Loading...
12-17-2014 QUEENSBURYZONI NG BOARD OF APPEALS RBSULAR M EEn NG Wednesday, December 17, 2014 I NDEK ADM I NISTRAWE ITEMS 1. Nomination of Officersfor Year 2015: Vice Chairman and Secretary (Note: Chairman is appointed by Town Board) Page 3 2. Approval of Calendar Year 2015: Meeting Dates Page 4 3. Approval of Meeting Minutes November 19,2014 and December 3,2014 Page 5 4. Extension of Approval Request: Area Variance No.62-2013 Michael&Tammy George (second garage) Page 6 NBN BUSINESS Area Variance No.84-2014 Edward K Davis and Henry S Davis Page 6 Area Variance No.86-2014 Joseph DeMatties Page 12 Area Variance No.85-2014 Bill Oehler for Gregory R Francis,9'. Page 16 9gn Variance No.83-2014 Hannaford Bros.,Co., LLC Page 22 Area Variance No.88-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC Page 29 9gn Variance No.87-2014 McDonald's USA, LLC Page 54 Motion to APPROVE the meeting minutes of Wednesday, December 17, 2014 by Mr. Urrico, Seconded by Mr. Garrand, Duly adopted this 22nd day of January, 2015 by the following vote: AYES: Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Jackoski NOES: None 1 Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals Regular Meeting Meeting Minutes Wednesday, December 17, 2014 Zoning Board Members Present Steven Jacksoki, Chairman Rchard Garrand,Vice Chairman Fby Urrico, Secretary Kyle Noonan Fbnald Kuhl ,bhn Henkel Andrew Allison,Alternate Member Zoning Board Member(s)Absent Michael McCabe Harrison Freer,Alternate Member Department of Community Development Staff Present Laura Moore, Land Use Ranner Pam Whiting, Office Ep' ecialist—Acting Stenographer Mr. Jackosld: Welcome everyone. I'd like to call to order this evenings meeting of the Queensbury Zoning Board of Appeals. For those of you haven't been here before, it's actually quite a simple process but there is a sheet on the back along with some agendas. For each application we'll call the applicant to the small table here. We'll read the application into the record, we'll ask the applicant to add anything to that record at the time. We'll poll the Board, we'll ask some question, we'll have a public comment period where appropriate. And, then we'll take action accordingly from there. So we do have some housekeeping to accomplish this evening. And we'd like to welcome Andy. I think this is officially you're first meeting; Yes? Mr. Allison: Yes Mr. Jackosld: Welcome Andy Mr. Allison: Thanks 2 Mr. Jackosld: The first item here fort he evening is the nomination of officers by this Board for the year 2015, for the Vice Chairman and Secretary. Mr. Garrand: I nominate Fby Urrico as Secretary for 2015 Mr. Kuhl: I'll second that M r. Jackosld: Thank you Fick, Thank you Fbn. Fby are you up for the challenge? Mr. Urrioo: Sure M rjackosld: Thank you Fby. You do a great job and we really do appreciate it. Shall we do these individually? Okay. So we do have a motion, any further discussion, is it a roll call vote? M r.Whiting: Called the vote: Rchard Garrand nominated Fby Urrico as Secretary for 2015, seconded by Felon Kuhl Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2014, by the following vote: AYES M r. Henkel, M r. Noonan, M r. Kuhl, M r. Garrand, M r.AI Iison, M r. ,adcoski ABSTAIN: Mr. Urrico Roy Urrico will hold the officer position: SBORETAR(OF THEZONING BOARD OFAPPEALSYEAR2015; M r. .kdcosld: Can we have any recommendations for nominations for Vice Chairman. Mr. Kuhl: I second it. M r. .kdcosld: Thank you Roy. Thank you Felon. I was hoping to get nominated. Mr. Kuhl: No, you get appointed. You can't get nominated, you're appointed. M r. .kdcosld: I was really hoping for Secretary or Vice Chairman. Okay, so we do have a nomination; any further discussion. Rease call the vote. M rs.Whiting: Called the vote: Roy Urrico nominated Rchard Garrand as Vice Chairman for 2015, seconded by Felon Kuhl Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr.Allison, Mr. ,adcoski ABSTAI N: Mr. Garrand Richard Garrand will hold the officer position: VICECHAIRMAN OFTHEZONING BOARD OF APPEALS YEAR2015. 3 M r. .�ckosld: Congratulations Rck. Next item on this evenings agenda is the approval of the calendar year 2015 meeting dates. Looked good to me.Andy made a motion to approve it; thank you Andy. Mr.Allison: Yes Mr. Garrand: I'll second that. Mr. .�ckosld: Thank you Rck. Mr.Allison: MOTION TO APPROVETHEYE AR2015 CALENDAR Introduced By Andrew Allison , Seconded By Rchard Garrand Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2014 by the following vote: M rs.Whiting: Called the vote; AYES Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr.Allison, Mr. Garrand, Mr.Jackoski NOES NONE M r. J�ckosld: The next item on the agenda will be the November 19th meeting minutes. And, Staff just to clarify, Andy, obviously wasn't here. Any other Board members present this evening who weren't here on the 19tn? M r. J� kosld: I can't remember if I was there. Was I there for the 19th? Whose got them in front of them right now? My apologies, I don't have my copy in front of me. Yeah, I was not here the 19tH q) we need a motion to approve the 19th please. M r. Noonan: I make a motion to approve the meeting minutes of November 19tH Mr. .�ckosld: Thank you Kyle. Mr. Kuhl: I'll second it. Mr. J�qlkos4d: Thank you Fdon. Call the vote. M rs.Whiting: Called the vote: AYES M r. Garrand, M r. Urri co, M r. Kuhl, M r. Henkel, M r. Noonon, M r.Al Iison, ABSTAI N: Mr. Jackoski The meeting minutesof November 19, 2014 are approved. M r. Jf clkoski: Fbr December 3,d? 4 M r. Noonan: I was present and I make a motion we approve the minutes for December 3,d M r. Kuhl: I can second that. M r. J�Ckosld: Ron's on a roll for seconding tonight. Thank you Ron. Mr. Kuhl: I am seconding. Mr. J�ckosld: Call the vote M rs.Whiting: Called the vote: AYES Mr.Alison, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. ,ackoski NOES None The meeting minutes of December 3, 2014 are approved. M r. J�Ckosld: Well,we have no old business to do this evening; so that's good. For the students who may be in the audience; if you want to bring up an agenda from the back table so that I can sign it, to acknowledge that you were;just go ahead and do that at any time,that's fine. Did you already do them? M rs. M oore: No, I did not. But you do have an extension as item number four. M r. Garrand: M ichael and Tammy George M r. J�Ckosld: Did we change the agenda? Okay, so we'll do Area Variance 62-2013. Michael and Tammy George have requested an extension. M rs. M oore: For a deck and a garage. I do have Dennis the representative of the applicant. If you want him to come to the table to explain that? Would you like Dennis to come up? M r. J! Ckosld: I don't know that it's necessary. Is it? M rs. M oore: Okay. M r. J�ckosld: When are we extendi ng to? M rs. Moore: It's one year. So next December of 2015. M r. J�ckosld: Okay, so the request is that we give them an extension for one-year to and include December of 2015. Can I have a motion. Thank you Kyle. Mr. Noonan: RESOWTION FOREXTEVSION OF APPROVAL FOR Area Variance No. 62-2013 Michael&Tammy George, Bay Road, O'Reilly Subdivision , Tax Map No. 265.00-1-73.1; The Zoning Board ofAppealsofthe Town of Queensbury has received a request foran extension of approval from the original date of approval by the Zoning Board ofAppealson December 18, 2013. The application received approval fora variance from Section(s): 179-5-020D of the Zoning Code of The Town of Queensbury in orderto construct a 2,302 +/- gfa single-family 5 dwelling with an attached garage along with a 2,200 sq. ft. (footprint) freestanding garage with 300 sq.ft. being workshop area on the parcel. Relief requested fora second garage. Based on the above find ingsI make a MOTION TO APPROVEthe Extension of Approval request forArea Variance No. 62-2013 forone yearto and include until December2015 for Michael& Tammy George, Introduced by Kyle Noonan,who moved for its ad option, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2014 by the following vote: AYES Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Allison, Mr. Jackoski NOES None M r. Jkkosld: Now can I get on to new business? M r. M oore: Yes M r. Jkksold: Excellent. New business and I hope I have the right agenda and going in the right order. The applicant isthe Edward Davis and Henry Davis It is Area Variance 84-2014. It isaType ll BRA, it is 799 State Route 149 Hill Top Construction. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record and ask the applicant to join us at the small table. Mr. Urrico: Applicant proposes to construct a2,040 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a660 sq. ft. attached garage. The parcel will require area variances from Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirements of the RR3Azone. What is required for a setback is 100 ft. what is proposed is 46 ft., so the relief is 54 ft. The setback for the travel corridor; what is required is 75 ft, what is proposed is 46 ft., the relief is therefore 29 ft. And for the setback side yard to the north; what is required is 75 ft., for the proposed is 2 ft., so relief is 73 ft. Again, as a reminder, criteria for considering an area variance, according to Chapter 267 of Town Law: In making a determination, the Board shall consider the five following criteria: 1. Whether an undesirable change will be produced in the character of the neighborhood or a detriment to nearby propertieswill be created by the granting of this area variance. Staff in its notes says minor impacts to the neighborhood maybe 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 maybe possible to locate the home to a more compliant location. The applicant has indicated the new home is being built in a similar footprint asthe house that was lost due to a fire. 6 3. Whether the requested area variance is substantial. The relief requested maybe considered moderate relevant to the code. 4. Whether the proposed variance will have an adverse effect or impact on the physical or environmental conditions in the neighborhood or district. The project may be considered to have limited or no impact on the environment of the neighborhood. 5. Whether the alleged difficulty was self-created. The difficulty maybe considered self-created. Staff Comments: The applicant has completed a variance application for the building of anew home that requires relief from the front/travel corridor setbacks and the side yard setback to the north. The new home is to be a 2,040 sq. ft.with a 660 sq. ft. attached garage. The applicant has indicated that the new home is in a similar footprint as the previous home. The site contains an existing pool house structure and pool that isto remain and no changes are proposed. The plans submitted show the elevations of the new home, floor plans, and location on the property. And this is a Type II BRA. Mr. J�clkosld: Welcome Tom Mr.Albrecht: Good Evening. M r. J�clkosld: How are you? M r.Albrecht: Tom Albrecht, Hilltop Construction. I'm well,thank you. I'm here representing the Davis'. They're in warm Arizona as we speak, so they're looking forward to your decision here this evening, of course. Essentially,the house burned, it's been totaled, it will be removed and rebuilt. In the precise location that it isand relocating it to another location createsa lot of other difficulties from the utilities standpoint. This was an insurance claim that will be rebuilt in the existing situation in an existing location,to relocate the utilities would have to be absorbed by the applicant,the Davis'which is not in the program, currently. We, actually will be building something smaller than that is there. You'll see the graph paper, my graph paper that I've added to the packet to show the existing structure, total square footage is just under 2,400 square feet. So, we're actually building something smaller than what isthere. From a stormwater management or impact, it's relatively low. What we're really looking for here is relief on the front setback and the side yard setback. The good news on the front yard setback; the road has been re-designed so therefore, the front setback is much greater than what is indicated, going by his property line. But since the road has been moved back you'll notice that the Route 149 is actually away from their property line, even more today. So, it's the side yard setback that requires 75 and we only have 2 feet. But, again,that's the existing structure and that's what we would proposed to rebuild at thistime. M r. J�clkosld: Okay,thank you. Are there any question at this time from Board members before I open the public comment period? 7 M r. Henkel: I've got a question. Now,when you say that this is going to cause a hardship for the elecrtricall service; now,why ist hat? Mr.Albrecht: Well,the electrical services are underground; it's currently installed. The septic system is in the front yard. The driveway is there, I mean to, I mean there's no, we've looked at the options of re- locating it and it's not viable. M r. Henkel: You're not using the existing, obviously existing foundation; you're going to put in anew foundation. Mr.Albrecht: Anew foundation. M r. Henkel: So at the same you're telling me you can't move that a little bit farther back so it's not, cause you're asking for 2 feet of relief, or 2 feet, being 2 feet from the line,the back line there and the side setback—two-feet. Mr.Albrecht: Well,that's what's there. And that's what we're proposing. To rebuild it in... M r. Henkel: And,you're telling me you can't move that 4 or 5 feet? M r.Albrecht: We can't move it move it 4 or 5 feet. We might get away with a couple of feet. M r. J�ckosld: Tom, some insurance policies allow for re-builds to current codes. That's not the case with this insurance policy? M r.Albrecht: Not to my knowledge. M r. Kuhl: Tom are you going to be putting in a new septic system. Mr.Albrecht: No. Utilitieswill remain asis. M r. Kuhl: How old is the septic system that's in there now. M r.Albrecht: Well, I think Dave Hatin had asked that question. S), that will definitely be addressed, if it's an issue. But from my meeting with Dave and Craig,that we were building a house that is no more bedrooms, basically replacing the existing. S), I mean, the house burnt down. They need to rebuild it. Mr. Kuhl: So what's you're saying is,you don't know how old the septic is. M r.Albrecht: I don't have any history on the septic. M r. J�ckosld: I think the challenge I have as a Board member with past projects is that it would be different if you were utilizing part of the existing structure, part of the foundation, in order to save funds. But in this case, it's a complete rebuild. It seems difficult to be consistent and not make it more in compliance. Given that's there's nothing there now to have to work with. Moving the utilities a little bit isn't,tome,that complicated. I can open up the public comment period. I can poll the Board. Yeah, go ahead Kyle. 8 M r. Noonan: Did the property owner express interest in moving the location if it wasn't cost prohibitive, you know, I mean, obviously they chose this location; probably for comfort. That'swhat there use be, cost, if it was not a cost issue today, express interest that they would have move it. M r.Albrecht: It really hasn't been a discussion because there is no money that they are providing for this. This is strictly an insurance procedure. They have no resources. Mr. Noonan: Okay M r.Albrecht: S), to relocate and spend whatever it is, yes, in some cases I heard you say that, you know, we're not talking a lot of money. All of it is not a lot of money but for somebody that doesn't hae a lot of money, it's a lot of money. Mr. Noonan: Thank you. M r.Albrecht: S)be it. Mr. Kuhl: They are in Arizona. Mr.Albrecht: They are in Arizona M r. Kuhl: S)I guess that money might—you have a weak argument there young man. M r. .�ckosld: There is a public comment period scheduled for this evening. I will open that public comment period. Is there anyone herein the audience this evening who would like to address this Board concerning this particular application. Swing no one, is there any written comment. Mr. Urrico: There is none. M r. .