between the road and the fence. Mr. Kuhl: Okay, I'm in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle? Mr. Noonan: I was also in favor of this project from the start. You know I think both times I had said well I guess the May and the June meetings and the August meetings I had always said that if you had come in earlier maybe we would have helped to figure out where it would go but I was in favor of it then. I do like the fact that you're going to add some more, you're going to add something to disguise it. I'm still in favor of the project. Mr. Jackoski: John Mr. Henkel: Yeah I was not really in favor in the beginning but I've changed my mind. I think based on what you could do I was against being over the four feet required or allowable but you have to have a fence to stop the balls from going into the road which would cause a problem with automobiles. I think they're trying to screen it make it it kind of blends in there I'd be in favor now of it Mr. Jackoski: Mike. Mr. McCabe: I think the applicants have bent over backwards to make this more plausible. I think they got in this situation through no fault of their own and I'll support the project. Mr. Jackoski: Roy. Mr. Urrico: Yeah, I think from when we first arrived with the application to now has been a marked improvement. I think we've seen some compromise here in trying to make the best of a bad situation so I would be in favor of what we see right now. Mr. Jackoski: I'm going to close the public comment period and seek a motion. RESOLUTION L; Area Variance 34-2014 Diane & Craig Goodman The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Diane and Craig Goodman for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant has installed a 6,307 sq. ft. tennis court and a 10 ft. high fence around the court. The relief requested from setback requirements in a WR zoning district and fence height. The relief requested; the front setback — the required 30 ft.; proposed zero; the relief is 30 ft. Side setback on east corner, 20 ft., proposed is 0.06 ft., relief requested is 19.4 ft. Side setback on the west corner, 20 ft. is required, proposed is 9.3 ft., relief is 10.7 ft. Fence height, 4 ft. maximum in the front yard, proposed 10 ft., and the relief is 6 ft. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on June 18, 2014, June 25, 2014, October 22, 2014, and December 3, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? Our belief is that minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? Feasible alternatives would be too costly and the applicant has made of lot of adjustments to meet our requirements. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? The relief requested may be considered substantial relative to the Code. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor impacts are believed. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? This is considered self-created. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 34-2014, DIANE AND CRAIG GOODMAN, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel; C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; D. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan NOES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski Mr. Jackoski: Congratulations. Next item on this evening's agenda is Clute Enterprises Area Variance 78- 2014, a Type II SEQR for Old Forge Road. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. This public hearing is continued from November 19th and I'll turn it over to Roy to add to the record please. Mr. Urrico: Yes, I'm going to read the staff notes —on file. Mr. Jackoski: Great thank you. Mr. Clute welcome. Mr. Clute: How are you tonight? Mr. Jackoski: We're well how are you? Mr. Clute: Good Mr. Jackoski: Is there anything you'd like to add to the record or would you like us just to ask questions? Mrs. Moore: There is a photo being passed along to the board so the board can review that. Mr. Clute: At the initial sit down a couple of weeks ago as well as at the pre-submission meeting with Laura Richard & Kathleen really wanted to keep the character of the building and in saying that they wanted to keep those doors and I could secure those doors but everybody that I spoke to about securing including the board didn't seem enthusiastic about that. So I convinced Richard to do what we've already done. I've taken the doors right out, framed them up, one side has got a window, the other side is going to have a six foot overhead access door which is already ordered, it won't be in for another couple of weeks. But so we've they've gotten rid of the doors. Mr. Jackoski: Okay are there any questions from board members at this time before I reopen the public hearing. Mr. Noonan: So this picture is different than the drawing that we have in our packet, the four foot door. Mr. Clute: The picture you have in your hand is what exists, that's there now. Mr. Noonan: And that's what you want to keep? Mr. Clute: That's what they want to keep? They really wanted to keep the building, they would have preferred to have the kept the original doors at least the looks of them I could have secured them so that only one four foot operating would have stayed but again I explained to them that a lot of people weren't exactly comfortable with that option so they chose that option there so what you have in your hand is in place right now. Mr. Noonan: Okay. Mr. Kuhl: Will there be any water or electric in this Mr. Clute? Mr. Clute: I don't believe water but I think his intent is there is actually power or was power to it, there is no longer power connected to it but the risers there there is a disconnect inside so I'm assuming that yes Richard he will reconnect the power. Mr. Kuhl: But he's not going to running a business out of this? Mr. Clute: No sir. Mr. Henkel: The rest of the building is going to stay the same, it not going to be sided like the house or anything like that. Mr. Clute: No I think he intends on repairing the stucco, like I said they really wanted to try keep the character of the building that they see so I don't think that they intend on residing it to match the house. I think they're going to clean up the roof and then patch up the stucco. Mr. Henkel: I assume the bordering neighbors have any problem with it obviously they are not here. Mr. Clute: Not that I'm aware of It actually, it acts as a buffer if that makes sense. I built four homes all back to back to each other there and that building is right in the center and there is not of tree growth so that building acts as probably the only buffer not that trees couldn't be planted or fences