�ckowsld: Okay. S)at this time, I think I will poll the Board and ask your opinions. Kyle Mr. Noonan: Considering its,this wouldn't have been an issue for us if there wasn't a fire and total devastation of the house. I'd be in favor. I don't think anyone feels good in dealing with afire and total loss. So, I'd be in favor. Mr. J�qlkos4d: F by Mr. Urrioo: Well, I think I would take the extra two feet even if it's only 2 feet. And, otherwise I would be in favor of the application. Mr. J�ckosld: R ck M r. Garrand: I agree with Fby. I think anything is better than nothing but I also can sympathize with the applicant; a total loss of the house,through no fault of their own., relying on insurance money to rebuild it to today's standards. I mean there's not going to be a lot of money left over for this. And,to put them through the hardships of relocating the driveway, completely relocating the driveway, or possibly the electric service, may make it cost prohibitive for them, not fully knowing their financial status. I just don't want to impose any hardships on the applicant that they haven't already suffered. I'd be in favor of it. Mr. J�ckosld: Felon 9 M r. Kuhl: I have one question for Tom before before I give my opinion. Is this a seasonal home for these people, Tom? or is this a... Mr.Albrecht: No, it's a year-round. Mr. Kuhl: Permanent residence? Yeah, I kind of agree with my Board members. They've been through enough of a hardship. Although I'd like to see a new septic system. And, I'd to see the house moved farther. I'm not going to stand on those principals. I'll be in favor of it the way it is presented. Mr. J�cksold: ,bhn Mr. Henkel: Yeah, I somewhat agree with my Board members as far as the hardship with the fire. But, I think when you do some ... conform a little bit with the Code. I think you've gotta go for it. So, I think, I'd give you a few more feet to make it acceptable for me; on the side setback. Mr. J�ckosld: Andy M r.Allison: I'd be in favor of the application as submitted. I don't necessarily agree that adding a few more feet to the back setback is going to do a whole lot to make the application better. I think given that the setbacks are 75 ft. on either side,you're not going to drastically increase that, so I think moving the house closer to the road is not, is only making that setback requirement worse. So, I'm okay with the application as it is. M r. J�ckosld: I think I agree with Roy on this one. So, I'm kind of in line with other the other Board members aswell. Well, how would we like to proceed. M r. Garrand: If you want me to make motion, I can make it with a2 feet or subtract it from the relief, if you'd like. M rs. M core: Can I interject; my concern is the front setback relief; M r. J�ckosld: If we change,then you've got to re-advertise it. Mrs. Moore: Right, so I would just be cautious; I'm not quite certain he can maintain the 46 feet setback and an arch there and still maintain and still get 2 feet. M r.Albrecht: Well, if one changes, another hasto change. M r. J�cksold: Unless you shifted it closer to the pool just a little. But that would affect your driveway into to your building. Mr.Albrecht: That's not a good option. Mr. J�ckosld: Yeah M r.Albrecht: If you had a chance to stop out there,the grade drops off and it wouldn't be advisable to move it towards(?) M r. Urrico: Well, if it would make it easier, I will revise my thought and say I would accept it, as is, as well. Mr. J�ckosld: Because we're compounding the issue by one way or the other. Yeah, I can do that too. 10 M r. Kuhl: Yeah, I mean consider the fact, that the front setback, although it's 46 foot to the property line, it's a lot more than that to the road; probably twice that. M r. Jlackosld: It appears s more. Go for it Fick Mr. Garrand: I make a motion we Approve Area Variance No. 84-2014, Edward K Davis&Henry S. Davis, 799 State Route 149, Tax Map No. 279.00-1-4 The applicant proposesto construct a 2,040 sq. ft. single-family dwelling with a 660 sq. ft. detached garage. Relief requested forsetback requirementsof the RR-3A zone. The front setback required is 100 ft.,the proposed is46 ft.,the relief is54 ft. Travel Cooridorsetback is required to be 75 ft.; it's going to be 29 ft. of relief. The side setback to the north side is required to be 75 ft.; proposed is 2 ft.;with 73 ft of setback re lief. 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the characterofthe neighborhood orw ill a detrimentto the nearbypropertiesbe created by the granting of the requested area variance? None,what-so-ever. The house is on a nice sized lot; it's going pretty much right where it was previously. 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible forthe applicant to pursue, otherthan an area variance? I'm not sure the applicant's financial position on this; I don't know whether they could pay to have a lot of this moved but given the law of unintended consequences; you move this thing one way,you're going to need re lief in anothe r direction, so it might be betterjustto keep it right where it is. 3. Is the requested area variance substantial? It may be deemed substantial given the amount of relief requested. 4. Will the proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditionsin the neighborhood ordistrict? None,what-so-ever. 4. Isthe alleged difficulty self-created? No, not at all. The result of this request is due to a fire. Based on the above findings make a MOTION 10 APPROVEArea Variance No. 84-2014, Edward K Davis&Henry S. Davis, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: 11 Mr. Jackoski: Any further discussion, clarification; call the vote: Mrs.Whiting: (called the vote) Duly adopted this 17th day of December2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Allison, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Mr. Jackoski: Good luck Tom. plank you. Mr.Albrecht: lbankyou. Happy Holidays. Mr. Jackoski: Next item on this evenings ag end a is Area Variance Number86-2014, Joseph DeMatties, 485 Ibdge Road, it isa Type II SEQRA, there isa public hearing scheduled forthis evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. Mr. Urrico: The applicant req uests afte r the fact relief for placement of a 420 sq. ft. carport for storage of wood and lawn equipment. The pparcel will require area variance from Section179- 5-020 Accessory structures sp ec ific forga rag es: Relief requested is fora second garage. In making a determination,the Board shall considerthe following criteria: Minor impactsto the neighborhood may be anticipated. Feasible altematives may be considered to expand the existing attached garage. (Additional information would be necessary to determine if the existing garage and an addition meet the allowable garage size.) The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The project may be considered to have no impact on the environment of the neighborhood. The difficulty may be considered self-created. The applicant has completed an application with the request for approval of an already in place 420 sq. ft. carport structure behind the existing home. Relief is requested for having two garages; the structure is considered a second garage as it hasthe ability to store vehicles and the width access isgreaterthan 6 feet. The applicant has indicated there is an existing storage structure on the site that currently is in bad repair that will be removed from the site if the new carport is granted to remain. The applicant proposes to maintain the structure as an open carport forstorage of materials, wood and yard equipment. The plansshow the location of the new carport with photos. Staff would suggest contingent the existing old storage unit to be removed. And thisa Type 11 SEQRA. Mr. Jackoski: Hello grand welcome; if you could identify yourself forthe record forme. 12 Mr. DeMatties: My name is Joe DeMattiesof485 Ridge Road. Mr. Jackoski: Mr. DeMatties, it's a pretty straight forward application, so do you have anything you'd like to add or should we just have questions from the Board? Mr. DeMatties: No, that's fine. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, Are there any questionsat thistime from the Board members. Mr. Kuhl: The structure, the way you installed it; isit going to stay like that orare you going to put wallson it. Mr. DeMatties: I'm already puttin' walls on it. Mr. Kuhl: You're going to put walls—so it will be enclosed; 3 sidesenclosed? Mr. DeMatties: Like a second garage. Mr. Kuhl: Okay, okay Mr. DeMatties: Well, for many years I've had an old tent, as you can see from the photos there; Mr. Kuhl: It's got character Mr. DeMatties: It got to the point that it was ready to collapse and I needed something more sturdy and after believing I could go ahead, I purchased this 20 by 21 metal storage structure from Garden Time down here; they actually are just in between for Carolina Carportsand I had to sign a contract and pay a non-refundable payment forthat. So, I did that and I asked if they would try to install it assoon asthey could before we get snow; which they did. They came up shortly and exactly knew their business,just like puttin' up lego, I guess. Put it right up forme, and Iwaspleased with theirwork. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, any otherquestions? Mr. Kuhl: And, it's going to have the dirt floor or will there be concrete? Mr. DeMatties: Right on the ground. Mr. Kuhl: Nice Mr. Henkel: How issecured to the ground? Mr. DeMatties: It's secured to the ground by— Mr. Henkel: like screwsin it? Mr. DeMatties: Yes, like an ice auger, on all fourcornersand then they also had fourfoot re-rod, 'h inch re-rod with a bolt on top to lag down the metal base. I'm in the process of enclosing now, I've got both sides enclosed to keep the weather out. I'm already storing some of my equipment in there, forthe first time, having it undercover. Mr. Jackoski: Any other questionsfrom Board membersbefore I open the public hearing? Mr. Noonan: Yes, I have a question. Mr. Jackoski: Yes, Kyle. Mr. Noonan: Sorry to askthisquestion, but, Mr. DeMatties, how big isyourpiece of property? 13 Mr. DeMatties: How big is my property? Mr. Noonan: The property you're .... On? Mr. DeMatties: 1.4 acres, Mrs. Moore: 1.14; it's on the agenda, actually. Mr. Noonan: sorry, I missed that;there it is, I see it, okay 1.14, Thank you. Mr. Garrand: You're nevergoing to store automobilesin this? Mr. DeMatties: No, I'm 80 years old, I aint startin' no new businesses; that's for sure. And, we're down to one vehicle. I did have to put a 2-car garage on. John O'Brien came over and inspected it with the shop on the back, 24 by 24 garage with a 24 by 12 shop at the back of it. That's the current garage that's there. But I only have one bay because I'm storing furniture for some of my children that's moved around the country and that's full of furniture. I have a photo of that if you need it. Mr. Jackoski: Any further questions? There is a public hearing scheduled for this evening. Is there anyone here who would like to add ressthis Board concerning this particular application as I open the public hearing? Seeing no one, isthere any written comment Roy? Mr. Urrico: No,there is not. Mr. Jackoski: No written comment, no public comment, leave the public hearing open. I don't know if I everclosed the last one, but it should be closed. I'll poll the Board, I guess; Andy? Mr.Allison: I'm in favor of the application. Mr. Jackoski: Roy? Mr. Urrico: Yeah, I agree, I think this isokay, Iwould be in favor of it. Mr. Jackoski: Rick? Mr. Garrand: I'd be in favor of it also. The applicant has stated he's never gonna store automobilesin it. Mr. Jackoski: John? Mr. Henkel: I'm also in favor of the project. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle? Mr. Noonan: I'm in favor of the project as proposed. Mr. Jackoski: Ron? Mr. Kuhl: Yes, I'm also in favor of it as presented. Mr. Jackoski: I'll close the public hearing and seek a motion. Mr. Kuhl: Can I make that motion Mr. Chairman? Mr. Jackoski: Thankyou. 14 Mr. Kuhl: I recommend we approve Area Variance 86-2014, Joseph DeMatties, 485 Ridge Road. The applicant requestsafter-the-fact relief forplacement of a 420 sq. ft. carport forstorage of wood and lawn equipment. What relief isrequested isfora second garage where one is allowed; he hasa second. Sc), relief isforone garage. 1. Will an undesirable change be produced in the characterof the neighborhood orwill a detriment to the nearby propertiesbe created bythe granting of the requested area variance? (no answerto thisquestion) 2. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible forthe applicantto pursue, otherthan an area variance? I don't think that the second garage for the storage of equipment;that's what he's asking for and I believe that is the right thing. I don't think so. 3. Isthe requested area variance substantial? I believe that it is not substantial relative to the Code. 4. Willthe proposed area variance have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditionsin the neighborhood ordistrict? The project may be considered to have no impact on the neighborhood. Although, it isself-created. 5. Isthe alleged difficulty self-created? Yes. Based on the above findings I make a MOTION 10 APPROVE Area Variance No. 86-2014, Joseph DeMatties, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl, who moved for its adoption, seconded by Richard Garrand: Mr. Jackoski: We have a motion;we have a second. Ijust want to clarify; do we need to add a condition to remove the existing temporary tent structure orwhateverwe want to referto that? Mrs Moore: Mr. DeMattiesare you removing that otherstructure? Mr. DeMatties: I am going to remove, but it will take a little time, cause I have Iumberstored in there. I'm going to wait until I have my children come out and give me a hand to move that lumber. And, I reinforced it a little bit with my son so that it would hold through the winter. But, I would agree to have it removed, by say, March; next year, you know if that's alright with you g uys. Mr. Jackoski: Well, let's give you until April 30th ; 'cause you never know what March weather's gonna be like. Mr. DeMatties: right Mr. Jackoski: Isthat fairto the Board. Mr. Kuhl: That's fine Mr. DeMatties: I do intend to remove it; it's just- Mr. Jackoski: It's okay, we'll give you time; April 30th. So, make that a condition to modifying the motion to include removal of that structure in its entirety by April 30th, 2015. Any further discussion? Callthe vote. 15 Duly adopted thisl7th day of December2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Allison, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Mr. Jackook: Good Luck and thank you very much. We appreciate it yourhelp. Next application thisevening is Area Variance Number85-2014, Type II SEQRA. It islocated at 2930 State Route 9L, correct? There isa public hearing scheduled this evening. I'm going to turn it over to Roy to read it into the record, but just for the record, this property use to be in my wife's family, so I don't see any conflict of interest. But, move on Roy. Mr. Urrico: The applicant proposesto remove an existing 1,408 sq. ft. of deteriorated decking attached to the single-family dwelling. Newly constructed decking with a portion to be an enclosed porch is proposed to total 1,238 sq. ft. +/- where 170 sq. ft. lower porch area under main deckto remain. The parcelwill require Area Variancesfrom Section 179-3-040, dimensional requirementsforthe WRzone, and Section 179-13-10 continuation forexpansion of a nonconforming structure. What isrequired forthe side is25ft., what isproposed is 11.2; relief istherefore 13.8 ft. Forthe shoreline, what isrequired is50 ft.; what isproposed is6.2 ft. so relief is43.8 ft. Minor impactsto the neighborhood may be anticipated. Feasible alternatives may be limited assite accessfrom the rear of the home to the Iakeshore is on a steep rockfilled area. Where any construction may need a variance. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the code. The project may be considered to have limited impact on the environment of the neighborhood. The applicant's plans show the new deck area to be anchored to the rock surface to improve stability. The difficulty may be considered self-created. The applicant has completed a variance and site plan application for the removal and new construction of decking and enclosed porch at the rear of an existing home. The new decking is located to close to the south side property line and the shoreline. The decking of 1, 408 sq. ft. is to be removed and replaced to allow the owner to access the shoreline from the existing house. The plans show the elevation and location of the new decking. The applicant has indicated the new decking will be anchored to the existing stone to provide support. The existing vegetation is to remain and is proposed not to be disturbed to assist with stormwater management on the site. And, the Planning Board, last night, December 16th, based on its limited review did not identify any significant adverse impactsthat cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And,that wasapproved unanimously. Mr. Jackoski: lhank you, welcome. Mr. Oehler: Good Evening, I'm Bill Oehler. I'm hereforGreg Francis. Asyou can see on ourplan here; what we're trying to do. Obviously,you know the site; how difficult it is to do anything on this property. The existing structure that'sthere, are completed rotted. The floorjoistsare just 16 deteriorating. So that's whywe're seeking thisvariance, obviously, to replace what isthere; nothing, really anymore what's there. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. Are there any questions from Board members at thistime? Mr. Henkel: I went to the property but really could n't climb around it too much there because— Mr. Jackoski: You didn't bring your rock climbing equipment? Mr. Henkel: One deck there that is 20, 12 by 24, that's closest to the water, that's there now? Mr. Oehler. That's there now,yes. Mr. Henkel: Okay. Mr. Kuhl: How long ago wasthe first deck built; do you know? Just out of curiosity, for rotting wood. Mr. Oehler. I don't know. It's old. I mean it's to the point where whoever, previously,the owner now, bought it about a yea rand half ago. And, they've actually tried to shore up the bottom side of it, actually put another girderin there because it wascoming down, you know. So, they've actually; they've tried a few things to try to keep it up but it's literally, it's not. And, there's no otherway to accessthis property to get to the water;the Sid esare straight down, so you have to go the upstairs of the house, down to the downstairs,to get to the deck,to be able to go down the stairsto go outside. There's really no possibly was to accessthe water. Like you said, if you have rock climbing, you could probably go down it. Mr. Kuhl: lbankyou. Mr. Oehler. Yep. Mr. Jackoski: Any otherBoard members questions at thistime? Mr. Garrand: Yes, it seemslike a good opportunity to make thisa lot more compliant because what you've basically got here isthe entire waterfront of this house is covered, almost covered in decking. From the looks of it, you're going to be increasing walls on this; supporting this structure. As it is right now,you're right up on the water, 6 ft. from the shore. Mr. Oehler: Ibisdeck,the 12 by 24? Mr. Garrand: Yeah Mr. Oehler. That's pre-existing, yesthat one isgoing to be - Mr. Garrand: Pull that right back, pull that back, pull it out - Mr. Oehler. If I pull that back, then I'm going to be right with this, where this 12 by 24—thisother one is. I'm going to be on top of that one. And, that one's actually up in the air. So, I'd have to build the 12 by 24 on top of the other 12 by 24. The accessto those two properties a re maybe 16 between the two of them. So if I wasto pull that deck back, this other deck, the second deck, like there,would be on top of that deck. It's a very small walkway, I mean - 17 Mr. Garrand: Could -have it just stairsgoing down to the lake -you don't need a 12 by 24 deck down there. Mr. Oehler: The existing deck;the staircase -get rid of that deck? Mr. Garrand: Yeah, get rid of it -you get rid of that 6 ft. variance and the shoreline relief is dramatically reduced. Mr. Oehler. I don't know if the ownerwould want to do that. I mean it's; this is preexisting that was there. So, I mean, I don't know if you'd even want to take that- I know he would wa nt to take that out of there. I mean, he just had anew deck or new dock put in. So, I'm sure -cause that more or less isthe deck that they use, cause they sit on that deck; because there's no-the area there is all rock. Just, literally boulders everywhere. So that deck isactuallythe deck that they sit on when they're by the water. The property is actually full of spruce trees so it's; there's not a lot of sunlight there. That is pretty much the only spot that they could actually sit out in the sun. Unlesstheygo out onto the deck of the dock itself. Mr. Henkel: How big isthe dock? Mr. Oehler. It's about 8 by 20; it's not super big. Mr. Jackoski: Isthere a screened-porch there now? Mr. Oehler. No. There's just an upper deck. Everything is there; the decks on the side coming around this side of the house, there's a side door here, there's a set of stairscoming down to the otherdeck. Mr. Jackoski: And, there's no roof structural over any of the decks-right? Mr. Oehler. No, not now. Mr. Jackoski: So,we're adding the roof structure; we're adding the non-permeable capability there. Are you planning to use gutters? Mr. Oehler. Yes, there's gutters already on the house and we'd be putting new gutters on. Mr. Jackoski: Isthere going to be a drywell? -where isthat watergoing to go? Mr. Oehler. Well, there's; it's probably most likely go on the side and I have discussed with Laura different plant types that we're going to put in for, you know, to stop any erosion. There's not- what's there; there's just mostly rock and just soil that's been there from the trees from eons, I guess. There's really possibly-you could never put a drywell in because you'd have to blast a hole. Mr. Jackoski: There's not much erosion on rock anyway,with water. Mr. Oehler. No. And the shoreline isall blasted rock. I mean, it's more or less, it's whatever they blast off the ledge they put into the lake yearsago. Mr. Jackoski: I've got to tell you, I'm having a hard time with the roof structure that close to the lake. How faristhe new roof going to be from the shoreline? Mr. Oehler. We're going to be from the high-water mark; we're going to be about 28 feet. 18 Mr. Jackoski: I mean I can understand accessibility issues, but to create a new roof structure that close to the shoreline, tome, isn't consistence at all with what this Board hasapproved in the past. Mr. Oehler. Well, we're, the roof system is not going to be a straight shed type roof; it's going to have a hip on it. So, it's not like there's going to be a tremendous amount out of water coming off the front side. It will be 3 sided. So, it's not going to be so much water in one area. Mr. Jackoski: I know, but it le nd s itse If ve ry easily to a future request to enclose it for living space. Mr. Oehler. You couldn't live there in the winter-time. That's almost an impossible site; I mean, you'd have to have an unbelievable - Mr. Henkel: There's other places there, very similar to that. There's other places on the lake that are very similarto that, that slope like that,that people live in year-round. Mr. Oehler. I don't even know how they could possibly; I mean - I guess anything is possible if you have enough money. Mr. Jackoski: So, the footprint of the new decks is not different from the footprint of the existing decks. Mr. Oehler. No. Mr. Jackoski: So, if thisapplicant, overtime, slowly replaced and repaired these decks; they wouldn't require a variance because they'd just be doing maintenance. What is it, 20 to 30 percent? If they didn't tear 'em all off at once and they just repaired them overtime, they wouldn't be sitting here in front of us. They could have what they still have. Mrs. Moore: I don't know the answer to that. That's a building and codes question. I would assume that they'd have to come in for some sort of review. Mr. Oehler: I spoke to him. I went in to him. I didn't think I would have to come to a Board overthis. He said, No. He said, you need a permit. If you're going to take those- Mr. Jackoski: If you take 'em all off, you need a permit;you're absolutely right. But if you maintain them, there's a certain percentage, that you can maintain, I believe,without - it's maintenance. Mr. Moore: Okay Mr. Jackoski: But I don't know for sure. The issue for me is the roof structure and the screened- porch, but, you do have a public comment scheduled forthisevening. Roy, isthere any written comment? Mr. Urrico: Yes the re is. The above referenced variance application was personally reviewed in my capacity as a licensed professional engineer and the Lake George Waterkeeper. The Waterkeeper acknowledges the need to maintain structures and access to the shoreline as well as the applicant's commitment to preserving existing mature vegetation. However, the applicant has the abilityto bring the structuresmore into compliance and reduce impacts. We do not support the extensive proposed structures within the shoreline setback and the reduced shoreline variance. The Lake George Waterkeeper requests the Zoning Board of Appeals apply the Town's 19 regulations, specifically §179-14-080 Criteria for Granting an Area Variance, during your deliberations regarding the above referenced variance application. The benefit to the applicant can be achieved through another method feasible by reducing the size ofthe proposed structuresand increasing the shoreline setback. The total square footage of decking proposed is excessive and is not the minimum necessary for the applicant to have outdoor gathering space and accessto the shoreline. The deckstructure can be reduced and the shoreline setback should be increased and not reduced as proposed. The Zoning Board should request the applicant to provide an alternative plan that would be more compliant with the Code and reduce impacts. The requested shoreline variance is substantial and is reduced from the current extremely noncompliant condition. The Lake George Waterkeeperrecommendsthe Town ofQueensbury Zoning Board ofAppeaIs request the applicant to provide an alternative design that would be more compliant and reduce the amount of structure within the shoreline setback. The Lake George Waterkeeper looks forward to working with the Town of Queensbury Zoning Board of Appealsto defend the natural resources of Lake George and itswatershed. Thank you foryourconsideration. Sincerely, Christopher Navitsky Iwill not be able to attend this—this part of that, song. I am writing on behalf of my neighbor, Gregory Francis, in regard to hisproperty located at 2930 Route 9L. I am aware of Mr. Francis's plans to replace his existing deck structures. I have seen the plans and it Iooksbeautiful. The proposed plan and construction will not cause any disturbance to me orany of the surrounding area. I know the proposed improvementswill have a positive effect on my property and the Town of Queensbury. Thankyou foryourkind consideration in thismatter. Sincerely, Thomas Catlin 5 Grey Ledge Drive I am writing on behalf of my neighbor, Gregory Francis, in regard to his property located at 2930 Route 9L. I am aware of Mr. Francis's plans to replace hisexisting deck structures. The proposed construction will not cause any disturbance to me orany of the surrounding area. I wonder if this is the same one? Thank you for kind consideration in the matter. I don't see — Mrs. Moore: It isn't. No, it's a different individual. Mr. Urrico: Okay - David Eagle, Charles T. Eagle, and Dianne Leonelli. That's it ! Mr. Jackoski: Thankyou. Isthere anyone here in the audience thisevening who would like to addressthe Board concerning this particular application? Seeing no one. The public hearing is still open. I'll poll the Board, I guess, at this time. I'll start with Rick. Mr. Garrand: Going over the balancing test; I think it's going to have an impact on the environment visually. Asstated in the Staff Notes, I agree with them; it issubstantial. And, benefitscan be achieved by other meansfeasible by, more than likely, Ithinkthe best way 20 would be to remove the 12 by 24 deck in favorofjust stairsto get down to a dockwhich does happen. Mr. Oehler. So, like in water? Mr. Garrand: I think that's a good feasible alternative. Mr. Jacksoki: Kyle Mr. Noonan: I'm trying to think about the impact, environmental impact on the lake considering what's currently going on there with all the bedrock, the rock that's making up the shoreline- the run-off. Certainly the roof line is point of concern. I feel that the design iswell done, but I do feel that the environmental impactswill not be so negative that Iwould think that Iwould not be in favor of it; so I am in favor of this project. Mr. Jackoski: John Mr. Henkel: Yeah, I'd say there is a lot of shoreline there. If that wasthe only way to enjoy the lake, I would be in favor of it, but I can't be with, especially, that one deck that's closest to the lake -there -the 12 by 24 and, I mean, it's just too much impact on the lake also, so I'd be against it at this point and time. Mr. Jackoski: Roy Mr. Urrico: Yeah, I'm going to be against this project and the reasonsthat I think that there are feasible altemativesto consider. I think the relief issubstantial relevant to the Code. I also believe that there potentially could be some environmental impacts that we're not looking at directly, but they could surface. I do believe that minor impactsto the neighborhood would be created and this is self-created difficulty but all and all I'd be against the project assubmitted. Mr. Jackoski: Ron Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, I kind of agree with what's been said before me. I'd like to see gutters on the screen porch and I think that the lower deck, 12 by 24 is asking too much. So, I wouldn't be in favor of it the way its presented. Mr. Jackoski: Andy Mr.Allison: I would, I kind of support my, the Board members. I think the screened-porch with the roof is sort of a change in the nature of what's going on out there now. And, I think there's an opportunity to reduce the impact to the lake by reducing that IowerdeckSize. So, Ithink you'd have to address stormwater measuresa nd show some way to reduce the size of that deck. Mr. Jackoski: So,we're at a point where I suspect that you're going request that you table the application, but that's really up to you. Mr. Oehler: Yeah, I'm going to have to speak to the ownerand see exactlywhat histhoughts are on changing things. I'm not sure if he's going to be willing to do that. We may look into other alternatives, like you said, repairing stuff that's already there. Mr. Jackoski: Just make sure you speakwith Building and Codes. 21 Mr. Oehler. Yeah, I will. You know, decking and stuff that's replaceable, you know, we'll do that. But I will - but that's my plan on doing this, speaking to him and then we'll come back to this Board once I've spoken to him and see what he says. Mr. Jackoski: So it seemsthe applicant is requesting a tabling of this matter. Do you to table it to some time in February? Mr. Oehler. Sure Mr. Jackoski: March? Mr. Oehler. February isfine. Mr. Jackoski: Sc), to the first meeting in February. That would give you a submission deadline of Janaury 15th. Mrs. Moore: Yes Mr. Jackoski: Isthat too soon? Mr. Oehler: No. Mr. Jackoski: So, the applicant hasrequested a tabling to the first meeting in February with a submission of application materialsby January 15th. Can someone officially make that motion. Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, I'll make the motion that we TABLE,Area Variance No. 85-2014, Gregory R Francis, Sr., 2930 State Route 9L, Introduced by Ronald Kuhl,to the February meeting with a submission date ofJanuary 15, 2015. Seconded by Kyle Noonan; Duly adopted this 17th day of December2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Allison, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Mr. Jackoski: I'm sure the applicant probably suspected that they're gonna have little bit of a challenge with this one. But, they'll get through it. Mr. Oehler: Yeah,theydid. Yes, okay,thanks very much. Mr. Jackoski: The next application thisevening isHannaford Brothers. It is 190 Quaker Road. The Sign Variance Number83-2014. Ibisisan Unlisted �EQRA. There isa public hearing scheduled forthe evening and Iwillturn it overto Royto be read into the record. Mr. Urrico: The applicant proposesto replace an existing 376 sq. ft. wall sign with a 434.75 sq. ft. of signage which will include the subscript "Supermarket & Pharmacy"with revision of lighting to LED. The sign facesnorth on the Bay Road side. The parcel will require a sign variance from Section 140 signage: Relief requested from maximum allowable square footage for a wall sign. What is allowed is is 30 sq. ft. at 99 ft. setbackor100sq. ft. at100 ft. setback and 10ft. foreach 100ft. additional maxat 200sq. ft. 22 What isproposed is434.75 sq. ft., so the relief isfor more than 264.75 sq. ft. The sign to the square foot calculation: The setbackwhat isallowed: the setback is833 ft. at 100 ft. setback allowed 100 sq. ft. Remaining 733 ft. allowed, 10 sq. ft. in addition up to 200 sq. ft. So,what is allowed is 170 sq. ft. Ithink I understand that. Minor impactsto the neighborhood may be anticipated. Feasible altemativesmay be to reduce the sign to a more compliant size. The project may be considered to have limited or no impact on the environment of the neighborhood. And,the difficulty may be considered self-created. The applicant hascompleted a sign variance application proposing a new wall sign facing Bay Road forthe Hannaford Store. The applicant hasindicated the new signage would identify the store and add the words Supermarket and Pharmacy. The new sign exceeds the allowed square footage forsignage. There are additional signage upgradesthat are subject to building permits this includes the free standing sign and signage on the Quaker Road side. The plans show the new logo and wording forthe Bay Road signage. And,thisisan Unlisted SEQR Mr. Jackoski: lhankyou and welcome. If you could identify yourself forthe record and if you'd like to add anything, please feel free to do so. Mr. Lord: Yes, my name is J. Lord. I am consultant working for Hannaford Brothers. I use to work forthem a numberofyearsago. Hannaford Brothersisin the processchanging out a lot of their signs, especially on the remodels and stuff they've done. The grocery store these days is very competitive; it's getting to be so everyday. Hannaford is in the process of re-branding their name. They did it here, in, I think in '97; it used to be Super Shop and Save and then they changed it to Hannaford with the 2 words Food and Drug. Drug doesn't really have the same connotation as it did back them. They're in the process of changing it, so, this reads Supermarket and Pharmacy;whereverthey can. Usually, it's on the very front of the building. The existing building today has side sign on Bay Road, we have a pylon sign that it's existing by entrance. All of those are conforming. The sign that we're talking about is on the front of the building that facesthe parking lot and drug store on the front. I gave you my reasons, I can read them back in but what Hannaford's trying to do isto try to identity the businessto the core customer of what they do, so that people can identify more directly, in this market; business purposes. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thankyou. Questionsfrom Board membersat thistime? Mr. Urrico: The pharmacy part hasto be identified in the sign somewhere on the building, right? Mr. Lord: That iscorrect; absolutely Mr. Jackoski: I shop there all of the time and I don't even notice the signs. Mr. Garrand: Because you can't see it from any roads. You've got to be on their access road to see it. Mr. Lord: Yes, it is pretty buried. Mr. Henkel: Once you get into the plaza, do you really to need the sign to be that big? 23 Mr. Jackoski: I'm already there. Mr. Henkel: That's what I'm saying because the signs on Quaker Road are important. The sign that's on Bay Road is important 'cause you get in there and once you're in there, that's the only store that's really there. So do you need to have such a big sign? You already know you're there. Mr. Lord: Well, today, there's a cornucopia in the hand that exists. And,what they're doing is changing out the lighting in that to all LID. Now, ratherthan try to take down all of those letters and shrinkthem a little bit to make it a Supermarket in a promising fit. What they'd like to do is to change out the lighting and the facing in what isexisting today; leave those in place and just add the subscript underthe word Hannaford. Mr. Urrico: Doesn't Hannaford, like many major supermarket chains, have alternative plans for signs. There are many strict communities that just won't allow something that big; so there is a Plan Bthat you have,that you can reduce the sign to, right? Mr. Lord: We 11, let me just say, the new Hannaford sig nag e is now the cornucopia with the Hannaford with the subscripts&permarket and Pharmacy underneath that. Mr. Urric o: Rig h t Mr. Lord: I can't think any, so far, we've been able to get the Supermarket & Pharmacy subscript added. We don't think it's that substantial. But I can't think of any store right now that we're doing that doesn't have that. It has some form or another. Mr. Urrico: I don't think it's the amount of lettering. It's the size of lettering. Is there a sma Ile rsize lettering you could use forthe Hannaford portion of it. Mr. Lord: Like I said, on this one, they're trying to do, is to use the existing letters that are there; size wise,just changing out the face and the lighting. Because to take them all down,then you have take everything down; you have take the cornucopia down, everything hasto be sort of in perspective to one another. Everything would change; asyou tookthe size down, it would shrink in a little bit. But asyou did that, I mean, incrementally, you might bring it in a couple of feet, and you might shrink it 6 inches, but that would bring it to itspresent variance allowed today. Ithinkadding the differential that were adding would be a much simple way to do it without having to re-do the face of the building. The sign hasbeen on there for18 yearsnow. And,when we take off, you know everything isgoing to be faded ora different color. So it really requiresre-doing the entire face of the building. Mr. Henkel: Why isit—they should have gone forthe sign variancesbefore they did thiswhole make over? Wouldn't that have been the time to go for a sign variance. Because they were doing the whole makeoverof that store and — Mr. Garrand: Yeah,which took, like a year. Mr. Henkel: So, I'm saying,wouldn't that be the time to ask for that? I guess they just took it for granted that it wasgoing to be given. Mr. Lord: What they did, isthey went forthe Pharmacy Drive lrru and then went forthe 9gn some time ago. But the problem came about; that's why we're hear today is that I don't believe neither Hannaford orthe Town had, what do Iwant to say, a Building Permit for any of 24 the signsthat existed, even though, you can see where the varianceswere sought, there wasno building permit. I have gone backjust recently and re-permitted both the pylon and side sign. So that wasprogress. So when Iwent backto re-permit to get permitsin place forall of the signs, that's whywe're doing this one at this time. If they would have done thissome time ago, but,there wasconfusion within Hannaford, what to do. Mr. Henkel: Basically, you're gonna have 7 signs for that one building; that's a lot of sign. Including this; you're gonna have 2 drive-thru, Pha rmacy d rive-thru signs; you've got the signs on Qua kerRoad, the sign on Qua kerRoad, one on Bay Road, one on the side of the building on Quaker Road, one in front of the building on Bay Road, you've got the Welcome sign —a lot of sig n s. Mr. Lord: There are but as you look at it,the side ones, if you look at that —says Hannaford, it says Hannaford, Hannford Supermarket. If you draw the outline around that, that's only considered one sign. The same with the side of the building. You have the cornucopia Hannaford on the sid e and it may look like 2 signs, but the side one is just one sign. It's how you want to break it down; there's a lot of letters, there's a lot of things but it's really just one sign. Mr. Jackoski: So, are you suggesting that Hannaford cannot reduce the overall square footage impact of this particula rig n (forfinancial reasons). Mr. Lord: Really, forfinancial reasons. It would be a lot of work to redo thisface because they could bring it down, probably the present variance but then again those signshave been there forso long, everything behind them; eitherthe front isfaded —it's going to be a different color. So you have to come back and really sort of re-do the face to match in where the existing letterswere. Mr. Henkel: There's no doubt; that makes sense. Mr. Lord: You're gonna have to do that. Mr. Kuhl: I almost think that this is; I want to talk to Staff. It seems like everybody that does something;we've had Taco Bell in here, we've had Price Chopper in here, Mr. Jackoski: KFC Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, everybody's coming in. Is it that our regs are too stringent? Or should be re- looked at. But, here's another business that wants to change their brand and they're trying to do it cost effectively forthem by just add ing two words. And, yet the money it's costing them to come in here and do this; it's crazy. But,we spend so much time on signs. How come? Are we a n odd Town? I don't think so. You know, I don't really think so. But, for you Sir, you're here presenting; you gotta respect that —that a company wantsto set a brand and be consistent because people acrossthe Country shop brands. Nobody goesto the local Mom and Pop store, local restaurant, everybody goesto, you know, Outback— right! Nobody looksforthe Anvil Inn, so the Outback has to have the same signage across the Country and that's really what thisgentleman ispresenting. Mr. Garrand: Just like we did with Burger Kng,just like we Kentucky Fried Chicken — Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, I mean —why? But if we do ever have a team to work on re-doing this Section, I will volunteer, okay. Mrs. Moore: Thankyou. 25 Mr. Jackoski: Hopefully, you can addresstemporary signs in the Town aswell. Mr. Garrand: Is this the sign that's in the one in Seabrook? Mr. Lord: Pardon? Mr. Garrand: Isthissame sign on the Hannaford in Seabrook? Mr. Lord: Seabrook? Mr. Garrand: New Hampshire? Mr. Lord: There's not a Hannford in Seabrook? Mr. Garrand: No? I think that's Shaw's. Mr. Lord: Yeah, there's a Shaw's; two Market Baskets. Mr. Garrand: Market Baskets is good; they've got Sal's Pizza. Mr. Jackoski: We have a public comment period for the evening. I'm going to open the public comment period. Roy isthere any written comment? Mr. Urrico: There is none. Mr. Jacksoki: Isthere anyone here in the audience, thisevening, who would like to addressthis Board concerning this particular application? They're knocking down the walls. I'll leave the public comments period open; I'll seek to poll the Board. I'll sta rt w ith Ro n. Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, I believe this addition to what they have is minimal. I realize it doesn't fit our; they're asking for relief of 264 sq. ft. To me it doesn't seem like a lot; although the number may seem too high. I would be in favor of the way it's presented. Mr. Jackoski: Andy Mr.Allison: I would actually say NO to the application because I think the - I think if you if don't have check on signage; it just runs rampant in communities and it seemsto be a trend here because we already have variance that's 176 over the allowed zoning. Now we're gonna allow a n oth e r 264 sq. ft. ove r a nd I thin k yo u ca n -with the amount of money that's been put into the project, certainly the signage is not that significant for a company like that. And, I think if we're gonna hold other area businessesto the Zoning, we should probably should hold all the businessesto the Zoning. Mr. Jackoski: Kyle Mr. Noonan: I would have to kind of agree with Ron a little bit. If, you know,thissign is keeping in comparison to othersuperma rkets in Town where they can put their brand out there, if we were in a sma11 Town in Maine -where Hannaford isfrom. Maybe thissign would look a little differently, but there's a lot, it's a different demographic and a different location. So, I think to maintain the similarity with othergrocery stores in Town - I would be in favor. Mr. Jackoski: Rick Mr. Garrand: I'm a little torn on this one. I think Andy is right on this one. We have given some leeway to other applicantsasfarastheirsignsgo here. Then I look back on what we did for Price Chopper and we granted them quite a bit of leeway on this-on the same type of request. 26 Ialso agree with Ron —thisisabout branding. Allofthe supermarketsand all ofthe different businesseswant to do it. We do see a lot of Sgn Variancescome through here and I also think it's,you know, part of the Code—is,that they want to erron the side of caution with respect to the Code. Going back to the balancing test, I don't think it will produce an undesirable change in the neighborhood. I do think the request issubstantia1. No physical orenvironmental effects on the neighborhood. Can the benefits be achieved by other mea nsfeasible; well they want to put Supermarket Pharmacy— I don't see how else they could do that without needing more square footage. But based on the balancing test, I'd have to be in favor of this. Mr. Jackoski: John Mr. Henkel: Yeah, I agree with all my Board members. But, and if this was a new sign, I'd be definitely against it. But because it's an existing sign, they're not going really change anything otherthan the lighting — it makessense. To have to take the sign down and, then have to re- surface the front of the store because of the different size sign. But, Iwould not; if it was definitely a new sign — I would definitely not be forit, orif it wasa new business, I would definitely not be for it. But, I'm definitely for this project the way it is. Mr. Jackoski: Roy Mr. Urrico: Can I ask one more question. The existing condition and the proposed; it loo kslike the tree hasbeen taken out—oristhat just a graphic. Mr. Lord: It's just a graphic so you can see it—that's all. Mr. Urrico: Okay Mr. Lord: Otherwise you probably couldn't see it. Mr. Urrico: Yeah. Even though I think the relief is way too much, I'm going to be in favor of the project, really because I do not think it's going to change the character of the neighborhood because we've been generous in the past with other similar applications. And, I think, in fairness, think it's unfair to draw the line now when we've been allowed other organizations to be granted re lief fo r the ir sig ns whe n they change branding. But I really think we need to take a closer look at what we do in the Town asfarassig nage. I think it's starting to get out of hand. But Iwould be in favorof this application. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, I'm going to close the public hearing and seek a motion. Oh, yeah,we've got to do SEQ RA, song. Rick Mr. Garrand: SEC)RA Type on th is is Un liste d. And, for Sign Variance No. 83-2014, Hannaford Bros., Co., LLC based upon the information provided and the a na lysis 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 Negative Declaration, Introduced by Ibchard Garrand who moved for its adoption, seconded by John Henkel: Duly adopted this 17th day of December, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Allison, Mr. Jackoski NOES None 27 Mr. Jackoski: With a Negative Dec, may I have a motion for the project's applications. Mr. Noonan: I'll make a motion Mr. Jackoski: lbankyou Kyle. Mr. Noonan: I recommend we approve Sign Variance Number83-2014 Hannford Brothersat 190 Quaker Road. Applicant proposing to replace an existing 376 sq. ft.wall sign with a 434.75 sq.ft. ofsignage which will include the subscript'Supermarket&Pharmacy"with revision of lighting to LID (sign faces north on Bay Road side). The relief requested;they are proposing 434.75 sq. ft. which is in excess ofthe 364.75 sq.ft. required. In making the determination the Board shall considerwhetheran undesirable change will be produced in the characterof the neighborhood ora detriment to the nearby propertieswill be created by the granting ofthissign variance? Minorto no impactsin the neighborhood may be anticipated. Whetherthe benefit sought by the applicant be achieved by some method, feasible forthe applicant to pursue, otherthan a sign variance? No feasible altemativeshave been identified. Whetherthe requested sign variance substantial? lhismay be considered substantial relevant to the Code. Whetherthe proposed sign variance will have an adverse impact on the physical or environmental conditionsof the neighborhood ordistrict? Little orno adverse effectsorimpact to the physical orenvironmental conditionsto the neighborhood have been identified. And,thismaybe considered self-created. At thistime I recommend we approve Sign Variance Number83-2014. Mr. Jackoski: lbank you Kyle, Ido have a motion. Mr. Henkel: second Mr. Jackoski: lbank you John forseconding. Any further discussion? Call the vote: Duly adopted thisl7th day of December, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Garrand, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel NOES Mr. Allison, Mr. Jackoski End Note: The applicant is not replacing the existing wording "Hannaford". "Supermarket& Pharmacy" is the new portion ofsignage. Mr. Jackoski: plank you 28 Mr. Lord: lbankyou. Mr. Jackoski: Good Luck Mr. Lord: lbanks Mr. Jackoski: Next item on the agenda thisevening, and I have been asked if we could combine these, but we can't. They're two separate applications and there are two separate processes. Sowe're going to go to McDonald's 819 State Route 9. Area Variance Number88- 2014, it's a Type II SEQRA, there is a public hearing scheduled this evening. I'll turn it over to Roy to be read into the record. Mr. Urrico: The applicant proposesdemolition of existing 4,800 sq. ft. restaurant aswell as demolition of the existing 411 sq. ft. detached shed/garage. The applicant proposes construction of a new 4,365 sq. ft. restaurant. The parcel will require area variancesfrom Section 179-3-040 dimensional requirementsof the Cl zone. Relief requested from minimum front yard setback requirementsaswell asfrom maximum permeability requirementsin the Cl zoning d istrict. Front on Route 9, What isrequired is75 ft. where the proposed is57.3 ft. The relief is 17.7 ft. The front on the Old Aviation Road side is—what isrequired is75 ft. ,what isproposed is28 ft., so relief is47ft. Permeability—what isrequired is30 percent,what isproposed on lot 1 is21.7 percent and on lot 2 14 percent. So, the relief for lot 1 is8.3 percent and forlot 2 is 16 percent. Minorimpatsto the neighborhood maybe anticipated. Feasible alternativesmay be available to have a more compliant building with