couldn't be put up but I think the four homes are kind of happy that there is a buffer of sorts between entertainment space and entertainment space if that makes sense. Mr. Noonan: I have another question Mr. Chairman. Mr. Jackoski: Yes Please Mr. Noonan: What's stopping the homeowner or the future homeowner from taking this out and using it as a second garage again? How is this on there a hammer and a crowbar probably can take it down in spring if they wanted to. Mr. Clute: If they desired to, if push comes to shove it's an eight foot opening and it's a masonry building so yes push comes to shove those openings could be reopened I suppose. Mr. Noonan: Right. Thank you. Mr. Clute: This an older couple with the stipulation that it were not to made a garage he just really wants the building as a shop and she wants it a kind of cold storage. So I don't anticipate that but obviously I can't really speak for it. Mr. Noonan: No I understand that, thank you. Mr. Jackoski: There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll open the public hearing again or reopen it. Is there anyone here in the audience who'd like to address this board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one is there any additional written comment? Mr. Urrico: Just one I see the City of Glens Falls —letter on file. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thank you. So at this time I'll poll the board and the reverse order from last time. Roy? Mr. Urrico: At this point I would be in favor of the project as presented. Mr. Jackoski: Mike Mr. McCabe: I was the one that proposed changing to a structure so therefore I support that. Mr. Jackoski: John Mr. Henkel: Yeah, I'd be in favor of that also as long as we put in the conditions that it can't be changed into a one car garage or two car garage no garage at all without coming back to us. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle? Mr. Noonan: I want to trust that the homeowner is going to keep it as a shed and not change it back to a garage. I mean we do have code enforcement someday if that becomes an issue maybe we can take care of that so I guess I'd be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Ron Mr. Kuhl: Yeah I agree with my other board members. I think it's a, he's showing that he is going to use it as a shed not a garage not run a business out of it, I'd be in favor of the way its presented. Mr. Jackoski: Rick Mr. Garrand: The applicant did come back and reduce the amount of variance requested so I'd be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay great so I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. Rick. RESOLUTION Area Variance 78-2014 Clute Enterprises The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Clute Enterprises for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040; 179-5-020 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant revised submission and proposes to maintain the 768 sq. ft. structure as an accessory structure converting to a storage shed instead of a garage. The door to be less than 6 ft. so that it is no longer considered a garage structure. The relief requested is from side yard setbacks and that is relief of 10.2 ft. on the side yard setback, and, also, on the maximum square footage of an allowable accessory structure of 268 sq. ft. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 3, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? It won't produce undesirable change in the neighborhood. The structure has been existing there for many many years. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? That's what the applicant did; the applicant reduced the amount of variance that was originally requested. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? I think it is substantial. I consider it moderate. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? None, what-so-ever. The structure has been here for decades. It hasn't had an effect on it and it won't have an effect now. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I don't believe it is self-created. The structure is pre-existing. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 78-2014, CLUTE ENTERPRISES, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel, C. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans, D. Upon approval of the application, review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Discussion before the vote: Mr. Jackoski: Does anyone know that when the subdivision was done if this building was supposed to be taken down? Mr. Garrand: Part of this was the requirement was that they either get a variance for the structure or demo the structure. Mrs. Moore: That's the recent. Mr. Jackoski: Let the record show that, ok great so call the vote. Mr. Jackoski: Thanks Larry Mr. Clute: Thanks for your consideration Mr. Jackoski: Next item is new business this evening Area Variance 71-2014, a Type II SEQR, it is east of Bayberry Drive, Tom Hutchins agent for the owner Douglas Coon. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. Mr. Urrico: Staff Notes on file Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Roy. Welcome. Mr. Lapper: For the record Jon Lapper with Doug Coon and Tom Hutchins. It seems funny to be presenting this as a case of first impression because we've been working on this for about three years between working with the planning board conceptually working with the state agencies and changing this so many times before we have what we're presenting before you tonight but I think I told the story in the cover letter. But to just start out Doug acquired this property between 1980 and 1985. He's lived there for most of that time in the home that's with the horse barn. And his goal all along was to maintain the horse farm which is a grandfathered use as long as it stays on ten acres and to develop the homes. When he bought the property it was a 17 lot grandfathered subdivision and I submitted that plan to you so you can see that so of course Doug came to see me and Tom to start with to talk about a 17 lot subdivision. In order to comply with regulations we then came back with a 10 lot subdivision went the planning board conceptually and I submitted that that's option 2 with a cul-de-sac that matches what's already on Bayberry Drive just to the west of his property. And all of those homes that were built in the 80's some of them have been built more recently but those lots were subdivided in the 80's and there about 1/3 of an acre. So what we're proposing now is more than an acre the smallest one is 0.91 just slightly less than an acre but with 15 acres and 5 houses