re-orientation in size. Permeability may also be improved on the site with reduction of parking spacesto green space and consideration to permeable pavement. The relief requested may be considered substantial relevant to the Code. The project may be considered to have limited impact on the environment of the neighborhood. And, difficulty may be considered self-created. The applicant hascompleted a variance and site plan application fordemolition and construction of a new McDonald's Restaurant on Route 9. A sign variance application has also been prepared. The new McDonald's building and site improvements requires relief from the front setbackson both roads Route 9 and Old Aviation Rd; relief isalso for permeability forboth Iotsassite improvements include reconfiguration of the parking areas. The applicant's plans have been forwarded to the Town Engineer for review and comment. The plansshow the location ofthe new building and site improvements. The site plan showsthere isto be 66seats and only 29 spacesare required where 34 are proposed. The site permeability could be improved with both additional greenspace by removing parking spacesand to include permeable pavement. Improving the permeability will also assist with snow storage location where currently the applicant removessnow from site and haslimited area forstorage. And thisisa Type 11 �EQRA. Also,the Planning Board, on December16th, last night, met and based on itslimited review, did not identify any significant impactsthat cannot be mitigated with the current project proposal. And that wasapproved unanimously. Mr. Jackoski: Hi and Welcome. If you'd like to add anything, I'm sure you do, so go ahead. But I have a feeling that every Board memberhere, hasat least visited the site once. Mr. Bovea: Forthe record, my name is ChrisBoyea and thisisRenee Reardon and she isthe local owner, operator. And, asljoked last night, you might rememberthisdynamic duo from Exit 18 McDona Id's. So we were here, a very similar application where Renee has decided to go for 29 broke and put all of hermoney into the Town of Queensbury and now re-develop this McDonald's at the same time. So this is quite an exciting project to make this size of an investment would be upwardsofa million d olla rs at this location aswell;which would be a complete scrape and rebuild of that existing McDonald's. It's been there for many years; 50 right? So, over the years they've added additions and things of that nature -a little playroom, those types of things. And, the new proposal is very similar to the Exit 18 where we're going to clean all those additions up and we're actually making the building smaller which is always a good thing to do on a sma Ile rlot like this. And, asyou can see from the site plan that we submitted, we're keeping the general, same orientation, in the same location with drive-thru circulation around the building; the same as it is today. Just like Exist 18, we're adding an increased menu board, our presentation here, so that there will be -what's called a side-by-side menu board presentation. And then traffic still leavesin the same direction asit doestoday. With thisproposal,we are making everything more in conformance than it istoday. So, Idid sit through some of the other applications and I'm happy to say, everything that we're presenting tonight is more in conformance than it istoday-whetherit'ssetbackstosignage; everything is getting better. Ourgreen space isgoing from 13 percent to 14 percent. So, not a huge increase but we are increasing green space where we can. You can see that there's a little bit more green space behind the building here aswell asout front here. We got rid of the concrete that's out there today and we're putting in some green along the road as well. The application that was just read in, I believe,was the first one. We're here for two things, the second one isthe signage. The one that Ithinkwasjust announced wassetbacks. So in order forusto return backto the Planning Board to continue our9te Plan Review and approval process, we need to get some relief from this Board forfront yard setbacks. So today, there's an aerial down below, you can see that building sitsclose to the road and we're matching the exact same location asthat building which is50 ft. from the road. We do have a canopy that protrudes from the building and that's where this 47.3 ft. comes from. So, looking at this, we're generally in the same spot aswe are today. The rearof the building, we are between two streets, so we have two front yards. So, Old Aviation goesdown to a cul-de-sac behind us; that would be front yard, 50 foot. And,then this would be a front yard. And, that Ieavesthisdash line here. Thislittle triangle isallthat is buildable on the lot. Obviously, we're well expanded over that in current conditions. And, what we wantto do in proposed conditionsiscontinue to be able to circulate around the building. So this one is 30.5 ft. to the building; 28 ft. to the canopy over the top that's there. Those are the two area variance setbacks that we're looking for; it would be the front yard relief from those two locations. The other one is permeability but we're increasing that. We're making that better as well. We've reduce parking as much as possible. We have gone from 45 parking spaces down to 34 spaces. It just wouldn't be possible to operate, invest this much money into a restaurant that didn't have 34 parking spaces for our customers. Much like you've seen at the remodeled McDonald's that are here, this is going to have everything that's current and out there. So, it's going to have the McCafe' in it; it's going to have Wi-F forthe internet. It's going to have a betterseating and decor package; it really steps up the game all around. So we want to make sure that we have; providing ourcustomersa class-act experience while they're here. So, we're here tonight to ask for relief on those front yard setbacksthat are here aswell asthat permeability. And with that, Iturn it back overto the Board. 30 Mr. Jackoski: lhankyou. Are there any questionsatthistime from Board members? Mr. Noonan: Yeah, I have a question. Just reviewing the Staff Notes; suggestions. Somewhere in here site plan showsthere would be 66 seatsand 29 spacesare required where 34 proposed. If you were to cut those extra 5 out —spots,would that increase your permeability—correct? Mr. Boyea: Stare it would. Yes. Mr. Noonan: And you sayyou'II need those 5 spots too, forall customersto have adequate parking at alltimes. Mr. Boyea: That's correct. Mr. Noonan: Okay. My personal experience with the current set-up are the parking spotsthat are along the entrance side, that are parallel with the building. I can't tell you how many times when I've pulled in there, (I have a 2 year old, she love that food). The drivers are always pulling out of there, and isgoing to be busierthere now with the newerdrive-thru lanes? That's actually a spot where people start looking and pulling out of because it's parallel; I think, we're going in the same direction and you know, it seems like it might be a little bit busier in that spot with the d rive-thru loop and those spots at the same time. It's just an observation. Mr. Boyea: Yeah, so, it's looked at quite heavily. The parallel spotsare gone. Mr. Noonan: They are gone. Mr. Boyea: That are here,these are just two drive lanes, so now,we actually have —again, if we were gonna remodel the store,we might have to workwith some of the existing conditions. But this is a very large investment. So we're starting all over on this. We've got a 15.5 ft. wide bypass lane aswell 15.9 ft. so you have 30 ft. here —make sure that there's room for people to go. We've brought those spa cesoverhere next to the building to be code compliant because we're supposed to have handicapped accessible spa cesasclose aspossible to the building. So, by bringing them here, none ofourcustomers, including the handicapped, now have to crossthisdrive —which isa big benefit. You know, askidsget out and run across. And then if these spacesare full it directspeople overhere to the spacesthat are overhere. Mr. Noonan: Oh, so I'm song, now I guess I thought I had— I'm looking to be at—on thismap here, I'm looking at this one here, I thought—these are parking spots right here then? Mr. Boyea: Those are not parking spaces. Mr. Noonan: Okay,that would be a concern of mine at that location. Mr. Boyea: Absolutely. Mr. Noonan: A lot going on —on that side of the building —there. Mr. Boyea: Great Mr. Noonan: So you would be, essentially, you wouldn't have to be removing those on that side, where it's closer to the building on the diagonal. Mr. Boyea: Correct, correct —Yes. 31 Mr. Noonan: Alright. Mr. Garrand: Isthisgoing force the handicapped parking spacesto back into traffic? Mr. Jacksoki: Yes Mr. Boyea: So the purpose of this, you know,thismight be another$50,000 to have a menu board here. So, we would neverdo it unlessthere wasa return orsome benefit to putting in a second menu board; is to reduce the stacking here. So what we've done is we've increased the stacking here to 95 ft. so we can hold up to 4 cars, 5 carsbetween the pre-pay window and the orderpoint which is fa r excessive. Right now, if I could -just went through there tonight, you can only fit a carand a half between the menu board and the pre-pay wind ow. So what we've done, and this is not just technology for Queensbury New York. This is, you know, they've looked at the d rive-thru's and how this works. So we've increased that stacking here. We've added the two pointsso the speed of service through here is increased by this, which then reduces the stack here. What McDonald's has found out, and it's not rocket science when you think about it, isthat if we have big stacks here, people drive by because it's just like, I'm not going to wait in that line, it's too long, so that the key is, obviously to make it, not look like there's a big huge stack there. And, thistechnology has helped usto processthat and to keep things moving. Because there is lot of competition in the area. They would just move on; there's plenty of it down the street. Renee Reardon: It's actually a better scena do. The two handicapped stales are right in front of the building, so we pull in, like by True Value. You pill in to the right, they have to back out, If you're the seventh car in line,you're out there already, on the menu board. So, you actually have almost 16 before you'd be out where the stall is,where they would be backing out. Mr. Henkel: Why isthere lot 1 and 2? Mr. Boyea: It's two separate tax map parceIsthat are there. Two separate owners. Mr. Henkel: I thoug ht we had to -didn't we ....deal to make that go through - have to be combined? Mrs. Moore:You can discuss it with him. There's literally separate owners, one's the McDonald's ownership and anotherone isa lifetime lease. Mr. Boyea: That's correct. And, God Help us, we've had eight signatures on the application for that. And, they're all around the world. Mrs. Moore: Right. So, that's why the applicant has-the two Iotsare identified and that's why the setbacksare identified the way they are and the permeability issues are identified the way they are. Because there's two separate properties. Mr. Jackoski: And so Staff help us out. If they were combined, like we've made almost every other applicant in our Town do when they have a project of this magnitude. How would that change the variance request at thistime? Mrs. Moore: It wouldn't. You're still asking for the same request. The setbacks to the front are the same, there is no side setback relief requested at this time on either"side" of that building. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. So I've got a lot of questions. 32 Mr. Boyea: ire Mr. Jacksoki: And, I hope you don't mind. But it's going to take a little time. Mr. Boyea: No problem. Mr. Jackoski: What isthe intent of the eg ress or ing ress off of Old Aviation Drive? Mr. Boyea: Sc),that wastalked about at the site plan portion last night here too. We currently have an access point that's back here. And, what Renee hasexperienced overthe yearsisthat having it here conflictswith the drive-thru a lot more. And, sowhatwe're proposing to do isshift that farther down Old Aviation Road here. And, that's going to free up any congestion that happens back here at the drive-thru and now putsthat over here. Mr. Henkel: Isthat a one-way ora two-way? Mr. Boyea: It istwo-way but what the Board had asked usto do isto workwith the Town, excuse me, the Planning Board has asked us to do, is to put "no outlet" signs-not at oursite but just farther up Aviation Road and work with the Town on that because that's something that they felt wasthe same with the competition, A & W and I¢C. Mr. Jackoski: So help me understanding, if I come in off of Old Aviation Drive into the property and I want to get to the drive-thru, what do I do. Mr. Boyea: Yeah, so you would come down here. Again, there's a bypass lane right here. And, then you come around the front of the building and into the drive-thru. It's a recirculation lane, that's out there-that's same at the other two McDonald's that are in Town. Mr. Jackoski: Are the other two McDonald's that are in Town, that congested? Mr. Boyea: I don't think so. Business wise, they're busier at Exit 18, by far. That's the busiest one. It can get congested there, it's a very big lot; very big lot. phis isthe most urban lot, I think that McDonald's has here in the Town of Queensbury. Mr. Garrand: The South Glens Falls McDonald's is pretty congested. Mr. Boyea: Rig ht-yep. But it's not in the Town. Mr. Kuhl: I can see on this lot why you don't building a new one next to it. How come on Exit 18 you didn't build restaurant right next to the old one? Mr. Boyea: We looked at that. There's a lot that goes into it, but the short answer is, is that the truck traffic and bus is pretty significant at that location. And, when we looked at getting rid of that, we would have had to compromise that, a little bit, orsend the trucksthrough the other parking lot, if we had moved it. Mr. Jackoski: And, where isthe busparking on thisproject? Mr. Boyea: On, thisone, there isn't any bus parking on this one. You know, we're not on the interstate. We don't experience quite the same as what we have at Exit 18. 33 Mr. Jackoski: But I have seen school busespull in there and where do you propose in thisplan, that they park? Mr. Kuhl: School buses shouldn't be in there. Mr. Jackoski: But they are. Mr. Boyea: Well,what we have designed here, and we've submitted this too at the same time, is—we have a full size tractortrailerthat deliversto this and to all of the locations. They don't send different fleets. So, we know that the longest truck legal on the road, can come in here, circulararound here and back out here. So a school bus can easily come in and circulate around the back here. Now,this is here, forthe truck to turn, forthat big tractortrailerto spin. There is plenty of room fora busto park back in here with a bypass. Or, if these spaceswere empty, g iven that time —it couldn't certainly make it down into that lot. Mr. Jackoski: But where doesyourtractortrailertruck unload. Mr. Boyea: He unloads rig ht here, on thisside of the building. So,we have —that's why we have that 18 or 15.5 feet here, so that we can have a 12 ft. lane accounted forthe truck. And then, there's still a lane for traffic to go by. Mr. Jackoski: What is the smallest square foot building for McDonald's? Is there one? Mr. Boyea: Well, it's all over the board. Mr. Jackoski: Isthere a minimum size? Mr. Boyea: It's based on sales that's there, sure. I mean they have different sizes. To put it in perspective this issubsta ntially smallerthan the Exist 18 location. That's a much biggerfacility than what's being propose here. Mr. Jackoski: Does Exit 18 have more property? Mr. Boyea: Yeah, Oh YEAH—yeah, absolutely it does. Mr. Kuhl: Ifwe were to askyou to increase your permeability, Ithinkyou could accomplish it by putting permeable paversin yourdrive-thru lane. It would serve two purposes, you'd get more permeability plusit could be directional foryourcustomers. Just a thought. Mr. Jackoski: As long as they're not the golden arches color. Mr. Kuhl: But that would be a way to accomplish more permeability;would be these paversin that lane. Mr. Boyea: There wastalk about, at the Planning Board, doing pervious pavement but - we might do that but, still from a technical standpoint, it wouldn't count towardsgreen space here. It would be just pervious pavement that would be there. Mrs. Moore: It actually counts50 percent towardsthe — Mr. Kuhl: I thought it was63 percent. 