the density is far more than the two acre minimum in the new MDR zone but also when you compare it to the existing homes of approximately a third of an acre it's dramatically bigger than rest of the subdivision. And you're probably aware that the first house on the north side by SUNY Adirondack was just constructed this year. A white ranch on one of those third of an acre lots. So Doug bought this thinking he would be build a road the way it was grandfathered, the way it was submitted to you with a circular road for 17 homes. We then came back and talked to the planning board in a less is more situation that we would instead build nine new lots plus the horse farm a 10 lot subdivision and Tom went and pursued that and drafted but basically after meeting with the sewer department it was a case of the cost of putting in a pump station, the sewer department wanted it so that it could accommodate hooking up the other houses if he was going to connect to the Meadowbrook sewer line and it just got so expensive it was just not cost effective even for doing ten lots so we went back to the drawing board and came back with what we think is the minimal relief here, four new lots which are again are much larger than the neighborhood and keeping the horse farm which is a nice character in terms of Meadowbrook Road which has obviously been developed with the Hiland Park PUD over the years but the goal here is to maintain the horse farm as a grandfathered use which is a nice character. So then in terms of the variances themselves the main reason that we've got lot three and four that don't have frontage is that Bayberry Drive ends right at the end of where we've got lot 2 and it was just a case of there was no reason to create more town road that had to be maintained to comply with that instead it would just be on a private drive. The home that goes with the horse farm is already on a private drive so that was just about building less road and just having it as a private driveway and in terms of the lot size this just laid out nicely in terms of the three houses that back up onto the college property, the one that's on the south side where there is wetlands to have a sufficient building footprint and then the rest just to maintain it the way it is so that's really the story of how we got from 17 lots to 4 new house lots and maintaining the horse farm. And I think I needed to explain this just so you can understand that we view this as asking for a lot less relief than it otherwise could be especially if you look at the third of an acre lots, you know 17 third of an acre of lots that is filed in the county clerk's office as a grandfathered subdivision. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Do board members have any questions at this time? Mr. Henkel: Is there any other wetlands other than on either side of the property lines here one on the ACC side or on the side which is the Willows or Schermerhorn's properties are those wetlands? Mr. Lapper: The two wetlands that you see are Army Corp wetlands there are no DEC wetlands that's a whole other story but back in the 80's because the state wetland regulations Doug entered into a stipulation with DEC that I also submitted that this is exempt from state wetland regulations because this is all grandfathered so the only wetlands that matter are these two Army Corps wetlands and we've had the Army Corps out there to delineate that. Mr. Henkel: I saw that. Mr. Lapper: And part of this is really where the town there is a drainage ditch the town did some drainage work on the west side on the edge of lot 1 to improve drainage for the houses Mr. Hutchins: It goes to the south of lot 4 there is actually pipe drainage that goes from the north side of Bayberry Drive around to the south side of lot 4 where it discharges. Yes, that wet area does continue to the south it wraps way away from the property but it does continue on south. Mr. Henkel: Okay so it does continue over by (untelligible) property there. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions from board members before I reopen the public hearing? Mr. Garrand: Just one question. Couldn't you have reduced the relief requested by combining a couple of these lots? Mr. Lapper: I guess the best answer for that is that is to make this project work as a neighborhood four new houses on 15 acres with the existing we think just because that overall density that there are far more than two acres, you know, so the answer is Doug would rather not but we hope you'll see that compared to the houses that are there this is good density. Mr. Garrand: Because your density you're going to have an existing ten acre horse farm there and I just wanted to let board members know that staff notes are also wrong on here. Its relief requested on lot 4 is 1.09 acres and not 0.09 acres. Mr. Lapper: That's correct. Mr. Garrand: It just seems like you could combine some of this. Mr. Lapper: I understand that looking at that that you would say that but when you look at 0.91 acres and everybody else that's there is on a third of an acre and this is almost an acre it's still just in terms of what you're building this is so much bigger than the neighborhood. Yeah, it is part of the neighborhood. Mr. Jackoski: Do the neighborhood lots have wetlands on them? Mr. Hutchins: They border this channel that runs from the south side of the college property. That parcel line where this wetlands is flagged borders that. To my knowledge there are not physical wetlands on. Mr. Jackoski: On the other parcels. Mr. Lapper: They were filled. Mr. Coon: The town did that it was just a drainage ditch the town dug that two summers ago just to redo a ditch that had been there previously for 25-30 years so they just came in and they dug because it had filled in overtime and they dug it and then they piped it and just continued it so just to run the water away which had always been Mr. Lapper: And they created some wetlands Mr. Coon: Well they created the wetlands, the wetlands weren't really there. They created this when they did this and they kind of sloped it but it became wet enough just in that one corner where the Army Corps came in and said you've got wetlands and I said really it's not that wet. It hasn't been until we they did this work but that's what it is. Mr. Kuhl: The property to the west of lot 4 what is that I see it as wetlands Army Corps of Engineer wetlands, that's 255 by 148.9 feet. Mr. Lapper: That's part of lot 5. Mr. Kuhl: Part of lot 5 why don't make that it part of lot 4. Mr. Lapper: Because we had to maintain ten acres in order to keep the grandfather for the horses. Mr. Kuhl: I got it. Mr. Jackoski: When the horse farm there are they going subdivide off of Meadowbrook? Mr. Lapper: The horse farm Doug is planning on selling that to somebody who wants a horse farm. That's a nice thing to have, he's got a horse barn so we're expecting that that's never going to happen. We're using the density as it now and really the wetland along Meadowbrook so that doesn't, we looked at every possibility for how to properly develop this we don't think that's feasible. Yeah, part of that horse field is wet so it's not really suitable for development for houses over there. It's good for a horse farm though. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questions? Is there anyone here this evening as we open the public hearing that would like to address this board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one is there written comment? Mr. Urrico: No Mr. Jackoski: Having no written comments, having no one in the audience to address that board I'm going to leave public hearing open and I'll poll the board. We'll start with Roy. Mr. Urrico: I guess my main concern is that this area is zoned for two acres and most of the neighborhood is not two acres and now this one won't be either so it's almost as if the zoning was ill advised when they changed this area. That being said I think the applicant has made some cogent points and also I understand what they're trying to do here, I wish they would combine two of the lots to really make it really two acre parcels. So right now I would say I'm going to say no at this point. Mr. Jackoski: Ron Mr. Kuhl: We go into when the zoning codes were changed and the neighborhood has a lot smaller lots and I think this goes along with that. If we allow this variance for these five lots the four to build on it'll end right there and I think it'll be in keeping with the neighborhood so I would be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Mike Mr. McCabe: I have no problem with the road frontage but I do have a problem with none of the lots meeting the two acre requirement. I think a better approach would be to that the town created this situation by changing the zoning and I agree that all the other around houses around there you know are nowhere near two acre or even one acre lots. I believe a better approach because now each time something is done on one of these lots it's a non-conforming lot so we're going to have to get involved again. I would favor having a zoning change to accommodate this and again this wouldn't be the case if a connection was made to the sewer am I right? 99 Mr. Lapper: That's exactly the point I was going to make. It's a one acre zone as long as you have sewer, it's just that it's not cost effective because we're only building four new houses to bring in all the sewer. Mr. McCabe: And I think that's probably why the town did it and not knowing what it would cost now they have the information as to what it would cost so it seems to me like it would be a fairly routine change for them to make. Mr. Lapper: We could do sewer if we did 17 lots that's the other side of this. As grandfathered existing lots. So that's something else to talk about but let's poll the board. Mr. McCabe: So I'm not in favor of granting this relief. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle Mr. Noonan: It seems like the applicant has done a lot work over the last few years trying to figure out how to make this work. I don't know if I would want to see 17 new lots go in. I think that would add a lot more to that neighborhood that's already there, 17 new lots, that's two cars per lot, 34 new cars going back and forth down that neighborhood. I don't think the neighborhood would like 17 new lots. I actually would be in favor of this project as proposed. Mr. Jackoski: Rick Mr. Garrand: I think Mike made a very good point, that variances are going breed variances with this so I'll also refer back to staff notes. Feasible alternatives are available and the requested relief is substantial so I wouldn't be in favor of this. Mr. Jackoski: John Mr. Henkel: I like the idea that you're trying to keep that horse farm there still, that's been there for a lot of years and I think he's trying to make it feasible for himself to. Affordable to I mean I like idea, I don't like the idea of 17 lots there obviously but four lot are fairly close to two acres I mean there is one of them that's not but I definitely be in favor I think it's a good project. Mr. Jackoski: I'm struggling with it. I really am not in favor of the lot that is under the acre. I look at the overall capacity of the property and wonder who is going to develop the rest of it into have a lot more density on it. Mr. Lapper: We would agree to a condition Mr. Jackoski: But we all know that that doesn't hold. Mr. Lapper: But it's not developable because of Mr. Jackoski: Well it's not developable then the threat of the 17 parcels isn't Mr. Lapper: In order to do that you'd have to take down the horse farm and the house that's there. You also have to keep in mind that three back up to ACC or SUNY Adirondack now just in terms of what's going on there in the neighborhood and if Doug has no choice but to come back and look at sticking with the original and doing 17 houses and making that work even if he has to bring in sewer what is the benefit of that? This is so much less intense with just four lots and I really think you have to just look at what's there with those third of an acre lots you know regardless of the zoning the character of the neighborhood. These are estate lots compared to what everybody else has. 99 Mr. Jackoski: Well but I mean ACC is quite a large parcel or two and the developments off Meadowbrook have lots of green space and clustered development and there is certainly an awful lot of open space to the south that is not a third of an acre lots so while I know there is a neighborhood upon the entrance to this area that is third of an acre there is an awful lot that surrounds it that isn't a third of an acre so to characterize it that the entire neighborhood is a third of an acre when it's really only the stuff to the west is a little misleading in my opinion. Mr. Lapper: Well I'm only saying that because this is all the Bayberry subdivision, you know, the original subdivision of which we submitted that original map that this was part of the original grandfathered subdivision. Mr. Jackoski: Roy, the letter from the Planning Board, was there anything in that letter at all to hint to us that they had concerns with it as it's laid out. Mr. Lapper: There were very