34 Mrs. Moore: 50 Mr. Kuhl: 50 percent Mr. Boyea: pervious pavement? Mrs. Moore: It would increase it. Mr. Boyea: It's not a bad idea. We could take a look at doing that on, certainly this lot,we're re-developing this lot. We could take a look at something like that. Mr. Noonan: It's black top there,you've got the road, you've got it across the street. You, know -it's a hill. So, it's all going down somewhere. It would be nice to catch some on Qua kerRoad. It going down Qua kerRoad -the corner on Aviation and Route 9 in the morning, when I hit it in the morning -that's got 6 inches of water in it. And, it's either frozen this time of year or it's a puddle. And, that's just at the bottom of the hill-and that's a Town issue though, not necessarily your issue. But certainly could help with that effort by reclaiming some of that space for permeability. You can keep it on that property- runoff on your property. Mr. Jackoski: And I know it sounds like we're doing site plan review, and we're not- because we're dealing with permeability. I'm mean, that's the hard part for us-is we're not trying to cross line between the two Boards, but at the same time you're asking for a variance on permeability. Mr. Boyea: No, I understand that. And, certainly a lot of thought hasgone into this. I mean, once thing to keep in mind is that we're making the building almost 500 sq. ft. smallerthan it is today. We're taking out the basement; we're not even counting that square footage that's in there. The current store has basement in it. So if you counter that in the storage that we're lacking, now we have to stickthose cupsand everything and store them in the building. I mean that's a substantial reduction in size. We're reducing parking count. We've done the best we can with what we have. We're not buying new land here. This is the land that McDonald's has operated on and thisisthe -we know the business. We know the volume here - of business. Trisisnot a guess; Renee runsa great shop there. Mr. Jackoski: Isthere still going to be an entrance on the east side -toward the front of the building? Mr. Boyea: A man doorentrance? Yes. There will be a doorhere and then a doorhere. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, so it will be on the north side and on the west side. Mr. Boyea: That's correct. Mr.Allison: I just have a question to ask too. What's all the paving in front of the building for? Mr. Boyea: Well, there's three parking spaces here; right here. And, then there is a bypass 14 foot drive lane that isthere. Mr.Allison: What isthe bypassfor? Mr. Boyea: Well, too -the Chairman's point, if somebody comes in this way and wants to get into the drive-thru; they'll have to be able to get into the drive-thru. What DOT; this isa State 35 Highway, many of the resta ura ntsthat we have are on State Highways. The point isto try curb people entering the highway and then come back into the highway. So,what happensis somebodies here, the phone rings and hold on a minute I've got that in my briefcase and they'll come out here and come back in and find a parking space. Where they'll come here and come back in here and try to —so, what they do is, they make unnecessary and exists and entrancesand exitsoffthe State road. Here, now —we have a bypasslane that helpssolve that problem. Mr.Allison: I guess, my question is, it seems like you're taking what's—that's kind of a brick paver, like patio area now. Mr. Bovea: concrete. Mr.Allison: I can see it's concrete but it still is pedestrian and not vehicular which is —helpsto soften the front of it, so we're asking for area variance on the front yard setback to be able to turn that into more parking which part of the reason forthe setbackisto minimize parking along that. Sc),we also have a permeability issue and four curb cuts fora very small lot on two different roads. Iwonderif the re was an attempt to consolidate some of the curb cuts. Because the one curb cut that's up nearest to the True Value store, that createsa lot of traffic congestion up there and in my mind if you have a ve hic ula r passa g e in front of the building, if you take that middle curb cut and make that two way, one way in and one way out —since you're already letting vehicles d rive in front of the building, could you not incorporate that in to get to the d rive-thrus and then make that corner where you're up against St. Andrew's —create more green space there and get rid of that third curb cut,which seems to cause a lot oftraffic issu a s. Mr. Bovea: So, it's a good question. And, I definitely have an answer for you, because we've looked at it. When I tell you, you'll say Oh yeah, that makes sense —you know, it's a good question. So, Renee's been here fora long time. Thisrestaurant was historically tough to get in and out of. And, hersales, actually increased once thistraffic light with this lane —so the traffic light came first and then re-stripping happened and they make thistum lane into the Hardware Store. When that happened, heraccessand salesgot betterand the reason forthat isthere isa protected time when thislightjust does leftsthisway and Ieftsthisway. And what it does, isit allowspeople to take Ieftsinto herrestaurant right here —safely and very easy. That wasnot there before. Sc), having thishere isthe best spot forDOTand for Renee forall hercustomers and safety—that's there. And, that's really the reason isbecause it createsa safe spot forcars to sit here and to take that left in. Sc), that entrance isreally improved substantially and functions very well there. Mr.Allison: I g uess my main thing is, I think if it were under in permeability and we're increasing paving forautomobiles in front of the building in the setback area, that tome seems like we're trying to do too much on the property. I know you're trying to accommodate people coming in off Old Aviation but maybe those people, if they want to go through the driveway just have to come around like everybody else does. Mr. Jackoski: Or do a "U-ie" —like I do all of the time. Ms. Reardon: Half of the oneswho come to the bathroom, cutting through, the otherhalf come Mr.Allison: Yeah, Ijust—you know it's a tight lot and there's a lot of accommodationsthat people are asking for. 36 Mr. Jackoski: And, there's just noway to simply orient the building so that it-the longest side of the building isparallelwith Old Aviation Drive and then, you could eliminate that whole middle curb-cut. I mean it just seems so logically, that -that's all you'd have to do. Mr. Boyea: Right, so -we looked at that too. And, so let's talk about that so that you'll understand that. First of all, I think it's real easy for everybody to see here that if we turn the building,we're going to double the number of variances that we're asking for here. And, the reason forthat is because we still have the small building envelope. And, when you turn it, now we're looking at front, sides, potentially the rear. I guess it's a numbers game. We're trying to ask forthe least number ofva dances possible. Mr. Jackoski: But don't you think we could get more green space and better parking alignment and less opportunity for people to be backing into people coming in. I mean, you've got handicapped panting at the entrance. Most of the - I'll use my father-in-law, as an example. He uses hand controls, he's got a handicapped placard and I can't image, my wife would be excited about him pulling into those spotsand backing into in-coming traffic. It sound like a recipe fordisaster. Like we're cramming too much onto a site. Mr. Boyea: Okay,well, let's just talk about that. First of all,we just have to remember we're putting less on the site than what's there today. Second of all, with the light here and what we just explained for the entrance coming, it creates gaps where there isn't a lot of customers coming in. In otherwordsthey come in platoons, is what they would call it, you know. As the light changes it comes and then you get that in here. So, there's ample opportunity to back up out of these spaces that are here. When we turn the building, we could talk- IguessItalked a bit about this at the Planning Board, but let's just talk about it here too at the same time - isthat McDonald's use to be mostly dine in business. And, drive-thru was secondary. And, overthe years that's changed now to where drive-thru is becoming aspopularand/or more popular than the dine-in business. So,what we have to be cognizant of is how do you processthat drive-thru customer- because if we don't react to that-that's a fact. We need to make sure that we react to that to, One: have a successfully business, and Two: That's where the business model isgoing -with the drive-thrus. So, keeping that in mind,when you turn this building now and you just look at this on this plan and you turn this building. And we've looked at it. If thisis our entrance and we turn this building thisway- right, so we just spin this building thisway- which way do you want to go. Mr. Jackoski: Just keep the long parallel with Old Aviation Drive. Mr. Bovea: Right, that's taking this building and spinning it thisway. Mr. Jackoski: No, not parallel with Route 9, parallel with Aviation Drive, at an angle. Mr. Boyea: Aviation Drive,thisway- Mr. Jackoski: That's right. Mr. Bovea: Right Mr. Jackoski: So that now you come in the entrance we're coming in and then everybody could go out the fareast entrance and you would eliminate the middle one. Mr. Boyea: Right 37 Mr. Boyea: So, when you do that, we're bringing all of these points closer to the entra nce, rig ht. So when we take this and spin it this way,we've now shortened the distance of the stack and everything towards this entrance. So that's a problem because that's an increase in our business. Mr. Jackoski: But didn't you just split that stacking because you created two lanes? So isn't it going to still, I mean, it's still going to be betterthan what you have. Mr. Boyea: But it getslessthan what this is. And here's the other part of it; is when you do that and spin it this way, there's not enough room to get diagonal parking here and here. So, we lose parking at the same point. Mr. Jacksoki: You folksare the planners. Mr. Boyea: Yeah, no -we've looked at this, I mean this is not-certainly we - before we get into detail design, we would look at multiple conceptsto figure out what isthe best fit. Mr.Allison: I've got a question for Harrison. Where is the bike parking? Mr. Noonan: You don't have to answer that. Mr. Boyea: Well, the bike parking could be a bike rack that's out there. I don't know, I mean it wasn't discussed at the Planning Board. If it's something that this Board would like, I think we could do it. Mr. Kuhl: Put it in yourgreen space. Mr. Boyea: Yeah, we could do that if that if that's something that this- Mr. Kuhl: But there's one Board member though, that was asking. Mr. Jackoski: So, I'm going to go back to-can the building be smaller? Mr. Boyea: Forthislocation -no. We would be betterto remodelthe building that we have there today, Yeah. Mr. Jackoski: Okay Mr. Boyea: I mean, it's a good solid location. It has that basement and we have a lot of good assetsthere. The thing that is nice about this,though isthingsare little bit more energy efficient; thingstake up Iessroom now so the fryer- new fryersand those typesofthingsare smaller. So we're able to shave off all this space and plus keep it on one floor so that it's more conducive for anybody with disabilities; not going down the stairsand up the stairsinto the basement. Mr. Noonan: I've got a question Mr. Chairman. What's the requirement for the number of handicapped parking spots fora building this size. How manydo you need? Mr. Boyea: Yeah, it actually doesn't go by the building size, it goes by parking counts. So, if you have 25- up to 25 spacesyou have to have one. Mr. Noonan: Okay 38 Mr. Boyea: 25 to 50 you have to have 2. Over 50 you have to have 3. And, that's basically a ny commercial building. It doesn't designate by sequel. Mr. Noonan: So you need 29 Mr. Kuhl: They have 34, so that they need 2 Mr. Noonan: So they need 2. So even if you had 29, you'd still need 2. Could you put them; orient them in the front of the building next to the -so you almost have like a pull-in spot? It would go parallel with the front of the building so that two long spotsacrossthe front -so people are pulling in orbacking in to traffic; maybe coming in hot off Route 9, you know just made it through the light. Mr. Boyea: We could look at that. That's something that- Mr. Noonan: I keep thinking that point isa good point; handicapped backing into traffic. Mr. Boyea: We might be able to get two spaceshere. Forthe handicapped,the only downside to that isthat they have to, you know, crossa drive lane. Mr. Noonan: Would they alwaysgo around orwould they all of the sudden - Mr. Kuhl: You've got them going over a drive lane, where here they go right into the restaurant. Mr. Noonan: Right, and then back. Well, mythought was, Ijust want to point out what Iwas thinking, maybe we're in the wrong- if there was spot here, something like that. And then they come out and park here and pull out or parkthere and pull out; and it add ressesthe idea of backing out through and into this lane here. And,then they can ultimately just walk right in and they're not crossing a driveway. It's just a thought. Safety issues and things like that; it's going to be another 50 year building. You ought to make sure it's a good 50 year building. Mr. Jackoski: So, I guess- how many seats doesthe current restaurant have? 104 ? So that's why it always feels empty when you go in. And, now it's going to be 66 ? Renee Reardon: .... Required...playland and 88 .... (faint talking) Mr. Jacksoki: And thisplan isfor66? Mr. Urrico: Can I ask a question? You're going from 4,800 sq. ft. to 4,365. You're taking out a 411 sq. ft. shed,which I'm assuming you use for storage right now. Mr. Boyea: Uh-huh -yeah-up Mr. Urrico: You're taking out the basement,which you probably use for storage. Mr. Boyea: Yes. Mr. Urrico: So where are you storing things? Mr. Boyea: Well,we're getting more efficient with a lot of things. So, what happens and it's a good point, thank you for bringing that up, because if you'll look back here, there's a garage with a roof and everything back here, I mean we're making setbacks a lot better. We're getting 39 rid of all those permanent structures; masonry block structures—there's like zero foot setbacks right there. And, then the square footage at the same time. So,what happenswith new technology that's here— Mr. Urrico: Are the hamburgersgetting smaller? Mr. Boyea: No. Mr. Kuhl: Bunsare smaller. Mr. Boyea: But there's sliding inventory storage rack systems that compress. So, no longer do you have to, like a grocery store, do you walkdown all the a isles and pick off what you want in the aisles. We can take those, now and slide them alltogetherand then if you need something in aisle 2 we just separate a walking distance between those two racksto go down. Mr. Urrico: They're like garcia structures. What do they call them —Garcia — Mr. Boyea: You know, I don't know the technical name of it other than sliding storage racks that are there. But that's just one example. I mean, the grease and the oils are all kept within the equipment now and pumped right from the fryerto the truck--to the truck from the fryer, it's 100 percent. No long eristhere a grease dumpster for this. When you really look at the technology, yeah, we are losing over 1,000 sq. ft. completely with the basement and the storage; probably more. But,we're making it up with efficiencies. Mr. Urrico: Now,the southernmost curb cut, why isthat one needed? It seemsto me,the one that's used by patrons right now; if you eliminated that one, could you increase some of your green space into that area overthere; maybe make a picnic area orsomething that would — Mr. Boyea: Well,we're right to the property lines. Down here? Well, what we would have to do, though, iswe would have to get those people back out to this exit here. Sc) we would close this here but we would put a drive aisle here —which meanswe just lost more parking spaces and really didn't— Mr. Urrico: You could come back out through the otherside. Mr. Boyea: How would they get from here? Mr. Jackoski: Why couldn't you come out into the little circle. Mr. Boyea: Into the cul-de-sac here? Yeah —it's potentially possible but the Planning Board doesn't want usto put any more traffic —so we have that access up here, already. They don't want usto put a — Mr. Jackoski: I mean that'sjust residual overflow, anyway, right — I mean I hardly eversee anybody overthere. Renee Reardon: Overwhere? Mr. Jackoski: In that space. I mean they're there, but there's nothing like the main parcel. Mr. Boyea: Yeah. 40 Mr. Jackoski: And, if most of your business isd rive-thru anyway, how many people are actually parking overthere? Mr. Boyea: Well, I mean when you look— Renee Reardon: when we're at work, we park down there. Mr. Jackoski: But they would —there would be no problem with them going up the cul-de-sac and out Old Aviation Drive. Mr. Boyea: Yeah Mr. Jackoski: The workers. Mr. Boyea: It's a substantial reduction in parking from what's there today to that. And then also, code compliance spaces; we're only going to have 5 over here. You're going to see much more activity on that side of the building. Mr. Jackoski: Well, I think we're probably beating a dead-horse. So tell us, again, the amount of relief being requested for permeability is? Mr. Boyea: We're currently at 13,we're going to 14 percent and 30 percent is required. So, we're going up 1 percentage point. Mr. Jackoski: So, you have lessthan half of the required permeability. Mr. Boyea: That iscorrect. Mr. Kuhl: It's because of the size of the lot, the property. Mr. Jackoski: I understand. Mr. Bovea: Yeah, ifthiswasa new application Iwould certainly have a hard time standing here and asking for that but this is an existing one where we're making it quite better in many ways. And, certainly would not askto make it worse. Mr. Jackoski: Are there any other Board member questions before I open the public hearing? Mr.Allison: Just one more question. On the right hand side of the existing building, it looks like the driveway is about 40 feet wide. So, now we're going to 60 feet of pavement, is that right? I think the existing is 38 and that isgoing to 60 feet wide. Mr. Boyea: 38.6 yep isw hat is existing. Mr.Allison: And then the new width of paving from the wood retaining wall to say the curb, what - Mr. Boyea: Yeah, about 35 Mr.Allison: 35 ? 