supportive of this. Mr. Urrico: Offhand I couldn't tell, I know they were supportive of it. Mr. Jackoski: Laura was the Planning Board unanimous. Mrs. Moore: Yes Mr. Jackoski: And does staff believe that we can condition that there would be no further subdivision of the horse farm ten acre lot? Mrs. Moore: Yes, it's information that appears on the plat itself and in the deed. Mr. Jackoski: But we've as a board when we've done that the courts have come back to us and told us that we have to look at it again should that application come in front of us again so it really doesn't hold any water. Mrs. Moore: That's with any application, that's not. Mr. Lapper: We'll agree to it, certainly as a condition. Mr. Coon: And you know this whole thing this was all part of an original subdivision done by John Hughes, when I bought into it back in 1980 his comment to me is well you're going to have to finish this. I said well maybe someday but not right away. And of course looking into doing this three years ago it I didn't think all the new restrictions would be upon me that would make it almost prohibitive to do it, to do the 17 lots. So we've cut back and cut back and now we have a 17 lot approved subdivision. We have a 17 lot approved subdivision, we have that, it's grandfathered but now we're just looking to do four and then leave the horse farm the way it is and you know we'd agree to that. So I mean looking at what's in there now what we're going to do here its, it will affect the neighborhood but it will affect it positively. Mr. Jackoski: Where's the closest sewer connection. Mr. Lapper: On Meadowbrook Road Mr. Jackoski: But where? On that side. Mr. Hutchins: There is sewer on Meadowbrook Road, there is sewer of course on Bay Road, the sewer actually ACC has a pressure sewer force main that runs that's the closest sewer but it's not accessible. It runs parallel to that northerly property line through that easement there to the gravity sewer on the just prior to the Meadowbrook pump station. Mr. Jackoski: Aren't some of the 17 lots not buildable because of the wetlands? 9S Mr. Hutchins: This area here was identified as left off. This area here stayed clear which is the brook and the big wet area. Some of these would be impacted by the wetlands as they are mapped today, certainly. Mr. Lapper: But most of them wouldn't be. Mr. Jackoski: But we would have sewer in all of that wetlands around there and all of those grounds there and all the water table there wouldn't be impacted by any septic systems. Mr. Lapper: But that's the beauty of having 1.6, 1.3, 1.15 and 0.91. These are big lots for sewer and Tom's done all of the work so these lots can accommodate it. Those third of an acre lots all have septic on their lots for the rest of the subdivision so I mean he's done the actual soil tests and we're all set. We just hoped you'd look at this compared to what was already there what Doug bought and we think this is really minimal development because of these large lots compared to what's already approved and that's how the planning board looked at it, they were very supportive. Mr. Jackoski: It's just doing the balancing test there is a lot of alternatives here. Mr. Lapper: Well there's not only because Doug has to still do a lot of work to make this happen. And I think if you balance it against even if we don't get full 17 we're going to get most of it. Mr. Jackoski: Okay I'll approve it. So after board comment we do have enough votes to approve the application. Is there anyone who would like to make a motion for me at this time? Ron might you be able to do it? RESOLUTION Area Variance 71-2014 Doug Coon The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Douglas Coon for variance from Chapter 183 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes a 5-lot residential subdivision of a 15.59 acre parcel for construction of four (4) new building lots with less than 2- acres. Lot 5 to remain existing ten-acre agricultural/horse use with barn and home to remain. Lots 1 through 4 do not meet the lot size and lots 3 and 4 do not meet the road frontage requirements. The requirements are 2- acres; lot one will require relief of 0.36 acres; lot two will require relief of 0.070 acres; lot three will require 0.085 acres; lot four will require 1.09 acres. Lot three and four will require 50 feet of relief for road frontage. SEQR Type II—no further review required; A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 3, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 9 cs I. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested area variance? Minor impacts to the neighborhood are anticipated. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than an area variance? We have discussed it; there are feasible alternatives but it does blend in with the neighborhood. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It may be considered substantial relative to the Code. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? Minor to no impacts are anticipated. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? The difficulty may be considered self-created. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE AREA VARIANCE NO. 71-2014, DOUGLAS COON, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The applicant has offered to not further subdivide the remaining lot number five(5). B. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & Codes personnel; D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including building permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans, E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a building permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand Mr. Lapper: Thanks everybody. Mr. Jackoski: As a matter here of procedure folks the next two applications are practically identical across the streets parcels Mr. Lapper do you see any concern with us hearing them together? Mr. Lapper: I was going to hope that you would, thank you. 94 Mr. Jackoski: So staff help us, guide us through this. We'll read both applications in to the record as I call them and then we'll treat them globally. I don't know how you want to document the two applications. Mrs. Moore: As long as you identify east and west when you discuss it. Mr. Jackoski: Fine. Mr. Urrico: I can't just say ditto? Mr. Jackoski: All right I'm going to call the next two sign variance applications 79-2014 and 80-2014. They are Lake George Northway LLC, The Outlets at Lake George East and Northway Outlets, LLC, The Outlets at Lake George West. Mr. Lapper is representing both parcels this evening for the applicants. There is public hearings scheduled for both parcels. I'm going to turn this over to Roy to read a lengthy description into the record. Thank you Roy. Mr. Urrico: Staff notes on file. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Welcome Mr. Lapper: Okay for the record Jon Lapper and Corey Shanus principal of both of the applicants. So I know most of you or all of you are sitting there saying why are Jon and Corey sitting in front of us again talking about a variance and I can tell you that we didn't anticipate having to come back for this. These were really well designed really expensive this coming up with these monument signs was a real expense and this was done by architects to provide the minimum signage that we needed that Corey needed for both of these plazas and they are beautiful signs. And everything was fine in the summer until it got dark, until the seasons changed and the pictures that I submitted we hired Jim Mc Gaughlin to go out at night because this is what you see when you drive by and I'm sure you've seen it driving by at night. The lighting that was supposed to be effective is really ineffective but the point with what we're proposing is that these lights would be spotlights so they're just going to shine on the bottom of the sign and it's not going to be light pollution and it's not going be light spillage, it's just going to accomplish what should be accomplished which is to light the bottom of the sign and we've looked at all of the alternatives about doing some big gooseneck from the top that wouldn't be any better and wouldn't be effective to bath the whole thing in lights and this is a problem that you can't see the bottom of the sign and you know I know everybody understands that between the landlord and the tenant, you know Corey's invested 40 million dollars in both of these plazas and he did that to make this beautiful and to make it work and this is something that's a real problem and we wouldn't be here if it wasn't a problem but he has to do that for his tenants. Corey do you want to address? Mr. Shanus: Good evening as Jon said this was quite unexpected. We didn't anticipate this happening we went back to the sign people and looked at every alternative and we didn't have a feasible alternative. The previous sign that was on what we call the existing center the one we did the rehab on did have lights on the bottom. They were put up some years ago so if you put them up here that had been the existing condition for many years. The other centers French Mountain, Adirondack next door to us they had the same situation that basically you have a well-intentioned ordinance and it just doesn't work for what we're trying to do. We have spent tremendous sums for the aesthetics of this project and we're asking for a lighting option that would create an aesthetic in production to the center with the monument signs that are consistent with the centers themselves. We have a sign, it's a beautiful sign we just want our tenant's names to be seen. Mr. Jackoski: Okay thank you. Are there any board member questions at this time on these two applications east and west? 9 cs Mr. Henkel: Could you put another bar light below the east and below the tenant sign to shine up that's connected to, at the bottom where the tenant's signs are and then one bar light shining up on the outlets of the Lake George to the east. Mr. Shanus: An up shining light a bar light honestly I don't know because that did not satisfy the ordinance because it would be shining up so we looked at this, that this would definitely do it. If you're looking at what it is right now it's far from clear to us that another bar light is really going to do much. I mean as I tell you we were really very disappointed when we saw this. We spent god knows how much time tinkering with the angle with this thing trying to get a bigger bulb but it happened that way. We know what we're asking for will solve the problem I don't know if what you're suggesting would. Mr. Lapper: When I look at the sign with all of the stores with Polo at the top it doesn't even bathe half the sign in light which is not Mr. Henkel: There is no way of directing that a little differently because it seems like its intensity is at the top can you? Mr. Shanus: Believe me I thought the same thing you did and so did our sign manufacturer. We had our electrician there we were there seriously hoping very much that would do it. It just doesn't do it. Mr. Garrand: You realize Lindt is on the east side right. Mr. Lapper: It moved. Mr. Shanus: Yeah they just opened I know Mr. Lapper: They built a coffee and chocolate bar which is pretty hot. Mr. Shanus: Make a plug for Lindt right now, love it. Mr. Garrand: Not that I frequent the place. Mr. Kuhl: Just so I understand you're proposing ground mounted up wash flood lights on both sides and what about these bar lights are they going away or are they staying. Mr. Lapper: They'd be staying for the top Mr. Kuhl: Okay and you're going to wash some light up? Mr. Lapper: Yes just directed at the sign not anywhere else. Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, I mean I see the measurement are two feet away but all that's protected you're not going knock them off with a snowplow or anything are you. Mr. Lapper: No there is a planting bed. Mr. Shanus: We are going to have attractive landscaping to underneath. Mr. Kuhl: Okay, thank you. Mr. Jackoski: Any other board member questions. I will open both public hearings for the public at this time on both of these applications east and west. Is there anyone here in the audience who would like to address the board concerning either of these two applications? Seeing no one in the audience is there written comment Roy? 9' Mr. Urrico: There is not. Mr. Jackoski: Having no written comment I believing that the applicant has no additional information to add to the record I will poll the board. I'll start with Rick. Mr. Garrand: I went out Mr. Chairman Six o'clock tonight I could see nothing from about here down below on the signs in either direction. More than half of the sign is obscured. If you're looking at it from the road you can barely see it all. There is a need for some sort of lighting on this sign. When you look at the balancing test whether benefits can be achieved by other means feasible I was out there tonight I could not figure out another way to illuminate this sign other than some up cast lights. I would be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: I just want make sure I understand Rick Garrand is in favor of up cast lighting. Mr. Garrand: Just for the sign. Mr. Jackoski: You didn't mention the parking lights right? Okay great. Thank you Rick. Mike. Mr. McCabe: I believe that their proposal will work and I'll support this project. Mr. Jackoski: Ron Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, I think it's going to help them achieve what he wants to do with minimum relief so I'd be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle Mr. Noonan: Yes I would also be in favor of it I think anything that keeps eyes of a driver kind of still looking straight as opposed to trying to say well I can see three stores but what else is down there let me look I think it's better that you get the lights the way you want them. Mr. Jackoski: John Mr. Henkel: I've been there at night time like Rick said and it is harder to see and I think he's done a very nice job with that plaza and I think the lights are needed to attract people to his tenants I'd be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Roy Mr. Urrico: I think Mr. Lapper a good job of beating us to the punch. I was concerned about incremental variances and we're not going to get search lights or anything in the future? Mr. Lapper: Maybe when a store opens you know. Mr. Urrico: Considering what's going on up and down Route 9 this is still better than 99% of the signs that are being put up I'd be greatly in favor of this. Mr. Jackoski: What's wrong with us on Route 9? Mr. Urrico: I said 99%you might be in the 1%. Mr. Jackoski: Okay we do have enough to move forward with the application. I am going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. Mrs. Moore: You're closing both public hearings? Mr. Garrand: We've got to do SEQR don't we on both. 9' Mr. Jackoski: Rick Mr. Garrand: Thank you Mr. Chairman RESOLUTION Sign Variance 79-2014 /Sign Variance 80-2014 Lake George Northway, LLC, the Outlets at Lake George EAST /Northway Outlets, LLC, the Outlets at Lake George WEST The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Lake George Northway, LLC, and The Outlets at Lake George EAST for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes (LED Micro-Flood) upcast flood lights (2) in addition to the existing downcast fixtures on the existing monument sign —both sides of sign. Relief requested from restriction on allowable lighting for a sign. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 79-2014, Lake George Northway, LLC, The Outlets at Lake George EAST and Sign Variance No. 80-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC, The Outlets at Lake George WEST, based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 3, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by granting the requested sign variance. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? We cannot find a way for the benefit to be achieved by some other method. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? We believe not. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? We believe not. 9� 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Now we have Eastern Standard Time. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE SIGN VARIANCE NO. 79-2014, LAKE GEORGE NORTHWAY, LLC, THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE EAST, Introduced by Michael McCabe, who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None RESOLUTION SIGN VARIANCE 80-2014 NORTHWAY OUTLETS LLC, THE OUTLETS AT LAKE GEORGE WEST The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Northway Outlets, LLC, and The Outlets at Lake George WEST for a variance from Chapter 140 of the Sign Code of The Town of Queensbury. Applicant proposes (LED Micro-Flood) upcast flood lights (2) in addition to the existing downcast fixtures on the existing monument sign — both sides of sign. Relief requested from restriction on allowable lighting for a sign. SEQR Type: Unlisted; Motion regarding Sign Variance No. 79-2014, Lake George Northway, LLC, The Outlets at Lake George EAST and Sign Variance No. 80-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC the Outlets at Lake George WEST, based upon the information and the analysis of the above supporting documentation provided by the applicant, this Board finds 9$ that this will not result in any significant adverse environmental impact. So we give it a Negative Declaration, Introduced by Richard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by Michael McCabe: Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 3, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of NYS Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the character of the neighborhood or will a detriment to the nearby properties be created by the granting of the requested sign variance? None what-so-ever. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible for the applicant to pursue, other than a sign variance? I don't believe benefits can be achieved by other means feasible. I think this is the applicant's only option. Having viewed this, I see no other way they can light the sign. 3. Is the requested sign variance substantial? I think it's minimal at best. 4. Will the proposed sign variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district? None what-so-ever. It's going to be up-cast lighting and it's not going to be broadcasting much farther than where the sign is. 5. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? I don't believe it is self-created. I think it's something that came up, as Counsel stated, after the fact, it was discovered that they would needed additional lighting. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION TO APPROVE Sign Variance No. 80-2014, Northway Outlets, LLC — The Outlets at Lake George WEST, 1415 State Route 9 Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: As per the resolution prepared by staff with the following: A. The variance approval is valid for one (1) year from the date of approval; you may request an extension of approval before the one (1) year time frame expires; B. If the property is located within the Adirondack Park, the approved variance is subject to review by the Adirondack Park Agency (APA). The applicant is cautioned against taking any action until the APA's review is completed; C. Final approved plans in compliance with an approved variance must be submitted to the Community Development Department before any further review by the Zoning Administrator or Building & codes personnel' D. Subsequent issuance of further permits, including sign permits are dependent on receipt of these final plans; 99 E. Upon approval of the application; review and approval of final plans by the Community Development Department the applicant can apply for a sign permit unless the proposed project requires review, approval, or permit from the Town Planning Board and/or the Adirondack Park Agency, Lake George Park Commission or other State agency or department. Duly adopted this 3rd day of December, 2014, by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Lapper: Corey planned to do something really special here and we really appreciate the support of the Zoning Board. Thank you. It really looks good when you drive by these two plazas. Mr. Jackoski: The last item on this evening's agenda is the Mike LaFrank application for 48 Masters Common South. It is Area Variance 82-2014. There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. Mr. Urrico: The applicant proposes construction of a 198 sq. ft. deck addition to an existing 216 sq. ft. deck area. This will require area variances from Section 179-3-060 the PUD Establishment zone requirements: Relief requested from minimum rear yard setback requirements for the Hiland PUD district. The proposed; what is required for the rear yard is 20 feet and proposed is 13.9 feet; so the relief is 6.1 feet. Minor impacts to the neighborhood may be anticipated. Feasible alternatives may be limited due to the orientation of the existing house. The proposed deck is an addition to an existing 216 sq. ft. deck and the location may need a variance at any position on the existing deck. The relief requested may be considered minimal relevant to the code. The variance may have minimal to no adverse impact and the difficulty may be considered self-created. Staff Comments: The applicant proposes to construct a 198 sq. ft. deck addition to an existing 216 sq. ft. deck at the rear of the house. The applicant has indicated that relocating the deck farther northeast of the home would not be done due to the internal layout of the existing house. The plans show the location of the existing and proposed deck on the site. And, this is a Type II SEQRA. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you. Welcome. Pretty straight forward application. If you could identify yourselves for the record and if you'd like us to just ask questions, or if you'd like to add information, please feel free to do so. Yeah, I'm Mike LaFrank, I'm the owner of 48 Masters Common South and I think it's pretty straight forward. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, are there any questions from Board members at this time? Mr. Urrico: No Mr. Garrand: Aren't you afraid of getting hit by golf balls out there sitting on the deck? Mr. LaFrank: So far this year we haven't had any golf balls hit the house. Mr. Jackoski: Are there any other comments from Board members that are relevant to the application? I'll open the public hearing. Is there anyone here in the audience this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application? I'm seeing no one. Is there any written comment? Mr. Urrico: No. 99 Mr. Jackoski: Having no written comments, seeing no public participation, I'll leave the public hearing open and I'll poll the Board. I'll start with Roy. Mr. Urrico: I'd like to just make a motion. Mr. Jackoski: You just want to make a motion? Roy says we can just go ahead and seek a motion. Mr. Garrand: Yes we can. Mr. Jackoski: Would anyone like to do that. Mr. McCabe: I'll make a resolution Mrs. Moore: You need to close your public hearing. Mr. Jackoski: Oh, yeah, I just did. Sorry. Mr. McCabe: I'll make a resolution to APPROVE Area Variance 82-2014, Mike LaFrank, 48 Masters Common South. Tax Map Number 290.17-1-5. The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Queensbury has received an application from Mike LaFrank for a variance from Section(s): 179-3-040 and 179-3-060 of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury. The applicant proposes construction of 198 sq. ft. deck addition to an existing 216 sq. ft. deck area. Relief is requested from the minimum yard setback requirements from the Hiland PUD. The relief requested is 6.1 ft. A public hearing was advertised and held on Wednesday, December 3, 2014; Upon review of the application materials, information supplied during the public hearing, and upon consideration of the criteria specified in Section 179-14-080(A) of the Queensbury Town Code and Chapter 267 of the New York State Town Law and after discussion and deliberation, we find as follows: No undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties be created by granting of the requested area variance. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some other method; not really—that's feasible. Is the requested area variance substantial? Not really. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditions of the neighborhood or district? None what-so-ever. Is the alleged difficulty self-created? Certainly it is. You don't have to build a deck. In addition the Board finds that the benefit granted by requesting a variance would outweigh any resulting detriment to the health, safety and welfare of the neighborhood or community; therefore I make a resolution that we approve Area Variance 82-2014. 9S Mr. Jackoski: We do have a motion for approval. Mr. Noonon: I'll second. Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Kyle, and further discussion? Please call the vote. AYES: Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, M. Henkel, Mr. Urrico, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: Thank you Mr. LaFrank, sorry for the time-frame, but we got you done. Mr. Garrand: Sir, did you want any of these drawings backs? You may need them in the future, you never know! Mr. Jackoski: So, the only thing that I want to bring up for Board members here this evening. Hopefully, everyone has completed their training for the year; mandatory four hours. If you haven't, maybe work with staff to figure that out. Is there anything else anyone has to bring in front of the Board? Thank you Harrison, by the way, for attending this evening. We appreciate it. Mr. Kuhl: When is the December meetings? Mr. Jackoski: It's the 17r1' Mrs. Moore: Yes,just one meeting in December. Mr. Kuhl: Okay, I'll be here. Mr. McCabe: I will not be here. Mr. Jackoski: Harrison will not be here the 17t1i; Mike will not be here the 17r1i. We'll check with Andy to see if Any can sit in. Mrs. Moore: Okay Mr. Jackoski: May I have a motion to adjourn if there is no other business. Mr. Urrico: So Moved AYES: Mr. Noonan, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Henkel, Mr. McCabe, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None Mr. Jackoski: And, by the way Rick seconded that, so thank you. Meeting Adjourned 9 cs