41 Mr. Boyea: Is that right or did I count that ...it's 20, No, it's 45. Yep. Yes, so goes up, it getswider there. Mr. Jackoski: So the building is being shifted slightlyto the east? Mr. Boyea: That's correct. Mr. Jackoski: Are there any other questionsfrom Board members before we open the public hearing? We do have a public hearing scheduled forthisevening. Isthere anyone here in the audience who would like to addressthisBoard concerning this particularapplication? Yes9r—if you could come to the table please and —if you could state yourname forthe record please. My name islbchard Spoerl: I live at 21 Old Aviation Road at the top ofthe hill. A couple things new to the process so please bear with me if I'm getting' off track or somethin' let me know. A couple ofthingsthat you guys brought up were the one way that comesoff Aviation Road is angled; it's not a straight in road—it d oes have a no-entry sig n. So it's designed to be one way in. We do have traffic that comes out that road now even with the angle in relation to Old Aviation. The accessto that iswhen you go in, you have to turn left to get to the drive-thru if there is a car there. This is the most congested McDonald's in there that I see. I go to Albany eve ry d a y fo r wo rk a nd by far that area specifically. The bus parking is over in KFC's pa rking lot. As far as you see that a 1 of the time. As farasthe business, good business, good neighbor, etc. keepsthe lot clean, keepsthe traffic up. I guess the reason I'm here is because I was looking at the area variance and under permeability and trying to do the balancing section. And, in here it says,will granting thisvariance produce an undesirable change in characterordetrimentto the neighborhood. I said yes because of the way it's designed. This is the first time I've actually seen the design but I came to see it fo r myse If w ith the traffic going out onto Old Aviation Road being two-way easily accessible like that; it will definitely increase the traffic. At this point in time Kentucky Fried Chicken isclosed so that by passisclosed. Theoretically, otherthan the four houseson the road, there should be nobody coming up that road. Where those 50 carsa day come from, I don't know. Although there's tracks across the median by KFC. But, anyhow there's some traffic that comes up there now through a one-way. I think opening that up will be different. Can the benefit sought by the applicant be gained by any otherfeasible alternatives; I believe it can by redesigning some of the entrancesonto Old Aviation Road. Isthe relief requested substantial? I believe it isjust in the division of permeability between the Iotsby going to 8 percent on lot 1 asa relief with 21 percent and only 14 on lot 2; Ithinkthat could be readdressed asfaras increasing the permeability in lot 2 where the restaurant is. And, decreasing the permeability on lot 1; therefore giving them an accessto Old Aviation at an angle to reduce traffic. With the relief requested; have an adverse effect orimpact on the physical orenvironmental conditionsin the neighborhood ordistrict —will it have. Asfaran effect, until something's actually measured you don't know what the effect is, so statistically, I couldn't do anything on that. But, the impact; it'll be more like a health and safety impact on the neighborhood. Living there, there's a lot of foot traffic— people from John Burke, the motels that are up there. They walk down that road at night and during the day. It's a narrow road, if you go down it now. It's not plowed all the way. There's no sidewalks. There's one light by McDonald's and one light at Greenway North. It's a dark road, so the traffic would —the increased traffic that could come out of there could be health and safety of the neighborhood. And, isthe relief requested a result of a self-created difficulty? And, by design Iwould have to say yes to that. The reason I'm here tonight,was, I just got the notices on Monday about this meeting and the Planning meeting. I didn't know there was one last night. So, anyhow, I'm going to that one tomorrow night. But in the process, the way I read up on it was,that thisisthe first step that, if this request is not approved or if it's tabled at that point, the Planning Board's not 42 brought in until this is addressed and the zoning compliances are met or approved. So, I'm here just to voice a couple of opinions, from my point of view, living in the neighborhood and watching the traffic and it's more of safety thing on the traffic control. But, I think that by addressing the permeability request we can table this until that, I guess,that topic isaddressed. Mr. Jackoski: Okay 9r, thank you. Mr. Spoerl: plankyou. Mr. Jackoski: For someone who hasn't been into the process before, you did a nice job hitting all of the key points. Mr. Garrand: Yeah, he should be sitting up here. Mr. Jackoski: Isthere anyone else here thisevening who would like to add ressthis Board? Mr. Kuhl: Could I just ask this gentlemen on thing? Would this improve what's going on today- 'cause you have an existing restaurant today. Mr. Spoerl: correct. Mr. Kuhl: There istraffic. Ibisisa given. Mr. SPoerl: Right Mr. Kuhl: What this, these applicantsare doing -will this improve the situation? Mr. Spoerl: The design, like I say, Ijust it tonight forthe first time. The design through the drive- thru definitely would. I think that would take the congestion off of 9. It's almost like an accumulation factor by giving them more lines. It's, as far as- Mr. Kuhl: No, okay- no don't get crazywith me, Yes is good. M r. SP oe rl: Ye s Mr. Kuhl: Yes isgood, thank you. M r. SP oe rl: Ye s Mr. Jackoski: But you did raise a concern that there's going to be more traffic on Old Aviation Drive. Mr. Spoerl: correct. Mr. Spoerl: With the two-lane entrance in and out of Old Aviation, and I mean,this isforsite plan, but the next step on that would be, what's the effects and capacity on the intersection at Aviation, at the mall, because there you have people coming out the mall that failed to turn left up the hill and failed to yield to people coming over hill. So, if you're going to put more cars overthat hill blind - Mr. Kuhl: Yeah, but Rich -thisisnot the - 43 Mr. Spoerl: That's right—that's right Mr. Kuhl: You know you have to look at this project —of what these people are trying to do. Mr. Spoe rl: So what I'm trying to do is just ask that it be tabled to address the permeability of lot 1 and 2 and then go backto there. Mr. Kuhl: lbankyou. Mr. Jackoski: Okay, thankyou. Isthere anyone else thisevening? Seeing no one, isthere any written comment? Mr. Urrico: No,there is not. Mr. Jackoski: No written comment. Okay, I'll leave the public hearing open. I do have a couple more questions if you don't mind. If you were to block off the entrance that I call the eastern most entrance, which Iguessisthe non-building lot—the non-building lot —yeah, if you block off that entrance and you block off the Old Aviation Drive entrance, can you simply have the two that you currently have orslightly—could re-configure? And, we allowed the existing permeability numbersthat you are proposing —could that work? Because I do think that would improve many thingsforthe neighborhoodsand forthe public in general by eliminating those two entrances. You'd still have your parking, you'd still get people in an out of that other lot and they could still get them to exit out. Mr. Bovea: It thinkwe could up with something, you know with the permeability staying the same, you know, orientation and trying to figure out a spot there. Mr. Urrico: Can I ask staff a question on thissubject? Ibisgoesbackto yearsago when I first came into the area. And, I had heard that the reason there's an entrance to Old Aviation Road isbecause that Old Aviation Road wasclosed off at one time. That —that was, -the deal was that, if that Old Aviation Road wasclosed off there —then McDonald's lotwould need to be accessible to traffic going in and out. Isthat —doesthat still hold — isthat something that ? Mrs. Moore: I'd have to look into it. I'm not familiarwith it. Renee Reardon: When I wasfirst there in like, there used to be Carol's where KFC is— Mr. Urric o: Yeah Renee Reardon: And, you came down, - I grew up in Corinth, so —very familiar. So you came down that road and you went out that way—Old Aviation and then they put the cul-de-sac in so that the back entrance was put in at that time. But as, Mr. Spoerl said, it's only one way right now. Mr. Urric o: Rig h t Renee Reardon: - only supposed to go out. Mr. Urric o: Rig h t Renee Reardon: That doesn't happen. 44 M r. Urric o: Ye a h Renee Reardon: They go out the back. They're only supposed to come in the back. Mr. Garrand: Wasn't that angled forthat specific purpose? Renee Reardon: Specific reason. But I can, he's probably pretty close-there's a probably 50 or 60 car a day that go out the wrong way. Even if you're-like if I'm coming in the back and they're going out, I will just sit there until they get angry and go a different way. But people go out the back all of the time. It's one of the things we talked about last night was if we could get that to be only an "in" and not an "out", in the back would be helpful. But, yes,to ansrveryour question, that's why it was put in, because the road was cut off. Mr. Noonan: my experience as well, 1 passthat restaurant every sing le day on my way to work. And, you know, get someone coming down the hill right on my tail, they'll turn into McDonald's and they'll zip up and they're not cutting up fast through that neighborhood and they wind-up poppin' out 5 seconds, 8 seconds ahead of me at the light going,you know going up the hill, because they just ripped-up through that neighborhood after going through the back of McDonald's. So they're not going slow and I think if we open -if it's allowed to be open to "in" and "out", it's essentially-we all know you're not supposed to do that but it's essentially giving everyone a green light to just cut through McDonald's-to rip up through that neighborhood as fast asthey can to get 5 secondsa head of the guy in front of him. So, I don't know where to go to try and allow forthat to be - Mr. Jackoski: But I mean if it's an entrance that could be closed off, I mean I think we can maintain the permeability you're requesting. Renee Reardon: We've talked about that for several years about closing the back because a lot of the people that come flying down through there, there's kids on the lot and they drive really fast. So, I mean, I know why it's put there 'cause you can't get in any other way. But, I mean - Mr. Spoerl: There aren't many nationally branded chainsthat require front and backentrances. Mr. Urrico: No. Mr. Jackoski: No. Mr. Spoerl: I think that would go a long way. Mr. Jackoski: Forme it goesa long way with the permeability issue and the setback issues. And trying to minimize that otherentrance,to me, just feelssafer. And it just feelslike there would be a better way to try to orient some of your parking so people aren't backing into the drive aisles. Mr. Spoerl: If you eliminate it you can free up some of the traffic congestion patternsthat you've provided for by creating that drive-around lane in front and get some permeability there. Ortake some of-take that southern accessthat Steve istalking about and maybe get some more dedicated parking overthere. Just have it be straight pull-in parking -tryto get more spacesthan what you have there now. Mr. Jackoski: I would suspect the State would be thrilled to get rid of a curb-cut. 45 Mr. Boyea: It could be - Renee Reardon: Mr. Wallace islike that, he parksthere every-an oldergentlemen -he comes in every moming. He parksright in front ofthat entrance. Mr. Urrico: Because it's easy to get out. It's a lot easier to get out. When you're trying -when you have somebody that's taking up half of that drive-aisle in the middle there, and you want to go to the right and they're to go left and they're taking up half of the aisle-you can't get out. Renee Reardon: Seniorthat come every morning, they parkdown here. And, here and here 'cause it's easier for them to get out. Mr. Jackoski: But I mean if we worked that curb cut,which isthe middle one at the time, so that it wasmore defined so that left and right - Mr. Spoerl: It would be easierto get in and out of there. Mr. Jackoski: You're right. People who pull right in the middle, drive you nuts but there's gotta be a way to solve this. Mr. Urrico: The reason that's why we get in and out of it, is the traffic pattern there, down there more than anything else. There's no light. Mr. Spoerl: Correct. Mr. Urrico: At that exit- Mr. Henkel: You try to take a left -it's a killer. Mr. Urrico: You don't have the benefit of the light-you turning into it. Mr. Boyea: So, I would a re -there might be something that could be done here and we've looked at a lot of different options. But I'd never looked at that specific option that was discussed. I'm trying to think on my feet, I'd have to look at it to see whether we can maintain the same numberof parking spaces, put a drive isle in and then whetherwe can workwith that because every lot is entitled to a curb cut. And, that's why that has-isthere right now -today. Mr. Jackoski: But it's a permanent-it's a lifetime easement right? Mr. Boyea: Right. But we still have ownersbackand forth and they might saythey I orthe land is- Mr. Jackoski: Forme, we're going to have to re-add ressthe combining of the lots in orderto have this- Mr. Boyea: Okay, well- Mr. Jackoski: Because you can't not get enough parking on your building lot. Mr. Boyea: And, that's why we have the combined agreement. That's correct. So, but the permeability would still be the same if that wasthe altemate layout. That wasdone. 46 Mr. Jacksoki: How doesstaff handle the numberof required parking spotson lot numberone? Why, I mean, I guess I don't understand why staff is allowing there to be two separate owners with two separate lots. Mrs. Moore: It's not that I'm allowing it, it's- Mr. Jackoski: But I mean it hasn't been brought to this Board asthey need parking variance as well. Mrs. Moore: We didn't identify that, no-we identified it -the 2 variancesthat the setback issues and permeability. I did not address parking only because it's been 2 lots like that forever. Mr. Jackoski: But it's a violation of the Code? Mrs. Moore: I'll have to look at that again. That's really a Craig determination. We didn't identify it. Mr. Jackoski: Two separate ownerscan -so they'd have to have a parking-acrossagreement. Mrs. Moore: A crosseasement agreement. And I think there's language in the Code that allows shared parking and that would go through the Planning Board. Mr. Bovea: Yeah, I think it's like Sears ownstheir building. Mr. Jacksoki: Oh, yeah, I understand. I'm trying to make sure I- in your lease - Mrs. Moore: Home Depot did that. Mr. Jackoski: It isa life -what kind of a lease isit? Mr. Boyea: I'm not an attorney, I don't the names of them. It's just a long term lease that's there. Renee Reardon: The original piece of property that's own by the family called the Freeberns- they were here in the 60's. and Raycroft leased it from them. .... - paperwork in my office somewhere. So every 20 yea rofthe franchise of the license seesevery year-McDonaId's Corporation re negotiates that with them. They purchased the second piece of property in the year 77 or so, that's when the second lot was added. And so they've always been a Freebern. So if you look at like tax rollswhen they come through, one - I get two tax billsevery year. One goes to McDonald's Corporation and the other goes to the Freebern's and then the children are still alive of the people who own the original store in Vermont, one is in Europe, and another one is in Florida. And we've talked about trying to get it a 1 together. So if they have -they call it - McDonald's calls it a top piece, I don't know what exactly that means. But they have an agreement with the Freebernsthrough 2030 something. Mr. Jacksoki: So my frustration is in 2031 when McDonald's and the Freeberns decide that they aren't going to be friends anymore. Now what do we do? We no long e r ca n have pa rking there. And that's not that long. This is a 50 year commitment. Mrs. Moore: Well, that's also something that it's a Planning Board issue and right now it's Code Compliant with the number of spaces that they've provided between provided between those 47 parcels. That's across easement that'll work, that will have to be identified as part of Site Plan Review Mr. Jackoski: But it's not a permanent cross easement which we require. It's clearly identified with a time period that expires. Mr. Moore: It's the same issue with the other shared parking opportunities —arrangementsthat exist. It's part of the—we can make it part ofthe Deed, you can make it part ofthe Ste Plan — it's ongoing. Mr. Kuhl: Okay, I have a question —in yourconstruction process—would you be tearing up all the asphalt around the current restaurant? Mr. Boyea: Just here. Mr. Kuhl: In Lot 2—will all lot 2 be torn up and you'll be re-asphalting? Mr. Boyea: Forthe most part, yes. Otherspotsjust may be milled and overlaid. Mr. Jackoski: What would be the reason that we just could do permeability hard surfaces. Mr. Boyea: Well, we would look at potentially that— here — but we're removing that—that's true. Mr. Jackowski: Mien you could be in compliance? Mr. Kuhl: In lo 2? That would still leave lot 1 out. Mr. Boyea: Yeah I don't know that we would be— Mrs. Moore: I think they would be closer, I'm not quite certain they would be compliant. But it would be, definitely a lot closer beca use — Mr. Jackoski: Because of the 50 percent. Mr. Boyea: Yeah, I don't want to mislead you on that. Yeah. Mr. Jackoski: But with a smaller building, it would help. Mr. Boyea: A smaller building would help. That's a fact. Mr. Jackoski: Okay—at this point I g uess I should —the public hearing isstill open. Doesthe applicant want add anything else before I poll the Board to see what we should do? Mr. Boyea: No Mr. Jackoski: Okay Mr. Boyea: I think we're in good shape. Mr. Jackoski: I'll start with Andy 48 Mr.Allison: I would say that assubmitted I have some problemswith it and I would look for some, I would look for eliminating the convenience accessto Aviation Road as way to strike a balance with the variance request on both permeability and the Area Variance. And, Iwould Iookto use that asa wayto relieve traffic congestion on the site so that you could add in more green space, preferable between the building front and the curb cut. Maybe eliminating that drive-thru in front, on the west side of the building -east side of the building there. Mr. Jackoski: Okay-John Mr. Henkel: Yeah, I agree with Andy. There's no doubt they're making a smaller building which is a good thing. But the permeability still a little bit of a problem and I think there's too many "in's and "out's" and they can relieve the-have a little bit better permea bility, so Iwould be against it at this point. Mr. Jacksoki: Roy Mr. Urrico: Well, I agree with those points, however, we're not assured that eliminating that back entrance -is it gonna increase permeability and the egress and ingresses are not what's on the table right now. We're only dealing with permeability and relief on Route 9 and Old Aviation Road. And none of that isgoing to be changed by eliminating any of the curb cuts. So, I do agree that we need to reduce the -we need to increase the permeability- I just don't know that eliminating the curb cuts, although they might be a good idea - isgoing to change that. So rig ht now I'm leaning against the application until we get some more permeability in there. And, I'm not sure how you're going to get that. Mr. Jackoski: Rick Mr. Garrand: I think the setbacks are pretty much more or less immoveable. There isn't a lot we can do with them. They've reduced the size of the store almost to the point where it's considerable. That's commendable but the permeability is an issue on this lot and that flood of waterthat comes out of there every time it ra ins is p retty d ra matic. I think we can definitely do something forthat whole area by increasing the permeability. Mr. Jackoski: Ron Mr. Kuhl: Yeah. I believe that- I agree with what Rich just said. I mean the new building is better than the old building. I think it's an improvement. You know, the front relief and the Old Aviation relief, I think it's,you know, what we can offer. It's the best you can do, but-and I think you can achieve the permeability by the asphalt. But, I think you should work on the permeability, but I'm two-thirdsthere. Mr. Jacksoki: Kyle Mr. Noonan: Also, I don't have issues with the relief requested for the front on Route 9, the front on Old Aviation. It is, again, the same thing -permeability at - because we've identified solutions, we haven't, you know,we've tried to identify solutions and things that could possibly help with that, you know reducing some of the parking spots. The permeable asphalt or pavers in a certain area -so I think the permeability issue can be touched again with, you know, less relief requested. So at this point, I wouldn't be in favor. But I do think the presentation was excellent and I do think you're going to have a new restaurant someday. We just need to addressthat permeability piece. 49 Mr. Jackoski: So in my opinion I do thinkwe can get there, I do. I think regardlessof the size of the building, Ithinkthat because you are trying to change how the patronsuse the business. In otherwords, creating more traffic by creating more drive-thru and stacking so that you can push more people through yourdrive-thru. Ido thinkthat changesthe use of the structure and the lot. Ithinkthat by doing that and bringing in more people, that way,that entrance on Old Aviation Drive becomes problematic and doeschange the characterof the neighborhood. I thinkthat we can workthrough the permeability issuesbut I personally think that there could be less re lief front and —on the front setbacks but we'II see where you take it. Mr. Urrico: I have one more point that I want to make — Mr. Jackoski: Of course Mr. Urrico: If, I did think of a way to increase the permeability by eliminating the Old Aviation Road side. Once you eliminate that, you don't need the crossentrance —acrossthe front of it, rig ht! Mr. Boyea: Oh, No,we still need that. Mr. Urrico: Why would you still need that. Mr. Boyea: Integral part of the business here where, like I said, if you're in line and then all of the sudden yourson ordaughterwantto go to the bathroom, no Iongerdo you have to come out. Cell phone rings, Mr. Urrico: wait foryourorder Mr. Boyea: wait foryourorder,those typesof things, pull-forwards—it's a very important part of t h is. Mr. Urrico: Would it be two-way? Mr. Boyea: No, it's just one-way. Mr. Urrico: So you'll have to keep—go around the loop again. Mr. Boyea: That's right,you'd have to go around again. Mr. Urrico: never mind. Mr. Boyea: yeah, and my concern here is, you know, it sounds great but there's so much —that's gone into this to know that we're kind of at that spot where — I'm not convinced in my mind that I can get you more permeability. We can get a different layout. I th ink we can work on that. Mr. Jacksoki: We can certainly get more layout based on materials. Sony, we can certainly get more permeability with based on materials. Mr. Boyea: Oh, sure, yeah, we talked about that—going to a perviouspavement. Mr. Jackoski: Okay Mr. Boyea: on that — 50 Mr. Jacksoki: So, That helps Mr. Boyea: Yeah, that can help, I mean, but we talked about that. I'm not sure there's more I can give you on that. And I'm concerned about that. And, you know, there's a point where, from an access, a layout, and parking building size and a balance needsto be reached. And, it sounds like I'm going request to table this here. But I would certainly like to go right into the next application. Because if we don't get signs then, that's-probably telling asfarasthe rest of it. So, but on this particular situation, I just don't want to mislead you,with the fact that I'm going to come back and increase permeability substantially. I can look at altemates. I can look at those layout. But I can't address the comments that you have about increasing permeability more than what we had with the area. But I'll be happy to go back and look at it. Mr. Allison: I would just consider that the comment Dave made that you can't eliminate that c ross ove r tra ffic a s a n operation only because of, if I can't parking in those spaces on the south side of that existing lane and get into the building safely waiting for pickup where my child has to go to the bathroom then you have larger issues. S D I would take that back considerthat a little more. Mr. Boyea: sure Mr.Allison: You can definitely increase the permeability there by eliminating that crossover. Mr. Boyea: But we lose parking spacestoo. Mr.Allison: You wouldn't necessarily have to. I think you could reconfigure that so you could still get 2 out front there and still increase the permeability. Mr. Jackoski: Okay. So before you request yourtabling, I want to inquire as-into staff asto whetherornot we could even hearthe next application ifthisone getstabled. Mrs. Moore: I don't see how you can because it's really- Mr. Jackoski: It's my inclination too Mrs. Moore: Right, it'syour- pending on proposed new building and now you are proposing new signage forthat new building that you potentially are tabling that application. I don't see it's a possibility. So you'd be tabling both applications for a future date. Mr. Jackoski: So we can try to provide you with a motion of some sort that you might be happy with. And, you can take it from there. Or, you can ask for a Tabling or, I don't know what you would like usto do. Mr. Boyea: The only thingsthat I could really, you know, I'm not sure whether it appeases the Board ornot enough. But the pervious pavement issomething that we can consideron the lot and we could certainly keep thisjust do a,whatever-one way- in -orwhateveris-whatever one way is, isokay with - Mr. Jackoski: I think from my perspective, that if I had the closure of that at the entrance completely and you assured usthat you were gonna use permeable hard-surfacing on the property and its entirety and whatever that maximum number of permeability becomes,we'd accept, I think I would be willing to do that. 51 Mr. Boyea: Okay. Renee Reardon: Do you have any what that cost. Because I'm the person who has to pay for it! Mr. Boyea: It's-it's not all about that. There's some other items there. So, no,we would have to Table. I just can't make that decision for McDonald's corporation. I appreciate it though and I'll bring that back to 'em. And, if they so choose to move forward with it then we'll be back for that. But I certainly appreciate that offer Mr. Chairman. As faras Sig nag e goes, I know that we won't even, I guess, open that, however, I would like to get a flavorfor this and I think that we fe It g o od a b o ut it co m ing in. Because it's the exact same as what was approved at Exit 18; quantity, size, shape, same style building that's there. So very similar to Exist 18. There is a reduction in it that I understand isgood. Mr. Jackoski: Yeah, my concern is that if we really can't even hear the application or read it into the record or open the public comment period. But, I think you've heard some of the other sign d iscussionsthis evening, so you can probably get a good idea of where the Board might lean. But there's never any promises. Mr. Noonan: And asa Board,we did thiswith your neighbor, for KFC. On that same nightwe had to deal with NEMERFord, so we have that -those minutesare out there, You can hear, you know, get an idea asto how that went. Mr. Jackoski: And you can see theirsigns. We now see that Kentucky Fried Chicken isvery visib le. Mr. Noonan: But it's not called Kentucky Fried Chicken anymore, remember, it's KFC. Mr. Jackoski: Right, sorry. Okay, so the applicant has requested a tabling. Are you looking to table to February? Mr. Boyea: I would say indefinitely right now. It's going to take us a bit to get to you. So we'II call staff if they've decided to move forward. Mr. Jackoski: Okay Mr. Moore: Okay Mr. Boyea: But I certainly appreciate that-isthat okay to do? Mr. Moore: yeah Mr. Boyea: Or we could take February but I don't know whether that's realistic. Mr. Garrand: Table it pending notification from the applicant. Mr. Jackoski: I think you're close. I think that you come back to the Board with some of what might have been said and say this isthe absolute best opportunity we have -you may. 52 Mr. Boyea: I understand. Mr. Jackoski: You can do it asto what you wish. Mr. Boyea: There's a lot that goes into it,whether funding goes to Osh Kosh, Illinois,whether it goes to —you know, there's way beyond my head and pay-grade as to timing of construction, those types of things, so I just don't -Yeah,we would like to table it until we get back in touch. Mrs. Moore: I would actually suggest you —if you're going to table it to a specific date, only because that way the public hearing is noticed already and it can be tabled to such time and if Mr. Boyea: So, February soundsgreat. Mrs. Moore: And, so- Mr. Boyea: And, Iwould get backto you within the next 3weeks. Mr. Moore: Okay Mr. Boyea: So that even if we had to postpone that it wouldn't be last minute. Mrs. Moore: correct. Mr. Jackoski: So the applicant hasrequested a tabling to the February agendas. Mr. Boyea: correct. Mrs. Moore: Yes Mr. Jackoski: someone make a motion for us. Mr. Garrand: Can I make them both at once? Mrs. Moore: No, please do them separately. Mr. Garrand: I make a MOTION TO 1ABLEArea Variance No. 88-2014, McDonald's USA, LLC , to the February, 2015 meeting with a January 15 submission deadline, Introduced by Ibchard Garrand,who moved foritsadoption, seconded by Kyle Noonan: Duly adopted this17th day of December2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Urrico, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Allison, Mr. Jackoski NOES None 53 Mr. Garrand: I make a MOTION TO IABLEggn Variance No. 87-2014, McDonald's USA, LLC,to a February, 2015 meeting with a January 15 submission deadline, Introduced by Richard Garrand, who moved foritsadoption, seconded by Ronald Kuhl: Mrs. Moore: With that,just to let you know, you didn't open the public hearing, so that will be re- noticed. Mr. Jackoski: On the Sig n Variance. Mr. Moore: On the Sign Variance. Mr. Jackoski: And I did keep the public hearing open on the initial application. Mr. Boyea: Is it possible to open that public hearing now? Or no. Mr. Urrico: We can try it-you want to try to open up the hearing. Mr. Boyea: Well, then I would have to give a presentation. Mrs. Moore: Right, so - Mr. Urrico: But there might be somebody here that wantsto speakto the 'Sign Variance. Mr. Jacksoki: Informally, isthere anyone who doeswant to speakto the 9gn Variance? I don't think it's necessary but it's up to you. If you'd like us to,we'll read the application into the record and we'll open up the public hearing. Mr. Boyea: I really wanted to get the Board comments, not the public's as much but, so if the Board can't comment on it then - Mr. Jackoski: Unfortunately we don't have a project to talk about. Mr. Boyea: I understand. Mr. Jacksoki: According to Staff. I do have a motion, I do have a second. Any further discussion? Callthe vote: Duly adopted this17th day of December, 2014, by the following vote: AYES Mr. Noonan, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Allison, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Mr. Jackoski: Mrs. Reardon, we do hope you come back. Hopefully Corporate doesn't put the kibosh on it. But, I think you can get through what you gotta get through. Isthere any other business, any Board memberswould like to bring to the table? Iwant to confirm everyone's got theirtraining in forthe year-correct? Can I have a motion to adjourn. Mr. Noonan: I made a motion we adjourn tonight's meeting. 54 Mr. Jackoski: lbankyou Kyle. Mr. Garrand: Second Mr. Jackoski: call the vote. Mrs. Whiting called the vote: AYES Mr. Kuhl, Mr. Henkel, Mr. Noonan, Mr. Garrand, Mr. Urrico, Mr. Allison, Mr. Jackoski NOES None Meeting Adioumed: 9:35 pm Meeting Minutestranscribed by Sue Hemingway, Office Specialist —Zoning Office 55